If we continue with our current policy in Iraq, there will continue to be ethnic cleansing and displacement of Iraqi civilians, death of American troops, and a decline in America's leadership internationally and our ability to deal with threats elsewhere. We will continue to feed hatred that will increase American enemies. If, however, we can play on the fears of Iraq's neighbors that they might be dragged into a larger regional war if we withdraw, or implicated in the anarchy that will result in Iraq, then we will have a basis to conduct a regional deal that allows us to leave Iraq with some honor. The biggest losers in that case would be al Qaida, its recruitment efforts, and Iran.

In the closing statement for the "pro" side, Mr. Gerecht argues that the U.S. needs to stand the ground and remain in Iraq until the job is done. He looks back to the 1990s when the general disposition was to downplay Islamic extremism. The U.S. ignored the growth of Osama bin Laden and al Qaida; we bent over backwards to try to hold talks with Iran; we failed to respond strongly to terrorist acts in the 1990s. Ultimately, progress did not happen. The main question is, do you believe the threat of Islamic extremism is real? Some Americans believe that you can just move away from this issue and it will go away. There is no way we can walk away from Iraq without it being a major defeat to the U.S. and a major victory for Islamic extremists worldwide.

Is a stable Iraq necessarily a pro-American Iraq? Respondents: Mathews, Gerecht, Freeman, Kagan.

Can Iraq be stabilized as long as the U.S. and Iran are on the brink of war? Respondents: Mathews, Kagan, Gerecht.

What would keeping 125,000-135,000 troops in Iraq after late-2008 do America's ability to deal with other military challenges around the world? To what extent should that consideration be driving our decisions about what to do with U.S. troops in Iraq? What are the likely challenges the U.S. faces on the horizon that they would have a difficult time dealing with militarily if they maintain the current force posture in Iraq for the next 18 months to two years? Respondents: Kagan, Freeman.

What can U.S. policymakers look at to determine when it is best to get out of Iraq? Are these political benchmarks unrealistic? What are the measures that the American public and our own leaders can look toward to indicate when it is safe or wise for U.S. troops to come home? Respondents: Kagan, Freeman, Mathews, Gerecht.

President Bush said the U.S. would be engaged in Iraq militarily, economically, and politically for a considerable length of time. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has spoken about a long and enduring presence in Iraq. Is this in America's best interests? What is your vision for the U.S. role in Iraq five years from now? Respondents: Gerecht, Freeman.

There is agreement within the panel that the U.S. and Iran are fighting a proxy war in Iraq. Where will this lead? Is this a precursor to direct military conflict between Washington and Tehran? Is there a way to shape U.S. engagement in Iraq to make this more or less likely? Respondents: Mathews and Gerecht.

Chas Freeman, President of the Middle East Policy Council and former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, delivers the final opening statement against the resolution. Amb. Freeman says Iraq is militarily occupied by the U.S. and politically occupied by Iran. He cites a series of polls indicating Iraqi citizens' dislike of U.S. troops in their country. He agrees that it's important to defeat Al Qaida in Iraq and to prevent Iranian influence, but he argues the most effective way to achieve this is to redeploy U.S. troops outside Iraq.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, former Middle East expert for the CIA and Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, gives the second opening statement in favor of the resolution. Mr. Gerecht criticizes former U.S. military commanders for seeking a "light footprint" in Iraq which led to internal strife and increased division among Iraqis. Al Qaida in Iraq is a major force and must be defeated. They would see U.S. withdrawal and defeat as a major victory for their cause. Mr. Gerecht also focuses on Iran's efforts to radicalize Shiite elements in Iraq. But there is reason for hope now that Gen. Petraeus has a counterinsurgency strategy. The U.S. will be in Iraq for a long time and Mr. Gerecht argues that that's a good thing.

Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, delivers the second opening statement, and the first against the resolution. Ms. Mathews argues that many U.S. policymakers are mistakenly viewing Iraq from the lens of the U.S. war effort. We need to see Iraq in terms of their own culture and history. We will see that what is going on in Iraq is typical of any place where a political vacuum has been created, which occurred when Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Al Qaida in Iraq is just a sideshow to the larger political struggle in Iraq. There is no military solution in Iraq; only a political solution.

Dr. Frederick W. Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and one of the principle architects of the troop "surge" in Iraq, delivers the first of four opening statements. Kagan argues that al Qaida in Iraq is largely tied into the global al Qaida network and must be defeated in Iraq. If the U.S. fails to defeat al Qaida in Iraq, there is the danger of more terrorism and greater instability in the region. Al Qaida also views Iraq as the central front in the War on Terror.

On September 18, 2007, the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia hosted the premiere debate in its National Discussion and Debate Series. The topic was whether keeping U.S. troops in Iraq was vital to American national interests in the Middle East. The event was moderated by Margaret Warner, senior correspondent for PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The following clip shows Ms. Warner's introductions of the four debaters.

On June 8, 2007, the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia announced the implementation of its National Discussion and Debate Series (NDDS). As part of the Miller Center’s mission to research, reflect, and report on issues of national importance to the governance of our country, Miller Center Director Gerald L. Baliles created this program to encourage a vigorous, well-informed discussion on the national stage about the major issues of our time. “Too often, the idea of ‘debate’ in this country is overtaken by sound bites and squabbles rather than a reasoned, informed exchange of ideas,” said Baliles. “This series is an extension of the Miller Center’s mission to examine important issues, and through it we aim to contribute to the national conversation with a genuine, thoughtful give-and-take that will both inform people and provoke dialogue.” During the 2007-2008 academic year, the NDDS will host five debates on important policy issues. These will be policy debates rather than candidate appearances masquerading as debates. The debaters, two on each side, will be drawn from the ranks of practitioners, public intellectuals, business and religious leaders, and academics. No current candidates for public office will serve as debaters. Skilled, nationally-known moderators will preside over each debate. The Miller Center has partnered with MacNeil/Lehrer Productions (MLP) to produce the events. The first debate will take place on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, at the historic Dome Room of the University of Virginia’s Rotunda, in Charlottesville, Virginia. This first debate will focus on the future of U.S. forces in Iraq and America's broader role in the Middle East. It will be especially timely to address this topic shortly after the release of the Petraeus Report on the impact of the "surge" plan. Four debaters will have roughly one hour to debate the proposed resolution: "Keeping troops in Iraq is vital for America's national interests in the Middle East." Frederick W. Kagan, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and AEI Resident Fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht will argue in favor of the resolution; Jessica Matthews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman will argue against. The debate will be moderated by Margaret Warner, senior correspondent of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Additional debates will take place in late fall, and the winter and spring of 2008, and will consider the health care crisis; privacy in an age of technological change and terrorism; immigration; and changing notions of “family.” The entire debate series will be webcast live, and permanently archived on the Miller Center’s web site for on-demand viewing anywhere in the world. The Center and MLP are working with PBS affiliates to carry the debates live or in delayed format.