Following President Bush's speech last night, some University faculty were confused about Bush's objectives.

Bush stated in his 9 p.m. speech that the attack was intended to restore the Kuwaiti emirate.

Restoring the emirate will not end conflict in the region, though, said Arthur E. Goldschmidt, Jr., associate professor of history.

"How long will it be before another big country decides to attack a smaller country?" Goldschmidt, who specializes in Middle East studies, said. "We still have Saddam Hussein and the danger of another attack."

One Iranian student thinks the United States should have made more sincere efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution.

"What reasons do we have for American forces being there? George Bush says it's to restore the Kuwaiti government. But the emirate is a brutal government, not popularly supported or elected," said Abbas Aminmansour (graduate-civil engineering).

U.S intelligence and military support has not discouraged Iraqi aggression, he said.

"If the U.S. had not supported Hussein in the past, he would not have the power he has now," Aminmansour said.

Many faculty members believe the United States will defeat Iraq militarily. But they questioned the stability of the Middle East in the aftermath of a war.

"I am not as worried about the U.S. achieving its military aims as I am about the achievement of political aims," Goldschmidt said.

"I hope somebody (in the administration) has some ideas about how to put things back together afterwards . . . how to rebuild Humpty Dumpty, so to speak," said Vicki L. Golich, professor of political science.

The United States will probably focus on minimizing the low-level warfare rather than stabilizing peace in the area, Goldschmidt added.

"What I would really like is a vision for a more peaceful Middle East in which the U.S. will have a part in insuring peace," said Goldschmidt, who has spent five years living in the Middle East.

"Iraq will lose the war. If the U.S. isn't careful it will lose the peace," he said.