[JPI] alert/ info on anti-war advocay and Iraq

[Cecelia Hawkins]

Urgent Alert: NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVOCACY CONCERNING A U. S. WAR ON IRAQ

Since the last weekly message concerning a U.S. war on
Iraq, sent on September 24th, there have been several
developments which have created additional opportunities
for advocacy.  THIS ALERT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR FOLLOWUP ADVOCACY THAT IS
NEEDED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  IN ADDITION TO
MAKING YOUR OWN CALLS PLEASE REACH OUT TO
FRIENDS AND ASK THEM TO MAKE CALLS AS WELL.
The debate is expected to last at least through this week.

Because of an outpouring of advocacy opposing a
unilateral attack on Iraq, and because several political
leaders have stepped forward and are raising important
questions, the president has backed off from the most
inflammatory element of his original proposal for a
congressional resolution regarding Iraq.  According to the
Congressional Quarterly (September 28, page 2497), "...White
House officials dropped a line authorizing Bush not only to
move against Iraq but also to 'restore international peace and
security in the region.'"

Several congressional leaders are very concerned about the
timing which is dramatically affecting the politics of the coming
election.  Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) put it succinctly,
"What's the rush?"  Some like the Senate Majority Leader,
Tom Daschle (D-SD) have decried the president's attack on
the patriotism of senate democrats and have called for an early
vote to try to get the debarte over Iraq off the table so that other
important issues could get the attention they deserve.  Others,
like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Rep. Ellen Tauscher -
(D-CA) are promoting a joint letter calling for putting off the vote
until after the election.  Over 70 representatives have signed on
at this writing.

With very few exceptions, representatives and senators mirror
public opinion polls in calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein
and for the destruction of weapons of mass-destruction.   However,
as in the public opinion polls, many are deeply concerned about
the way to bring this about.  One of the topmost concerns is over
the president's apparent rush to war without building the kind of
support among allies that was prominent in the buildup to Desert
Storm in 1991.  Republican senators Chuck Hagel and Richard
Lugar have publicly asked the president to work more closely
with allies.  Senator Hagel said, "I don't understand why the
president would not want all the congressional and international
support he can get if, in fact, the last option is taking a nation to
war."  Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) called on the president
to follow the course set in his speech to the United Nations that
called for a new resolution and international action instead of
undercutting such a course with threats of unilateral action.
Those who take this position point to the resistance of European
allies such as Germany, which has been actively supportive of
the U.S. in Afghanistan, and note that even Britain, the most vocal
ally, wants the U.S. to act through the United Nations.

Other congressional leaders have focused on the problems
associated with a U.S.-initiated preemptive strike, particularly
if it is unilateral or almost unilateral.  Such concerns include the
following:

WHAT are U.S. plans after achieving a victory?  Secretary of
State Colin Powell has called for extensive nation building after a
victory, but that has had little support from other sectors of the
administration and many are skeptical about U.S. capacity, or
staying power, for such tasks after watching the followup to military
victory in Afghanistan.

WILL U.S. action stir up more anti-U.S. feelings in the Muslim world
and generate more terrorism?  Will it create more difficulties for our
Middle East friends such as leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

WILL a U.S. unilateral action create a financial crisis in the United
States?  The U.S. budget is already in deficit and the administration
is seeking large cutbacks in domestic spending.  Past actions in the
Middle East received significant funding from several partners and
reduced the U.S. financial burden.

WILL there be significant U.S. casualties?  The previous action
against Iraq surprised many with the extremely low rate of
casualties sustained by the U.S.  The continued air dominance
and bombing of Iraq builds on the feeling of overwhelming military
superiority.  But the kind of military action necessary for capturing
or killing Saddam Hussein promises urban street fighting and
the possibility that U.S. troops would face biological
attacks that could create significant deaths.

WILL there be significant civilian casualties in Iraq?  The
economic sanctions have been devastating for the
Iraqi people, especially for children in a country with a
very high birth rate.   An attack on the capitol, he probablility
that Saddam Hussein will deploy his troops in the midst
of civilians, and the already desperate conditions of Iraqi
infrastructure suggest that civilian casualties would be high.

WILL other nations follow the U.S. example and start or
increase their unilateral first strikes in the interest of their national
objectives?  Israel, for example, has closely mimicked the
"war on terrorism" language of the administration in justifying
its attacks on Palestinians.  In throwing off the decades old U.S.
emphasis on containment and restraint, will theU.S. further reduce
its moral authority, isolate itself from allies and face an
increasingly violent world from a weaker and more divided base?

IS all the talk about overthrowing Saddam Hussein, about
reducing weapons of mass-destruction, about political
implications, even about revenge, merely a cover for a
grab for Iraq's oil fields, a proven oil reserve second only
to the holdings of Saudi Arabia?  Neither the administration
nor congressional leaders are discussing this element
of U.S. motivation but numerous commentators are suggesting
that this is what is really going on, particularly since Russia
has been negotiating a deal with Iraq about oil.  The moral
implications of this important motivation are not helped by
keeping this element of the conversation out of the public
spot light.  If this is not an important goal of U.S. policy
it would help to have a clear statement to that effect.

Since the United States is not facing an immediate attack
from Iraq, in contrast to the Cuban missile crisis for example,
there is no urgent external reason for failing to have an adequate
debate on these important questions.  Rep. Vernon Ehlers,
(R-MI), said, "I have questions ...at least 20 ... such as why
the United States is contemplating such a move and why
it wants to strike first."

In the book, A JUST PEACE CHURCH, edited by Susan
Thistlethwaite, a study book for the UCC resolution, we are
reminded in the chapter on "Turning Toward a Just Peace" that,
"The basic biblical  vision is the vision of shalom (or salaam),
which means peace.  But shalom means peace in a much
fuller way than the English language conveys.  Shalom
means wholeness, healing, justice, righteousness, equality,
unity, freedom, and community. Shalom is a vision of all
people whole, well, and one, and of all nature whole, well,
and one."  This basic biblical insight cries out for articulation
in the midst of the current debate.  Such articulation can
help raise the quality of the conversation so that the many
unanswered questions get a fair hearing.  Advocates
are urged to take their turn at taking on some element of
the current debate, to raise their own important questions
phrased in terms of the vision of shalom, in the hope of not
only stopping a unilateral war on Iraq but creating the possibility
of transformation of the United States and others toward a
new world order based on more than raw military power and
narrow self-interest.  Such comments should be sent to the
president, to representatives and senators, and to the media.

Those interested in taking on this work within the context of
the UCC are directed to 3 statements that are available on
the UCC website: Statement of UCC opposing war against
Iraq; Regarding the Statement of UCC Leaders on Iraq;
and An Open Letter to President Bush.  These statements
can be downloaded using the printer option at the bottom of
each statement and saved so that they can be reformatted to
serve for study and advocacy.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.  White House Comment Line:
202-456-1111.  Email messages can be sent through
www.senate.gov and through www.house.gov.

Written by: Pat Conover, Legislative Director, Justice and
Witness Ministries.

******************************************************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com