The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality that the American people must demand a real national debate. The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would be in violation of several of its provisions.
One such provision says, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." (Article 1, Section 4). But let us suppose that the principles of international law should not stand in the way when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action. Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a "clear and present danger" represented by Hussein's Iraqi regime.
There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have a store of biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon. But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger to the United States or to any other country.
The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would certainly not, in itself, constitute grounds for pre-emptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some of which have been kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent and was a supporter of the Iraqi regime when it committed that cruel act.
Turkey has killed thousands of its Kurds using U.S. weapons. Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received their weapons from the United States. Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by the history of other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada and Panama. True, Iraq may possess or may be developing "weapons of mass destruction." But the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war.
Other nations have such weapons: Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world and has used them with deadly consequences in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Southeast Asia? On the issue of weapons inspection, Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume.
Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that "inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms." One might ask if the United States would ever agree to allow its biological, chemical and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States and the rest of the world? Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
Why would that event change the situation? There is hardly a shred of evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism.
Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification? The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties, and rightly so.
Are the lives of our young people to be expended in the dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam Hussein will bring democracy to Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, civilians killed by our bombs, soldiers killed by our weapons—all of them made doubly victims—first of Hussein, then of Bush.
Shall we add a new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who, according to the United Nations, have died since the application of sanctions? A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11.
Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further enflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks.
This is so clear that we have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism, but expanding American power. A pre-emptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible and morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations. Let the debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation.