![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Will it spread? It will if I can help it.
I wish for Peace.
Even if you've never emailed your Congressman before at www.house.gov, contact them now. You may be surprised.
Dear (we'll say Icarus here),
Thank you for your correspondence noting your opposition to a military invasion of Iraq. Many citizens of this country are upset and confused about why the Bush Administration wants to abandon the United Nations inspections process and move towards war.
For this reason, I recently joined several other Members of
Congress in a letter to the White House, requesting a meeting to convey the concern of my constituents directly and immediately to President Bush. In addition to that, I am one of the original cosponsors of a bill to repeal the authorization for use of military force against Iraq, which Congress approved in October last year. I voted against this legislation and oppose
this war because it will be a war of empire, not of legitimate
self-defense.
Congressmen David Bonior, Mike Thompson and I went to Baghdad in late September last year because we believe our democracy is
strengthened when we try to see, hear, learn, and debate all sides of this terribly complicated situation. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has committed heinous crimes, and who should not be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. However, there are many reasons to oppose the Bush Administration's juggernaut towards a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Let me note but three of them.
First, disarmament, rather than war or regime change, should be at the top of our Iraq agenda, and disarmament begins with inspections. On November 8, 2002 the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1441, which requires Iraq to comply with all previous resolutions, to disclose and destroy any weapons of mass destruction, and to allow the immediate return of UN weapons inspectors. This is an important development because it demonstrates that the world community takes these events seriously, and is willing to attempt to resolve them diplomatically.
Since the unanimous passage of UN Security Council resolution
1441, the UN weapons inspectors have implemented a comprehensive and thorough inspection regime in Iraq. I think it imperative to give the weapons inspectors the time and resources necessary to accomplish the goals set out in this resolution. Therefore, I have joined more than one hundred Members of Congress in a letter to President Bush urging his continued and public commitment to working with the UN Security Council in support of resolution 1441.
If we focus on disarmament, we may be able to pressure the
coalition we have built to fight global terrorism. But if we do not, we may force Middle Eastern countries to choose between allegiance to their neighbors and cooperation with the United States.
This leads to the second reason I oppose this war: it will weaken U.S. relations with our allies all over the world. Most of our closest allies throughout Europe, in Canada, and elsewhere, have made undeniably clear their strong opposition to a military invasion. An unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law and the United Nations Charter, and isolate us from our friends and allies around the world. Adequate consideration has not been given to the impact of diverting
military and intelligence resources away from the very real threats
posed by al-Qaeda and North Korea, and to the danger of creating an even more fertile recruiting ground for terrorism driven by a hatred of the United States.
Finally, the legacies of war remain with us forever. I learned
that not from a textbook, but from my own experience working with Americans who fought a confusing and undeclared war in Vietnam. Serving from 1968 to 1970 in United States Navy in California as a psychiatrist treating sailors and Marines suffering from the trauma of their experiences in Southeast Asia, I saw firsthand the price in grief and anger that troops and their families paid when they were sent into a war whose goals were at best obscure, and at worst deceptive.
My four-day trip to Iraq starkly reminded me again of the costs of war. It is all too clear what Iraqis would suffer as a result of war with the United States. After investigating the current circumstances facing Iraqi civilians following 12 years of crippling economic sanctions, it became obvious that further destruction of civilian infrastructure (such as water, electrical and communications equipment), would lead to tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands or more civilian deaths, particularly
among children, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups of people.
An invasion of Iraq by the United States would also risk the lives of our military personnel. In fact, many U.S. military officers, including some within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly oppose war against Iraq. An invasion will cost billions of dollars - money urgently needed here at home. It will not insure stability in Iraq or throughout the rest of the volatile Middle East. To the contrary, it will add to the region's instability, and will put American civilians, both at home and abroad, at greater risk than they are today.
Although UN resolution 1441 does offer hope that this conflict will be resolved without military intervention, there are still many issues that could be used by the Bush Administration to promote a unilateral and open-ended military conflict. With this in mind, I have created a reading list on my website (www.house.gov/mcdermott) that contains links to articles that highlight the continuing danger a war in the region represents to America's political process and national security.
War with Iraq is a gravely imprudent policy with dangerously
uncertain consequences. I will continue to press the Bush Administration to reconsider this course of action. I appreciate your thoughtful comments regarding this matter, and hope you will continue to share your views with me.
Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Member of Congress
Even if you've never emailed your Congressman before at www.house.gov, contact them now. You may be surprised.
Dear (we'll say Icarus here),
Thank you for your correspondence noting your opposition to a military invasion of Iraq. Many citizens of this country are upset and confused about why the Bush Administration wants to abandon the United Nations inspections process and move towards war.
For this reason, I recently joined several other Members of
Congress in a letter to the White House, requesting a meeting to convey the concern of my constituents directly and immediately to President Bush. In addition to that, I am one of the original cosponsors of a bill to repeal the authorization for use of military force against Iraq, which Congress approved in October last year. I voted against this legislation and oppose
this war because it will be a war of empire, not of legitimate
self-defense.
Congressmen David Bonior, Mike Thompson and I went to Baghdad in late September last year because we believe our democracy is
strengthened when we try to see, hear, learn, and debate all sides of this terribly complicated situation. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has committed heinous crimes, and who should not be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. However, there are many reasons to oppose the Bush Administration's juggernaut towards a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Let me note but three of them.
First, disarmament, rather than war or regime change, should be at the top of our Iraq agenda, and disarmament begins with inspections. On November 8, 2002 the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1441, which requires Iraq to comply with all previous resolutions, to disclose and destroy any weapons of mass destruction, and to allow the immediate return of UN weapons inspectors. This is an important development because it demonstrates that the world community takes these events seriously, and is willing to attempt to resolve them diplomatically.
Since the unanimous passage of UN Security Council resolution
1441, the UN weapons inspectors have implemented a comprehensive and thorough inspection regime in Iraq. I think it imperative to give the weapons inspectors the time and resources necessary to accomplish the goals set out in this resolution. Therefore, I have joined more than one hundred Members of Congress in a letter to President Bush urging his continued and public commitment to working with the UN Security Council in support of resolution 1441.
If we focus on disarmament, we may be able to pressure the
coalition we have built to fight global terrorism. But if we do not, we may force Middle Eastern countries to choose between allegiance to their neighbors and cooperation with the United States.
This leads to the second reason I oppose this war: it will weaken U.S. relations with our allies all over the world. Most of our closest allies throughout Europe, in Canada, and elsewhere, have made undeniably clear their strong opposition to a military invasion. An unprovoked attack against Iraq would violate international law and the United Nations Charter, and isolate us from our friends and allies around the world. Adequate consideration has not been given to the impact of diverting
military and intelligence resources away from the very real threats
posed by al-Qaeda and North Korea, and to the danger of creating an even more fertile recruiting ground for terrorism driven by a hatred of the United States.
Finally, the legacies of war remain with us forever. I learned
that not from a textbook, but from my own experience working with Americans who fought a confusing and undeclared war in Vietnam. Serving from 1968 to 1970 in United States Navy in California as a psychiatrist treating sailors and Marines suffering from the trauma of their experiences in Southeast Asia, I saw firsthand the price in grief and anger that troops and their families paid when they were sent into a war whose goals were at best obscure, and at worst deceptive.
My four-day trip to Iraq starkly reminded me again of the costs of war. It is all too clear what Iraqis would suffer as a result of war with the United States. After investigating the current circumstances facing Iraqi civilians following 12 years of crippling economic sanctions, it became obvious that further destruction of civilian infrastructure (such as water, electrical and communications equipment), would lead to tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands or more civilian deaths, particularly
among children, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups of people.
An invasion of Iraq by the United States would also risk the lives of our military personnel. In fact, many U.S. military officers, including some within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly oppose war against Iraq. An invasion will cost billions of dollars - money urgently needed here at home. It will not insure stability in Iraq or throughout the rest of the volatile Middle East. To the contrary, it will add to the region's instability, and will put American civilians, both at home and abroad, at greater risk than they are today.
Although UN resolution 1441 does offer hope that this conflict will be resolved without military intervention, there are still many issues that could be used by the Bush Administration to promote a unilateral and open-ended military conflict. With this in mind, I have created a reading list on my website (www.house.gov/mcdermott) that contains links to articles that highlight the continuing danger a war in the region represents to America's political process and national security.
War with Iraq is a gravely imprudent policy with dangerously
uncertain consequences. I will continue to press the Bush Administration to reconsider this course of action. I appreciate your thoughtful comments regarding this matter, and hope you will continue to share your views with me.
Sincerely,
Jim McDermott
Member of Congress