Why Not Attack Iraq

War against Iraq would be monumental folly, for at least 10 reasons: 1. There is no justification for war. Iraq has not attacked or threatened the United States. It has not been implicated in the attacks of Sept. 11. There is no casus belli.2. A military campaign against Iraq could kill thousands of innocent victims, inflicting further torment on a civilian population that has already suffered severely from more than 11 years of sanctions. 3. War and its aftermath would cost the United States tens of billions of dollars. The campaign against Afghanistan reportedly cost almost $2 billion a month. An attack against Iraq would be much larger, with proportionately greater costs. 4. The military overthrow of Saddam Hussein would require U.S. forces to occupy Iraq in hostile circumstances for a prolonged period of time. 5. War could prompt the very use of weapons of mass destruction that the administration seeks to prevent. If pressed to the wall by a U.S. attack, Saddam Hussein might use whatever weapons he possesses—probably chemical or biological weapons—against the only targets he can hit, Israel or the advancing U.S. troops. 6. A U.S. war against an Arab nation would further destabilize the Gulf region and the Middle East, adding fuel to the fires of violence that are already consuming Israel and Palestine. 7. The proposed war would stir further anti-American hatred, especially in Islamic nations. It would strengthen the forces of political extremism and lead to new suicide bombings against the United States and Israel. 8. Attacking Iraq would undermine the international cooperation needed to prosecute and block the funding of al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. Washington might win the battle against Iraq but lose the war against terrorism. 9. An unprovoked attack against Iraq would set a dangerous precedent of pre-emptive war that would undermine the very foundations of international security. 10. War against Iraq would make the United States an outlaw nation. It would violate the U.N. Charter and the principles of international law and lead to the further weakening of the United Nations. ‘Nonviolent resistance isn’t about making a point, it’s about taking power." Even many people who believe deeply in nonviolence might be taken aback by the bluntness of such a statement. Most students and practitioners of nonviolence know that just because it’s a moral principle does not mean that its value is merely symbolic. Still, common popular images often focus on quixotic nonviolent gestures, not techniques that can be put to long-term, strategic use. It is too often brushed off as a noble, but ineffectual, approach to the problems of the real world. Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall, co-authors of A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict, absolutely reject such romanticizing and diminishment of nonviolent techniques. Nonviolence is powerful, they argue. Powerful enough to face off against even brutal dictators. In this issue, they make the case that civilian-based, nonviolent resistance by the Iraqi people is a viable, practical way to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It’s not the United States’ right to decide unilaterally that Saddam should be "dethroned" and to launch a military invasion to do so (thus inflicting more suffering on an already beleaguered and sanction-weakened populace). It is, however, a decision that is the right of Iraqi citizens, who have been brutalized and repressed by Saddam for more than 20 years. Even under duress, they could demonstrate a force more powerful than our weaponry or Saddam’s oppression. Thanks to Sojourners for the above.