Presented to my Senators in Congress, 2002.10.02.
If you find it useful or have comments, mail me.
I realize the drums of war beat loudly throughout the country (though perhaps a bit less loudly this week), and welcome the idea that the United States Congress may actually engage in some debate regarding the looming invasion of Iraq. However, I have very little confidence that the members of Congress will have the wisdom or fortitude to stand up and be "unpatriotic" as the executive branch continues to operate unchecked and unhindered while tearing at the edges of our Constitution in the name of Security.
Our President seems to have selected war as the solution before defining the problem (this evidenced by the changing motives for this upcoming war - implementing regime change, addressing weapons of mass destruction, enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions - depending on the time and audience). Given that environment, it may be difficult to focus on real threats to the security of the United States and our allies, and it may be difficult to convince even our allies that the United States is sincere about any foreign policy issue for some decades to come. That said, if I may draw your attention to what I consider a real threat to United States and world security for a moment, it would be the proliferation and threat of nuclear weapons. I do not believe there is any question that an entity which has some degree of animosity toward the United States and is in possession of a functioning nuclear weapon is a grave threat.
Given that assertion, I propose an alternative path to security, at least in this one regard. I recently read press accounts that the proposed invasion of Iraq would cost approximately $200 billion. I realize it's very easy to spend $200 billion when you are using $1 million-a-piece cruise missiles. I also realize our economy is in a relatively precarious position. And I realize that historically, the United States is less than enthusiastic about non-military solutions to some of foreign policy problems. I have read of weapons-grade material recently seized in Turkey, so allow me the opportunity to be creative on behalf of our country.
My proposal is based on one thing that the United States does do well - buy and sell things. This, in contrast to the thing the United States has repeatedly demonstrated it does not do well - regime change. It is my opinion that for a fraction of the $200 billion required to engage Iraq, the United States and her allies, working in concert with the United Nations could arrange the purchase, transport and security of fissionable weapons-grade materials throughout the world, even that which exists in grey or black markets today. I assert that the United States could garner almost universal support for a proposal to secure nuclear weapons material, but that it is unlikely to gain broad support for military action against Iraq.
Further, I propose that to maintain a moral authority, which the United States so often squanders, that two locations be chosen within the borders of the United States and Russia to sequester this material, that primary security be provided by a combined force of the United States and Russian personnel, and that the United Nations appoint a rotating international shadow security force to "watch the watchers."
Additional steps may be available, such as decommissioning some portion of existing weapons, to further enhance the moral authority of the United States in making such a proposal, but I leave that as an exercise for politicians and diplomats. I should point out that all countries now acknowledging the possession of nuclear weapons consider themselves allies (to some degree or another) of the United States. This represents an unprecedented opportunity that should not be squandered. Existing arsenals are left as the subject of international negotiations or unilateral reduction or disarmament, but raw materials should be collected and secured as rapidly as practical. Existing nuclear facilities should be inspected and their security upgraded, if necessary, at the expense of the United States. This may also be an appropriate job for the "unemployed nuclear weapons scientists" of the former Soviet Union, and as a tax-paying American, I am willing to hire the best.
Deprived of a source of weapons-grade material, no nation or organization, not even Iraq, would be able to create and use a nuclear weapon. Having accounted for (publically and globally) and secured weapons and weapons-grade material, the United States and her allies would then be relatively secure in the knowledge that development, construction and use of nuclear weapons would be very unlikely, and we can go about the business of solving other issues.
We have heard proposals along these lines before, and it must be said that the ideal time to execute such a proposal was likely in the period September 2001 through December 2001, while the vast weight of international opinion favored the United States. Creative non-violent and verifiable solutions are not often popular with American politicians, but I encourage you to consider making such a proposal in the interest of peace and security.
I am reminded, again and again through history, that terrorism is never stopped through military means, but by depriving the would-be terrorists of the will and means to engage in their conflict. Military responses to terrorism only serve to increase the threat as the families and friends of those killed or wounded seek revenge through any means available to them. This proposal addresses only the most horrific and devastating means, but that is a vital first step toward real security.
I ask that you, as my representative in this government, reflect on the futility of security through perpetual military retaliation, and suggest that ample evidence of this assertion is present in current world conflicts and historic conflicts. To secure the United States, particularly with a long view toward our children, we must assert unquestionable moral authority and create a global environment where those who would commit terrorist acts are shown to be foolish and dangerous to their own peers. Only in an environment where the most radical and dangerous persons are unable to recruit willing martyrs to their cause is security possible.
2002.10.02
Thank you for contacting me about your opposition to war against Iraq. I have heard from so many Marylanders about this important issue. I appreciate you taking the time to write.
You made some excellent points -- and I share your concerns about American military action against Iraq. We all agree that Saddam Hussein is dangerous and despicable. His regime remains a threat to regional security as it pursues weapons of mass destruction. He continues to terrorize his own citizens and violate international law. However, I do not believe the President has yet made the case that Iraq poses a direct, imminent threat to the United States the kind of threat that justifies unilateral action.
A number of serious questions need to be answered before I could consider supporting the use of force against Iraq:
Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? How soon could it develop them?
How would Iraq deliver weapons of mass destruction?
If we invade Iraq, which allies will we have?
Who would replace the Saddam regime after a military victory?
How long would U.S. forces have to remain in Iraq? What is the exit strategy?
What would it mean for the unfinished war against terrorism? What would it mean for the Israeli- Palestinian conflict?
I will evaluate any proposed military action based on the answers to these questions. This is one of the most important issues I am facing today. You can be sure I'll keep your views in mind.
Again, thanks for contacting me about these serious questions and concerns. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me again.
2002.10.02
As much as I appreciate your perspectives on the pending war against Iraq, and I agree that the "case for war" has not been made, perhaps I did not adequately emphasize my message. My primary point was to address the "war on terrorism" as it exists today. I prefaced my comments with the admission that with most attention focused on the war against Iraq, my message would likely be lost in the current political rhetoric. Based on your response, I have, unfortunately, been proven correct in that assumption.
My closing paragraphs, while they also apply to the pending war against Iraq, were meant to emphasize the broader issues related to security of the United States and the world in general. Perhaps in isolation, the point is clear:
"I am reminded, again and again through history, that terrorism is never stopped through military means, but by depriving the would-be terrorists of the will and means to engage in their conflict. Military responses to terrorism only serve to increase the threat as the families and friends of those killed or wounded seek revenge through any means available to them. This proposal addresses only the most horrific and devastating means, but that is a vital first step toward real security.
I ask that you, as my representative in this government, reflect on the futility of security through perpetual military retaliation, and suggest that ample evidence of this assertion is present in current world conflicts and historic conflicts. To secure the United States, particularly with a long view toward our children, we must assert unquestionable moral authority and create a global environment where those who would commit terrorist acts are shown to be foolish and dangerous to their own peers. Only in an environment where the most radical and dangerous persons are unable to recruit willing martyrs to their cause is security possible."
The United States has demonstrated that we have both the means and the will to "fight back," on a massive military scale. To the extent that we are dealing with a rational and self-preserving threat, the deterrent value of that message should be adequately clear to all the world. Yes, indeed, the United States has a great and powerful military.
It is my premise that terrorism is not often committed by rational and self-preserving entities. Terrorists act by whatever means are available to them, and very often with a complete lack of self-preservation. Given that premise, responding to "terrorism" with a "war" is self-defeating and condemns the United States to perpetual attack. The Hatfields have Apache helicopters and cruise missiles, and the McCoys have box cutters and stones.
In modern history, the examples of Northern Ireland and Israel should serve as crucial lessons in our current "war on terrorism." While grossly simplified, the conflict in Northern Ireland eventually lead to a political dialogue and relative peace, while the conflict in Israel is still based on overwhelming military response. "Overwhelming military response" has not, to date, resulted in security for the Israeli civilian population.
The United States has, so far, chosen the Israeli response to terrorism. If we continue to follow that example, I fear we can look forward to decades or centuries of conflict. If the United States persists in this single-minded and short-sighted response, I may be tempted to create a new business manufacturing trash cans. Millions of trash cans now in public places, you understand, will have to be replaced with new explosion-proof models to ensure the security of the American public. And politicians, yourself included, will have to determine what "acceptable losses" are in this new perpetual war.
The President seems to have one solution to all threats. I think the modern world requires a more versatile superpower.