If you find it useful or have comments, mail me.
I feel that the Bush Administration has significantly reduced my personal security, the security of the nation, and security throughout the world by abandoning the moral high ground, squandering the unprecedented global support present in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks, and alienating traditional allies. I am not opposed to all war; please realize that this letter is intended to express concern for the repercussions (both at home and abroad) of a war in Iraq and the preludes thereto.
With the passage of Public Laws 107-40 and 107-243, granting de-facto unlimited war-making powers, the Bush Administration now possesses the biggest hammer in history. It has become apparent that this Administration views all global problems as nails. Tact, restraint, sanction and diplomacy have given way to single-minded rhetoric, sometimes addressed toward traditional, strong allies. International relations are, unfortunately, more complicated than "you are either with us, or against us." This Administration has shown unprecedented disrespect for diplomacy in general, and toward friends and allies in particular. The United States professes democratic principles and at the same time disparages those democractically-elected leaders of our allies. If we truly believe in democracy, then we must respect the will of the people of France, Germany, and other long-standing, democractic and representative nations, even when they disagree. This sort of duplicity and heavy-handed "diplomacy" is an insult to the values we espouse.
The Bush Administration has been unable to find a saleable justification for war in Iraq, despite having proposed, polled and failed to garner support for a litany of offenses on the part of Saddam Hussein. The Administration has not found a clear and convincing reason (regime change, human rights abuses, possession of weapons of mass destruction, defiance of the United Nations, a presumed assassination attempt, potential links to al Qaeda, potential links to unnamed terrorist organizations, potential to act as a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - take your pick). The very act of changing positions and justifications for war has rendered this Administration incapable of asserting any justification at all. President Bush has squandered all credibility in this matter - no explanation, short of direct retaliation for an overt aggressive act on the part of Iraq will ever satisfy the Administration's critics.
Perhaps a reason the Administration has failed to gain public support on any of the litany of excuses for war is that the public realizes, on some level, the duplicity each represents. Many nations have uncomfortable regimes; many nations commit human rights abuses; many nations possess weapons of mass destruction; many nations defy or minimally comply with United Nations resolutions; many nations conduct assassinations; many nations have "links" to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations; many nations have the potential to foster the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Having set the precedent that these are just and legitimate reasons to go to war, the United States is bound to carry out perpetual wars against perpetual offenders. Perhaps the public realizes the implications of war in general, or perpetual war. The United States cannot and should not make a case for war in Iraq that establishes the need to maintain war indefinitely, but it appears to have done so. This may be precisely why the Constitution vests the power of war-making in the body of Congress, and not in the person of the President.
The United States had a reputation as a reluctant participant in war. War was thrust upon the United States; the United States did not seek war. This position may fail under scrutiny of the finer details of history, but it was accepted. The reputation gave the United States some measure of moral authority - when the United States is finally pushed to action, the world may be sure that there is strong justification. This is no longer true. The United States now seeks war, and facing the threat (apparently on any minimal justification) of the world's largest and most sophisticated arsenal of weapons, the world is justifiably afraid.
This fear is emphasized through the statements from Administration officials, asserting this Administration's privilege to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive manner, deepening further the duplicity and global threat of the United States. It is a morally untenable position to oppose the acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously reserving the right to preemptively use weapons of mass destruction. If the aggressive acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction is anathema to the world community and global security, then this principle applies to the United States as well.
It is a painful irony, that a carefully-crafted United Nations, brought into being in part through foresight and leadership of the United States and chartered to avoid and respond to wars of aggression, be declared irrelevant by an American Administration should it fail to endorse a war of aggression. We have lost the opportunity to lead by example, to induce security rather than impose it. The lessons of history should be clear: Security is never achieved through threats, the use of force or imposition of will. These are the tools of tyrants and despots. To secure the United States, we must expand our network of allies and friends, and this cannot be done through public proclamations of "irrelevance" or "wrong thinking."
Whatever the real reason or reasons for this war; the Bush Administration has overstepped diplomatic, moral and ethical boundaries in pursuit of the goal. In a just and democractic nation, the ends cannot be allowed to justify the means, most especially when war is the means.
America cannot be made secure through this war. Its pursuit has already strained relationships with long-standing friends and allies. Its prosecution will create thousands of victims and offend the global body of nations. It was once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Fear has driven this Administration (and by the acquiescence, the public) into an un-American, unthinkable, untenable position: Global Aggressor.
Unfortunately, the United States is left in an impossible situation on the ground in the middle east as the preludes to war continue. The United States cannot back down in the face of a petty tyrant, for that will surely encourage other petty tyrants. Hussein cannot back down, because he will surely be killed. Having given Saddam Hussein nothing to lose, the United States is left as the only party in jeopardy. It is the essence of diplomacy to avoid such impossible situations, and we, as Americans, have failed. History will judge this war; it is not my position to do so.
I, on the other hand, must live with the immediate and long-term repercussions.
The United States Congress is vested by the framers of our Constitution with the power to act in the best interest of the people of the United States. I encourage you to do so.
2003.02.10
March 4, 2003
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 many of your concerns about unilateral American military action against Iraq. That's why I voted against S.J. Res.45, the White House measure authorizing the use of unilateral force against Iraq.
I believe that Saddam Hussein is dangerous and despicable. Yet I don't support the unilateral use of force against Iraq. Instead, I supported the Levin Amendment, which urged the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding access for U.N. inspectors to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, this amendment failed. The President's resolution passed the Senate 77-23 on October 11, 2002.
On November 8, 2002, the United Nations Security Council gave its unanimous support for resolution 1441. This resolution demands that Iraq give up any weapons of mass destruction and authorizes sending U.N. inspectors. I believe the U.S. should help disarm Iraq through continued inspections and with the support of our allies, as stated in resolution 1441. War should be our last resort.
The risks and consequences of unilateral action against Iraq are just too great. The risks to our troops are great. The consequences for the war on terrorism are greater if we lose the essential cooperation of other nations in the effort to pursue Al Qaida and other terrorist groups. The consequences on our economy would be severe.
Again, thanks for contacting me. The decision whether to give the president unlimited authority to go to war and send American military men and women into harm's way is one of the greatest decisions our nation can make. I appreciate that you -- and so many Marylanders -- took the time to share your views and concerns. Though I may remain the minority, I want you to know that I believe my position represents the wisest, most prudent course. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me again.
2003.03.07: Yep; I thought this was a response to the 2003.03.04 letter at first (it being a form letter and the fast turnaround suggested as much), but when a second copy appeared from the same office, I realized that the first copy was a reply to this letter. So, it took almost a month to get this form letter back to me. It becomes an object lesson in the workings of the senate offices. As of this writing, no response from the other recipients.
March 11, 2003
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about possible United States military action against Iraq. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughtful comments and suggestions at this critical time.
In my view, the Administration is pursuing a policy that leaves military action as the only option for addressing the Iraqi threat. The international inspections effort, which is continuing to expand across the country, should not be short-circuited by United States military intervention. The presence of international weapons inspectors, in and of itself, effectively constrains the development, deployment, or use of any weapons of mass destruction Iraq currently has. The United States should support a marked increase in the number of weapons inspectors in Iraq and provide them the resources they need.
Because this issue is so complex, and because it has so many important ramifications, it may be helpful to have an overview of the events of the last several months. On October 11, 2002, the Senate approved House Joint Resolution 114, giving the President very broad authority to take unilateral military action to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and "to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolution regarding Iraq," including a series of resolutions unrelated to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The resolution was approved by a vote of 77 to 23. I voted against the resolution, and during the debate on the Senate floor I made a statement outlining my concerns in some detail. For your review, I have posted a copy of my statement on my website at http://sarbanes.senate.gov/pages/press/101002_no_war_in_iraq.html.
In the United Nations, on November 8, 2002 the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, which establishes a heightened inspections regimen in Iraq by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); requires full disclosure of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs to the inspection teams and the Security Council within 30 days; and calls for an immediate Security Council session if inspectors conclude that Iraq has failed to comply with disarmament obligations. Pursuant to Resolution 1441, Dr. Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, who head the two inspection teams, have presented reports to the Security Council.
At the present time, two proposals are pending in the Security Council. The first, a resolution introduced by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain, declares that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity to comply in disarming. The second, a memorandum cosponsored by France, Germany, and Russia, states that the conditions for using force against Iraq have not been fulfilled and urges the Security Council to step up efforts to "give a real chance to the peaceful settlement of the crisis" through a reinforced weapons inspections program.
In recent hearings on Iraq in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, Administration witnesses have made the Administration's case at some length, but I have found their arguments unpersuasive. In my view, the United States should take the lead in building a rigorous, expanded, stepped-up inspections regime to contain the Iraqi threat. Toward this end, I have joined Senator Byrd as a co-sponsor of his resolution, Senate Resolution 28, a measure urging the United States to work through and with the United Nations to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means before launching an invasion of Iraq and redouble our efforts to secure the U.S. homeland.
Finally, the President's narrow focus on Iraq has obscured other pressing problems, including nuclear activities in North Korea, our flagging efforts to support reconstruction of a civil society, a viable economy and democratic institutions in Afghanistan, and our faltering and uncertain economy. Our broad national interest is at stake, now and long into the future, and I think it is ill served by the short-sighted policies of this Administration.
I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this most important issue, and I hope you will continue to contact me about this and other issues of importance to you.
With Thanks for contacting me, in future please visit my web site at http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than clicking reply.
2003.03.11: Based on the experience with the Mikulski office, I have to assume this is a reply to the 2003.02.10 letter. It's fairly obvious that Senator Sarbanes is more in line with my personal thoughts, and I have to commend the Senator for speaking on the floor (I actually saw part his speech). In any case, here it is for the record, the second form letter from Maryland.