Oregon Action Opposes Iraq Invasion
We live in an interdependent world where crises in other countries ripple throughout the world’s economies. Our national economy is weakened by recession and deficits. Our states’ economies are in crisis. In this environment, Oregon Action recognizes that actions outside our state and outside our country affect us daily. To organize effectively on the state and local issues that affect our lives, we must also address the national and international questions that will affect us just as dramatically.

Oregon Action opposes U.S. war in Iraq because it is wrong, dangerous, unnecessary and bad for our society. We also strongly oppose the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, but believe that must be opposed through non-violent, international means that comply with international law.

The War in Iraq is Wrong.

• Preemptive war is wrong. It violates international law and weakens international institutions such as the United Nations.
• Our invasion plans violate international law by targeting electric, water, sewage and transportation infrastructure – which will cause enormous civilian casualties.
• Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th, therefore this is not a defensive war.
• Our motives are suspect.

The War in Iraq is Dangerous

• The war will create even more anti-American sentiment.
• The war will destabilize the Middle East.
• The war will not end with the invasion of Iraq, but will be extended to other Middle East nations.
• Our end-of-war plans include maintaining US dominance through occupation.

The War Will Damage Our Society

• Current deficits will be even further increased, restricting social spending.
• Civil rights will continue to be eroded.
• Immigrants will face additional discrimination and restrictions.

The War is Unnecessary.

• The UN can require human rights inspectors with power equal to that of weapons inspectors.
• The UN can foster political reforms.
• Amending the Oil For Food program to allow commercial sector growth can foster social change in Iraq.
• An international war crimes tribunal could be created and begin collecting evidence, encouraging opposition to Saddam Hussein.
• The US could demonstrate its support of the Iraqi people by accepting Iraqi refugees.
• The US could provide solidarity and support to internal opposition to Hussein.

The War in Iraq Is Wrong.

Preemptive war is wrong.

First and most urgently, this war is justified by a radically new, dangerous and destabilizing idea – preemption. We are saying that although Iraq presents no imminent threat and has taken no threatening action against the United States, we are justified in attacking them because at some future time, they may threaten us. This is a violation of international law and will destabilize the international institutions that we have worked over 50 years to put into place.

International law just barely includes the idea of “anticipatory self defense” but according to the accepted definition – offered by the US Secretary of State Daniel Webster in 1837, there must be shown “a necessity of self-defense…instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” That clearly does not fit the situation in Iraq.

Preemptive war is much broader than “anticipatory self defense” and much more dangerous. Do we think that once we employ this doctrine, that the rest of the world will not? If preemptive war is acceptable, then India could justify an attack on Pakistan. The US proposes to unilaterally invalidate the delicate system of international law.

If you wish to look at this through the more modern idea of a “just war,” this proposed preemptive attack fails as well. Although Michael Walzer, the renowned just war theorist, wrote “Both individuals and states can rightfully defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual," he added that this right is severely restricted. Citing Webster’s restrictions, he concluded that it was “no longer clear that right has any substance at all.” He clarified this by saying there must exist "a manifest intent to injure, a degree of active preparation that makes that intent a positive danger, and a general situation in which waiting, or doing anything other than fighting, greatly magnifies the risk." In addition, the possible injury must be of grave consequence, such as losing territorial integrity or political independence. We hardly risk that injury from Iraq.

To quote from William Galston, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, “What is at stake is nothing less than a fundamental shift in America's place in the world. Rather than continuing to serve as first among equals in the postwar international system, the United States would act as a law unto itself, creating new rules of international engagement without agreement by other nations.”

We are considering dangerous and extreme military options.

This Administration refuses to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq. In fact, their analysts are identifying potential nuclear targets in Iraq and exploring the option of nuclear bunker-busters to reach deeply buried targets. Even if you discount this as pre-war posturing and bravado, consider the plans to “Shock and Awe” the populace by launching the heaviest, most-sustained bombing onslaught against anyone in history on the heavily populated city of Baghdad.

After launching this unmatched display of superpower might and firepower, certainly the entire world will stand by in shock and awe – at the awesome destruction we have wrought – out of all possible proportion to any claim of necessity. We are, in effect, publicly announcing our intent to commit an atrocity.

Again, even if you can make the case for a “just war”, the war must be carried out by “just” means. This requires that the military action be discriminate in scope, proportionate in scale and that those who wage war will be held responsible for their actions. Since our initial target is the largest city in Iraq, we are not being discriminate in scope. There is nothing proportionate about nuclear weapons or Shock and Awe. Since we have withdrawn from the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, we have also made clear we refuse to be held responsible for our actions. Thus, our current war plans fail the test of waging war by just means.

This alone forces the conclusion that our administration is operating within an echo chamber of war hysteria. Bush’s management style does not allow for dissent within his administration – and only unprecedented widespread public dissent can hope to penetrate this closed communication loop. This means that organizations that have never spoken on foreign policy before must speak up. This means that people who have never spoken in opposition to foreign policy before must speak up. No Administration has ever been this shut off from public debate and therefore an unprecedented public outcry must be voiced.

Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and displaced anger is bad foreign policy.

Much of American sentiment in favor of the war in Iraq derives from the criminal attack on the US on September 11th. Iraq is not responsible for September 11th. If any one country has its money and its fingerprints on that act, that country is Saudi Arabia. Yet, our government refuses to confront them for their culpability and allows them to selectively protect al-Qaeda operatives within their country.

Despite this Administration’s best efforts to find any association between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, there is no link. The Islamists who support al-Qaeda oppose secular governments. Iraq is a secular government. To many here and abroad, it appears that this administration, frustrated by their failure to defeat a stateless enemy – without conventional boundaries and limitations – has substituted an enemy with a state that can be hunted down in order to win something. This is the foreign policy equivalent of kicking the dog when you get home because you are mad at some driver who cut you off in traffic. Allowing emotion to drive our foreign policy is immature and dangerous.

Our motives are suspect.

For those who question this Administration’s motives for waging this war on Iraq, the difference between our plans for post-war Iraq and post-war Afghanistan is instructive. After all, we are not instituting a military governorship in Afghanistan and are letting that country slide back into the hands of warlords and Islamists. The President’s budget requested not one single dollar of foreign aid for Afghanistan, demonstrating to the world the full meaning of America’s promises to rebuild that beleaguered country. This shameful neglect of Afghanistan adds credence to those who argue that the Iraq war is about oil, oil, oil and oil.

The driving force behind war is primarily economic. It is part of the larger economic context of imperialism and colonization that defines everything we're working on, from the lack of jobs and living wages, to the profiteering of drug companies, to the privatization and dismantling of our public safety net.

The War on Iraq is Dangerous.

The war presents more danger than inaction does.

This war will unleash widespread anti-Americanism and foster recruitment into anti-American terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda. Immediately after September 11th, President Bush wisely differentiated between Islam as peaceably practiced by the billions of Muslims throughout the world. He had support from many Muslim countries for our invasion of Afghanistan and, despite al-Qaeda’s propaganda, the Afghanistan invasion was not perceived as a Christian crusade against Muslims.

However, he is no longer able to restrain the anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from his supporters and the hawks pushing for war in Iraq. Whether it’s Anne Coulter saying, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," or William Lind, of the Free Congress Foundation, saying "Islam is, quite simply, a religion of war," our internal political rhetoric is projecting this war as part of a crusade against Islam. When you couple that rhetoric with the Administration’s rhetoric about fostering democracies throughout the Middle East from Iraq, to Syria, to Iran…and our own words send the message that we are launching a Christian crusade in the form of democracy versus theocracy.

Invading Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East.

An American invasion will inevitably result in refugees fleeing to Syria, Iran and Turkey. Turkey, in particular, by serving as a launching stage for the war may feel emboldened to act opportunistically and invade Kurdistan. In fact, Turkey has proclaimed its intent to send its military into Iraq and set up refugee camps there within the war zone – even though this is a war crime. In the past, Turkey has refused Iraqi refugees forcing them back into war zones. Iran’s ability to withstand a massive influx of refugees is uncertain.

Iran already supports more refugees than any other country in the world, over 2.5 million from Iraq and Afghanistan. They may not be able to take more. We can also expect Shi’a refugees to flee into Syria, destabilizing their government. Syria is quite likely to act to repel the refugees as well.

As popular sentiment in the Middle East is vehemently against this war, we can expect increased popular unrest, likely leading to an overthrow of, at the very least, the already weakened Egyptian government. The Jordanian government is also at high risk – particularly if there is a huge influx of refugees. There is also likely to be increased unrest and repression in Saudi Arabia. Turkey may also face widespread internal unrest.

Iraq won't be the end of it. This Administration has made clear that they are laying plans for similar action against Syria and possibly Iran. If they “succeed” in Iraq, the rest of the Middle East will be destabilized, providing the justification for unilateral, preemptive invasion of Syria and Iran, at the least. If Egypt and Jordan fall to Islamists, as is quite likely, the Administration may feel justified in extending their reach there as well.

Invasion will result in occupation and colonization.

We have no plans for rapid disengagement from Iran after the war. In fact, our plans include instituting a US general as Military Governor of Iraq. We will place US officials in key government positions and maintain US control of the Iraqi government for several years, if not decades. Anyone who questions that this is pure idiocy need only look at the experience of Israel and its decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories.

The War on Iraq Is Bad for Our Society

The war will increase our budget deficit and prolong the recession.

Oregon Action can easily make the argument that this is an economic issue. Our nation faces ballooning budget deficits far into the future – without even factoring in the explosive costs of war. The last round of tax cuts already hamper our ability to sustain the current level of social spending, let alone increase social spending for a Medicare Prescription Drug benefit. After-school programs are being cut, subsidized housing benefits are being cut, Head Start is being cut, the school lunch program is being cut. Meanwhile the federal government is doing nothing to aid the financial crises in the states that are in large part exacerbated by the 2001 federal tax cuts that, because most states link their state and federal taxes, resulted in huge state tax cuts as well.

In addition, the price of energy will skyrocket once we go to war. Although oil companies may profit wildly, the rest of the economy will be hard hit and any hopes of recovering quickly from this recession will be doomed.

Moreover, the record-breaking size of these deficits will prevent future generations from having the economic resources to respond to national crises, whether they are financial or military. This

Administration has explicitly stated that it intends to use the deficit to restrict future spending – all part of its ideological war on social spending, but is oblivious to the fact that it also restricts our future society from defending itself.

However, just because a war is bad economics is an inadequate reason to oppose the war. We cannot say that a balanced budget or a prescription drug benefit for seniors is more important to us than freeing the people of Iraq from a tyrant. If we truly believe in economic and social justice for all, then we must believe in justice for the people of Iraq as well.

The war will be used to further erode our civil rights.

The Administration’s Patriot Act II proposal will further expand the police power of the federal government at the expense of civil liberties. The Administration will not hesitate to use war anxiety and hysteria to push for passage of their new proposal.

Immigrants will face additional discrimination and restrictions.

Hate crimes have increased dramatically in the last year. Moreover, under the rubric of “national security”, federal law enforcement has taken outrageous actions against immigrants that violate domestic and international standards of human rights such as the arrest of 1000 Middle East immigrants who were denied habeus corpus and denied access to lawyers. The Special Registration Program was used to arrest and detain hundreds of additional people who made the mistake of complying with the new law. The war with Iraq will serve as another pretext for this Administration’s over-zealous and indiscriminate abuse of the police power against immigrants and refugees.

Just opposition to this war must include opposition to Saddam Hussein.

According to Human Rights Watch, “Saddam Hussein and others… are responsible for a vast number of crimes that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The victims of such crimes include up to 290,000 persons who have been “disappeared” since the late 1970s, many of whom are believed to have been killed.”

The level of oppression in Iraq is beyond comparison. Nearly a million Iraqis have been internally displaced in periodic ethnic cleansing campaigns. There’s a mandatory death sentence for publicly insulting Saddam Hussein. Human Rights Watch, no propagandist for the United States, has compiled a devastating summary of Hussein’s actions that cannot be argued away.

However, that last time we attacked Iraq, we destroyed the national infrastructure. Lack of electricity, refrigeration, water purification and sewage treatment led to cholera, typhoid and other diseases, killing an estimated 110,000 civilians – and that’s without an invasion.

Because of the last war’s destruction of the economy and the economic impact of sanctions, a full 60% of Iraqis rely on monthly food rations from the government – making them even more vulnerable to war-related starvation and illness. Given our own statements predicting a more ferocious bombing program and more sustained war, it’s reasonable to estimate that civilian casualties will be double the number in the last war. We cannot justify killing 200,000 Iraqis to save the people of Iraq.

Opposing this war, we have to realize that this is a war many Iraqis have said they favor because it promises an end to Hussein’s reign of terror. We cannot oppose this war without supporting, as fervently, the right of the Iraqis to be free of oppression.

The war in Iraq is unnecessary.

We can oppose the war and Saddam at the same time. Just as opponents of South Africa’s apartheid regime were able to assist South African resistance to defeat that regime through international sanctions and world opinion, we can show our solidarity with internal Iraqi resistance to Saddam though non-military actions.

We can demand that the United Nations send in international human rights monitors who could visit Iraqi prisons, refugee camps and interview internally displaced Iraqis and the families of “disappeared” Iraqis. These human rights monitors should have the same UN support as weapons inspectors.

We could demand the creation of an UN International Criminal Tribunal like those set up for Yugoslavia and Rwanda and collect evidence against Hussein and the elite cadres that sustain him in power.

We could demand the UN require political reforms and institute mechanisms for monitoring those reforms.

The UN could alter its Oil for Food program to include non-military civilian necessities to help rebuild the commercial infrastructure of Iraq.

We must welcome Iraqi refugees to our country.

We can support opposition movements with training, consultants and funding as we supported OTPOR's successful campaign to bring down Serbia's Milosevich though nonviolent resistance.

Those who argue in favor of the war would like us to frame this as a choice between supporting war or supporting Hussein, however we can and should choose to oppose both.

Could you be an OA leader?
Any Oregon Action member can become a leader by attending OA meetings and trainings and by volunteering on our campaigns. Oregon Action is committed to leadership development and training, because that is how we become stronger and more effective. Please join us.

Contact us for more info

Updated February 25, 2007