Minute on Iraq Attack
Gathering of Quaker Meetings from Minnesota,
South Dakota and North Dakota
September 29, 2002
The Gathering of Quaker Meetings from Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, after study, discussion, reflection and prayer, expresses our opposition to an attack by the United States on the people of Iraq.
War is not the answer to these difficult issues in the Middle East. Alternative policies to war with Iraq include:
Rebuilding:
Establish a policy of rebuilding Palestine, including homes, water and sewer
systems.
Transparency:
Support weapon inspection regimes for all potential nuclear powers, including
the United States, as an example to others, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and
Egypt.
Forum:
Provide a permanent regional discussion forum under the auspices of the United
States or the United Nations.
We are troubled and perplexed by the initiative of the executive branch of the United States government to launch an attack on the nation of Iraq. Numerous questions have not been answered including the following:
1. Precedent: Is this a precedent for presidents to go to war without a declaration of war as required by the Constitution by interpreting indirect sanction for the action from past statements of Congress?
2. Constitution: Why does the Congress acquiesce in presidential assertions of authority to launch a unilateral preemptive military attack on Iraq contrary to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution?
3. Moral Position: What is the future moral position of the United States if we start a pattern of preemptively striking countries and people we do not like?
4. World Opinion: Why is there little consideration in the United States for world opinion, which substantially condemns this course of action?
5. U.N. Charter: Why does the Congress acquiesce in presidential assertions of authority under older United Nations Security Council resolutions to launch a unilateral preemptive military attack on Iraq?
6. U.N. Discredit: Why does the United States seek to discredit the United Nations by its example to encourage other countries to ignore the decisions and services of the United Nations?
7. Alternatives: Why does the President avoid full effort to exhaust other avenues to remove the threat of use of weapons of great destruction?
8. Occupation: In light of the long-term commitment in Afghanistan and the state of the economy, is it in the U.S. interest, and can we afford to commit the resources, to occupy the Middle East for a long period?
9. Threat: Is there any credible evidence that Iraq is a threat to the United States?
10. Regional Consequences: We are concerned that an American attack on Iraq will escalate violence throughout the Mideast, especially against Israel. Why does the U.S. government not visibly consider this potential for regional war and chaos?
11. Weapons Use: There is no public evidence that Iraq has any ability to attack the United States with biological or nuclear weapons. However, if the Iraqi government is backed into a corner, with perceptions of little further to lose, will the government be willing to use whatever weapons it has?
12. Terrorism: Is the United States squandering international concern and cooperation in addressing world terrorism by diverting attention and resources to concerns about Iraq, which has no demonstrated link to terrorism?
13. Empire: Will the world understand this unilateral initiative as part of a policy of establishing an American Empire, despite the failed experience with such a policy in the 19th century?
We urge our congressional representatives to consider these questions and urge the President of the United States to reject the course of any attack on Iraq and to use cooperative means to reduce the threat of use of weapons of great destruction.