Thursday, March 20, 2003

Dear Senator,

This letter is a plea from a citizen of the United States who is deeply troubled by the actions taken by our president as he prepares for war against Iraq. I can no longer sit by and watch while he destroys worldwide diplomatic ties and alliances, increases international anti-American sentiment and, as a result, increases the possibility of terrorist attacks within the United States and to Americans abroad. I cannot sit by and watch the government of the United States causes the loss of respect of the world community. I do not wish for America to be seen as an imperialistic rogue power acting outside of the bounds of international democracy. Is a war against Iraq worth the loss of the respect of America in the eyes of the international community? And if a war is "won", we risk attempting to rebuild a country in which anti-US sentiment has been cultivated for thirty years.

In spite of all this common sense, it is clear that I, as a citizen, go unheard by the president and the media. So, I appeal to you Senator, to see the global consequences of what is about to occur, and stand up to the close-minded rhetoric of a self-righteous man oblivious to his destruction of the strategically important international ties, produced by years of true diplomacy for a war whose bases is, at best, questionable.

The president of the United States has in the eyes of the international community failed to substantiate his bid for war with any proof of a threat posed by Iraq. He says that Iraq has failed to disarm, yet cannot site a specific example in which, during the latest round of UN weapons inspections, Iraq has failed to comply with the inspectors. He has stated time and time again that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but has failed to produce concrete evidence of these weapons. The only weapons found, the missiles capable of firing 24 miles beyond their permitted range, were destroyed. So, if the administration is so sure that Iraq is producing why they cannot site any concrete proof to substantiate their claims. Guilt, as stated by the laws of our own country and in the court of international law, must be proven. To have pushed ahead this far, without a credible shred of evidence backing US claims of Iraq insubordination is the very root of the UN divide. How can we continue to accuse without proof? And with the UN weapons inspectors exit of Iraq, the possibility of attaining proof vanished. Is proof of guilt before punishment not part of the very foundation of our democracy?

Then, in a futile attempt to justify their actions, the administration attempted to link Saddam Hussein to the Al-Queda network. This association was so improbable it was denied even by our own CIA. The Al-Queda is a fundamentalist group of Shiite Muslims. As fundamentalist, they align only with those who follow the same extreme branch of the Shiite Muslim religion. Saddam Hussein is a Sunni Muslim, hated by the Al-Queda for both his religious affiliation and his persecution of the Al-Queda sects in his own country. No intelligence agency, outside of the current US administration, would even suggest a link. That the current administration has suggested such an improbable alliance leads only to the question of why such a far-fetched justification would be needed. If Iraq indeed has weapons of mass destruction, why is the administration grasping at flimsy justifications for their military action?

So other nations have risen up in protest. They have done so through the proper channels of international diplomacy at the United Nations. So, how has the US responded? By abandoning the international body. The administration has stated that the UN has no right to mediate an international campaign by the US against Iraq. If the UN does not have the right to mediate campaigns of one country against another, what exactly is the point of the UN? And then, to insult stalwart US allies like

France and Germany, by calling them the "old Europe". As if their years of loyalty to the US, and the ideals of democracy put forth by the US, are suddenly unimportant. The administration has also called into question our alliances with Russia and China. It took twenty years of diplomacy to erase the lines of the cold war, yet in the course of six months the administration has threatened to destroy these hard won economic and security alliances. Let us not forget the governments Turkey or Mexico, torn between loyalty to the nearly unanimous voice of their own people for peace and intense international pressure from the US. When these nations followed the voice of their people and decided not to participate in a US led war they were called "traitors" by members of the administration. Since the administration has not listened to the millions of anti-war protestor in the US and abroad, perhaps it is easy to view the voice of any people as irrelevant in the eyes of "new" US democracy.

We may be a strong nation. But we are still a single nation and there will be times when we too rely on allies for economic and security support. Can we expect the rest of the world to help us fight terrorism in the future, if we ignore its voice in the present? I ask of you, senator, to see the value and great importance of preserving international relations. If the administration had treated its allies with respect to this point, the current diplomatic crisis would be none existent. And if the US goes to war without the consent of the UN the current diplomatic crisis becomes a diplomatic catastrophe. And it is my opinion that it may take decades to rebuild the respect of the US in the eyes of the world.

Remember, it is not just the governments of the world that we alienate. But the very image of the US in the eyes of the people of the world. A year and a half ago, in the wake of September 11th the world embraced the US. Citizens around the world poured out condolences for our people. To wear the American flag became an international trend. Today, an American abroad in Europe faces scorn on the street. And with the next terrorist attack (a near certainty, due to the amount of ant-American sentiment the Iraq campaign has produced), who will offer their condolences then? More scary to consider, where will the next terrorist attack come from? With the amount of anti-American sentiment generated worldwide and the Christian rhetoric of our President, few people in any country would argue that America is not an imperialist Zionist nation. It is no longer strictly Muslims alienated by the US. And as individuals become alienated, the attack of a threat against the US grows.

However, the loss of international respect, the increase in terrorism against the US, these are but the secondary repercussions of the current course of US action. Let us not forget the imminent danger to our own troops to be exposed to biological and chemical weapons. If Iraq indeed has chemical or biological weapons, according to our own CIA, he would not use them unless attacked. So, does mounting a well-publicized attack make sense? By cornering a extremely dangerous dictator into unleashing weapons of mass destruction we are only triggering the danger that a war against Iraq was intended to prevent. We will force Saddam Hussein to hurt our soldiers when he has nothing left to loose.

Ten years ago, in the Gulf War, direct regime change was not considered an option, because conventional wisdom states that it is not prudent to uproot a popular leader in his own country. Has anyone in the past ten years challenged this wisdom? A war against a popular leader in his own country, which, if won, could lead to chaos in the region and heavy casualties among Iraqi people. If we uproot a leader supported by his own people, and few would argue Saddam Hussein is not popular amongst his people, the people of Iraq will not accept a US backed leadership established in its place. If in the last ten years all efforts by the US to turn internal Iraq support against Saddam Hussein have failed, why do would the administration presume that they have power to persuade the Iraq people? The US is as dislike as much by the Iraqi people as it is disliked by the Iraqi leadership. To assume any sort of easy transition of Iraqi power, is at best, extremely naive.

And while we are pouring billions of dollars, from the already tattered US economy into Iraq, what happens to the people of Afghanistan? A people, that just a year ago, we pledged our support and economic assistance. Are we such a powerful nation that we can support the rebuilding of two governments and three economies simultaneously?

I do not argue that Saddam not is a despot; few would. But I see our current path of international actions leading to worldwide alienation and aggression against the American people. And this is much greater threat than any posed by a foreign dictator; a threat that the leaders of our nation are on the verge of making a reality. You, Senator, have a voice and an opportunity to change what currently looks to inevitable hardship to the American people. Please, with so many obvious arguments against the US military stance at your disposal, take action. Please oppose the current form of US diplomacy, show your support for the UN and stand up against an independent US lead war against Iraq.

Sincerely,

Cynara - US citizen.