Hanna on Iraq

Why say No to war on Iraq

Witherspoon's former president, Jane Hanna, addresses Santa Fe peace rally, summarizes the reasons many object to a war against Iraq

[Report dated 12-10-02; posted here on 12-14-02]

I was asked to speak for the Presbyterians at a Peace Rally held in Santa Fe today to honor Human Rights Day as was being done in many cities across the country. There was a good crowd, music, poetry and speakers representing AFSC, ACLU, NAACP, Vietnam Veterans Against War, Peace Action, Voices in the Wilderness, City Council members, etc. It will be interesting to see how much coverage these events receive in the media over the next few days.

A few weeks ago our City Council members voted after a good discussion pro and con to oppose war in Iraq. They have gotten flack from those who think it is out of their jurisdiction when they should be paying more attention to potholes. However, they've gotten a lot of support for that and their opposition to the Patriot Act.

Here is the text of her remarks:

I speak only for myself in opposition to a military confrontation in Iraq. I cannot speak for all Presbyterians because we do not all agree about this matter. However, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA did, last summer, send a message to President Bush opposing war. Since then, the Stated Clerk of the PCUSA has sent several letters to Washington asking that inspections be allowed to proceed and Security Council decisions be honored.

There are, for me, many reasons for being leery of Administration intentions and motives for confronting Saddam Hussein. I will touch on just three.

First: I have no more confidence in the truthfulness of our leaders than I do of those speaking on behalf of Iraq. We know we have been falsely led in the past by previous administrations, the most recent to validate the need for Gulf War I. If you watched 60 Minutes Sunday evening, your memory was refreshed by a recitation of the propaganda that justified Desert Storm. You also heard doubts about some of the reasons given for invading Iraq now. If US accusations are true, a CIA report to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 7 indicates serious consequences if we invade. What then would keep Saddam from unleashing his WMD that Washington claims he has?

Second reason: To overlook or deny the suffering that 10 years of sanctions and bombing have already inflicted on innocent Iraqis by threatening more of the same seems grossly immoral to me. Further death and destruction may be impossible for Iraq to surmount and US commitment to rebuilding is iffy at best. The continued and escalating terror for both Israelis and Palestinians has already contributed to rising destabilization throughout the Middle East. Another war against Iraq would likely contribute toward further social/political/economic turmoil in the region. During a recent trip to Tunisia I learned how much the first Gulf War and 9/11 hurt this North African nation's tourist industry on which it depends for much of its income. There is rightfully held fear for the economic consequences Tunisia anticipates from another war in Iraq.

My third major concern: The effect on our own economy cannot be dismissed as minor. The projected costs for a war in Iraq will be enormous. According to The Center for Defense Information, the administration plans to spend $2.1 trillion on the military over the next 5 years. The president's budget request for FY '03 includes $396.1 billion for national security, $379.3 billion for the Defense Dept. and $16.8 billion for the nuclear weapons functions of the Dept. of Energy. It recently cost $200 million to expand a logistics base south of Kuwait City and $15 million is being spent to propagandize US values in Arab countries via satellite TV and radio. In preparation for response from an Iraqi invasion, Israel has just asked for $14 billion more US tax dollars, a country that already receives more US money than all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined.

All this in the face of continued tax cuts for corporations and our wealthiest citizens while unemployment increases, benefits cut, and more people forced from welfare to a minimum wage that is not livable. The majority of states are facing huge deficits that will mean large cutbacks in health care, education, social service and environmental programs. Basic human needs at home and abroad will be further neglected. Wars exact a terrible cost in both lives and money. In the two world wars the cost was shared as equitably as possible. All Americans were asked to sacrifice, even the wealthy. In both world wars Congress raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans. During WWII, income over $200,000 was taxed at 94%. Today the wealthy pay less than ever, while the weapons industries reap a windfall as the Pentagon goes on a spending spree to fight terrorists and invade Iraq.

It seems to me that any danger Saddam Hussein might pose for his own people and neighboring nations can be contained without war. He is surrounded by our massive military build-up, inspectors are free to go anywhere in the country and the whole world is watching. I'm not sure who is playing a "cat & mouse" game. If the US has evidence of WMD, why not turn it over to the inspectors to check?

The most serious problems facing the global family are the millions without hope - the hungry, jobless, homeless, refugees fleeing violence. Rather than policies that expand devastation and despair, our safety might better be assured by using our wealth and abilities to heal the world's suffering.