<< Back 10/30/02 A shaky foundation for starting a war SMN When a free nation ponders starting a war, its leaders better be able to justify their position. Right now in the United States, the drumbeat of of those opposed to invading Iraq is getting louder. At the same time, the administration of George W. Bush is not doing any better job of making a case that Saddam Hussein is so important that we should risk innocent lives to try and dispose of him. This past weekend in Washington, D.C., up to a quarter of million people marched around the White House in one of the largest peace rallies in decades. Speakers pleaded for the U.S. not to make a pre-emptive strike that could lead to the loss of American soldiers and the deaths of innocent Iraqi children and other civilians. And right here in Western North Carolina, a small minority is making a stand for peace. Each Wednesday from noon until 1 p.m. at the Haywood County Courthouse, slightly more than a dozen activists are gathering to voice their opposition to the loss of innocent lives in what they say is an unnecessary and unjust war. One told us that invading Iraq is not representative of the finest ideals that this country stands for. In Bryson City, one couple got up last Saturday, made signs, and went to stand in front of the federal building to protest the possible war. Before the day was done, more than 100 people had either voiced support for what they were doing or had joined them. About 50 did not believe the protest was justified and showed their resentment by the great American symbol of discontent (the finger), by jeering or by giving a thumbs down. No one, the letter writer said (page 20), physically confronted them. There are two basic pretenses for invading Iraq: one, Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction and could unleash them at any moment; and two, the Iraqi leader is a supporter of terrorism and may have even helped al Qaida. The arbitrariness of the first charge speaks for itself. There are rogue leaders throughout the world, some with powerful weapons, and we aren’t planning to take them out and start a war. North Korea is a case in point. As for supporting terrorism, there are few who would argue that Saddam would not — given the chance — help those who wanted to attack American civilians. The Bush administration, though, has not given up any hard evidence to support this charge. If it is there, there may be reasons for withholding it. But as worldwide opposition to an invasion mounts, it seems that few others believe we have any credible evidence linking Hussein to organized terrorism. In fact, many believe there is more evidence that financial support for terrorism is flowing out of Saudi Arabia. Despite the lack of any proof, a recent Pew Research poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe Saddam is linked to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that took 3,000 lives. Bush and his administration have convinced people of it despite the lack of evidence. War is always a horrible event, but there were few who stood up and criticized the U.S. when we went into Afghanistan and when the elder Bush led a coalition against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. As bad as it is, war is sometimes the last best way to deal with countries whose government kills innocent people outside its own borders. In this case, though, there is no clear moral high ground upon which the U.S. can stand. It is a shaky foundation for war the administration has built, and therefore the peace rallies and the anti-war protests will undoubtedly grow. Perhaps, in the end, the voices of those standing in lonely picket lines will help us find a way to avoid a war and still rein in Hussein.