Activists Key in Stalling Effort to Step Up U.S. War Against Iraq
by Jeffrey Pilch

February 2002,
volume 39, number 1

Since the terrorist attacks here in the United States, momentum has been building for the United States to launch an all-out military campaign against Iraq. All across Washington, a determined crew that includes former government officials, congressional hawks and syndicated columnists, have stepped up their calls for expanding the Ôwar on terrorism' into Iraq.

By December, some hardliners were convinced Iraq's fate was sealed. The hawkish editor of the Weekly Standard and author of several Ôattack Iraq' letters, William Kristol, was reported as confident a U.S. war in Iraq was imminent: "Now, Mr. Kristol says, there's no need for letters to the president" (New York Times, 12/3/01).

Yet Mr. Kristol was proven wrong.

Despite not having the same funding and access to the administration's decision makers, activists helped place these hardliners in check. The culmination of this pitched battle took place last month.

On December 4th, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) introduced House joint resolution (H. J. Res. 75). Ostensibly, the resolution condemns Iraq for not letting U.N weapons inspectors into Iraq, but its language may indicate a hidden motive: the resolution originally declared any "refusal by Iraq to admit UN weapons inspectors... should be considered an act of aggression against the U.S. and its allies," language that Republican Ron Paul of Texas, a member of the House International Relations Committee, considered "troubling" and "dangerous". Democrat Jim McDermott of Seattle compared the resolution and the way it was being secretively hurried through, to the Congressional culture surrounding the passing of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that approved military force in Vietnam.

Fortunately, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) were tipped off to the resolution and quickly alerted the grassroots. Within days, from every part of the United States, Congress received a flood of letters, e-mails and phone calls.

Among those mobilized was Harry Scott of the San Francisco Bay area. He is part of a growing movement, from Catholic clergy to former U.S military personnel, which has tirelessly campaigned for dramatic change in U.S. policy toward Iraq. Scott explains, "We want the U.S. to end the embargo against Iraq immediately. It has caused horrendous suffering and contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq." Scott is quick to point out that massive air strikes would only intensify the suffering of the Iraqi people, doing nothing to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

The opposition generated by grassroots organizers like Scott forced congressional hawks to remove the troublesome "act of aggression" language from the resolution - a major setback for those pushing for all-out war against Iraq.

My former colleagues on the Hill confirm this. One Congressional staffer commented to me that he received many calls and that while it did not stop the Resolution from eventually passing, he felt it most certainly made a difference in changing and consequently watering down the Resolution.

Republican Member of the International Relations Committee, conservative Ron Paul, has been an unlikely ally and bright shining star for those who have grown tired of the usual narrow congressional debate on U.S policy towards Iraq. In a recent letter to President Bush Paul wrote "there is no evidence that Iraq had any part in the September 11 attacks against the United States. Our allies, including Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, have agreed that Iraq had no role in the attack"

Before September 11, supporters of full scale military action against Iraq were exasperated that the U.S public simply would not accept an overt military action against Iraq: at a September 26th, 2000 Committee on International Relations Hearing, invited witness Stephen J. Solarz (a former Democratic Congressman) admitted that, "from a political point of view it would be almost impossible right now to muster the support in the Congress and the country that would be needed for the reintroduction of American military power in the Persian Gulf."

Interestingly, in the same hearing Solarz went on to say, "Saddam does pose a serious threat to vital American interests. Some of you recall that 3 years ago Secretary of Defense Cohen appeared on national television and held up a five-pound bag of sugar [claiming it represented enough Anthrax to wipe out half the population of the DC area] and said, this is a threat which the American people can understand and to which, with forceful presidential leadership, they can respond." Yet the recent Anthrax attacks were unsuccessfully linked to Iraq, despite the efforts of Solarz and others even long after evidence had proved that the sources were domestic.

When it comes to Iraq, many Democrats have been every bit as hawkish as Republicans. Ranking Member of the House International Relations Committee and member of the House Progressive Caucus, San Francisco area Democrat Tom Lantos stated at a October of 2001 hearing on Iraq that "[This regime] has to be destroyed and it has to be displaced. And the American people will find the will power to do so. The U.S. will have to walk a fine line between developing a more robust diplomacy while seeking regional support in preparing for a military response at some time in the future." At the same October of 2001 hearing, Democratic Ranking Member Gary Ackerman stated "Does anybody seriously think that you are going to go back to the premise that you are going to get the people of Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein in his lifetime? Or in the end, is it a military option?"

Arguably, if September 11th had not happened, more than a few Americans would find it alarming that the elements within the Government were planning a full-scale attack on Iraq. Now, under the cover of the country's understandable shock after the horrific attacks at home, many U.S officials seem to believe that Iraq remains a legitimate target for a new U.S. military campaign as "part two" of the war on terrorism.

It is important that we add to the number of dedicated persons who continue to remain on watch and act with passion and determination to stop any efforts to expand the war on terrorism. An expanded war that, as Congressman Paul points out, cannot be solved by "invading Iraqi airspace and killing innocent civilians."