The debate over Bush's war plans for Iraq has consisted largely of a disagreement within the Republican Party and the national security alumni association over the practicality of war. Almost inaudible are the legal and moral arguments against it.

This war would violate the Constitution.

It would brazenly breach international law.

It would mock the U.N. Charter.

It would fail miserably to pass the "just war" test.

And, above all, it would senselessly kill thousands--perhaps tens of thousands or more--innocent Iraqis.

In early September, President Bush bowed to critics from his father's Administration and pledged to "seek approval" from Congress so he could do "whatever is necessary" against Saddam Hussein. But, as Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, has argued, a new invasion of Iraq would be illegal unless Bush got a formal declaration of war from Congress. The Constitution is clear: Article 1, Section 8, says, "The Congress shall have power . . . to declare war." Our founders feared that a President, acting on his own discretion, would be more likely to embroil the nation in dangerous adventures than would the Congress, which is closer to the public.

Bush's war would also be illegal under international law, which holds that country A can attack country B only when country B has already attacked country A or is about to attack country A. Neither applies to Iraq. (Actually, under international law, Saddam Hussein may have a better case for attacking the United States today than Bush has for attacking Iraq, since Bush is threatening an imminent war against Iraq.) Try as they might, Bush officials have failed to present credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of September 11. But who needs evidence? They seem to think they can attack any country any time they want.

In addition, Bush's war would be a violation of the U.N. Charter, which states that "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." The only time that doesn't apply is under Article 51 of the charter, which allows a nation to use force in self-defense.

But Bush's war can hardly be construed as one of self-defense. Vice President Dick Cheney, in his speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, talked about the "mortal threat" that Saddam Hussein poses. And Bush downgraded this only slightly on September 4 when he repeatedly called Saddam Hussein a "serious threat."

The hyperbole machine is getting overheated in the White House. A little perspective, please.

The United States has a $400 billion Pentagon budget; Iraq's military budget is about $4 billion.

The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons; Iraq doesn't have one yet, much less the means to deliver it.

What's more, Iraq's army today pales in comparison to its army in 1991, which the United States routed.

To hype the threat, Bush and Cheney stress the prospects of Saddam obtaining nuclear weapons. But even if he had one or two, he would need a delivery system. Still, he would not be a "mortal threat."
Cheney raised the Hitler analogy, which is getting more hackneyed by the day. The idea that Iraq threatens the United States in a way that Nazi Germany or Japan did during World War II is a blatant scare tactic. And remember, during the Cold War, the United States managed to survive against an adversary much more powerful than Iraq, one that had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed directly at us. Today, China has twenty nuclear weapons that can hit Los Angeles. Should Bush bomb Beijing while he's at it?

The claim that Saddam Hussein is such a threat to the United States assumes that he would use his weapons of mass destruction against America. But Saddam Hussein knows that if he attacked the United States he would be annihilated, and he has shown that he understands such a deterrence. During the first Gulf War in 1991, the United States warned him not to use his chemical or biological weapons, which he held at the ready. If he did so, he would face overwhelming retaliation. So he backed down. What makes Bush believe that Saddam Hussein is suicidal today when he wasn't eleven years ago?

If Bush thinks his war is justified by some higher law, the Archbishop of Canterbury disagrees. Archbishop Rowan Williams says attacking Iraq wouldn't pass muster under Christian "just war" doctrine. In early August, the archbishop signed a statement from a group of clergy to British Prime Minister Tony Blair that said "an attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal."

There is no casus belli--no precipitating act that Saddam Hussein has engaged in that would justify it. This is so obvious that Bush's cheerleaders in the press have been urging him to manufacture such an act. "Washington will have to provoke a crisis over inspections," advised Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek on September 2.

Nor has President Bush exhausted all peaceful means to resolve the issue, as required by just war theo-ry. Quite the contrary: Donald Rumsfeld and Cheney are openly disdainful of getting U.N. inspectors back in, which would be the best way to grind down whatever program Saddam Hussein has for weapons of mass destruction. (By the way, we hear a lot about Saddam Hussein kicking out weapons inspectors. But remember, President Clinton is as much to blame for those inspectors having left Iraq as anyone. Saddam did not kick them out. Clinton pulled them out right before he decided to wage his own little bombing attack on Iraq back in December 1998, presumably to deflect attention from Monica Lewinsky.)

In addition, just war theory requires that the risks of doing more harm than good with a war must be minimal. But for this invasion those risks cannot be dismissed lightly.

As Brent Scowcroft and others have warned, a U.S. invasion could occasion the very use of the chemical or biological weapons that the Bush Administration is so afraid of. Last time around, the United States gave Saddam Hussein an out: If you don't use those weapons, you can stay in power.
But today, Bush is telling Saddam that he's a goner no matter what, so Saddam has no incentive not to use whatever remaining chemical or biological weapons he might have.

If he did so, either against approaching U.S. troops or against Israel, then the possibility of this war ending with a nuclear bomb cannot be discounted. George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon would be under enormous pressure to hit back with everything they've got. And it is now the policy of the Bush Administration to retaliate against a chemical or biological attack with a nuclear one.

The consequences of such a spinout are frightening to contemplate, especially considering the number of human beings who would perish.

Iraq is a country of about twenty-two million people, and Baghdad alone has more than three million residents. An all-out war against Saddam Hussein, even one that doesn't go nuclear, could take a terrible toll. As Howard Zinn points out elsewhere in this issue, the certainty of casualties is the single most compelling argument against this war.

And there also could be hell to pay in the Arab world, which is already a tinder box--in part because Bush has condoned Sharon's brutal policies in the Occupied Territories. Pictures of mutilated Iraqi corpses on Al-Jazeera would do nothing to endear the United States to the Arab world. If the war gets gruesome, it could inspire terrorists to wage more attacks on American soil, which is the last thing any of us want.

This war would ruffle the feathers of Washington's European allies and threaten the stability of U.S. stooges in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. It would also rattle our economy, which is shaky enough already.

So with all the risks, why is Bush plunging ahead?

Well, he's always wanted to restore his father's name, and his advisers--especially Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz--have been gunning for Iraq from day one. Then there are crass political reasons. As the economy flounders, as corporate scandals erode Republican popularity, and with mid-term elections approaching, Bush and Karl Rove feel an urgent need to whip up hysteria.

Plus, Bush and Cheney are overwhelmingly concerned about the control of world oil supplies. "Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security" in the coming decades, said last year's Cheney Report on energy. And in his speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cheney noted that Saddam Hussein has "a seat atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves." Cheney added that if Saddam acquires weapons of mass destruction, he "could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East [and] take control of a great portion of the world's oil supplies."

Back in 1991, the peace movement had a slogan: No Blood for Oil. That slogan is still relevant today.
If you're opposed to this war, we urge you to do whatever you can, nonviolently, to make your voice be heard.

Yes, write your Senators and Representative.

But also talk to your friends, family members, neighbors, colleagues. You'd be surprised how many people agree that this war in the making is a fool's and a bully's errand.

And don't stop there: You and those who agree with you should organize rallies, teach-ins, and demonstrations in your community, at the nearest high schools and colleges, and in the union halls and churches and mosques and synagogues close by.

It is a luxury of emperors to sit back and ponder which country to attack next.

It is the obligation of citizens who care about the rule of law and the lives of innocents to resist such warmaking.