Letter to Representative Lloyd Dogget

Dear Lloyd Dogget,

Today, September 26, I have read an article in the Austin American Statesman by Chuck Lindell titled “Dogget Carrying Anti-War Message”. It describes, among other things, your efforts to get your fellow congressmen to pause for a minute and give the Iraq issues more thought before jumping on the President Bush’s war bandwagon. I would like to applaud you for taking this stance, however negatively it may be painted by the hawkish factions in the government.

I understand that it is politically dangerous to be directly opposing the President’s policies towards Iraq, especially for anyone running for election. The administration has been quick to paint anyone who does not fall in step with their views as unpatriotic or even treacherous, whether they are a politician, a journalist or an allied country. That’s why I am glad that there are people in congress that dare to take an unpopular and possibly politically damaging stance on this issue.

I question the motives and justification behind the President’s push for an invasion of Iraq. Besides the say-so of his spokespeople, I too have not seen a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist network responsible for the September 11 tragedy. As a matter of fact, the terrorist network seems to have had more support from “friendly” nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Whenever I hear Vice President Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld talk in absolute terms about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, it worries me that too many people unquestioningly believe their pronouncements, without taking the effort to compare alternate sources of information. Anything said often enough, will eventually be perceived as truth – and we have been hearing the Iraq rhetoric for a long time now.

I view the policy of unilateral military aggression as unwise and nearsighted. The current, as well as previous, administrations (Democrat and Republican) too often engaged in campaigns without clearly planning for long term consequences – and this seems to be another such instance. In my view, an attack on Iraq will not server the goal of keeping America safe and to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

On the contrary, attacking Iraq will destabilize the region (the administration’s view that deposing Saddam will turn Iraq into a modern democracy is either childishly optimistic or sadly naïve). Unilateral action by the United States will reinforce local perception of America as an imperialistic anti-Islamic country and will only grow the ranks of potential terrorists. Additionally, if there actually are biological and chemical weapons labs and stockpiles in Iraq, it is more than likely that during the chaos of a war they would get out of the clutches of Saddam and into the hands of more volatile militants who do not have Saddam’s strong sense of self-preservation and who would be much more likely to use them against us.

The final, and in my mind most troubling, aspect of Bush’s preemptive strike doctrine is its effect on future world politics. Not only will America be perceived as an international bully, but other countries are likely to use the self-defense excuse to justify their expansion or attacks on other countries. Some immediate examples that come to mind are Pakistan and Kashmir, Chine and Taiwan, and Russia and Georgia. If these countries do attack their neighbors then the United States will no longer have the moral ground to condemn them for it.

Please keep up the good work and take care to focus on the long term well being of America over short term political expediency.

Respectfully yours

Stepan Riha