1. What were the pros and cons of starting such a war? (see also "P.S." FAQ section)
2. Did anti-war protestors have an impact?
3. Who were the Americans protesting inside Iraq?
4. Did Church officials having an impact on the pending war?  What is a "just war"?
5. How were local and state governments speaking out against the war?
6. Did U.S. public opinion support an invasion?
7. Is it legal or proper to violently overthrow another country's leader?

1.  What were the pros and cons of starting such a war?  

A very complex question, concerning the military, politics, allies, ethics, civilians, and more.  Before the war began, the advantages could be centered around six general arguments:  1.  The end of Hussein's power and brutality; 2.  The chance for a more democratic regime for the people of Iraq;  3.  U.S. gaining a strategic ally; 4.  Giving "teeth" to past UN resolutions,  5.  Deliver a blow to international terrorism, and, of course,  6.  Preventing possible future Iraq attacks or possible WMD (weapons of mass destruction) sold to other terrorists.

Before the war, the disadvantages could be:  1.  Hussein uses his possible WMD, either before or during the war, since he has nothing to lose;  2.   The chaos of invasion allows terrorist groups in Iraq to seize WMD, with no central power controlling: "If you want to kill Americans, Iraq is going to be the place to be"  (Steven Chapman's Winnetka speech, 2/8/03);  3.  Not waiting to see results of Weapons Inspectors; 4.  U.S. loses Middle East allies; 5.   Destabilization of U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Jordan; .

Return to Top

6.  Israeli-Palestinian hostilities continue or increase;
7.  Fewer U.S. allies to battle al Qaeda;
8.  Fewer U.S. troops, funding, and intelligence resources toward al Qaeda and/or North Korea
9.  Thousands of Iraqi civilians die;
10.  Iraqi infrastructure further destroyed, including water treatment, electricity, etc.; 
11.  The breeding and recruitment of more angry terrorists (visible in Europe before the war); a PR success for bin Laden; Al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. (predicted by Ridge on March 3); "emboldening radical Islamic groups and adding to their grievances" (WashPost, 3/16). 
12.  Hussein is not found;
13.  Hussein is replaced with another Ba'th Party dictator;
14.  A spike in oil prices, harming our recovery from recession; 
15.  Lack of a clear exit policy or occupation plan;
16.  Upheaval of Shiite and Kurds causes a civil war, potentially breaking apart the country, a "Balkanization";
17.  The precedent of pre-emptive war;
18.  U.S. spends hundreds of billions to fight the war and to rebuild Iraq;
19.  U.S. public opinion is at least 40% against the war, even though no Americans have yet died; 
20.  There is no link between Hussein and Al Qaeda or Hussein and 9/11 attacks; 
21.  Hussein is being contained and wouldn't use any WMD unless attacked (CIA prediction);
22.  Looting of priceless antiquities; and

23.  Various untold military consequences of a war:
-- Israel responds to an Iraqi attack, possibly with nuclear weapons; 
--Hundreds of U.S. and Iraqi troops die; possible urban block-by-block warfare, as US's superior technology is negated;
-- Israel can't respond to an Iraqi attack because U.S. troops are in Baghdad;
-- Thousands of Iraqi refugees fleeing into Turkey and Iran;
-- Hussein implements his "scorched earth" plan, including burning oil fields;
--Using WMD against is own people (especially Kurds) and blaming the U.S. (expressed by Rumsfeld);
--Hiding weapons in mosques, hospitals, or cultural sites;
--Hussein would lay mines in Gulf water (warned by US navy on 3/17); 
--Using citizens or captured journalists as human shields (NYTimes, 2/18, "War Planners Begin to Speak of War's Risks");
--Destroy dams and flood the Euphrates River, slowing a U.S. offense (NYTimes, 2/16);
--Iraq would use British or American uniforms Hussein was allegedly seeking to blame atrocities on allies (Defense Department, 3/6). 

See "P.S." FAQs which discusses whether the war was a success.

Hawks and doves clearly disagree, as quotes of leaders exemplify.  The Washington Post previewed a special section in October, "The Debate About Iraq", which links to many editorials discussed below.  Given the President's statements and threats, could Iraq attack the U.S. and claim it was acting in a pre-emptive manner?  Is Hussein's remaining in power a greater threat to stabilization than our intervention in the region? Could Bush still back out of the war? For those who can't decide, "In defence of the fence" discusses four pro and four con arguments (2/6/03)

For Powell's UN speech of Feb. 5, see "Was The War Inevitable?" FAQ Section.  Read on, check out the web sites, the "The War" FAQ section,  and judge for yourself.

Return to Top

2.  Did anti-war protestors have any impact?  Also see The Guardian's "The anti-war movement" special and "Should we have gone to war/Editorials"(Against War)

Jump to November or to January or to February 

Jesse Jackson's speech (full text) included: "If we launch a pre-emptive strike, we will lose all moral authority....This time, the 'silent majority' is on our side.  Most Americans do not want this war....The struggle for peace will be long.  It may be unpopular; but it must continue." Other demonstrators argue that "we need to show people there are lots of Americans who don't agree with [war], even if you don't hear that message all that often." College campuses had been relatively quiet and protests around the nation at first received little media attention, ("Dems Roll Over, Film at 11") but the protests have been getting larger every month.

November protestors, planning to stay for four months in D.C., say, "We feel that this is a time when our country is in great danger.  The Bush administration has begun a course of militarism and violence that will beget more violence."

Jump to November or to January or to February 

At a  December protestor for International Human Rights Day where demonstrators raised their voices against war,  "The perception out there that ordinary people are not paying attention to what's going on and are not concerned about the possibility of war is wrong.  Very few of my friends and colleagues support this war, even if they did not walk over to stand [with me] today." Commented American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) Chicago leader Laurel Severns, the arrests "show that more people are ready to take the next step.  There are more people than ever that oppose these policies." Another Quaker (Friends) comment comes in the form of an editorial the The Guardian.  Quakers are often outspoken pacifists who try to find alternatives to violence.  "A war on Iraq could results in major civilian casualties and lead to the use of [WMD].  It is likely to increase antagonism to the U.S. in the region, offer no clear exit for us, and cost billions of pounds.  100 Hollywood entertainers spoke on December 10:  "We are patriotic Americans...War with Iraq will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks, damage the economy and undermine our moral standing in the world...This notion of preemptive war is setting a precedent...A pre-emptive military invasion...will harm America's national interests.  Such a war will increase human suffering."  An analysis of the peace movement and what it means to be antiwar is at "Making The Connection", The Nation, 12/30/02). 

Mike Farell (MASH) does not believe that Bush has proved Iraq is a danger to America.  Farell said, "Some people want to go the Iraq first and find a reason to justify it later."

Return to Top
Jump to November or to January or to February 

In mid-December Sean Penn flew to Baghdad "to warn that a war with Iraq would be frightening...Sacrificing American soldiers and innocent civilians in an unprecedented pre-emptive strike on a...sovereign nation may well prove itself a most temporary medicine."  He further criticized Bush "for a simplistic and inflammatory views of good and evil" (Times, 12/16/02).  Interestingly, Penn's father, a TV producer in the 1950s,  was blacklisted for refusing to testify for the McCarthy anti-Communist hearings. Penn concluded, "A war is not inevitable.  Simply put, if there is a war or continued sanctions, the blood of Americans and Iraqis alike will be on our [American] hands" (Tribune, 12/16/02)

Responded Ari Fleisher, "The President agrees that violence is not the answer in Iraq, and that's why he hopes Iraq will disarm."

Another Hollywood star against the war was Martin Sheen, most recently of NBC's West Wing.  He writes in a LA Times op-ed on the eve of war, "One need not be a scholar of international law to know that war at this time and in this place is unwelcome, unwise, and simply wrong.  In speaking the truths as we know it, my friends and I have stood for all those yet to join this great public debate.  We urge their participation and we welcome them to the fray, for int he end this is not about us but is truly about the matter of life and death" (3/17/03). 

Actress Susan Sontag,  in her September 10, 2002 op-ed, writes, "real wars...have a beginning and an end,  but the war that has been declared by the Bush administration will never end.  That is one sign that it is not a war, but, rather, a mandate for expanding the use of American power."

The AFL-CIO labor union criticized President Bush for not fulfilling his responsibility "to make a compelling and coherent explanation to the American people and the world as to the need for military action against Iraq at this time."  They questioned his "insulting" of allies.  The criticism broke tradition, because the Union had supported administration in Korea, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf I. 

Also in February the AFL-CIO's executive council came out against the war, seeing a lack of "explanation." This union represents 13 million workers.

In mid-January, moveon.org made the mainstream press with a commercial remake  of the Johnson/Goldwater 1964 "Daisy ad".  It's overall message was, "Let the inspections work" to avoid a larger war. 

The January 18 protests in D.C., the largest since the Vietnam era, were described by the Washington Post as made up of "college students, 30-something families, and senior citizens...from both coasts and all point in between."  See BBC collection of protest photos from around the world. A caravan of environmentalists in electric cars had signs which read, "Go solar, not ballistic." One protestor feels that "this anti-war movement has slowed down the war machine...Public opinion is the only buffer keeping us from going to war."  The New York Times "A Stirring in the Nation" editorial described the protestors as denouncing  the war plan that will:
1.  undermine America's standing in the world;
2.  stir unrest in the Mideast; and
3. damage the American economy.  "Millions of Americans who did not march...[have also not heard] Mr. Bush make a persuasive case" (1/20/03). 

"Ever since I was a little girl, I've wondered what it would take to end war...As a child growing up in the shadow of the atomic bomb, I used to pray every night, 'Let there be no war.' but no one seemed to be listening...But I'm not a pacifist."  Rosen concludes, "Voices that preach peace must never fall silent.  They need to speak so loudly that they drown out those who clamor for war.  Even if our species is not yet ready to end war, we must always be prepared to create a climate for peace. "

The huge, worldwide protests of February 15 were unprecedented. In Europe, at least 3 million people marched, with record crowds of diverse people.  One million gathered in London, Barcelona, and Rome.  All three of these countries are against the war but their leadership supports the U.S. It was the biggest peace demonstration of British history and Berlin's largest demonstration since World War II (at least 300,000). Barcelona, a city of 1.5 million, had 1.3 million protestors. The Chicago Tribune headline blared, "War protests in Europe draw millions" (2/16). Australia's protests were the largest in 30 years. 

Overall, these coordinated protests involved over 4 million people in over 600 towns and cities, including Mexico, Canada, Russia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Protests soon followed in Egypt, where freedom of assembly is normally severely restricted. On March 2 protests took place in India, Japan and Pakistan.  

In addition to the street protests, poets were taking the stage, billing Feb. 12 as "A Day of Poetry Against the War." Their web site, poetsagainstthewar.org began after Laura Bush realized they might disrupt an event she had planned for them. Some students took off school to "push for peace." (WashPost, 2/22). 

The Chicago Tribune's John Kass, (1/23/03) prior to the State of the Union, complains that many Americans aren't paying attention: "We hesitate.  Most of us skip over stories about UN Weapons Inspectors because they're so complicated, unresolved, and we don't read them all the way through feeling powerless against the inertia of war.  We hold our children close.  We worry about smallpox vaccines." 

March 15 was another big protest day with 50,000 in D.C.  March 17 was marked by candlelight vigils in thousands of towns and cities across the world. Also see photos on March 19 protests around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,917552,00.html

Among those criticizing the protestors was President Bush, saying, "Democracy is a beautiful thing...Evidently some in the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace; I respectfully disagree" (NYTimes, 2/18).  The Christian Science Monitor published a rare anonymous op-ed from an Iraqi worried that anti-war protests might succeed.  Similarly, "watching anti-war protests with pain" allowed Iraqi refugee and doctor Adil Awadh (Tribune, 3/9) to fear that "Hussein's despotic regime" might stay in power.  He is a member of the opposition INC.  A Washington Post commentator wrote "Immorality on the March" (2/19). Michael Kelly responds to the protestors of February, "To march against the war is not to give peace a chance.  It is to give tyranny a chance.  It is to gives the Iraqi nuke a chance.  It is to give the next terrorist mass murderer a chance.  It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishers of evil.  This cannot be the moral position." For much more editorial and columnist reaction to the countdown to war, see "Should We?/Editorial and Columnists" FAQ section.

The Washington Post details and provides the websites for active student groups both in favor of and against the war.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53786-2003Mar19?language=printer

Return to Top

3.  Who were the American protestors inside Iraq? 

Protests in Baghdad by Americans are even getting attention in the NYTimes, albeit in a dismissive tone.  Voices in the Wilderness founder Kathy Kelly (at left), has been in Baghdad since October 24 as part of the Iraq Peace Team.  "I come from the U.S., and my primary responsibility is to speak out against...my government inflicting punishment unto death upon hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under the age of 5." Kelly was fined $10,000 by the U.S. Treasury Department for traveling to Iraq; the fine was paid "with the equivalent of prewar, pre-sanctions Iraqi dinars"--today worth barely $3.

Kelly's "A Witness to War" Kelly op-ed appeared in the January 2003 Progressive. She also describes how she "talked myself into pacifism." On December 27, a Christian Peacemaking Team of Quakers, Mennonites, Catholics, and others left Chicago for Iraq as "instruments of peace" or "unarmed soldiers." Kelly and others say that they are planning on "staying here even if George Bush dispatches the bombers and the tanks, and the troops."  Some acted as human shields, "hunkering down in hospitals, water-treatment plants, and other civilian installations to dissuade U.S. commanders from targeting those facilities" (Post, 1/14/03). About 100, including 18 Americans come into Iraq.  By February there were over 200 human shields "taking a stand."  Responded Rumsfeld, "Deploying human shields, is not a military strategy.  It's murder, a violation of the laws of armed conflict, and a crime against humanity.  "  Human Rights Watch, a group based in New York, condemned Hussein for encouraging the human shields and Rumsfeld for being willing to attack targets were they were stationed.  (Wash Post, 2/24). 

By early March, two weeks before war, many human shields stated to leave their water treatment plants, oil refineries, and power plants. 

Kelly describes "articles characterizing us...as an ineffective group of naive people in the thrall of dictatorship belittle six years of hard work on the parts of hundreds of people who've done their best to speak truthfully about their experiences in nonviolently resisting US-led UN economic sanctions."  Also see "Sanction FAQ" section and Post-War Articles.

Three weeks before war Kelly's "Between Heaven and Hell" concluded, "Vulnerable, unarmed, without the slightest desire to bring harm to American people, a haven and heaven of innocence dwells in neighborhoods, throughout village and cities, on this side--on the cusp of heaven and hell" (Common Dreams, 2/28/03). In the 48 hours before war, about 100 "human shields" remained in Iraq, criticized by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).  He felt they should be dealt with "in the most severe terms.  It's a regime that should never be shielded."  Responded a protestor in Iraq from Hoboken, N.J., "I'm not a supporter at all of the Saddam regime' (Wash Post, "'Human Shields', Armed With Prayers" , 3/18). 

In The Christian Science Monitor's "Few but proud: US antiwar activists in Iraq",  peace activist "Iraq Peace Team" member Cynthia Banas says, "Some people just can't understand how I can go to Iraq..but if you can risk your life in a war [as a soldier] why can't you risk your life for peace?" BBC has a series of moving photos of regular Iraqi civilians.  Also see "Sanctions" FAQ section. and "Against War/Sanctions" Web Sites.

Others opposed to war took a different approach in getting to Baghdad. A convoy of anti-war activists took a two week bus trip from London.

Return to Top

4.  Did Church officials have an impact on the war?  What is a "just war"?
The 16 million strong southern Baptist leadership and some evangelicals are the exception, supporting a "just war".  In general, however, church officials from the U.S. and around the world have consistently been against a war for moral and practical grounds. Unlike Vietnam, there was widespread opposition well before the war began. Even moderate churches are taking up the anti-war cause.

Even as early as September, the Vatican sought UN approval and said, "obviously, we cannot combat evil with another evil" (Washington Post, 9/12/02). On December 9, The Boston Globe op-ed wondered, "Is Bush deaf to church doubts?".

In February Pope John Paul sent a special envoy to meet with Hussein and carried a message for peace and cooperation with the UN. In March the 82 year old Pope reiterated his desire to avoid conflict.  A cardinal and papal envoy met with the President in early March to warn Bush that war would be "unjust" and "illegal" and to express that "the pope is very, very, very worried" of war and of the consequences of war on the Iraqi people.  Responded Ari Fleisher, "The President thinks that from a moral point of view that the worst thing that could happen is for the American people to be attacked again" (Chicago Tribune, 3/6). Earlier, in a Christmas message,  again spoke out and urged no war.

The principles of a just war, the New York Times reminded us (3/6, "Catholics Debating:  Back President or Pope on Iraq?") were developed by Saint Augustine in the fifth century "and expanded upon by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th.  For a war to be considered just, the article explained, it must meet the following criteria:  have a just cause, meaning that it confronts a danger beyond question; be declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people; be driven by the right intention, not ulterior economic or other motives; be the last resort; be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved; and have a reasonable chance of success." Echoed a top Vatican official, A "preemptive war against Iraq is not just...unilateralism is not acceptable...We cannot think that there is a universal policeman to take a stick to those who behave badly."  A war could lead to "a type of anti-Christian, anti-western crusade." In early January the Pope was "deeply worried" about war and on January 13 he described war as "a defeat for humanity."   One week later the Vatican sponsored meeting of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, Zoroasters, and Sikhs.  Their statement concluded, "Opting for peace not not mean passive acquiescence to evil or compromise of principle" (NYTimes, 1/20/03).  Plato, St. Augustine, Hobbes, and Locke are described in "moral conflicts" a few weeks before the war began. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4619653-103681,00.html The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meeting in mid-November, voted 228-14 to conclude: "We find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature."  They are "deeply concerned" about the use of preventative wars "to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction."  There are over 65 million Catholics in the U.S., the largest of any group in a nation of about 300 million.  Return to Top The majority of American church leaders who have spoken out are not pacifists, but think war now is wrong because it does not meet the standard of a just war. As Churches continue to lobby, samples include:  "I can't believe our country is seriously considering a pre-emptive strike without international support", and "I'm horrified our president would consider a pre-emptive strike as a way to peace."

Former Congressman from Pennsylvania and now the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, Bob Edgar (below right) traveled to Iraq as a "humanitarian inspector."  He concluded his Washington Post's  "A Prayer for Diplomacy" (Post Op-ed, 12/28/02), "People of faith are remembering and acting upon the call to seek peace and pursue it.  We hope and pray President Bush will join us."  He added, "We in the religious community are asking the administration why it has done little else to help ensure that the weapons inspectors succeed.  We are concerned that the administration's continued bellicose threats of war, the visible buildup around Iraq, and the intensifying bombings in the north and south "No-fly zones" have worked against successful weapons inspectors...Thousands of people across the country--many who have never participated in antiwar demonstration before--continue to protest publicly..."  Later, from Baghdad, Edgar said, "In the U.S. we see often pictures of the leadership of Iraq...in very negative terms.  We rarely see the picture that we saw of children and women and those that will be most severely impacted" if a war began.  "We came to see the faces of the Iraqi people...This is the birthplace of Abraham, father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam...A war with Iraq will make the U.S. less secure...Pre-emptive war is immoral and illegal...While the inspectors are going on, we would hope that negotiations would also be going on between the two governments."

The New York Times reported on December 1 that "in an unprecedented show of unity, Chicago's top Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders have drafted a joint letter urging President Bush to avoid war with Iraq."  Some of these religious leaders had supported the first Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan (Chicago Tribune, 11/30/02). It was the first public statement on a national issue since the group was formed in 1984.  The religious leaders commented, "We still lack compelling evidence that Iraq is planning to launch at attack...We believe that there is ample time and latitude for pursuing alternative that could avoid warfare, saving untold thousands of lives."  Others continue to speak out after October Congressional authorization of war. Even Bush's own Methodist Church leaders conclude that an attack is "without any justification."  "Iraq hasn't wronged us," says Unitarian Methodist Church leader, as part of a National Council of Churches TV commercial in early February, assisted by the group "Win Without War." Bishop Melvin G. Talbert decided to make the commercial only after the President refused to meet with the group (WashPost, 1/31/03). 

In mid-February senior church leaders including President Bush's Episcopalian Bishop voiced strong opposition to war and frustration in not being able to meet with the President.  Church leaders were worried about a war's impact on the Iraqi civilian population, the increased in terrorist attacks, and worsening of Arab-Israeli relations (Wash Post, 2/15). 

Then in March the Episcopal bishop of Washington and national leaders of Methodists, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches proposed a 6-point plan "to defeat Saddam Hussein without war."  The plan included establishing a UN tribunal, coercive disarmament, post-Hussein government run by the UN, humanitarian aid for Iraqis, and establish of a Palestinian state. 

Also see "Allies" FAQ section, especially on Britain, # 4.

Return to Top

5.  How were local and state governments speaking out against the war?
Antiwar sentiment is growing in town, city, county and state governments, including 90 governments representing 13 million people, as of mid-February.  When the Chicago City Council passed its resolution 46-1, Alderman Joe Moore commented, "Ours reflects a growing ambivalence, even opposition, to a military invasion of Iraq...There's a strong feeling here that the president has not made the case that we should depart from 200 years of history of not launching a preemptive strike against another nation."