PRIORITIES FOR A RESOLUTION

“He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by nonviolently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

Congress will overwhelmingly approve a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. forces against Iraq. Republicans want such a vote quickly to show support for President Bush; Democrats want a vote quickly to remove the subject as a campaign issue. The question that remains is whether Congress will modify the president’s proposed resolution, a question that presents a chance to demonstrate to the American public and the world that U.S. leaders understand the enormity of what they are supporting.

The order of events to be made clear in the resolution is in the quotation above. Saddam Hussein is not the direct oppressor of the United States, but he is clearly now and has been historically an oppressor of people living in Iraq, especially the Kurds, and in the larger Middle East.

The nonviolent means that should arise first is broad international support for weapons inspections and the subsequent dismantling of both weapons of mass destruction and their systems of production. This might be accomplished with and encourage broad international encouragement for political opposition to Saddam Hussein’s regime. A commitment to achieving these ends while avoiding war requires the inspectors and disarmers to be exceptionally thorough. It requires not just dozens of inspectors but hundreds, as Sen. Susan Collins suggested in a question to Secretary Rumsfeld at Senate hearings Thursday, so that the United States had “unfettered, rigorous inspections before resorting to military force.”

Congress cannot help but feel the uneasiness in the public about the prospects of another war in Iraq. Intelligence reports, concluding that nations such as Iran are more dangerous to the United States and that no threat from Iraq is imminent, support that uneasiness. And so does the proposed resolution, which in its 16 paragraphs of reasons for the use of force against Iraq fails to mention an imminent threat.

A lack of imminent threat is not a reason to reject the resolution; it is an opportunity to insist that the resolution describe a determination to seriously attempt nonviolent means before resorting to violent ones.

Congress also cannot avoid the aftermath of what its members will authorize. Either the successful dismantling of Iraqi weapons and diminution of Saddam Hussein’s influence or a post-war Afghanistan-style international occupation of Iraq would suffice to push current Middle East political arrangements off a cliff. If part of the U.S. goal is to increase stability in the region, it should be resolved to stay as part of an international effort for as long as that takes – not to amass power but to see that it is passed on fairly.

The effort to avoid war, now and in the long term, will require more determination than to wage it. Congress can give the president’s resolution better perspective by being unafraid to support the use of force in Iraq but wholly determined to try everything else first.