Arguments Against War: Talking Points for Letter Writers

In the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, many Americans find their feelings of sadness and shock mixed with anger and support for war. We in the peace community believe that the war that Bush has undertaken is misguided at best. In order to reach our fellow citizens, and ultimately our elected officials we would like to encourage you to write letters, both to newspapers and to the President, our Congressional representatives and senators. Your letters can make a big difference, so please take just a few minutes to share your thoughts.

You know best why you oppose the war, so we encourage you to put your feelings in your own words. Below are several points that we feel might be good to make, along with addresses to send your letters to.

1. Some, but not all of us oppose war, all war, on principle.

The pacifist response that war violates basic ethical precepts—concepts like “Thou shalt not kill”—holds significant weight for many. If you are in this camp, you might feel called to express this perspective. On the other hand, most people, including many anti-war activists, are not pacifists, or strict pacifists. It’s very important to reach people who believe that some violence, particularly violence used in self-defense, is legitimate, and convince them that this particular use of violence is not appropriate. The rest of the reasons listed, therefore, are designed to make the case to non-pacifists.

2. The heinous crimes of September 11 were just that, crimes, not acts of war.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were horrible crimes, and those perpetrators who did not die in the attacks must be brought to justice. This should be done under the rule of law, both national and international. There has been no allegation, however, that Afghanistan, or any other country was involved in planning or implementing the attacks.

There therefore was no act of war committed against the United States. For us to launch a war against Afghanistan is a violation of international law. According to authors Michael Albert and Stephen Shalom:

“International law provides a clear recourse in situations of this sort: present the matter to the Security Council, which is empowered under the UN Charter, the fundamental document of contemporary international law, to take appropriate action. The Security Council has met and unanimously denounced the terrorist attacks, passing a strong resolution. But the Security Council resolution did not—despite what Washington might claim—authorize the use of force, and especially not a unilateral use of force. The resolution ends by saying that the Council ‘remains seized of the matter,’ which as former UN correspondent Phyllis Bennis notes, is "UN diplo-speak" meaning that "decision-making remains in the hands of the Council itself, not those of any individual nation." To be sure, the UN Charter allows countries to act in self-defense which would permit the United States to shoot down a terrorist plane, for example. But it has long been clear UN doctrine that self-defense does not allow countries to themselves launch massive reprisal raids -- precisely because to allow such reprisals would lead to an endless cycle of unrestrained violence.”

While we all agree that horrible crimes have been committed, the guilt of bin Laden and al Qaida has not been established. Perhaps our government does have such evidence, but if so, they should do what we would expect any foreign government to do if it wanted to extradite a U.S. resident, that is, present some evidence with the request for extradition. We Americans who are being asked to fight in and pay for a war should also be able to see the evidence.

Clearly, none of us are fans of Osama bin Laden, and we should make this clear. We still believe, however in the rule of law, innocence until proven guilty and other protections that our constitution and international law provide.

Finally, it does not follow that because we have accused bin Laden of responsibility we should attack Afghanistan. The U.S. has not accused the government of Afghanistan of organizing or even being behind the 9-11 attacks. None of the alleged hijackers was an Afghani. Why are we making war against Afghanistan?

Even before September 11, Afghanistan was in terrible shape, suffering from more than two decades of war and four years of severe drought. Millions of people there are displaced and millions more are dependent on food shipments to avoid starvation. Just the threat of U.S. bombing caused international relief agencies to remove their personnel, and now most of the food convoys have been halted. Even if our bombing were so precise that no civilians would be killed (which, of course, it isn’t) somewhere between five and seven million Afghanis are threatened with starvation as a result of our attack. This is a humanitarian disaster of the first order.

The Bush administration has engaged in a callous propaganda ploy, claiming to be feeding the starving Afghanis through air-drops. On closer examination, it turns out that the approximately 35,000 meals they are providing daily meet less than one half of one percent of the need.

Both Oxfam International and Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the Nobel Prize-winning relief group, have condemned the food drops as counterproductive propaganda ploys. While food drops are generally an inefficient way to feed large numbers of people, in this case, because so much of Afghanistan is land-mined, it is actually very dangerous to the intended recipients.

5. This war will reduce the security of U.S. citizens.

The U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan is breeding widespread resentment throughout the Islamic world. It will only help the extremists’ recruitment efforts and legitimate, in the eyes of many, future attacks that take the lives of innocent Americans as simply retaliation. As columnists Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman put it:

“The policy of bombing increases the risk of further terrorism against the United States. This is an uncontested claim.

“The Bush administration along with virtually every commentator acknowledges that the U.S. bombing and military response is likely to worsen the possibility of additional terrorism on U.S. soil.”

To enhance our security, we need to ask the question “why are we so hated by so many around the world?” While few would sanction or support the actions of those who attacked the WTC and Pentagon, the charges leveled against the U.S. by Islamic extremists do resonate with many, many people. Our current actions are only exacerbating this situation. We would benefit, instead, from a thoroughgoing re-examination of the U.S. role in the world.

6. But we’ve got to do something, don’t we?

We certainly shouldn’t turn our backs on the horrific crimes that were committed Sept. 11. No one is suggesting that. We need to take action to bring the perpetrators to justice in accordance with international law. Mokhiber and Weissman suggest the following:

“Reviewing the principles of international law, Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, urges the United States to:

* Request the establishment of an international tribunal with authority to seek out, extradite or arrest and try those responsible for the September 11 attack and those who commit or are conspiring to commit future attacks

A fair trial of bin Laden -- one perceived as fair not just in the United States but around the world -- is essential to avoid turning him into a martyr and worsening the spiral of violence.”

Clearly, we need to rely more on diplomacy and less on acts of violence. World peace would benefit from the United States slowing down, clarifying our goals, and taking steps to assure that justice is served, rather than killing more innocent people.

Members of the Bush administration have declared that this “War Against Terrorism” will be a virtually permanent war, like the Cold War, lasting many years, if not decades. They’ve already pushed through major increases in the already bloated military budget, and the stocks of military contractors are going through the roof at a time when the rest of the stock market is sagging. We must communicate that this war without end is unacceptable to us. We must instead urge our government to pursue justice and peace.