|
Dear Donna,
In the November 5 election, about 58,000 people in the Tenth Congressional
District voted to send me to Congress. Hundreds of people inside and outside
the Tenth Congressional District enthusiastically supported my campaign for
Congress, motivated in large part by my clear opposition to a unilateral war
against Iraq to force regime change. I expressed my views on the war in a
Washington Post op-ed piece, which is appended to this message for your
convenience.
These folks recognized that, if you're opposed to something, or in favor of
something, you've got to put your muscle (and your money) where your mouth
is. Talk is cheap. For someone to say, "I want to protest but I don't want
to get involved in politics," is nonsense. Protest IS politics, and protest
is more effective when it is aimed at influencing the regular political
process.
I applaud your efforts to encourage people to express their opposition to an
ill-conceived war through the ballot box at the upcoming municipal
elections. Please let me know how I can help.
Hank
----- Washington Post article follows ---------------
Washington Post
Tuesday, September 17, 2002; Page A21
As a Democratic candidate for Congress in this season of war talk against
Iraq, I deplore the failure of my party to raise its voice more clearly on
issues of foreign policy and national security.
I believe, along with almost every voter I talk to in the well-educated and
independent northern suburbs of Chicago, that unilaterally starting a war
against Saddam Hussein is wrongheaded. President Bush's speech last week to
the United Nations appears to offer a better approach: acting only in the
context of broad international support to enforce specific U.N. inspection
mandates. But the subsequent rhetoric of the administration suggests that it
continues to contemplate unilateral military action to force regime change
-- regardless of what the United Nations decides, and regardless of what
action the Iraqi government takes.
Too many Democrats, while questioning the timing and the motivation for
launching an attack, shrink from challenging the underlying premises of the
administration's bellicose posture. Some other opinion leaders, mostly
outside the ranks of Democratic officeholders and candidates, have begun to
crystallize the arguments against unilateral action: no justification
exists; an attack would cause a reaction that would threaten Israel's
existence; it would undermine America's ability to lead international
opinion; it would violate international law; it could mire the United States
in a nasty, prolonged conflict; it would profoundly destabilize
international relations to the detriment of U.S. interests because it would
stimulate a rush to develop weapons of mass destruction to deter future
U..S.
action.
Unfortunately, Democratic Party pollsters and political strategists caution
us candidates that we should not talk about foreign policy but instead focus
on domestic issues. The national leaders of my party seem tongue-tied when
it comes of matters of war and peace.
Of course we should talk about domestic issues, but we cannot abandon the
foreign policy realm to the right wing of the Republican Party without
undermining our claim to be elected to frame national policy. Foreign policy
matters, regardless of what polls tell us about the level of public interest
in the subject. We should have learned from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
that America cannot isolate itself from ugliness that arises halfway around
the globe, and that emphasis on sophisticated technology in strategic
weapons and intelligence systems will not deter those who wish us ill.
Unilaterally starting a war to drive Saddam Hussein from power will not win
the war against terrorism; it will undermine it.
Consider the impact of the United States unilaterally starting a war to
drive Saddam Hussein from power. Any national leadership fearful that it
might incur the enmity of this or a future U.S. president will ask itself,
"Am I next? What should I do to defend myself?" Two strategies provide
answers. If it has the resources, it will invest in nuclear weapons and
other weapons of mass destruction to deter U.S. attack. Becoming a nuclear
power or gaining the ability to use chemical or biological weapons would
provide a shield against U.S. unilateralism because it would deter U.S.
action against that country.
Not every country fearful of U.S. power has the resources to "go nuclear,"
of course. For those less-advantaged regimes, terrorism is an attractive
alternative. Terrorism is an inexpensive, if crude, means of equalizing the
balance of coercive power. State-sponsored terror can cause the United
States to close embassies, withdraw forces and emphasize force protection
rather than more aggressive military strategies.
Elected officials and candidates for public office have a responsibility to
help voters understand what is important and what alternatives exist for
dealing with problems. They do not meet their responsibility merely by
reading polls and amplifying existing public opinion. They certainly do not
meet their responsibility by pulling their punches because they fear the
opposition will attack them.
Competing visions of American foreign policy exist: engagement,
multilateralism and pursuit of civil society on the one hand, and
unilateralism and emphasis on military coercion on the other. In the days
that remain before the election, I intend to raise my voice in support of
the first vision -- and against a unilateral, preemptive attack against
Iraq. I wish I had more company.
The writer is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
in the 10th District of Illinois. He is on leave as dean and professor at
the Chicago-Kent College of Law, the law school of the Illinois Institute of
Technology.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
Henry H. "Hank" Perritt, Jr.
Perritt for Congress, Inc.
22 Green Bay Road
Winnetka, IL 60093
(847) 784 8200
fax (847) 784 8093
email: hperritt@hotmail.com
web: www.perrittforcongress.com
|
