The following open letter to Congress is part of a blogburst, a simultaneous, cross-linked posting of many blogs on a single theme. For a guide to other letters in this blogburst, go to The Open Letters BlogBurst Index.
We all recall the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes, in which the inhabitants of a town pretend to see a gorgeous suit of clothing on their gullible (and quite naked) monarch, for fear of being thought fools for dissenting. Until, of course, a young child declares the obvious: “but he hasn’t got any clothes on!”
Our own nude emperor has been proudly displaying the fine velvet lining and hand-stitched embroidery on his custom tailored case for invading Iraq, and it seems that even many Democrats have decided, for fear of being thought fools in November, that they can see it clearly enough. The more courageous hedge a bit: they can see it, but only if the UN sees it as well. Perhaps we need an amendment to lower the minimum age of senators.
We now contemplate an unprecedented act of aggression — not, as President Bush has termed it, a “preemptive attack,” which describes a military strike prompted by the knowledge that one’s enemy is poised himself to attack — but a “preventative attack” designed to ensure that even the possiblity of future threat is eliminated. The grotesque precedent set by this innovation in international law should be too obvious to require elaboration.
There are also serious and unanswered questions which are perhaps best summarized in the query: “to what shall we change the Iraqi regime?” To ask the question is, I think, to underscore how very presumptuous it is to think that we will control the denouement of an invasion as easily as our military power will surely shape the opening act. And yet, if one thug who is, at least, conventionally power hungry, is so ominous that we cannot trust the same logic of deterrence that served us so well during the cold war, how can we think it desirable to open the door to dozens of more fanatical thugs, scrambling to control the same technology and resources?
I must believe that there are men and women of conscience in Congress who would like to speak their true minds, to say that they find the prospect of militarily induced “regime change” both morally problematic and pragmatically unwise. If you are among them, this is the time to speak. Those in the mainstream who we might have expected to oppose war have thus far appeared so cowed that we cannot know how popular opinion might shift if arguments against military action were advanced as vigorously as those for it are pressed. In the end, however, that should not matter. It would be unconscionable to remain silent in the face of something as momentous as a groundless war in order to preserve a political seat. The virtue of representative government pressed by the authors of The Federalist was precisely that wise men and women were to recognize a higher obligation than to follow the most recent poll results, the “temporary passions” of intemperate majorities. It is possible, at least in the short term, that risking American troops and the stability of the region, to say nothing of the many thousands of civilian casualties protracted urban fighting would produce, will be looked upon favorably in the voting booth come November. But your oath of office is not to a ballot, and your honor and integrity do not renew themselves in four year cycles. Stand now for reasoned deliberation, rather than a reckless rush to war, and those who seek to exploit America’s fear and anger for their own political advantage will tar you with vicious phrases — “unpatriotic” or “appeaser.” But history will remember you in the manner you deserve: as a good steward of a free republic. You will also have, for what it’s worth, my gratitude, my respect, and my vote.
Regards,
Julian Sanchez
