Hussein's Top Goal Is Saving Position, Not Fighting United States

Saddam Hussein is an evil ruler, no doubt about it. But that is not enough for a war. Other heads of state have been evil, including some who have been allies of the United States, including Saddam during Iraq's war with Iran.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But that is not enough for a war, either. Many other nations have them, too, including U.S. allies and including both Israel and ourselves.

The question is what Saddam's evil portends for the world, whether there is an imminent and urgent threat from his weapons and, for people of faith, what response would be both effective and consistent with Christian ethics.

Saddam Hussein's only consistent commitment has been to the preservation of his own power.

Those who minimize his evil are morally irresponsible; those who underestimate his willingness to commit mass murder are making a serious mistake. But what's our best response? What action would protect lives in danger rather than threaten even more lives and potentially make things worse?

Christian peacemaking calls us to seek alternatives to war in resolving conflicts. There are alternative means to contain Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction. What is needed is a "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy. U.N. Security Council resolutions have called for the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons along with ballistic missiles in Iraq.

The expressed willingness of Iraq to allow the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors should be welcomed and tested rather than dismissed. We should cooperate with the United Nations in enforcing these resolutions through effective and comprehensive weapons inspections.

But the incentive should be a gradual lifting of sanctions and a pledge of no military attack if Iraq really cooperates. This combination would strengthen the containment of Saddam Hussein without the risks and costs of military attack and provide a reason for him to comply. Saddam and his Iraqi regime must indeed be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, but it should be done without war.

Neither international law nor Christian "just war" doctrine allow preemptive military action by one state against another.

Iraq has not attacked the United States, and it has not been credibly implicated in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Nor has a clear and convincing case been made that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are an immediate or imminent danger to other countries in the surrounding region or the world.

The U.N. charter and international law only allow for individual states to go to war in situations of self-defense after an armed attack.

And in both law and just war doctrine, there are scrupulous conditions even for an act of self-defense.

The international community can either unite in an effective strategy to isolate, contain, disarm, and ultimately undermine the brutal and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can simply agree to the war agenda of the world's last remaining superpower. As for the reasonable goal of "regime change," the Iraqi people themselves must create the nonviolent civil resistance within their country to help achieve that goal.

The next several months will show what lessons we have learned from Sept. 11, 2001, as the U.S. government and the United Nations determine their course of action in Iraq.

Our choices include the rule of law or the habit for war, unilateral decisions or collective action, effective containment or unpredictable escalation.

It is a time for just peacemaking instead of unjust war-making.

Jim Wallis
Washington, D.C.

Editor's Note: The length rule was waived. Jim Wallis, a notable writer and activist, is appearing at Duke University's Bryan Student Center at 7:30 p.m. tonight to discuss implications of U.S. intervention in Iraq.