I must object to your Feb. 2 editorial in support of an armed attack on Iraq.

Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein has displayed a history of human rights violations, but until the late 1980s the U.S. was willing to overlook these while the U.S. saw Iran as its major foe in the Persian Gulf. The current regime in Iraq is currently violating international agreements, especially in regard to inspections for weapons of mass destruction.

But beyond that, there are serious questions about any use of violence by the U.S. against Iraq.

First of all, the cause must be just. Maybe I’m thick, but I cannot ascertain what would be the purpose of an armed attack against Iraq. Is it to gain access to munitions sites for the U.N. inspection teams? Or to prevent Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction? Or for some other reason? This is not at all clear to me. Is it to you? And are any of these possible purposes sufficient to justify the use of massive violence?

Another condition for a justified war is that there be a probability of success. But just this weekend U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen stated that air attacks might not force Saddam Hussein to allow access to weapons sites. Why use violence if it is futile? Why risk the lives of civilians for no apparent reason?

Furthermore, according to just war moral theory, the party using violence must have legitimate authority. In this case the U.S. seems to be willing to go it alone —without the authority of the U.N. or any other international body.

Indeed, the U.S. seems to be moving toward bombing without the support of Iraq’s neighbors; note Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to allow the U.S. to use its airfields for bombing raids. Who then gave the U.S. this authority to unilaterally bomb Iraq?

But what is really troublesome is that the violence would probably be disproportionate to the end desired — and, according to an NBC-TV report, the U.S. is “resigned to major civilian casualties.”

There have been other statements that civilians might not be targeted directly, but this does not seem to rule out massive civilian deaths as “collateral damage.” But a dead civilian is someone’s brother, sister, mother, father, or child. And even if civilians are not directly targeted, massive civilian deaths are an affront to humanity and morally indefensible

Finally, what good would a bombing raid serve? The president and the U.S. administration seem to be unclear as to what the objective of an air strike would be. Would it just alienate the people of Iraq even more? Would it serve to create massive divisions in the Arab and Muslim worlds and set back the cause of peace even more?

Or is a bombing raid being planned because it appears that nothing else can be done and the U.S. doesn’t want to look less than all-powerful? Could the U.S. be planning to bomb Iraq just to show that it cannot be coerced by Saddam Hussein?

I am not persuaded that the bombing of Iraq would be just or morally right. How I wish our leaders would show a little more creativity. And how I hope that other citizens, especially people of faith, will resist the rush toward war.

John Donaghy

Lay campus minister

St. Thomas Aquinas Church and

Catholic Student Center