George,

I applaud the Charlottesville City Council for its righteous stand against the invasion of Iraq.

Opponents say the council has no jurisdiction over this issue. I believe that it is the council's responsibility to promote the welfare of this city's inhabitants, and, given the huge impact this war of choice could have on the city, it would be negligent not to advocate for a peaceful resolution. First of all, President Bush's war will cost three times more than what states and localities need to recover from the worst fiscal crisis since the great depression. There will be even less money for education, health care, and other non-war purposes. Secondly, according to the CIA, an attack on Iraq is likely to increase the chances of a terrorist strike in the U.S. - Charlottesville is not immune. Thirdly, this war will claim the lives of Charlottesville family and friends. Not every national issue should be considered by council, but this one is potentially disastrous enough to warrant a position statement with the intent of influencing public debate and ultimately public policy. The council's resolution for peace is a significant gesture in support of human decency and international law, and one of the only ways that the council can act to protect Charlottesville residents from the dire consequences of this war of aggression.

The second issue at hand is whether council reached the right decision. Council is right to be skeptical of the war plans. If I am going to support a war it has got to be about self-defense in the face of an obvious and imminent threat. Why don't Iraq's neighbors want a war? The evidence of a serious threat just does not exist. President Bush's worry about a hypothetical threat some time in the future is a weak excuse and completely inadequate justification for causing the certain death of thousands of innocent people. Long-term threats require nonviolent diplomacy, not a jump to war.

Did you know that half of the Iraqi population is under the age of 15? As the father of a 2-year old, I could not be more repulsed by the idea of snuffing out the life of someone else's child. And for what? Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that world peace is at the end of this road, just more terrorist attacks, further restrictions on our civil rights, and the wasting of more life here and abroad.

People speaking against the peace resolution at the council hearing, including council member Schilling, confessed to not knowing enough to form an opinion about our President's war plans. He and a couple other people said something to the effect, "I don't know so I'm going to stay out of it, and the council and everyone else should too." To paraphrase the words of another - whatever happened to the idea of democracy based on the consent of an informed citizenry?

Enough has been said and written at this point that all citizens should be able to form an opinion - either give the President the benefit of the doubt and support him, or conclude that he has nothing but hot air and an itch to scratch. It is your moral and civic duty to have an opinion on this most critical issue. If, based on the historical record, you, like many people, possess a healthy skepticism towards the proclamations of our government leaders, then your moral compass is already pointing towards peace.

Ben Walter (electronic mail, February 14, 2003)