To the editor:

Attacking Iraq would possibly eliminate some weapons of mass destruction and possibly prevent the use of those weapons against Americans. But such an attack would certainly kill many Iraqis and Americans, feed the hatred, and create thousands of new terrorists even more willing to seek, make and use such weapons.

Consider Israel and Palestine. Israel attacks to prevent terrorism, Hamas attacks to resist the violence, etc. This cycle of violence is well known throughout history. From the outside, we know de-escalation is the solution.

Every conflict is unique, but whatever the motives — seeking justice, democracy or defense — violence is experienced by the other side as an atrocity. De-escalation requires one side to respond nonviolently to violence — a point the United States has made as an arbitrator.

But now that we are on the inside, we are caught just like all the others “defending themselves” but deepening the conflict. Instead of de-escalation, a pre-emptive war on Iraq will only be seen as domination — certainly not liberation.

Bush’s recent war plans have led to record high anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world. Implementing those plans would turn much of that sentiment into action; do we want more groups like al-Qaida?

Some say, “war is our only option.” Most of the world disagrees. More importantly, why pursue an “option” that provokes more than it prevents? History shows that reducing terrorism is not a matter of justification or self-defense; it is a matter of pursuing justice while avoiding violence.

David Malicky,

Lawrence