February 21, 2003
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
We are
writing on behalf of PSR’s 22,000 physician members and supporters united in
our deep concern with the administration’s rush to war with Iraq. PSR has
previously raised objections to unilateral, pre-emptive war with Iraq in a
full-page declaration published in the New York Times, Roll Call, and the
Nation; a copy is attached.
We fear that
a small circle with narrow perspectives is advising you, and that you have been
insulated from voices counseling patience, nonviolence and respect for
international law and institutions.
Accordingly,
we are writing to request a meeting with you personally, not with staff, as
soon as possible, to discuss our views on a potential war with Iraq.
It should go
without saying that we believe the regime of Saddam Hussein is exceptionally
brutal and antithetical to the interests of the Iraqi people, to the region and
to the world community as a whole.
Unfortunately,
however, that does not make it unique. Nor does it provide cause for the United
States to initiate a war against Iraq that is almost sure to inflict enormous
suffering on the Iraqi people and especially their children. A report from the UN says there may be
100,000 direct and 400,000 indirect casualties. The destruction of medical and
environmental health infrastructure in a war will aggravate these problems. The
Iraqi health system has been gravely weakened by years of war, worsened by
sanctions and the neglect of the regime.
We believe
that there are no grounds for launching a preemptive attack against Iraq. As
was discussed in recent Senate Foreign Relations hearings, there is no evidence
that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. The international inspections process is
working. Iraq is being disarmed. This process should be allowed to continue to
a successful conclusion, or until it is evident to all that the Hussein SaddamRegime
has broken off cooperation.
The United
States should offer its full, unconditional support to the inspections process,
not undermining it by regularly asserting that inspections by definition cannot
work. This should include the supply. to We believe our government
should provide to the
inspectors with all
intelligence and information concerning possible Iraqi possession of WMD that
you have at your disposal, so that they can do their job. This would be a more productive response
than repeatedly insisting that Iraq will have to be attacked regardless. Your. administration inappropriately works to de-legitimize it by the
argument that, if inspectors fail to find evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, then the inspections have failed.
This pre-judgment of the outcome of the inspections -- which implicitly
insists there are grounds for attack against Iraq irrespective of what the
inspectors discover, and irrespective of thetheof how the Iraqis respondresponse
Iraqi
to the inspectors' conclusions -- - all
which inhibits
the inspections' efficacy, and suggests an unalterable commitment to war.
We are firmly
opposed to any unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq, or
action that bypasses the UN Security Council.
ififIf
the twenty-first century is to be less marred by the carnage and brutality that
characterized the twentieth, it is vital that military power, when necessary, be exercised
with proportionality and maximum restraint, and with authorization by
legitimating international institutions. Any rush toward combat and its
resultant devastation, breaking treaties, only encourages other nations to do
the same.
We fear an environmental
catastrophe if the Hussein regime,, in
retreat under attack or facing its end, sets fire to oil wells and
intentionally spills oil. Combat in
this area also raises the horrible specter of the unleashing of weapons of mass
destruction in the region on the world – whether chemical, biological, or
nuclear, with severe consequences for all humanity. Beyond . these
immense acute dangers, any Iraqi survivors of the conflict, already compromised by
inadequate diets and healthcare, would be subject to long-term health costs
from a devastated post-war environment.
Compounded by injury and death from military action, the environmental health
consequences of war on a population whose health is already compromised by poor
diet and lack of healthcare could be catastrophic. As physicians we urge you to
take all this into account.
In addition, our homeland security will be
seriously compromised. We also believe, as the CIA has contended, that going to
war now will raise the risk of a terrorist attack on Americans at home or
abroad. The CIA has projected increased risks of terrorist attacks against the
United States in the event of war; common sense also suggests the risk, both
from Iraq or its agents, and from terrorists with no connection to Iraq, will
worsen.
War, then, is
not only morally wrong, but a real threat to our national security. This threat
to our national well-being is a foreseeable consequence to war, for which we
are certain you do not wish to be held accountable.
As
physicians, we endeavor first and foremost to do no harm. Secondly before before
beforewe
offer a treatment, we ascertain that all are aware of bothboth both
the probability of benefits and against the likelihood of untoward
complications. These are grave matters.
We would hope you would do the same and apprise us and the American people of
the potential negative outcomes and the costs both in terms of lives, as well
as the and funds, which will be diverted from health enhancing programs for the
citizens of the United States. As in
medicine it is crucial to have informed consent. We hope to meet with you in the coming days and weeks to discuss
these issues of critical concern... A President needs to listen as well as
speak.
Robert K
Musil, M.P.H., Ph.D. Robert Gould, M.D.
CEO and
Executive Director President
Physicians
for Social Responsibility Physicians
for Social Responsibility