From: Paul Perkins
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1:31 PM
To: 'Levin, Senator (Levin)'
Subject: Thank You

Thank You for your response.

Please continue to voice the peoples opions against unilateral action.

Also please keep in mind the following

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. 
         ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.  

Sincerley

Paul Perkins

 


-----Original Message-----
From: Levin, Senator (Levin) [mailto:senator@levin.senate.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1:15 PM
To: Paul Perkins
Subject: Your concerns regarding Iraq


Dear Friend:

	Thank you for contacting me about possible military action against Iraq. 

	As you may know, on October 11, 2002, I voted against Senate Joint Resolution 46 (P.L.107-243) authorizing the use of U.S. armed forces against Iraq.  This resolution was signed into law by the President on October 16, 2002.  I opposed the President's resolution because it authorized the unilateral use of U.S. armed forces without specific authorization by Congress, while the alternative I offered called for Congress to remain in session in case it was necessary to consider a proposal from the President to act unilaterally (i.e., without U.N. Security Council authority) if the Security Council failed to act.   

	My alternative resolution, which was defeated, urged the U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding unconditional access for U.N. inspectors to any site in Iraq and authorized the use of necessary force by U.N. member states to enforce the resolution if Iraq refused to comply.  My resolution also authorized the use of the U.S. armed forces against Iraq pursuant to such a U.N. Security Council resolution.

	I offered the alternative resolution because I believe it is extremely important that any use of military force against Iraq is carried out on a multilateral basis, with the authority of the United Nations.  I would not, of course, give the United Nations a veto over the use of our military forces, but I would have required a second vote in Congress before the U.S. proceeded unilaterally if the U.N. did not authorize member states to use force.  

	There is no question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq poses a threat to his neighbors, the region, the United States and the international community in general.  The only question is how to deal with this threat most effectively.  I believe the President's approach and the resolution supporting it sent a mixed message to the U.N.  I thought all of our efforts should be focused on uniting the world community, not threatening to divide it if the U.N. did not agree with us.

	I was pleased that the President decided to take the case for military action against Iraq to the United Nations, and that the U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution to send weapons inspectors to Iraq.  The U.N. resolution demands that the international team of weapons inspectors be given unfettered access to any suspect site in Iraq to bring about the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

	The U.N. arms inspectors started their inspections in Iraq under the new enhanced inspection regime on November 25, 2002. The arms inspectors are scheduled to provide interim progress reports on the inspections on January 27, 2003.  The January 27 reports will be the first of a number of such reports that are provided to the Security Council.  

	Absent any dramatic development, such as the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or the ending of Iraqi cooperation with the weapons inspectors, the weapons inspections should be allowed to run their course.  I also believe that the U.S. intelligence community should enhance its cooperation with the U.N. inspectors by providing specific and targeted intelligence relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.  Before the members of the U.N. Security Council and the international community in general are asked to support the use of military force against Iraq, they should be presented with clear evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or is impeding the U.N. arms inspections.

	I continue to be concerned about the potential negative consequences of taking unilateral action, i.e. without the broad backing of the international community through the U.N.  Among such potential consequences would be the loss of the use of bases in the region with the attendant increase in the risk of casualties to our service men and women; the reduced contribution of nations in a post-conflict environment; and, in the longer term, an increased terrorist response against the U.S.; and reduced international cooperation in the war against al Qaeda.

	Again, I appreciate your contacting me with your views.

	Best wishes.

	Sincerely,

	Carl Levin