News: War in Iraq: California Responds (Special to the Santa Cruz Sentinel)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 8, 2007

WAR IN IRAQ: CALIFORNIA RESPONDS
(Special to the Santa Cruz Sentinel)

PALO ALTO - State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) wrote the following op-ed for the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

“The irony is striking. To its credit, the Sentinel’s editorial page is set aside for the editors and the public to express their opinions on a range of matters, large and small. Yet the Sentinel opposes letting California voters have their say on the most compelling issue of our times: the war in Iraq. Last week a majority of the California State Senate, myself included, voted to place a referendum on the war on the State’s February 2008 primary ballot. The goal is to give California voters a chance to express themselves on the conduct of the war in Iraq. If the California State Assembly and the Governor agree, we’ll have that opportunity. But the Sentinel frowns on legislative efforts to place a referendum on the war on our next statewide ballot. The Sentinel argues that the war in Iraq is a federal matter, rather than a matter of state concern. It’s a reasonable argument. Indeed, during my own career in state and local government, I’ve been cautious about weighing in on national or international issues. But California lives and California billions make this a California issue. The conduct of this war has had an undeniable impact on our state. Young men and women from California have given their lives, suffered the wounds and been called away from their families. Four years in, the California National Guard continues to serve. In fact, this past week marked the largest deployment of the California National Guard since the Korean War. Moreover, California taxpayers have contributed at least $40 billion to fund the war in Iraq –– funds I believe could have been spent more wisely and productively here at home. Indeed, the next time local residents are stuck in traffic, troubled by classroom cutbacks or frustrated by the high cost of housing, they might well ask if that $40 billion could have been put to better use here in California. As for the need to raise our voices here in California, consider the record of the past four years. When opponents of the war, myself among them, urged the President not to go to war, the President wouldn’t listen (see my March 10, 2003 letter to the President on my website). When critics of a failed policy pointed out the mismanagement of the war, the President wouldn’t listen. When the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (established by a Republican controlled Congress) urged a change in course, the President wouldn’t listen. When the President’s own Generals urged a serious reappraisal, the President wouldn’t listen. And when members of the President’s own party in Congress urged him to consider the facts on the ground and change his policy accordingly, the President wouldn’t listen. Nevertheless, the Sentinel argues that a statewide referendum on the war is “pointless”—in part, says the Sentinel, because “Californians’ disapproval of the war is already obvious to anyone who reads polls.” If only that were so. When the polls shifted, and a state and a nation that once approved of the war made their growing opposition clear, the President still wouldn’t listen. Maybe, just maybe, he’ll listen to millions of Californians when they arrive at the polls. Only time will tell. But until that time, I must respectfully disagree with the view of the Sentinel. And to the people I represent, I would offer this encouragement: Your vote is your voice. Let it be heard.” State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) represents the 11th State Senate District, which includes Santa Cruz. — Senator Simitian’s March 10, 2003, open letter on Iraq to President Bush, referenced above, is available on this site.

March 10, 2003

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to express my deep misgivings about the direction of U.S. policy toward Iraq.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, you spoke forcefully and persuasively of the need for “humility” in U.S. relations with other countries of the world. Respect for the views and interests of our friends and allies must be the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy if we are to succeed in our quest to promote democracy, free markets, and the rule of law around the world.

Regrettably, however, such respect has been lacking in this current crisis, and the price we are likely to pay for an excess of hubris is potentially immense. I urge you to work with vigor and determination to mend relations with our most trusted allies in Europe, with Russia, and with China to preserve the integrity and the utility of the UN system.

Precisely because we are the world’s premier power, with political, economic and military instruments that far surpass those available to any other country, our diplomacy must be measured, wise and generous.

I realize, of course, that the international community must be prepared to employ force, if necessary, to ensure that the Iraqi leadership complies with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein must be held accountable for his long-standing, willful defiance of the United Nations, his criminal misrule in Iraq, and his repeated attempts to subjugate his neighbors.

But any use of force against Iraq must be a last resort, once the UN Security Council has exhausted all other efforts to guarantee that country’s compliance. Only by exploring every avenue to resolve the current crisis short of war can we count on broad-based international support, as well as the requisite unity at home, to compel Iraq to disarm—by force of arms, if necessary.

Many Americans have doubts about the imminence of the threat that Iraq poses to the United States. At a minimum, it is incumbent upon you as commander-in-chief to articulate persuasively why Iraq constitutes such a challenge to American interests and to the security and well-being of the American people. Since you are asking the young men and women of our armed forces to place themselves in harm’s way, you must present a clear and compelling case for doing so—one that leaves no doubt as to the urgency of this task.

By its very nature, war is unpredictable. We cannot anticipate all its consequences. If the patient but firm application of pressure against Iraq has the potential to succeed—to result in that country’s surrendering its weapons of mass destruction—we must stay the course.

Mr. President, much has changed in the world since the attacks of September 11, 2001. We are justifiably engaged in a global campaign to disable terrorist groups and to disrupt their plans to attack us. Nothing must be allowed to divert our attention from this central task. Attacking Iraq now, before we have articulated a compelling case for taking such drastic action, will undermine the anti-terrorist campaign, breed resentment of the United States throughout the Muslim world, and destabilize the greater Middle East.

The time has not yet arrived to jettison diplomacy and embrace a military option. War is always the least best answer. Let us redouble our efforts—political, economic and diplomatic—to induce Iraq’s compliance with the will of the international community while, at the same time, striving to preserve regional peace and security.

Respectfully,

S. Joseph Simitian, Assemblymember
Twenty-First District

Related Pages: Press Releases

Search Joe's Website