On January 18, 2003, MESJ co-sponsored a "Unite for Peace" rally in Salt Lake City, one of several such rallies held in cities across the United States and abroad to demonstrate against war in Iraq. During the rally, MESJ member John-Charles Duffy delivered this speech.

As you just heard, I'm here as a member of MESJ--Mormons for Equality and Social Justice. My organization has not yet adopted a position statement regarding war in Iraq, though we have expressed serious concerns about the war on terror, which are largely applicable to this conflict as well. So my remarks here today should not necessarily be understood as reflecting my organization's position but rather my own views as a concerned LDS citizen.

I'm speaking today out of anger, which I don't like to do. I tend to think that anger is counterproductive. But I'm angry. I'm angry because I do not understand why our government is determined to push us into war with Iraq, and I do not understand why so many of my fellow Americans are content to stand by and watch that happen. I will say this--and I'm a bit nervous about saying it, because I'm not sure how well it may go over with this particular crowd--but I am not a die-hard pacifist. Like Jimmy Carter, I believe war is by nature evil, but I also believe that there are times when it becomes a necessary evil. And I understand why Americans feel threatened by the suspicion that the Hussein regime is developing weapons of mass destruction. After September 11, Americans are feeling more vulnerable than they have in a long time; that's understandable. And despite the absence of a "smoking gun," I for one don't find it hard to believe that Hussein is developing and accumulating weapons in violation of UN mandate. I'm therefore bothered by what I perceive as the pussyfooting around of the United Nations. I would like to see the UN take a stronger line against Hussein's flouting of UN authority. I feel no need to whitewash or make excuses for the Hussein regime. Hussein is a dictator, and dictatorships are evil.

But. What our government doesn't seem to get, and what half of the people in this country don't seem to get, is that nothing I have just said justifies war. Even if we grant that Hussein is a serious, immediate threat--though the last I heard, the CIA didn't think he was, and was worried that he might become so if we provoked him--but even if we grant that Hussein is a threat, that would not justify a military offensive. I reject absolutely any notion of a "preemptive strike." As a Latter-day Saint, I embrace, as scripture, texts which explicitly condemn first strikes (3 Ne. 3:20-21; Morm. 4:1-4; cf. Mosiah 21:6-12, D&C 98:33-36). As a citizen, therefore, I cannot justify a military offensive against Iraq until and unless Iraq attacks first. For me, it's that simple.

As part of an address he gave in connection with the U.S. Bicentennial, back in 1976, LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball chastised Americans for being, in his words, "a warlike people." He said:

When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel--ships, planes, missiles, fortifications--and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus....perverting the Savior's teaching: "Love your enemies..." (Ensign [June 1976]: 4)

I cannot understand the high level of public support for a pre-emptive war against Iraq except as one more piece of evidence that Americans are, as Spencer Kimball said, a warlike people. And I suspect that our warlike response to the current situation has a lot to do with Americans feeling that a war against Iraq won't cost us very much. I suspect that Americans are imagining that a war in Iraq will be a repetition of the Gulf War: that with our superior technology, we'll sweep in, we'll kick Iraqi butt, and it'll all be over in a few days, with very few casualties, at least on our side (which is all we really care about when push comes to shove).

But I suggest that Americans ought to be asking themselves this: Do we feel strongly enough about this cause that we would be willing to launch war against Iraq, even if we knew that would mean thousands of Iraqi casualties? Are we willing to wage war if it means creating thousands, or tens of thousands, of Iraqi refugees? Are we willing to wage war if it means inflicting so much damage on Iraq's infrastructure that people go hungry? Or let's hit closer to home: Do we feel strongly enough about this cause that we would be willing to wage war even if it meant thousands of American casualties? Would we be willing to wage war if we knew that Hussein would use biological weapons against our troops, and that thousands of Americans would die horribly as a result? If Americans aren't willing to go to war in Iraq at that price--and I for one doubt that they are--then we shouldn't be doing it at all.

Of course, the comeback to this line of reasoning is to say: "You're being silly. We're willing to go to war in Iraq precisely because we're confident that the terrible things you've said aren't going to happen." But in that case, what we're saying is: We're willing to strike Iraq because we know that Iraq is too weak to strike back. That's not peacekeeping; that's not a just exercise of power. That's the morality of a bully.

War is not an acceptable response to the situation we currently face. If Iraq launches weapons against someone in an act of aggression, then I'm content to consider the option of war. But given the situation as it now stands, war is not an option. I confess that I have no idea what the solution is. But we have to find something else. We need to work with the United Nations; we need to bring international diplomats and strategists together to find another approach to this problem. A tough-minded approach. An effective approach. But not war.

I am not here expounding some utopian vision. I am not preaching a dreamy-eyed, "We are the World" kind of pacifism. Perhaps I should be. I come, after all, from a faith tradition that teaches me to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:39); that teaches me I should not return evil for evil (1 Thes. 5:15); that when attacked I should bear it patiently three times before taking up arms in my defense (D&C 98:23-31); a tradition that tells the story of a people who buried their weapons of war and then allowed themselves to be slaughtered rather than take them up again (Alma 24). Compared to all that, when I stand here and say, "We cannot go to war against Iraq unless Iraq attacks first"--that is hardly utopian. It is practical; it is sane. By contrast, given the situation as it currently stands, war against Iraq would be either insane or grossly immoral.