1. We need to focus our resources on terrorist groups. We've been in a war for over a year and evidence indicates we have made little headway against Al-Qaeda.

2. There is little evidence that Iraq has been a major supporter of terrorist groups. Certainly less so than allies such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

3. Attacking Iraq will almost certainly increase support for terrorist groups, as our saber rattling already has.

4. Iraq is not an immediate threat to the U.S. Whatever weapons they have, they have no delivery system remotely capable of delivering them on us. North Korea is probably closer to having nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a military dictator faced with strongly anti-American sentiment at home. China and Russia have nuclear weapons. They are not enemies now but who knows about the future. Saddam Hussein was not any enemy when we provided him support during the Iran-Iraq war. The Taliban was not an enemy when we supported them during the Russian-Afghan war. To try to preempt all future threats is hopeless and usually counterproductive.

5. If Saddam were ousted and replaced by a popularly elected government it would probably be strongly Islamic and anti-American.

6. War in Iraq could lead to destabilizing the whole region, including war between India and Pakistan, escalation of Israeli-Palestinian violence, a Kurdish uprising against Turkey and/or Iran, attempts to overthrow governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, etc.

7. Such events could disrupt world petroleum supplies with major economic consequences.

8. The doctrine of preemption, justifying unprovoked attacks on other countries, is a dangerous precedent and contrary to American traditions and values.

9. Large numbers of innocent people would be killed.

Paxton Marshall (electronic mail, November 21, 2002)