PERSPECTIVE ON THE GULF CRISIS : Town Meetings Warn Against War : A new senator brings an angry message from the heartland: Give other options a chance before spilling American blood.

As the clock ticks down to Jan. 15 and the Bush Administration prepares for war, I am leaving my home here to take office as a U.S. senator with a feeling of heavy responsibility. For the past month, I have traveled around the state holding town meetings about the Persian Gulf crisis. After listening to what many Minnesotans have to say, I believe I carry a clear message with me that Washington needs to hear.

The town meetings were remarkable; large crowds overflowed auditoriums in the cities of Minneapolis, Duluth, Rochester and St. Cloud and in the rural communities of Chisholm, Virginia and Marshall. The meetings obviously did not constitute a scientific opinion poll; they were more like a lightning rod that attracted those with strong feelings about our nation’s policy in the gulf. I can report that there are large numbers of such people. There is very strong opposition to the war option and that opposition comes from a broad cross-section of Minnesotans, all across the political spectrum; the hard-hats vs. college students conflict of the Vietnam era is not at all in evidence.

What has impressed me most are the moving statements by mothers and fathers of young men and women now on station in Operation Desert Shield and by Vietnam veterans, who carry the scars of our last undeclared war. In Duluth, the mother of a National Guardsman in Saudi Arabia expressed one overwhelming sentiment of those attending the meetings: We support our troops, but that support must not be confused with support for the Bush Administration’s policy.

Almost everyone who spoke in these meetings said that they supported President Bush’s originally announced objectives and what they thought would be a truly international effort to achieve them. Most are mystified by the abrupt switch away from containment and toward war and do not believe the President has made the case for that change.

Over and over, I heard echoes of the plea of a disabled Vietnam veteran at the Virginia town meeting: “Please, Senator, make sure that if we go to war, it’s for a principle.” There is widely shared skepticism that such a principle exists--and near unanimity that oil is not sufficient reason.

At each of the sessions, I was struck by the intensity of anger and distrust. Many people expressed outrage at the government’s failure to pursue policies to reduce our energy vulnerability. And lurking very near the surface is powerful class resentment. One Vietnam veteran demanded that if we go to war, we have “a real draft,” a “fair” one, with no deferments for college students and the rich. Especially in the predominantly blue-collar communities on the Iron Range, I kept hearing that the leaders in Washington who are deciding to go to war don’t have children in Saudi Arabia and don’t expect their families to experience any direct effects of the war.

I’ve come away from these meetings with a heightened awareness of what a war would mean to families and those we send to battle.

With my thoughts sharpened by what I heard, I am personally convinced that launching a war against Iraq in the present circumstances would be a terrible mistake. This would be basically an American war, not an international effort. We would suffer and inflict enormous loss of life, even under the most optimistic military scenarios. Our casualties would be heavily concentrated among low-income and minority servicemen and -women, and the impact would sorely affect these segments of our population. The war would be tremendously divisive domestically and impose huge financial costs on an already shaky economy. And it could lead to unpredictable and uncontrollable escalation in the form of terrorist attacks around the world, destruction of the gulf oil fields, and possibly an all-out war against Israel.

In the medium term, war would almost certainly unleash radical anti-American forces that would break up the coalition of Arab states now standing against Saddam Hussein’s expansionism, destabilize friendly regimes, encourage the proliferation of ever more deadly weapons and undo the tenuous military balance in the Middle East. Our troops could well be bogged down for years in a series of regional wars that would drain our resources. In the long term, this can only weaken both us and Israel, and destroy hope for a more stable and peaceful international order.

Very large, long-term interests of our country and the world are at stake in the decision we are about to make. Our options are not simply war or appeasement. The situation also offers great opportunities for addressing fundamental problems in the Middle East and for shaping a new international order. With our leadership and support, the United Nations could at last play a decisive role in resolving collective security problems through peaceful means. With our allies, we could hold the international coalition together behind the economic sanctions that are working and, when Iraq withdraws from Kuwait, begin negotiations under U.N. auspices on a new structure for controlling weapons of mass destruction and addressing the real economic and security needs of the region.

It is the mark of a great nation that it has the patience and conviction to pursue its highest goals. We stand on the brink of catastrophe if we allow domestic politics, self-imposed deadlines or military logistics to rush us into a war that no one wants and that even in victory will greatly damage our national interests. We will not lose face if we stay the course and prove that sanctions and diplomacy are a preferable alternative to war. That is what the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans at our town meetings were saying. As their senator, I will do everything I can to see to it that they are heard in Washington.