Reaction to Mideast War

There are many sensible reasons for opposing the U.S. war with Iraq. The debate and the close vote in Congress demonstrated this. Unfortunately, discussion of the war often becomes “no blood for oil” and this is not sensible.

Even if the war were about oil, we might still be willing to fight to keep Iraq from raising world oil prices. Sure, rich Americans can afford to pay an extra 50 cents at the gas pump. But the Third World, much of which has barely enough to eat, cannot afford two effects of higher oil prices: steeply higher prices for food, and a worldwide recession that cuts the only chance they have to improve their lives. If we let Saddam Hussein have his way, we can expect a repeat of the 1970s, when oil powers impoverished the poor countries.

More important, though, is the good effect of the United Nations peacekeeping force. Following the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union are no longer enforcing discipline within what used to be their spheres of influence. Dictators around the world see this as a chance to start their own empires--Hussein is just the first to emerge.

If the U.N. does nothing in the Persian Gulf, other aggressive leaders will soon be engaged in a new arms race. George Bush has wisely seen that the U.N. is the proper counterpoise--not the U.S. acting unilaterally--and has decided to establish a precedent that will restrain future military adventures. The U.N. effort is thus an important step toward the safer, more prosperous world that will follow the Cold War.

JACK R. SANDERS, San Diego