When it comes to the Bush administration’s threat to wage war against Iraq, there’s one thing upon which local human-rights advocates agree: don’t get too hopeful that the Bushies will advance many alternatives. That, at least, seemed the general consensus at a Grassroots International (GI) forum Tuesday night.

To explore the possible war’s ramifications for the United States, the Jamaica Plain human-rights organization invited State Representative Byron Rushing (D–South End), Egyptian human-rights advocate Marlyn Tadros, Harvard public-health professor Miguel Hernan, GI director Kevin Murray, and moderator Rita Hamad, of the Harvard Society for Arab Students, to participate in a panel discussion. What emerged is that, while no one actually expects the Bush administration to halt its current call to arms against Iraq, everyone sees such an outcome as the wrong solution to the wrong equation.

Hernan, an epidemiologist who visited Iraq to study the effects of economic sanctions on children’s health after the Gulf War, made it clear that a war against Iraq doesn’t amount to a just war. The sanctions, after all, have left many Iraqi citizens suffering from hunger and malnutrition. They have thus served a valuable purpose in traumatizing the country and could offer an alternative to a military attack, especially since every reason that the Bush administration has provided for a pre-emptive strike has fallen flat. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction — but so do other countries. Iraq harbors a terrible dictatorship — but so do other countries. Iraqi leaders have killed their own citizens — but so have the leaders of other countries. While calling himself " just a public-health official, " Hernan admitted the current debate has left him confused. " What, " he asked, " is the real reason for war against Iraq? "

On the topic of motivation, Rushing, a veteran champion of civil rights, stood out as the big-picture thinker among the group. The push toward war with Iraq, he argued, stems from two movements that predate the Bushies — the first, to " de-democratize " America; the second, to act out the belief that the US is the most powerful nation in the world militarily and culturally. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration made a clear effort to exploit the tragedy to advance both movements. When it comes to Iraq, this means that the Bushies have used the opportunity to, as Rushing puts it, " scare everybody to death. " And, of course, to make an attempt at seizing control of a highly coveted natural resource — i.e., oil.

Tadros, a visiting scholar at Northeastern University, shed light on the Arab community’s perspective. A war on Iraq, she contended, represents a problem for the entire Middle East. As a human-rights advocate, she’s seen how the saber-rattling has jeopardized the cause abroad. At one time, her work caused her to face accusations of being a traitor and of being too American. Now, with the Bushies’ push toward unilateralism, " people laugh in our faces, " she said. The Arab governments have looked to emulate the Bush administration, which is stomping on civil liberties in the post-9/11 era. So when officials say they want to attack Iraq to bring democracy to that country, says Tadros, " It sounds mighty funny to my ears. "

Murray, for his part, expressed his dismay over the lack of thoughtful discussion among the US news media about the likelihood of an Iraqi war. The conversation, he said, has centered thus far on " risks " — are the risks of going to war greater than the risks of waiting for Saddam Hussein to lash out against the US? Murray wondered why reporters have not included the 22 million Iraqi civilians in the equation. Or the ramifications of an all-out war on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Or the repercussions of a foreign war on a host of troubling domestic issues. Before Americans who oppose an Iraqi war can stop it, Murray said, they must examine their way of life — their reliance on imported oil, their detachment from the democratic process.

He then summed up the sentiment that night: " Power, especially abusive power, does have a shelf life, and the Bush administration’s shelf life is coming to an end. "