After two hours of debate on Tuesday the Los Angeles City
Council fell one vote shy of passing a resolution against a United
States-led war in Iraq lacking U.N. support.
Opponents of the resolution, such as Jack Weiss, who represents
the district where UCLA is located, argued that national issues
such as the war are beyond the council’s scope; he said the
council “ought to focus on sidewalks, not Saddam.”
Weiss’ words are completely ignorant. Just because an
issue extends beyond the immediate scope of the council’s
jurisdiction, does not make it irrelevant. A major war on Iraq will
affect almost every dimension of Los Angeles, the second largest
city in the United States.
Los Angeles’ economy, already affected by the poor state
and national economy, will be further jeopardized by the
significantly high cost of funding an Iraqi invasion. Money spent
on attacking Iraq is money diverted from helping state and local
governments deal with their financial crunches. Also, if the United
States were to go to war, gas prices could continue to surge in one
of the most gas dependent cities in the nation.
Along with the economic implications of the war is the fact that
a number of Los Angeles residents will be called into battle. If
Los Angeles doesn’t feel its constituents should die in an
unjustified war, it should be able to say so by means of an
anti-war resolution. The large protests across the city that have
been taking place since October should serve as an indication to
Weiss and other non-committing council members that the war issue
is one of immediate public concern.
By passing an anti-war resolution, the council can give a
valuable, national voice to the anti-war movement. President Bush
and Secretary of State Colin Powell are thoroughly covered by the
media when they give speeches in support of war against Iraq. The
anti-war movement does not have equally strong voices in the
federal government that command such media attention. The more
cities that pass these types of resolutions, the more media
attention they’re given, which would balance that of the Bush
administration.
So far, 88 cities have passed an anti-war resolution. Los
Angeles’ passing a similar resolution would be a major
statement since it’s a likely target for future terrorist
attacks, given its large population and heavy traffic areas, such
as LAX. Having the potential “victims” Bush seeks to
protect in his broad and poorly defined war on terrorism speak out
against him is a major rebuke to the administration’s pro-war
pontificating.
Some councilmembers excused their refusal to pass the anti-war
resolution saying that it detracted from time the council could be
spending on city-specific issues. Ironically, their reluctance to
openly endorse or reject the resolution has placed it on another
agenda ““ further “detracting” from
council’s time.
The council will reconsider the anti-war resolution on Friday:
considering the negative ramifications of a war on Iraq currently
outweigh any possible “benefits,” the council needs to
pass the resolution.
Weiss should stop offering unintelligent excuses for not taking
a stance on war, regardless of whether he is pro- or anti-war. At
the very least, his constituents should know whether or not his
views merit their ousting him from office in the next election.