As a retired judge, I was trained to weigh evidence carefully and to match the burden of proof to the stakes involved. In civil cases, we apply a preponderance of the evidence. In criminal matters, where liberty is at stake, we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. War, it seems to me, should demand at least that level of moral and factual certainty.
What troubles many Americans today is not simply the possibility of conflict, but the sense that conclusions are being announced without the underlying proof being publicly tested. Imminent threat and national security are powerful phrases, but they are not substitutes for evidence. If sustained military action is contemplated, the American people deserve a clear articulation of objectives, the factual basis for urgency, the anticipated costs and the exit strategy. That does not require exposing sensitive intelligence, but it does require more than assertion.
The Constitution deliberately places the power to declare war in Congress. That was not accidental. The framers intended friction, open debate, shared accountability and recorded votes before committing the nation to bloodshed. Over time, that responsibility has eroded through open-ended authorizations and political convenience. When Congress avoids a formal declaration or meaningful authorization, it is not merely yielding power to the executive branch. It is avoiding ownership of the decision itself.
Sanctions, diplomatic pressure and economic tools may operate under lower evidentiary thresholds because they are reversible and incremental. War is neither. It reshapes families, budgets, foreign policy and generations. It should never rest on slogans or incomplete disclosures.
Before we ask young Americans to risk their lives, the case should be made clearly, publicly and convincingly.
The standard for war should not be political expedience. It should be proof worthy of the sacrifice required.
— F. Keith Brown, retired chief judge, Elgin
Stuck in leftist mindset
Steve Chapman writes that the Iran war will not be a political winner for President Donald Trump (“For Trump, the war against Iran will not be a political winner,” March 4). The true definitive measure will be domestic politics, which of course dwarf anything we might achieve in Iran. But in my view, if Trump’s war in Iran succeeds, it will be a great win for America. Should Trump let Iran build nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles?
An intellectual life fully lived in the leftist political bunker.
— Neil Gaffney, Chicago
Employing Christianity
There are people in President Donald Trump’s administration and among the top military brass who proclaim that Trump was anointed by God to carry out these latest attacks on Iran. Do they also believe that when Jesus said “suffer the little children .. to come unto me,” he meant in body bags?
— Pamela Harrison, Chicago
Let’s neuter Iran now
I think you have to answer one question in order to determine your point of view regarding the U.S. attacks on Iran: Do you believe an armed conflict with Iran is inevitable in the next five years? If your answer is yes, would you rather address the situation today or in five years against a nuclear-armed Iran?
The Iranians are never going to negotiate away their desire to have a nuclear arsenal. The Iranians have not been negotiating; they have been delaying substantial progress in order to get to their finish line: nuclear capabilities.
Of all today’s troubles, my biggest fear is nuclear devices in the hands of a regime that openly sponsors terrorism as a means to spread its will and hatred. Imagine today’s military activity if nuclear devices were available.
It is better to neuter Iran now than allow them to keep inching forward toward nuclear capability.
— Randy Noble, Rockford
Don’t hang banner yet
Regarding reader Lloyd Litwak’s letter “Justification not debatable” (March 5): I watched the entire Iraq War debacle unfold, and I think we have some compelling evidence to suggest that regime changes of this nature may, in fact, not make the world “a safer place.” To declare confidently that this one has succeeded mere days into the operation, when many others have failed, is, well …
I admire Litwak’s optimism, if not his grasp of recent (or even ancient) history.
I’ll not sit here and say with certainty that the benefits won’t eventually outweigh the drawbacks of this operation; I think it’s stupid, but I’ll let time be the judge of that.
I’d suggest, however, to those who declare with confidence “Mission Accomplished” shouldn’t hang the banner just yet.
— James Ross, West Chicago
Support Trump’s actions
President Donald Trump did not choose to go to war with Iran due to a trade dispute or an environmental or women’s rights issue. Rather, Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons and has been targeting and killing Americans directly or through proxies for over 40 years. Have we forgotten the over 200 Marines killed in Beirut in 1983 by an Iranian proxy?
Trump has seen previous presidents either kick the can down the road or naively believe that the current Iranian regime could be trusted.
The Iranians have chosen to build their nuclear weapons program underground. Why do you think that is? To be transparent about its intentions?
Trump has chosen to be realistic. He is correcting the inaction and bad policy of previous administrations. He tried negotiations, but when it became obvious that that was a dead end, he took action.
Had Adolf Hitler been stopped in the mid-1930s when he should have been, the cost would have been minimal. Waiting until he attacked Poland ended up costing over 70 million lives. Imagine what the cost of a nuclear war with Iran would be.
A government ruled by clerics believes that a higher power has imbued them with the authority to impose their will on others. It is not a political disagreement that the Iranian regime has with us. It is religious. One cannot negotiate with this kind of thinking. It’s no longer the opinion of one policy against another but rather of infidels against the word of God.
Trump should be supported in doing the right thing for our country and our allies.
— David Tessler, Chicago
Congress ceding its power
If a Democratic president had directed the American attack on Iran, you can be sure that Republicans in Congress would be condemning the attack.
Especially in light of the American military members killed in action, Republicans would be calling on a Democratic president to resign or to be impeached and removed from office.
Instead, because the president is Donald Trump, Republicans are supporting his actions. They are not even demanding a declaration of war voted on by Congress.
This is blatant hypocrisy for Republicans to demonstrate. Why are they willing to cede their legislative powers to the president?
— Dodd Mohr, Barrington
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
