A unilateral, pre-emptive strike against Iraq at this time by the United States is wrong for moral, legal and pragmatic reasons. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a ruthlessly brutal dictator who has started wars and committed appalling human rights abuses against his own people. He is clearly a danger to world order, but it has not been proved that he now poses a direct and imminent threat to the United States or our allies.

Many of the arguments around Iraq are long on rhetoric and short on evidence. Universities such as ours teach people to follow evidence to a logical conclusion and to allow arguments to rise or fall on their own merits, not on partisan or ideological convictions. Political decisions fraught with consequences for good or ill are inherently moral decisions that must be supported by compelling evidence, not stirring exhortations.

The Iraq situation raises serious questions that should be answered before any policy decisions are made: Should the United States pursue a course of action independently from the United Nations? Should our government move unilaterally against Iraq as we have on other global issues, including land mines, child soldiers, nuclear disarmament, an international criminal court and environmental standards? Does all wisdom on international matters reside only in Washington, and not at all in Paris, Rome, Bangkok, Beijing, Moscow, Istanbul, Riyadh, Mexico City or Abuja?

The rationale for a unilateral, pre-emptive strike against Iraq does not meet the classic criteria for a just war: defensive response, legitimate authority, right intention, proportionality of means to end and likelihood of success. The U.S. Catholic bishops invoked these principles when they urged President Bush "to step back from the brink of war."

We have a congressional resolution but no compelling evidence to support an imminent and direct strike against the United States by Iraq, nor for its complicity in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Other means of addressing the situation have not been satisfactorily explored, much less exhausted.

At this time, a military strike against Hussein would be a first step, not a last resort. The high probability of innocent civilian casualties -- this is murder, not "collateral damage" -- further erodes any claims to moral high ground. Assertions that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would be morally legitimate contradict moral principles accepted by ethicists in the West for more than a millennium.

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter permits pre-emptive military strikes only when a direct attack is imminent, all other options have been exhausted and there is no time for deliberation. There is no compelling evidence that nuclear or biological and chemical weapons are aimed directly at the United States and that Hussein is but a hair's breadth away from pulling the trigger. The debate thus far has focused too narrowly on ending the existence of Hussein's government and not enough on working with the world community to force a change in its behavior.

Military and foreign policy experts question whether Iraq now has nuclear weapons and/or the capacity to deliver them. Imagine a world where countries invoked the principle of pre-emptive strike as cavalierly as some would have us do. Should the same latitude to disregard U.N. Article 51 be given to China,

India, Israel, Pakistan and Russia as the United States presumes for itself? I agree with legal scholar George Bisharat, who said clearly, "Unilateral action by the United States against another nation would constitute a grave breech of international law."

Experts caution that a war with Iraq has the potential to further destabilize a very volatile Middle East. Promises of an easy win in Iraq ring as hollow now as similar assurances did early in the Vietnam War. Unilateral action by the United States may further isolate us from the world community and strengthen the hand of those who argue that U.S. claims to global leadership are based on nothing more than military and economic might. The results of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq could trigger the very kind of attacks it aims to prevent and leave the world with a bigger mess than the one created by Hussein's grip on power.

Initiating a unilateral, pre-emptive military strike against Iraq at this time violates established principles of ethics and offers no assurance of a more stable world order.

Let my conclusion and reasoning stand as an open invitation to explore and answer the issues raised. Let no one inhibit such debate by asserting that questioning equals disloyalty or patriotism demands assent to policies and decisions that individuals disagree with for legal, moral or pragmatic reasons.

Stephen A. Privett, Society of Jesus, is president of the University of San Francisco.

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle

###