Friday, October 22, 2004
The Iraq War and a Christian Near Pacificist
The following was sent to a friend in response to the issue of the Iraq War at both the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) and United Methodist Church annual conferences. Richard Hays, whose theology and writing I very much appreciate (one of the young theologians in Christianity Today some years ago), said he wished the UMC had wrestled with the Iraq war as Christians like the PCUSA. The following response was sent to my friend who read my Dr. Hay’s comment in The Christian Century.
The following thoughts reflect the struggles of a Christian who love peace, justice, and community. It also reflects the struggles of one who sees evil as a very real presence in the world. After the past century, I don?t know how we can deny that reality, and in light of that, how does one balance their desire for the present and yet still coming Kingdom of God, while at the same time, living with the limitations of the a fallen world. Over the past two years my thinking has been shaped by the writings of Darrell Cole and Jean Bethke Elshtain, and to them I give many thanks.
The war in Iraq has been a challenge for Christians: do we support this war or in light of the teachings of the New Testament, oppose this war and every war. I count myself as a ?near pacificist,? not wanting to stand against such military actions as WWII, with the obvious desire to free the Jews from the Holocaust. But what about Iraq?
I was one of those people who actually protested about the sanctions against the Iraqi people from 1991 till 2003. Over that decade, there were probably 1 million children that died because of the sanctions. But, we couldn?t take them off because Sadaam was not complying with the sanctions (I don?t think anyone would argue that the Bible teaches anything but keeping your word ? which Sadaam clearly did not). The Iraqi people were unable to overthrow him, and we know his sons were even more sadistic and deadly (and of course, younger) than he was. There is good evidence that at least 500,000 people were brutally murdered by the Sadaam regime over the past two decades, and perhaps as many as 3 million. This doesn?t include the Kurds he murdered via poison gas, or the Shiites during the Iran-Iraq war and after the Persian Gulf War of 1991. I don?t really care about the weapons of mass destruction issue (more later). He was a rogue, a murderous rogue, and the UN had already agreed that he needed to comply. The UN was unwilling to hold him accountable (and as is becoming clear, were profiting off the Oil-for-Food program). So what to do? What is the call of justice? We cannot just stand by while more die from the sanctions, more die from the outrageous actions of Sadaam. So justice, after trying all else, had to act. And the U.S. did.
We fought the war in a manner to minimize civilian causalities (as we did in Afghanistan). This was no bombing of Dresden. We probably put our troops through greater danger in this effort. We spent billions more by using fine munitions instead of ?dumb bombs? which are cheap. This slower way of waging war allowed Sadaam to do things like empting his jails to bring more chaos on the people of Iraq, something that we should have anticipated but which has caused lots of problems. But on the whole, we fought the war in such a way that fewer people died since March 2003 that would have died had the war not occurred.
Additionally, this was a rogue state. We know that when Ramzi Yusef fled NY after the first WTC bombing in 1993 he fled to Iraq and was put on the payroll of the government. After destroying the safe harbor for Al-Queda in Afghanistan we know they are going to regroup in rogue states where international pressure and the rule of law will not inhibit their actions. Right now that is Sudan, southern Columbia, Yemen, Iran, North Korea and Iraq. In that sense, the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism.
Have we messed up the peace? Yes, but how can you plan on what the peace is going to look like? 98% of the population has moved into the new reality, happily and I might add, prosperously. Yes there is more danger now than before (certainly the terrorist bombings are going to be a problem for a time to come), but internal pressure and a firm military should eventually take care of that. Right now there is lawlessness that was not the case before Sadaam fell. But, as my family says from their days of travel in Spain before Franco died, it was safe to travel there any time day or night, but not safe to disagree with the government. The same was true in Iraq. There is always a balance between security and freedom.
The big issue to me is why Iraq? And why now? A lot of people have asked for a criteria for military action and a timetable. First the second question. I think that military action should be a last resort. I believe that we should:
1) Encourage democratic change within the nation.
2) Use sanctions if #1 does not work
3) Watch to see if the nation is taking its sadistic or aggressive tendencies outside the border.
4) Only after giving time to see the impact of #1 and #2 and if #3 is becoming a growing issue, then act.
We had sanctions on Iraq for 12 years. We did try to support internal change (poorly I might add, and the Senior Pres Bush still has blood on his hands in my mind for encouraging the Shiites to rebel in 1991 and then not supporting them). What was happening was that #3 continued to be an issue (Sadaam?s funding of Palestinian suicide bombers being just one instance). It was time to act. How many people were killed by Sadaam during those 12 years? We will never know, but one has to imagine the image from Revelation, ?How long oh Lord.?
Sanctions and international pressure are the biggest tools of the pacifist movement. I am a ?near pacifist? myself, but the reality is that for sanctions and pressure to work there are two necessary internal components needed in the nation:
1) a free press
2) opportunities for democratic expression.
These worked mightily in India post WWII to remove the British rule and in South Africa to move past apartheid. Iraq has neither. Neither did Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia of the 1930s, Maoist China of the ?Cultural Revolution? or Cambodia of the Khmer Rouge. Millions died in each instance while nations sat idly by (with the exclusion of Germany, but there war was used by Germany to expand her killing zone).
I always prefer non-violence, but we must remember that the kingdom of God is both already and not yet. Jesus did tell us to ?buy a sword if we do not have one.? Pacificism is a kingdom value, but it must be integrated with the kingdom value of justice. War is not the greatest evil ? dehumanization is. God uses war in the OT to end dehumanization, and judges the nations he uses if they go beyond their calling and dehumanize in the carrying out of the war (something that we should be very aware of in light of the Abu Ghraib prisoner mistreatment).
The second question ? why Iraq, can be answered by looking at my criteria. There are a number of other nations with despotic regimes.
Burma
Vietnam
Iran
North Korea
Zimbabwe
Why not these nations? Well, for Burma, there is an internal anti-government movement that we have been trying to support. There is not a free press, but they have tried elections (nullified by the military). International pressure has caused the easing of the repression of the human right movement. Burma may soon have to resort to free elections. Additionally, Burma does not try and push their agenda cross border.
Iran does push their agenda cross border (perhaps the #1 state sponsor of terrorism) but has a flourishing democracy movement, elections (which keep driving home the point that the ruling clerics are unwanted by over 70% of the population), and a secret underground free press. The Iranian government is going to fall in the next few years ? there is almost no way it can continue as is. We as the West are doing a lot under the sheets to help the pro-democracy movement while trying to make sure it does not appear to be a ?Western plot.?
North Korea is an example of were we tried appeasement and the result was a tyrannical power that we can no longer deal with militarily. Giving them the reactors in the mid90s based on the promises of a known liar was, to be blunt, stupid. I am not sure what to do in North Korea, short of letting the famine get out of control ? which violates my concern for the hungry. Vietnam is a similar issue. We abandoned South Vietnam, thinking it was the better way than continued war. The result was millions of boat people, at least 100,000 killed and detained anti-communist citizens, and a very repressive regime of both political and religious freedom. Instead of trying sanctions, we, as good old fashioned dollar hungry capitalist, have fought to open up their markets, while closing our eyes to their brutality. I think America might be judged for how we have responded to Vietnam.
Zimbabwe has a strong democracy movement, and, despite Mugabe?s best attempts, he is going to fall. Because of the free press outside of Zimbabwe that spills in over the borders, he cannot suppress the truth. International sanctions are tightening the noose ? and we can hope he falls soon.
So, Iraq was the appropriate choice of nations to act on. They were a brutal regime, who did sponsor terrorism (and there are far more links between Iraq and Al-Qada than many want to admit), they were a rogue nations willing to take anyone?s ?despots,? they exported their brutality, we had tried sanctions (which enriched the regime and damaged the populace), we tried international pressure, we tried internal democratic support. It would have been easy to continue to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the people of that nations. Instead we acted ? out of our own best interests but also, as Tony Blair spoke about before the war, out of the best interests of the people of Iraq. Many people who went to the nation before and after the war have mentioned how happy the people are that we freed them from Sadaam ? even if they want us to leave soon.
You know I am a big N.T. Wright fan, but I had to disagree with his statement in the paper last winter. He said, yes, Sadaam had to be taken out but America and Britain were not the right nations to do it since we had bad reputations and were Christian. Okay, I agree, but no one else was willing to step forward to take action. Wouldn?t America and the UK be just as guilty if they continued to sacrifice the people of Iraq to the our ?dirtiness? or, more importantly, to our lack of concern.
We have been willing to sacrifice almost 1000 of our soldiers lives, yes, to increase our safety, but also to free a nation (and lets not forget the Afghani people who were under an equally despotic and sadistic regime). I think that says something good about us ? not that we have been all good, not that we should not reflect on our actions, confess our sins and pray for healing from our wicked ways (which I think was at least some of the hope Richard Hays had in his letter), but, in the end, I don?t think we can say that this war was evil.
We operate in a fallen world, where sometimes less than the best is what we must choose, but it must still be ?the good? in the end. War is not the greatest evil, and it is not the greatest good. It can be both?we as Christians when war comes must always be pursued only as a good, and only after all other attempts have been reasonable tried.
