|
CounterPunch
February
12, 2003
Searching
for a Christian Response to War
Iraq: a Call to Repentance and Resistance
by THEODORE McDOWELL
When I kept silent, my bones wasted
away through my groaning all day long. Psalm: 32:3
The gag order of patriotism has silenced the authentic
response of the Christian community to the impending unjust war
against Iraq. Christian apathy defaults to America's gospel
of preemptive warfare which is preparing to bomb Iraq's civilization
into Mesopotamian dust. Twelve years of silence holds the church
accountable for devastating the entire infrastructure of Iraq,
deforming generations of Iraqi children with weapons containing
depleted uranium, perpetuating the infanticide of sanctions,
and cluster bombing civilians in no-fly zones.
The impending military action also symbolizes
a spiritual terrorist attack by America on the very gospel of
Christ. Before a watching world, the Western Christian distorts
into a grotesque parody of the crusader with the cross emblazoned
on a tank or the missionary mopping up souls after a conquest.
The love of Christ is bent, motionless, incinerated in the rubble
of "collateral damage". In the aftershock of the B-52s,
the wasted bones of silence will decay in the church, the weary
columns of Iraqi refugees, and our catacomb hearts. Without
repentance, the narrative of the Christian community is reduced
to the white noise of TVs and the desperate diversions of wealth.
In the palaces and reception halls, anthems
and accolades will celebrate the powerful and the obedient as
they gorge at a feast table of oil and empire. The media will
applaud the same puppet show previously performed in Indonesia,
Chile, Afghanistan and most of the "Third World".
Meanwhile, in the refugee camps, terrorist networks, welfare
lines, reservations and ghettos of the world, the poor and disenfranchised
seethe in anger and resentment.
America's charmed existence, however,
lacks the perspective of world history. Power has a short shelf
life. The cross has a half-life of eternity. Power decays into
decadence which implodes like the bowels of Herod. Powerlessness
is the seed bed of renewal. Every fortified gate and hanging
garden ordains its own barbarian horde. A remnant is prepared
in wilderness.
Grace never promises global dominance.
Grace incarnates a spiritual kingdom within a broken world.
Christ still groans with power from the subversive suffering
of the cross. Silence still cradles the call to repentance.
The silence of the Lord's head bowing under the weight of our
sins and our death. The silence convulsing in the lungs of an
Iraqi woman as she noiselessly rocks her child into death.
Within the deep tomb of culture, the
gospel seems as foreign as the haunting calligraphy of the Arabic
script. The turning from a flag that is loved makes repentance
seem violent, like the earth's plates grinding together on a
fault line. Under the weight of Iraqi children wasting into
silence, forgiveness seems fast and furious like a sweeping storm
that frees the crescent moon from clouds. The desperate need
for resurrection power makes the cross seems wildly creative,
capable of transforming catacomb hearts into underground countercultures
of peace. The distinctive voice is renewed in radical revolution.
The unshackled voice must shout the war cry of nonviolence to
the listening and the deaf, the powerful and the powerless, the
flags and the body bags. The creative voice must find a parable
as incisive and convicting as Nathan's parable to a king. Disciples
cannot leave the Sanhedrin in silence.
THE SEARCH FOR A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
In order to legitimately search for an
authentic Christian response to the looming military attack,
the flag must be unwrapped from the cross. Perhaps-possibly-maybe,
a reality exists beyond America that is larger and more complex
than the slivers of information presented in press conferences,
military briefings or sound bites on CNN. A sovereign power
demands allegiance, and that power does not reside in the Oval
Office.
The official American narrative is driven
into the consciousness of the culture on a daily basis. We know
the story by heart. The tragedy of September 11, 2001 (9/11)
changed the world forever. America is now involved in a world-wide
war on terrorism against shady terrorist networks, "Islamic
militants" and rogue regimes. Iraq is an imminent threat
to the existence of America, the Middle East and the community
of nations. Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) which he plans to use or provide to terrorist organizations.
Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people and other nations,
invaded other countries and terrorized the people of his own
country. In the name of peace, America will disarm Iraq and
institute a new democracy for the Iraqi people.
Before the bands and bombs drown out
every dissenting voice, however, Christians should consider alternative
narratives which are ignored by the mainstream press. This information
challenges the primitive "good versus evil" dichotomy
currently being superimposed on a complex and far reaching conflict.
This information questions the sanctity of America's actions.
Bloodguilt
The 1991 Gulf War
The 1991 Gulf War inflicted apocalyptic destruction on Iraq.
The Medical Educational Trust in London published a study which
estimated that up to 250,000 men, women and children died as
a direct result of the war. The ground attack included tanks
and earthmovers bulldozing live Iraqi soldiers into trenches
in the desert. The relentless bombing also destroyed the civilian
infrastructure, including power, sewage and water systems.
The US initially claimed that the 43 day bombing was confined
to military targets and that any civilian damage was limited
to "collateral damage". A Washington Post article
printed after the bombing campaign reported:
Planners now say that their intent was
to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not
repair without foreign assistance. The worst civilian suffering,
senior officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray
but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they
were aimed-at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation
networks... 'What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure
was to accelerate the sanctions...If there are political objectives
that the UN coalition has, it can say, 'Saddam, when you agree
to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your
electricity. It gives us long-term leverage'....Said another
Air Force planner: 'We're not going to tolerate Saddam Hussein
or his regime. Fix that, and we'll fix your electricity'.
After inspecting the damage, UN Under
Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari concluded: "most means
of modern life support have been destroyed or rendered tenuous.
Iraq has for some time to come been relegated to a pre-industrial
age, but with all the disabilities of post-industrial dependency
on an intensive use of energy and technology."
The Betrayal of Iraqi Resistance
At the end of the Gulf War, President
George Bush Senior encouraged "the Iraqi military and the
Iraqi people to take matters into their hands and force Saddam
Hussein to step aside." The Kurds in northern Iraq and
the Shiite population in the south responded to Bush's call and
revolted against Saddam Hussein. American forces, however, failed
to support the uprising and watched Hussein's troops slaughter
the resistance. One report described American helicopters hovering
over Hussein's helicopter crews as they poured kerosene on fleeing
refugees and incinerated them with tracer fire. Commentators
and officials conclude that President Bush wanted a military
coup, a junta, and not a popular uprising.
Ravaging Iraq with Weapons of Mass
Destruction
During the Gulf War, reports confirm
that Britain and the US used 300 to 800 tons of weapons with
depleted uranium ("DU") and, in some cases, DU mixed
with plutonium. The Iraqi society is now suffering the "afterglow"
of cancer, leukemia and birth defects, and the DU legacy will
punish the population for generations.
The Infanticide of Sanctions
Economic sanctions have ravaged the Iraqi
society for 12 years. A 1999 UNICEF report found that the sanctions,
combined with the destruction of infrastructure, resulted in
the early death of more than 500,000 children between 1991 and
1998. This death toll translates to an average of 5,000 childhood
deaths each month. The World Food Programme in 2000 reported
that 800,000 Iraqi children are "chronically malnourished."
Poor water quality and lack of sanitation have become the prime
killer of children. UNICEF stated in July 2001 that "Diarrhea
leading to death from dehydration and acute respiratory infections,
together account for 70 per cent of child deaths." The
major public health crisis is exacerbated by shortages of medical
equipment, medicine and staff.
UN Security Council members have received
repeated warnings of the humanitarian crisis caused by sanctions
from UN officials, international agencies and the international
community. Warnings have come from "three Secretary Generals,
many UN officials and agencies including UNICEF, WHO and WFP,
and two Humanitarian Coordinators who have resigned in protest."
For instance, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated in 2000
that "sanctions remain a blunt instrument, which hurt large
numbers of people who are not their primary targets."
Since 1996, Iraq has been authorized
by the UN to sell oil for food. The oil-for-food program has
simply perpetuated the infanticide under a veneer of humanitarian
aid. The program was intended to serve as a short term policy.
The UN Secretariat reported to the Security Council in 2000
that the humanitarian programme was never intended to meet all
the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population or to be a substitute
for normal economic activity. Also the programme is not geared
to address the longer term deterioration of living standards
or to remedy declining health standards and infrastructure.
In 1998, Denis Halliday, the first coordinator
of humanitarian relief in Iraq, resigned after 34 years of service
with the UN. Halliday stated:
I have been instructed to implement a
policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate
policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals,
children and adultsWhat is clear is that the Security Council
is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own
Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.
History will slaughter those responsible.
Halliday's replacement, Hans von Sponeck,
also resigned in 2000. "How long," he asked, "should
the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment
for something they have never done?" Sponeck described
the oil-for-food program as providing the Iraqi population with
$177 per person per year-50 cents a day-for all of the needs
of each Iraqi citizen.
Numerous policy papers and studies issued
by UN agencies and legal scholars have determined that the sanctions
program violates international human rights and humanitarian
laws. In 1999, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights published a working paper which described sanctions
as "unequivocally illegal" and stated that sanctions
had caused a humanitarian disaster "comparable to the worst
catastrophes of the past decade."
Even government officials of Britain
and the US have criticized the destructiveness of the program.
In 1999, 70 members of Congress signed a letter to President
Clinton calling for and end to sanctions and "infanticide
masquerading as policy." In 2000, the House of Commons
Select Committee on International Development issued a report
which sharply criticized Britain's sanctions policies in Iraq.
Despite the intense pressure against
the broad economic sanctions, Britain and the US have refused
to consider any lifting of the sanctions. The effectiveness
of the oil-for-food program has been undercut by the British
and US intentional policy of placing holds on goods and blocking
contracts. As of July 19, 2002, at least $5.4 billion in contracts
were on hold.
While the US has actively sustained the
sanctions program through its power and veto on the Security
Council, public statements by US and British officials have ranged
from denial to callous political calculations. Brian Wilson,
Minister of State at the British Foreign Office, told the BBC
on February 26, 2001: "There is no evidence that sanctions
are hurting the Iraqi people." In 1996, during an interview
on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright, then US Ambassador to the
UN, was asked: "We have heard that half a million children
have diedis the price worth it." Albright responded, "I
think this is a very hard choice, but the price-we think the
price is worth it."
Military Attacks
In addition to no-fly zone bombing operations,
during the period from 1993 to 1998 the US and Britain carried
out numerous aircraft and missile attacks on Iraq as well as
covert operations. One report catalogues the main actions on
January 17 (42 cruise missiles) and June 26 (23 cruise missiles),
1993, September 3-4, 1996 (Operation Desert Strike)(44 cruise
missiles), and December 16-19, 1998 (Operation Desert Fox) (hundreds
of strike aircraft and cruise missiles). In addition, CIA covert
operations with Iraqi opposition groups have aimed at a coup.
The significant Desert Fox bombing unilaterally
imposed by the Clinton Administration in 1998 further degraded
the civilian infrastructure. From an international law perspective,
Desert Fox was criticized as an illegal action that violated
the principles of the UN Charter. From an ethical perspective,
American journalists could not resist the life-imitating-art
irony raised by the movie "Wag the Dog."
"No-fly" Death Zones
The unilaterally imposed no-fly zones
patrolled by US and British planes have become death zones for
the killing of civilians. Even in 1999, the Wall Street Journal
reported:
After eight years of enforcing a no
fly zone in northern Iraq, few military targets remain. 'We're
down to the last outhouse,' one US official stated. 'There are
still some things left, but not many.'"
Families and children appear to fall into the category of leftovers.
UN officials have reported of civilian deaths in locations not
even remotely near military targets. The humanitarian motives
asserted by the US for the no-fly zones are contradicted by the
US/UK practice of discontinuing their patrols when Turkish troops
enter northern Iraq to destroy Kurdish villages. The US vilification
of Iraqi anti-aircraft fire fails to mention that the no-fly
zones are not sanctioned by any UN Resolution and are viewed
by many officials and analysts as violating international law.
The Predestined Invasion and Occupation
The US led medieval-style siege of Iraq
now is destined to end in invasion and occupation under President
Bush's relentless push toward war. The new slaughter will fill
trenches with more bodies, demolish families as "collateral
damage" and create humanitarian and refugee problems of
tragic proportions. The UN and Medact, a British charity of
health professionals, projects 500,000 deaths and casualties
resulting from hostilities and the aftermath of a conventional
war. ABC News has published an investigative report on an Air
Force report entitled "PSAB CAOC Tiger Team: Interim Report."
The report raises serious concerns about a public relations
backlash from an expected high level of collateral damage and
civilian deaths. Further an open letter from 500 staff, students
and alumni from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
urged the prime minister to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.
The medical professionals warned that the conflict could lead
to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being killed.
A Confidential draft UN Document entitled
"Likely Humanitarian Scenarios", projects a humanitarian
crisis which relief resources are unprepared to adequately handle.
The following sample of findings suggests the magnitude of the
crisis:
(1) "as many as 500,000 people
could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result
of direct or indirect injures".
(2) "It is estimated that the nutritional status of some
3.03 million persons countrywide will be dire and that they will
require therapeutic feeding."
(3) "UNICEF estimates that some 39 percent of the population
will need to be provided with potable water."
(4) "the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic
proportions is very likely."
(5) In the southern governorate of Iraq the case load in immediate
need of humanitarian need "would total 7.4 million."
(6) "It is estimated that there will eventually be some900,000
Iraqi refugees requiring assistance, of which 100,000 will be
in need of immediate assistance."
(7) "Health supplies to treat injuries for approximately
100,000. Health supplies to treat the highly vulnerable for
up to 1.23 million. Health supplies to cater for the ongoing
needs of 54. million."
The Hardened Heart Of America
The twelve year war on Iraq exposes the hardened heart of America.
The imminent invasion represents the culmination of superpower
politics designed to control the government, strategic location
and oil of Iraq. The Bush administration's two primary goals
for the invasion are (1) to ensure free access and control over
Iraq's magnificent oil resources and (2) to enshrine Bush's new
doctrine of preemptive strike.
The World Oil Order
During Congressional testimony in 1999,
General Zinni testified that the Gulf Region is a "vital
interest" and the US "must have free access to the
region's resources." The National Energy Policy Development
Group, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, indicated in May 2001
that US reliance on imported oil will increase dramatically by
2020 and Persian Gulf producers will be supplying 54-67% of world
oil exports in 2020. The Cheney report confirms that "by
any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central
to world oil security." Cheney, in 1990 testimony before
the Senate Armed Services Committee, pointed out that whoever
controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a "stranglehold"
not only on our economy but also "on that of most of the
other nations of the world as well."
Iraq's oil is highly coveted because
of huge supplies, high quality, and exceptionally low production
costs yielding substantial profits. Iraq has the world's second
largest proven oil reserves, trailing only Saudi Arabia.
Industry experts predict that Iraq's
oil wealth could rival that of Saudi Arabia once unexplored areas
are developed by producers. The high quality of the oil commands
a premium on the market. . In addition, the US Department of
Energy indicates that "Iraq's oil production costs are amongst
the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect."
From a different angle, the historical
maneuvering for dominance over Middle East oil reinforces the
centrality of oil in the crisis. Prior to the 1972 nationalization
of Iraq's oil industry, US and British companies held a three-quarter
share in Iraq's oil production. After nationalization, Iraq
turned to Russia and France for funds and partnerships. Subsequent
to the Gulf War, Iraq entered into contracts with Russian, French
and Chinese companies to develop Iraqi oil fields, but sanctions
prevented initiation of the projects. The Bush invasion will
shift production control away from these competing nations and
back to the four largest oil companies in the world, two of which
are owned by the US and two by Britain. The Washington Post
quoted former CIA director James Woolsey as stating:
It's pretty straightforward. France
and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should
be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward
decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the
new government and American companies work closely with them.
If they throw their hat in with Saddam, it will be difficult
to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government
to work with them.
In a post-war military government imposed
by Washington, the US-UK companies expect to gain contracts worth
billions of dollars. One industry source describes Iraq as
a "boom waiting to happen...There is not an oil company
in the world that doesn't have its eye on Iraq."
The New Colonialism of Preemptive Strikes
Drafts of the preemption strategy were
developed before the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the doctrine
became the national policy of the Bush administration after 9/11.
The preemptive strike concept is articulated in the September
2002 President's report entitled The National Security Strategy
of the United States of America. The report states "As
a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against
such emerging threats [posed by dangerous technologies] before
they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends
by hoping for the best."
International law experts comment that
the doctrine raises fundamental questions about the scope of
self defense principles under international law. The right
of self-defense is founded on Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter. Traditionally Article 51 has been limited to defense
in response to an actual attack by another nation. Experts
such as Thomas Franck, Director of the Center for International
Studies at the NYU Law School, suggest that Article 51 allows
for flexibility "where there is very clear evidence that
an armed attack, having not yet occurred, is nevertheless imminent
and would be overwhelming, and would make the awaiting of the
armed attack disastrous for the attacked country." The
"imminent threat" principle explains Washington's attempts
to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda and the public emphasis on weapons
of mass destruction posing an imminent threat to the existence
of the US. Commentators caution, however, that the US may be
pushing the doctrine beyond an "imminent threat" justification
to address dangerous regimes before they become imminent threats.
Perhaps the greatest danger relates to
America's overwhelming military superiority in the world and
the potential use of the doctrine to promote unspoken strategic
and political interests, such as control of oil. In order to
test the theoretical preemption doctrine within the facts of
the first test case in Iraq, the "dissident" alternative
narrative will be applied to Washington's publicly stated justifications
for a preemptive strike against Iraq. This analysis supplements
the previous review of America's "unclean hands" during
the twelve year conflict with Iraq and the damaging likelihood
that oil is the heart of the issue.
Selling the War
The publicly stated reasons presented
by the Bush administration for the invasion/occupation are propaganda
to sell the war to the American public. The stated reasons
include disarming weapons of mass destruction (WMD), fighting
the war on terrorism, establishing freedom and democracy in Iraq,
enforcing UN Resolutions, and "regime change."
(A) The Lord of WMD Accuses the Pauper of WMD
The justification based upon WMD, which
is an essential foundation for a preemptive strike pursuant self-defense
arguments under international law, rings hollow in light of (1)
the UN inspectors' conclusions as of 1998 and current assessments
that Iraq is not an imminent danger to the region or the US,
(2) the US attitude toward current weapons inspections, (3) America's
radical history of development and use of WMD, and (4) America's
double standard applied to other countries in the Middle East
and the world.
Scott Ritter, a chief UN weapons inspector
for five years until 1998, asserts that the inspection process
had resulted in Iraq being qualitatively free of WMD. Ritter
states:
While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding
the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain
a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes
into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory
associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant
items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons
and agent produced by Iraq.
Ritter's conclusion is reinforced by
current assessments of Iraq's threat to the region and the world.
A recent article indicates that even "Israeli defense officials
have long dismissed demolished Iraq as a minor threat, even though
it likely has between six and 18 old Scud missiles hidden away."
The other Arab countries in the Middle East oppose military
action and are not pushing for war based upon imminent security
concerns. Most Arab Muslims view America as a "hypocritical
power because it tolerates (or even supports) the use of state
terror by Israel against the Palestinians while making war against
Baghdad for the same sort of behavior."
The Bush administration exhibits an impatient
tolerance of the resumed weapon inspections and a determined
effort to ensure that the process can only end in an Iraqi violation.
US public relation spins on the inspections and its dark attitude
concerning even the possibility of Iraqi compliance suggest that
the war has been preordained by the US. Critics argue that
the Bush administration has no intention of disarming Iraq through
inspections. The military buildup during the initial stages
of inspections and the approved covert operations to overthrow
Hussein reflect the irrelevance of the process except as a trigger
for war. An article in the Mirror/UK reports that Dr Richard
Perle, a Bush security adviser, told British MPs that even a
"clean bill of health" by Hans Blix would not halt
America's war machine. The article adds "because Saddam
is so hated in Iraq, it would be easy to find someone to say
they witnessed weapons building." On January 20, 2003,
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor
Condoleeza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell all delivered
the message that a "smoking gun" was not needed to
justify a war. Rumsfeld stated:
I think the test is not [weapons]. The test is, is Saddam Hussein
cooperating...he's not doing that. The President said time is
running out and if the test is, are the Iraqis going to cooperate,
that's something you're going to know in a matter of weeks, not
in months or years.
The callous disregard and manipulation of the inspection process
also is evidenced by several recent statements. First, one official
acknowledged that they had lost control of the public relations
aspects of the inspection process. Thus, it appears that PR
truths will carry the day as opposed to inspection findings.
Second, military leaders say in private that a war in the heat
of summer would be difficult to wage. Thus, despite denials,
Washington's urgency seems driven by war planning rather than
the time required to adequately perform inspections. Finally,
an Arab-language newspaper in London reports that at least three
top Iraqi weapons experts had been "subjected to pressures
and offered financial incentives" to defect or cooperate
with American intelligence officials.
The US government's retroactive outrage
over Iraq's use of WMD during the 1980s seems less than candid
in light of America's radical reliance on WMD. An abbreviated
history includes Hiroshima, Nagasaki, agent orange in Vietnam,
supplying Iraq with WMD during the 1980s, spending billions of
dollars a year on military weapons, and contaminating Iraq with
DU weapons. A government report entitled "National Strategy
to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" states: "The
United States will continue to make clear that it reserve the
right to respond with overwhelming force-including through resort
to all of our options-to the use of WMD against the US"
"All options" includes America's "conventional
and nuclear response and defense capabilities." The report
suggests that there are even circumstances where America reserves
the right to use such weapons as "preemptive measures."
The US administration sounds worldwide
alarm over possible WMD in Iraq while simultaneously ignoring
larger WMD capabilities in countries such as India, Pakistan,
and Israel. This apparent double standard results in a cynicism
that the coming war is another fake liberation. Charles Pena,
Senior Defense Policy Fellow of the Cato institute captures the
distrust in the following statement:
The Defense Department claims 12 nations
with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16
with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing
and emerging threats to the United States. But only one of those
countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world.
The dangerous reality appears to be that
the US, as the sole superpower, has assumed the right to assess
each country's WMD capacity and categorize the country as a dangerous
rouge regime or an ally within the friendly confines of the world
community.
(B) The Mantra of War on Terrorism
The war on terrorism mantra has replaced
the defunct Cold War as the overarching rationale for US foreign
intervention. The beauty of the new policy is that the war on
terrorism is an "unending" crusade against an undefined
enemy which can lurk in any country selected by the US. The
threat of terrorism becomes the means of extending national security
to authorize preemptive strikes, covert operations and US imposed
regime changes.
The intervention in Afghanistan serves
as a recent example of the war on terrorism quickly expanding
to achieve geopolitical goals. The originally expressed parameters
of the Afghanistan invasion suggested a limited response to 9/11.
However, the facts on the ground reveal that the US expanded
the operation. The intervention installed a pro-West government,
established strategically important military bases, renewed the
construction of a much coveted natural gas pipeline , killed
thousands of innocent civilians , tortured Taliban supporters
stuffed in sealed cargo containers , contaminated parts of the
country with DU , failed to capture the masterminds of Al Qaeda,
and left the economy and infrastructure in shambles as the international
community ignores the costly rebuilding of Afghanistan.
In terms of Iraq, the US has been unable
to link Saddam Hussein's regime with Al Qaeda or the 9/11 tragedy.
Nevertheless, the administration plays on the fear engendered
by 9/11 to link Saddam Hussein with shady terrorist networks
which will use Iraq's WMD against the US. It is hardly surprising
that the world's support of the US in the aftermath of 9/11 has
dissolved into anger and resentment at the perceived arrogance
of the Bush administration and the "resource wars"
inflicted on the Middle East.
The distrust of US intentions is so pervasive
that many commentators suggest that Iraq is simply a stepping
stone to a larger "great game" control of the Middle
East. The grab for oil theory suggests that control of Iraqi
oil will drive a stake into the OPEC cartel and diminish Saudi
Arabia's influence over the industry. The political dominance
theory suggests that the US desires to destabilize and remove
the authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran in
order to strengthen the US/Israeli interests in the region.
(C) The Bully in the UN
International opinion increasingly questions
the use of military power to enforce Security Council demands
on Iraq while "numerous demands upon Israel, India, Pakistan,
Turkey and Morocco remain conspicuously unmet." There
are "well over 90 UN Security Council resolutions that are
currently being violated by countries other than Iraq."
The Bush administration often references
Iraq's termination of inspections in 1998 as evidence of Iraq's
violation of previous UN Resolutions. In actuality, the weapons
inspectors left Iraq in December of 1998 in preparation for Clinton's
"Monicagate" bombing campaign in the same month.
In addition, Iraqi complaints in 1998 that the inspectors were
spying for the US have been confirmed. At one point, the Russian
ambassador at the UN, Sergey Lavrov, remarked in the Council
that "it was not possible to ask the [Iraq government] to
cooperate and, at the same time, bomb their territory."
Government statements during the 1990s reveal the callous truth
that the US planned to block any success of the inspection/disarmament
process and the subsequent lifting of economic sanctions unless
Iraq implemented regime change.
The Security Council resolution on Iraq
passed in 2002 required intense lobbying by the US. The international
community criticizes US strong-arm tactics within the UN. The
US is perceived as horse trading with nations in order to garner
the necessary vote. The "bribes" and "favors"
offered by the US included assurances related to Iraqi oil.
The UN is considered spineless and irrelevant, but for reasons
other than those threatened by President Bush during his campaign
for the resolution.
(D) Obedience is an Ally; Disobedience
is a Rogue Regime
The promotion of democracy and crusade
against rogue regimes are questionable justifications for the
war in light of the US relationship with Saddam Hussein prior
to the Gulf War and America's record of supporting oppressive
dictators throughout the world.
Pre-Gulf War, the US supplied Saddam
Hussein with military equipment and the material to develop WMD,
actively supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and overlooked
the gassing of Iranian troop and Kurds in his own country.
Saddam Hussein was only demonized as the "Beast of Baghdad"
when the US desired to justify the Gulf War.
Noam Chomsky has presented the most thorough
accounts of US military and covert operations to prop up, maintain
and install ruthless dictators and regimes as long as the regime
supported American interests. A sample of countries includes
Indonesia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iran, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Columbia, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Cambodia. In sum,
the definition of "rogue regime" does not appear to
be based upon the regime's human rights record or the government's
adherence to democracy. Rather, a more accurate definition may
be any government which is disobedient to the control of the
US. After summarizing America's history of intervention in various
parts of the world, Noam Chomsky concludes: "Crimes are
not of great consequence; disobedience is."
Stephen Gowan graphically states, "the
impending all-out assault in Iraq is spinned as a 'war of liberation.'
And there's a certain truth to the claim. It will be a war
that could liberate up to 500,000 Iraqis of their lives, according
to the British healthcare group, Medact. It will be a war that
could liberate 200,000 Iraqis of their homes, and 10 million
of their security against hunger and disease, according to a
new UN report."
REPRESSION OF RESISTANCE
The war effort's hyper-patriotism mirrors
the sin pattern of the Cold War. Specifically, the mainstream
media functions as an uncritical mouthpiece of US policy, public
criticism is characterized as un-American, civil rights are restricted
in the name of national security, immigration policies are used
as a tool for broadly punishing immigrants even remotely connected
to the "enemy", and the "enemy" is demonized
and dehumanized.
After 9/11, the mainstream media has failed to provide the public
with investigative or critical reporting on the war on terror.
The result is a media functioning solely as a vehicle for the
administration's position, even when a government pronouncement
is found to involve misinformation. As a result, the public
is vulnerable to the same media marketing used to sell the 1991Gulf
War. President Bush Senior hired a public relations firm prior
to the Gulf War and paid the firm over $10 million funded by
the Kuwait government. The public relations firm sold the war
based upon lies, such as the high profile "incubator-killing
babies" atrocities. The atrocity was even trotted before
Congress as testimony.
Criticism of current American policies
is discredited as un-American. Civil rights are restricted through
mechanisms such as the Patriot Act. The INS rounds up immigrants
from the Middle East, keeps them in jail, often for extended
periods of time, and imposes special registration procedures.
One article comments that "racial profiling is the domestic
counterpart of Bush's new foreign policy based on preemptive
strikes: profiling and preemption work together to define the
human targets of the 'war on terror.'" The rigid patriotism,
civil rights restrictions, and punitive immigration policies
begin to mirror the abuses of McCarthyism.
Periods of heightened nation security
spawn increased racism and prejudice. During World War II, Japanese-Americans
were carted off to detention camps. The Cold War created hysteria
over "reds" and "commies." Edward Said,
the respected Palestinian author, observes that "[t]he initial
step in the dehumanization of the Other is to reduce him to a
few insistently repeated simple phrases, images and concepts."
"Mystification is everywhere." Said continues. "Terror,
fanaticism, violence, hatred of freedom, insecurity, and, of
course, weapons of mass destruction: these are the words we
use to speak of the Arab world; they don't come up in relation
to Israel, Pakistan, India, the UK or the US." As a result,
"the belief that 'we' must get them first is what frames
and gives legitimacy to the war on terrorism and on Iraq."
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE
The Christian community's response to
twelve years of American atrocities in Iraq is characterized
by a deafening silence. Certainly leaders of denominations,
churches and other Christian organizations are beginning to clarify
and voice their positions as the war drums grow louder. Despite
the dialogue among Christian leaders, Christians sitting in the
pews maintain an indifferent or fearful silence.
In order to break the silence at a grassroots
level, it is necessary to thoughtfully examine the various positions
taken by Christian leaders. Most theological discussions adopt
a position for or against the war based upon the "just war"
doctrine, pacifism or other criteria. A comprehensive Biblical
response, however, requires an honest accountability for the
US actions in Iraq. Self-examination moves the believer beyond
a theoretical pacifist or just cause approach to Spirit-driven
repentance and forgiveness. A face of suffering replaces the
Other. The sword drops from the hand when it must sever the
life of 500,000 Iraqi people with individual faces. In fact,
the face of suffering calls the Christian to peacefully protest
and resist America's war machine.
The Dissonant Voice of Christian Leaders
Fearful Demonization
Several high profile Christian leaders
have engaged in a spiritual assault on Islam in response to 9/11
and global terrorism. Franklin Graham characterized Islam as
"very evil and wicked." Pat Robertson stated that
Muslims intend "to control, dominate, and if need be, destroy."
Jerry Vines with the Southern Baptists called Muhammad a "demon-possessed
pedophile." Finally, Jerry Falwell told 60 Minutes that
Muhammad was a terrorist.
While public rejection of this prejudice
is essential, such thoughts permeate the church. A theological
cause may involve an overly black and white view that all religions
other than Christianity are totally evil or Satanic. These statements
also may reflect a response of anger and fear to the 9/11 tragedy.
At a deeper level, the pervasiveness of this perspective in
the pews may symbolize the deep rooted sin pattern of racism
in the American culture. Ellen Schrecker, in her book on McCarthyism,
offers the following food for thought:
Americans have never suffered from a shortage of scapegoated
aliens. In its early years, native Americans and African slaves
supposedly threatened the nation from within. In the nineteenth
century, the demonization had spread to Catholics and immigrants.
By the mid-twentieth century, Communists, a political minority,
had supplanted the earlier racial, religious, and ethnic subgroups
as the most common version of the subversive "other."
Significantly, the language of demonization remains constant...
The enemy within is rarely human. And always the situation
is critical By 1948, Communism had become "a far greater
threat to our existence than any other threat," so dangerous
that if the United States "does not successfully cope with
the Communist threat, then it need not worry about any other
threat to the internal security of this nation, because it is
not impossible that there will be no nation." The same
language, the same patterns of thought, pervade all these conceptualizations.
The dehumanizing of the supposed threat as well as the quasi-hysterical
tone in which it is addressed are too similar not to have come
from some common source.
A Methodist bishop challenges American
Christians to confront our country's pride in technology and
the efficiency of missiles as bordering on cultural idolatry.
"One way to test the power of idolatry is to ask who it
serves and who is the victimConsidering victims of stray bombs
or the devastation wrought by those bombs as "collateral
damage" of such a campaign dehumanizes them. We fail, in
this culture, to understand that our abstractions, if they are
unmasked, have human faces."
Power Politics
Many responses cash-in on politics trumping
Biblical analysis. One example is a survey conducted and publicized
by Stand For Israel. Ralph Reed, the former director of the
Christian Coalition, is the co-chairman of the organization.
The survey concludes that conservative Christians are the biggest
backers of the Iraq war, with 69% of "evangelical"
Christians favoring a war and 80% of the Christians identified
as republican supporting military action against Iraq.
Additional survey information reinforces
the conclusion that foreign policy responses within the Christian
community may be driven more by politics than religion. For
instance, two-thirds of evangelical Christians supported Israel
and their actions against Palestinian "terrorist."
56% of the supporters indicated that the decision was based
upon political reasons and only 28% of the supporters selected
theological reasons, such as end-time prophesies.
The implication of this survey is that
many Christians are divorcing their view of violence and war
from Biblical criteria. "Born-again" war cries are
rising from lungs filled with political air. This approach lessens
the impact of Biblical principles on the politically sensitive
Bush administration.
Nonviolence
The nonviolent, or pacifist, position
opposes any violence, including the Iraq war, as contrary to
the gospel. Pacifism is a central doctrine in denominations
such as the Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren and the Quakers.
The Catholic Church teaches that the only two legitimate Christian
responses to war are nonviolence and just war. The early church,
as a distinct, minority community within a larger community,
tended toward pacifism. The analysis presented by theologian
Stanley Hauerwas serves as an instructive example of this position.
As a prerequisite for a Christian response to the Iraq war, Hauerwas
clarifies the need to differentiate the Christian response from
the American people's response. Failure to distinguish the kingdom
of God from the kingdom of the world results in a Christian narrative
muddied by American culture, hyped up patriotism, politics, emotionalism,
nationalism and power. The "we" encompassing an American
Christian must be severed into "the American" and "the
Christian." The tendency to fuse God and America spawns
wildly erratic and divergent positions on the war which often
reflect the call of the flag rather than the call of the gospel.
The gospel, in the theology of Hauerwas,
is a radically subversive call to a counterculture of the cross.
The church, as a community living out the power of Christ's
suffering unto death, can only engage the violence of this world
with nonviolent love. The church becomes the manifestation
of the kingdom of peace and an alternative kingdom within America.
The church's task is not primarily to provide guidance on political
and foreign policy issues for a host country, but to be a living
political and foreign policy that flows out of the community
of the cross.
Hauerwas' writings wrestled with the implications of pacifism
in the shadow of 9/11. He concludes that 9/11 did not forever
change the world. Christ's death and resurrection forever changed
history, the world and the cosmos. He states: "The claim
that September 11, 2001, forever changed the world is a claim
shaped by the narrative of being an American. As Americans we
feel violated, vulnerable, fearful. We hate those who have made
us recognize our fear. We hate the loss of security, the loss
of comfort that comes from routine. We want normality. I think
we are right to want all this, but we must remember that these
desires-if we are Christians-must be shaped by our fear of God."
As early as 1975, Hauerwas stated: "Crucial to our ability
to deal with life truthfully is having the skills to face moral
tragedies without developing justifications that become policies
of self-deception."
The power of the nonviolent position lies in its assumptions.
First, the Christian response must be inextricably tied to the
gospel. Second, the gospel cannot be revised or expanded to
assuage our pain and modern angst in the presence of horrific
and unexplainable violence. Accommodation of God's truth to
modern contingencies results in self-deception and deformity.
Third, the Iraq war and related war on terrorism must be narrated
from the Christian perspective as opposed to the American context.
The overriding authority of the gospel
provides common ground for Christian pacifists, Christian just
war theorists, Christian ethicists and plain old Christians in
the pews to dialogue meaningfully on the issue. Resistance to
accommodation avoids self-deception or other modifiers (such
as political leanings and emotions) warping the Christian response.
The distinction between Christian narrative and American narrative
broadens the Christian's perspective beyond the boundaries of
the US. 9/11 has pulled Americans kicking and screaming into
the rest of the world. Iraqis and much of the rest of the "Third
World" experience unimaginable suffering and squalor every
day. For these people, every day is 9/11.
Hauerwas' theology underlying nonviolence challenges the Christian
church to examine its validity as a true, distinctive community.
For instance, many of the disenfranchised in American society
have rejected Christianity as irrelevant or as perpetuating racial
and economic inequality. In response, the marginalized are discovering
a more profound sense of community within Islam. Similarly,
to some extent the extreme patriotism after 9/11 exposes the
failure of the church to offer a meaningful sense of community.
Pacifism is often criticized as irrelevant to the political process
and ineffective in influencing social change. Reinhold Niebuhr
said, "Jesus was clearly a pacifist, but if we Christians
are going to act for justice in the world, we have to leave pacifism
behind, which means we have to leave Jesus behind when we come
into the political arena." This blanket criticism fails
to recognize that pacifism does not equate to passivity. Martin
Luther King and Gandhi rocked their respective cultures with
active nonviolence. Gandhi stated: "Nonviolence is not
a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart,
and it must be an inseparable part of our being." Nonviolent
Christians can participate in peace protests and other forms
of social action, although, in Hauerwas' view, these actions
take a backseat to the Christian community living up to its primary
social purpose of manifesting the community of the cross.
The Just War Doctrine
The just war doctrine is the
most common approach to examining the preemptive invasion of
Iraq. The analysis essentially is pacifism with exceptions.
A strong presumption in favor of peace and against war can only
be overcome with extraordinarily strong reasons which meet established
criteria. The criteria developed over the centuries by Augustine,
Thomas Aquinas and other Christian theologians, include the following:
Legitimate authority: Legitimate authority requires a public
act by a sovereign political authority.
Just cause: Just cause includes defense
against wrongful attack, retaking something wrongly taken, or
punishment of evil. Historically, the classic justifications
have been limited to defense against wrongful attack or the imminent
danger of attack.
Right intention: The goal should be
to bring about peace. Prohibited intentions include personal
or national enrichment, gaining territory or seeking glory.
Reasonable chance of success: This criterion
requires the overall good of the military action to exceed the
probable cost or harm of the action.
Proportionality: The use of force must
be limited to legitimate military necessity and civilian casualties
must be avoided. Specifically, direct, intentional attacks on
civilians is prohibited.
Last resort: All reasonable peaceful
means of reaching a solution should be exhausted before beginning
hostilities.
(A) An Unjust War
A majority of Christian denominations
and organizations currently conclude that the proposed Iraq war
does not meet the criteria of a just war. Opponents of the war
include the Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the
Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the National
Council of Churches, and the World Council of Churches.
The Catholic Church has been the most consistently vocal opponent
of the war. The Pope has issued repeated warnings against the
war. The US Catholic Bishops' 1993 statement entitled "The
Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace" provides a summary
of key elements of the Church's teaching on war and peace, including
the principles of the just war tradition. One important additional
criteria contained in the Catholic criteria which often is not
explicitly identified in other descriptions is the concept of
"comparative justice." The 1993 summary states, "while
there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to
override the presumption against the use of force the injustice
suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered
by the other."
The specific application of the just
war theory by the Catholic Church to the Iraqi crisis is exemplified
by a letter issued on November 14, 2002 by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (the "US Statement")
and a statement by Pax Christi, UK dated June 21, 2002.
The US Statement emphasizes that a "preemptive,
unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government
of Iraq" fails to satisfy the test. "Preventive uses
of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal
with weapons of mass destruction" expand dramatically the
traditional "just cause" principle without "clear
and adequate evidence of imminent attack of a grave nature."
With respect to "legitimate authority", a decision
to go to war requires "compliance with US constitutional
imperatives, broad consensus within our nation and some form
of international sanction." The standards of "probability
of success" and "proportionality" raise significant
concerns about imposing "terrible new burdens on an already
long-suffering civilian population" and the possibility
of provoking terrorist attacks. The US Statement also indicates
that force could bring incalculable costs for civilians in violation
of civilian immunity and proportionality principles. In "assessing
whether 'collateral damage' is proportionate, the lives of Iraqi
men, women and children should be valued as we would the lives
of members of our own family and citizens of our own country."
The US Statement ends with a call to pursue actively alternatives,
such as replacement of broad economic sanctions with a military
embargo and political sanctions.
The Pax Christi statement contains an
equally strong condemnation of a preemptive strike against another
sovereign nation as exceeding legitimate self-defense. The document
"deplores any military action that regards the deaths of
innocent men, women and children as a price worth paying in fighting
terrorists, since this is to fight terror with terror."
Any fight against terrorists, the statement suggests, should
be accomplished through police actions of arrest and trial under
the international system of law. "The so-called 'war on
terrorism' is an act of political rhetoric that must be distinguished
from a military campaign against a sovereign state. It cannot
be used to justify an attack on Iraq, and any offensive planned
to counteract the perceived threat posed by Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction should not be represented as a war against terrorists."
The Pax Christi also identify the UN as the supreme authority
with respect to an international war.
The letter issued by the World Council
of Churches condemns "preemptive military strikes against
a sovereign state under the pretext of the 'war on terrorism'"
and urges the use on non-military measures. The letter also
raises "comparative rights" arguments. The Council
"deplores the fact that the most powerful nations of this
world continue to regard war as an acceptable instrument of foreign
policy, in violation of both the United Nations Charter and Christian
teachings." Further, "the people of Iraq have suffered
enough under sanctions regime since 1991. Inflicting further
punishment on innocent civilians is not morally acceptable to
anyone." Finally, a war could fuel "the fires of violence
that are already consuming the region" and "sow more
seeds of intense hatred strengthening extremist ideologists."
A delegation of 13 religious leaders
visited Iraq under the auspices of the National Council of Churches
and issued a Press Statement on January 3, 2003. The delegation
concluded that they were opposed to the war for three reasons.
First, "a war against Iraq will make the US less secure,
not more secure...We believe the entire region, including Israel
and the United States will be at greater risk of terrorism if
war takes place." Second, "widespread suffering and
death will result for innocent people. So-called 'smart bombs'
do dumb things like missing targets and destroying homes, water
and sewage treatment plants, schools, churches and mosques."
Third, the delegation found a preemptive war "immoral and
illegal."
The United Methodist Church has four
Statements from the Book of Resolutions which are relevant to
Iraq (276;277;306;318). Statement 276 condemns the economic
sanctions as "the most severe penalty ever imposed on any
nation" with the burden of the economic sanctions falling
on the shoulders of the Iraqi people. Continuation of sanctions
is "the moral equivalent to waging war against the civilian
population." The resolution calls for a lifting of economic
sanctions and the continuation of military sanctions. Resolution
277 opposes intervention into the affairs of other nations, especially
the intervention of more powerful nations against weaker ones.
The resolution calls on all nations to monitor their own compliance
with UN principles and international laws. Resolution 306 opposes
low-level conflicts often carried out by covert operations.
Resolution 318 addresses several issues such as disarmament.
In addition, the Methodists have issued strong public statements
accusing the Bush administration of "unprecedented disregard
for democratic ideals" and "a major and dangerous change"
in US policy by establishing preemptive warfare.
The Policy on Iraq adopted by the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) represents a watered
down approach. The Policy contains seven actions, including
recommendations to lift sanctions, exercise "restraint"
in the contemplated military action, maintain safeguards such
as military sanctions, initiate comprehensive efforts by all
governments in the Middle East to eliminate weapons of mass destruction,
direct the Iraqi government to redirect resources from military
spending to civilian infrastructure and seek a negotiated solution
based on diplomacy. As compared to other statements, the Presbyterian
policy stops short of opposing the war based upon a just war
analysis.
(B) A Just War
While most denominations oppose the preemptive
war, an influential portion of the Christian body, particularly
within the "evangelical" community, conclude that the
traditional just war theory is satisfied or that the theory must
be expanded to address the realities of modern warfare and terrorism.
The best example of this position is an October 3, 2002, letter
written to President Bush by five prominent, conservative Christian
leaders-Richard Land, Dr. Chuck Colson, Dr. Bill Bright, James
Kennedy, Ph.D, and Dr Carl Herbster.
The letter determines that Bush's policies concerning Saddam
Hussein fall within the criteria of a just war. The policy "concerning
using military force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein and
his weapons of mass destruction is a just cause. In a just war
theory only defensive war is defensible; and if military force
is used against Saddam Hussein it will be because he has attacked
his neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own
people, and harbored terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network
that attacked our nation so viciously and violently on September
11, 2001."
With respect to the "just intent"
requirement, the letter refers to President Bush's statement
that "the United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi peopleLiberty
for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic
goal." The letter emphasizes the intent to defend freedom
and freedom-loving people from state-sponsored terror and death.
The intent, according to the letter, is not to "destroy,
conquer or exploit Iraq."
The analysis of the "last resort"
principle concludes that Iraq has already rejected all other
international attempts through a decade of refusing to disarm
or cooperate with weapons inspections. "They have not,
and will not, do so and any further delay in forcing the regime's
compliance would be reckless irresponsibility in the face of
grave and growing danger."
The "legitimate authority" requirement is met by a
declaration of war or a resolution of Congress. UN approval
is wise and prudent, but not necessary. This view is supported
with an analogy to President Kennedy's position concerning the
Cuban missile crisis.
The requirements of limited goals and
reasonable expectation of success are met by the stated policies
of "disarming the murderous Iraqi dictator and destroying
his weapons of mass destruction, while liberating the Iraqi people
of his cruel and barbarous grip." The principle of noncombatant
immunity is summarily addressed with of vote of confidence "that
our government, unlike Hussein, will not target civilians and
will do all that it can to minimize noncombatant casualties."
The letter addresses "proportionality"
with the argument that "not dealing with this threat now
will only succeed in greatly increasing the cost in human lives
and suffering when an even more heavily armed and dangerous Saddam
Hussein must be confronted at some date in the not so distant
future." This argument is reinforced with an analogy to
Hitler and the deaths that would have been avoided if the world
had quickly confronted his threat.
This minority position has the ear of
the Bush administration. Colson describes a discussion with
Donald Rumsfeld as follows:
The issue of whether a preemptive strike could be justified under
the just war doctrine came up during a meeting I attended at
the Pentagon last fall. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
asked religious leaders to come and give him advice on whether
the just war tradition was being applied to the war in Afghanistan.
During the meeting, I asked the secretary, "How would you
justify a preemptive strike against Iraq?" That led to
a fascinating discussion about the administration's options in
its prosecution of the war against terrorism. Rumsfeld argued
that the 1981 Israeli bombing of an Iraqi nuclear power plant
suspected of producing material for nuclear weapons set a precedent
that the US was prepared to follow.
The response of Mr. Colson, however,
is more American than it is Christian. Although this writer
falls into the "evangelical" camp on most issues, with
respect to Iraq the minority position shrouds the cross with
the flag.
The October 3, 2002 letter attempts to
satisfy a defensive war based upon invasions by Iraq of Iran
in the 1980s (a war in which the US actively supported Iraq)
and the invasion of Kuwait in 1991, Saddam Hussein's use of WMD
against his own people in the 1980s (actions which were strategically
overlooked by the US at the time) and Iraq's links with Al Qaeda
(a claim which has since been dropped by the US). The past events
cited, however, do not support the traditional self defense prong
of the test or the concept of an imminent threat. In other comments,
however, leaders such as Colson recognize that the preemptive
war in Iraq requires an expansion of the traditional self-defense
doctrine. Colson argues that expansion of the doctrine is necessary
because "waiting for the other side to shoot first is tantamount
to committing national suicide. This led to the idea of preemption."
Without overwhelming evidence of imminent threat by Iraq, the
expansion supported by Colson completely guts the protective
criteria of the "just cause" principle.
The second principle of the doctrine,
just intent, is met by the US goal of freedom from WMD and the
freedom of the Iraqi people. The US does not have "a quarrel
with the Iraqi people." In a subsequent article, Colson
reinforces the prerequisite of "solid intelligence and goodwill
of US and Western leaders." Colson dismisses the possibility
of any impure intent. "I find it hard to believe that any
President, aware of the awesome consequences of his decision
and of the swiftness of second-guessing in a liberal democracy,
would act so recklessly." Any man who has traveled into
the heart of darkness of the Nixon administration should recommend
at least kicking the tires of "just intent" before
endorsing an unprecedented preemptive war. In fact, the administration's
stated goal of "regime change" taints the intent analysis.
Jim Skillen of the Center for Public Justice suggests that comparing
disarmament of an imminent threat with regime change is "similar
to comparing neutralizing hostile tanks posed on the border to
wiping out a government." Skillen criticizes elements
of the preemption doctrine as implying that "the US is now
going to look at the whole world and make sure that no power
can stand in its way and it will take preemptive action as necessary."
In addition to the questionable validity of "regime change,"
it seems prudent for Christian leaders to consider the illegitimate
intent of grabbing for oil resources.
The "last resort" and "legitimate
authority" analysis in the October 3, 2002 letter hinge
to a large extent on the appropriate role of the UN. The letter
characterizes UN approval as merely a "nice-to-have."
The breaking mechanism of the UN, however, ensures that, at
least within the halls of the UN, the US is not going against
international opinion. Such a check on unilateral action seems
critical as the US moves into the unprecedented realm of preemptive
warfare. Similarly, the "last resort" concept turns
on whether resumed inspections prove effective. In the present
context inspectors should be given ample time to complete inspections
without pressure from the US to preordain the outcome. Further,
various church organizations have suggested less drastic containment
mechanisms, such as the lifting of economic sanctions combined
with a continued military sanction.
The letter presents a surface analysis
of "limited goals" and "reasonable expectation
of success." The goal of disarmament and liberation of
Iraq are far from sure outcomes. The US plan for post-overthrow
military governance by the US and continued presence for years
reflects the extreme instability that will result from a "liberation."
The Arab countries have reiterated time and time again that
a continued presence by the US in a Muslim country will not be
tolerated. Thus, overthrow seems achievable given the overwhelming
military power of the US, but the "freedom and peace"
goal post-coup is a risky proposition. As David Fromkin points
out in a book on the Balkans conflict: "The 1999 aerial
bombardment of Serbiawas an action ..within the power of the
United States to undertake. But whether the remaking of Serbia
is within our power is another questionThe trusteeship-for-Kosovo
concept comes at the wrong time in history. Regardless of our
professed 'disinterestedness' and 'pure intentions', we will
be imposing an international regime on a foreign population that
will perceive that regime as imperialist-and it is too late for
imperialism."
The reliance by the "evangelical"
camp on US technology and restraint to ensure noncombatant immunity
seems to reflect our cultural idolatry of America's sophisticated
and precise weapons. Colson's comments on this principle expose
an unsteady analysis. First, Colson expresses confidence in
US restraint based upon the military's "commendable"
precision targeting in Afghanistan and previous military engagements.
The reports of significant civilian casualties in our bombing
campaigns in Afghanistan and in Iraqi no-fly zones contradict
a naïve confidence in bombs which never think. The revelations
that the Gulf War bombing campaign constituted a direct violation
of "noncombatant immunity" by targeting the civilian
infrastructure suggests that the US should take a deep breath
before carpet bombing Iraq. Finally, recent reports by government
and UN officials suggest significant civilian damages. Perhaps
more than a deep breath is needed.
Perhaps more troubling, other comments
by Colson suggest a willingness to trade lives of the other for
US safety. In a commentary expressing whole-hearted approval
of "fighting fire with fire" against terrorists by
using nuclear weapons, Colson states:
The use of nuclear weapons and the death
of civilians, however, could be justified if their use prevented
even greater evils. This was the rationale behind the use of
atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where those bombs brought
the war in the Pacific to an abrupt end, saving an invasion of
Japan that would have resulted in more bloodshed, destruction,
and suffering for soldiers and civilians than the bombs. It
was the same justification the Church embraced during the Cold
War.
Even in his subsequent recantation of the Nagasaki example, Colson
seems unable to see civilian casualties as real people with real
faces. Colson states:
By any such use of weapons on our now
would have to be aimed only at military targets. Our intent
must be clear, even if there are unintended civilian casualties.
Some Christian ethicists refer to this as the "double effect",
in which a morally justifiable action has undesirable, even sometimes
foreseeable, side effects-but never effects deliberately intended.
This means striking military targets with surgical precision,
which, so far, this Defense Department has gone to great lengths
to do.
"Unintended", "undesirable",
"even sometimes foreseeable", and "side effects"
seem a desperate sanitization of the death of the Other.
The evangelical analysis of the final
just war doctrine, "proportionality," is most telling
by its omissions. The October 3, 2002 letter finds possible
future terrorism with substantial cost of life as the determinative
factor. The letter, as well as other commentaries, omit any
discussion of the significant loss of life and humanitarian crisis
which is predicted by the UN. The commentaries fail to acknowledge
the suffering and deaths caused by economic sanctions maintained
by the US in the face of international protest. The comments
omit the common concern that the war will actually increase the
likelihood of terrorist attacks in retaliation to the invasion.
Instead, the threat of future use of WMD by Iraq or terrorists
allows the chasing of undefined enemies to override more immediate
and acute suffering inflicted by a preemptive war.
The letter exhibits a troubling demonizing
of Saddam Hussein which is subtly extended to Muslims in general
by commentators such as Chuck Colson. The letter vilifies Hussein.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, but many countries in
Central America, Latin America and the Middle East might characterize
Hussein as an "amateur" compared to the covert operations,
coups and military attacks instigated by the US.
The subtle extension of the dehumanizing
process to Muslims is exposed in comments by Chuck Colson. In
one commentary, Colson employs the superficial "clash of
civilizations" paradigm to explain 9/11 as a battle of worldviews
between the West and extreme Islam. Colson then proceeds to
draw the battle lines between Christianity and Islam in theological
crayons of primary colors. Islam's worldview is simplistically
described as worshiping a God who is remote and utterly transcendent
and as rejecting original sin. "The Muslim's best hope
of salvation is to eliminate non-Muslim influences and to advance
Islam (by force, if necessary, for which there are heavenly rewards,
as the terrorists believed)". The rejection of original
sin leads the Muslim to "seek the perfect society by strictly
enforcing Islamic law." The utopian perspective "has
already brought tyranny and disaster, just as communist utopianism
led to the tragic deaths of tens of millions in the former Soviet
Union." Colson concludes the poorly drawn caricature with
a subtle suggestion that "although most Muslims are peace-loving,
the Qur'an does speak of 'jihad'". The terrorist lurks
in every Islamic corner!
A second article discusses the impact
and influence of Islam in the prisons. Prisons are viewed as
prime targets for "radical Islamists who preach a religion
of violence, of overcoming oppression by 'jihad'" Colson
makes a passing remark that most Muslims interpret jihad as an
inner struggle before moving on to the radical jihad "invading
our prisons." "Those who take the Koran seriously,"
Colson states, "are taught to hate the Christian and the
Jews; lands taken from Islam must be recaptured." The ante
is upped by jihad being "the only way one can be assured
of Allah's forgiveness and eternal salvation." The business
man reading this opinion in the Wall Street Journal will put
down the paper believing that "radical Islamists seek to
turn criminals into terrorists." Colson's simplistic approach
to the prison issue is refuted by a recent article which focusing
on other compelling reasons, such as the sense of community in
Islam and the Islamic organizations' willingness to put their
concern into practice with practical programs.
In contrast to the terrorism of jihad,
"out of love for neighbor, then, Christians can and should
support a preemptive strike, if ordered by the appropriate magistrate
to prevent an imminent attack." The only distinction between
a love war and a holy war appears to be the color of the flag
and the type of weapons used.
Another thread running through Colson's
just war theory appears to be politics. In 1999, Colson vigorously
opposed the Clinton administration's campaign against Kosovo
based upon a just war analysis. The article referenced the moral
difficulty in bombing a sovereign nation, alternative strategies
to military action, and the evil caused by the bombing due to
Milosevic's increased reign of terror. A sound analysis, but
drastically different than the current application to the Iraq
war. As one example, the current analysis brushes aside the
moral difficulty expressed by many commentators, and Colson himself
in 1999, to bombing a sovereign nation. Saddam Hussein "forfeits
his sovereign immunity", if he is "stockpiling weapons
of mass destruction and acting in concert with terrorists."
This reasoning suggests that the numerous countries stockpiling
WMD and refusing to disarm, such as India, Pakistan, Israel,
the UK, and the US, may have forfeited sovereign immunity.
CONCLUSION
The impending preemptive warfare in Iraq
desecrates the sadness and sorrow of 9/11 with more mothers crying
for their children lost in bombed out rubble. The fear and vulnerability
violently inflicted on the American culture by the 9/11 tragedy
has trapped Americans in nightmare visions of terrorists lurking
in every mosque and open air market of the Middle East. The
Other approaches without a face. The Bush administration draws
the face for us: today Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, tomorrow an ayatollah in Iran building a suspicious
nuclear plant, a week from now ruthless sheiks in Saudi Arabia
funding more terrorist networks, a month from now a belligerent
general in North Korea refusing to disarm, a year from now a
neighbor in a nice house who dares to question the global cop
on the beat.
The flag hangs above the cross in every
sanctuary. Prayers deceive us that God is surely on our side.
The Christian curls up in the soothing deceits of "collateral
damage," "surgical strikes," "preemption,"
and "weapons of mass destruction." The soothing chant
of coded words rocks us into a blackout free of nightmares, free
of guilt.
There is no anesthesia in Iraq, no blackout,
no nightmare, only the rotting terminal illness of sanctions,
the mental rape of a mother as her child dies without medicine,
the savage suicide of selling a wedding ring to buy food to live
one more day, the unidentifiable incinerated remains of every
emotion, the surgical strikes of foreign hell from above the
clouds.
The twelve year siege of Iraq is unjust.
The preemptive war is unjust. Tear off the honorific title
of "war." Tear it off and tell me what you see.
Theodore McDowell is a lawyer in Atlanta. He can be reached at:
TNMCDOWELL@sgrlaw.com
Yesterday's
Features
Douglas Valentine
An
Act of State: the Execution of Martin Luther King
Wayne Madsen
In
Material Breach of the Constitution
Bush's War on the Soul of America
Mahir Ali
The Dupes
of War: Blessed are the Peacemakers
Gordon Solberg
We Want Our Country Back
Wayne Saunders
Inside
Bush's Brain: a Pathology of Fear and Lies
Joshua Ruebner
An
Iron Triangle:
Raytheon-Israel-Congress
John Troyer
An
80s Flashback: Of Shuttles and Air Raids
Lee Waters
Inside the Bush White House
"Armageddon is Long Overdue!"
Website of the Day
Electronic
Iraq
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|