Jim Wallis: Reality Has Set In
In yesterday's confirmation hearing of Robert Gates, an extraordinary exchange took place. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who will become chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the next Congress, asked Gates: "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?" Gates replied, "No, sir." With that simple answer, he directly contradicted everything the Bush administration has said for the last four years. Just six weeks ago at an October 25 press conference, the president was asked if the U.S. was winning in Iraq, and replied, "Absolutely, we're winning."
Finally, reality has set it. Or, more truthfully, it has been forced on the administration by the vote of the American people.
When he was asked, "Do you believe the Iranians are trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability?" Gates answered, "Yes, sir, I do." But to the question, "Do you support an attack on Iran?" he replied, "I think that we have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed, it becomes
unpredictable. And I think that the consequences of a conflict – a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic. And therefore, I would counsel against military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened." That's another difference from the rumors that continue to fly around Washington.
This morning, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group briefed President Bush on their report, which will be publicly released later today. I'll have more to say about that tomorrow, but news reports are saying it will call for the withdrawal of nearly all U.S. combat troops by early 2008 and urge talks with Iran and Syria – both of which the president has consistently opposed.
And finally, the resignation this week of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. deserves a note. Bolton, who drew strong Senate opposition and was appointed by Bush without confirmation, was a combative figure who seemed to enjoy attacking the U.N. more than working with it. He now joins Donald Rumsfeld and a growing number of the other neoconservatives who led the charge into Iraq but are now on the sidelines.
Some of the former war leaders are now changing their minds. Kenneth Adelman, longtime friend of Donald Rumsfeld and supporter of the war as a member of his Defense Policy Board, told the New Yorker that at a meeting of the Board last summer, he said, "what we're doing now is just losing." Rumsfeld didn't like to hear that. Adelman says, "He was in deep denial – deep, deep denial." Rumsfeld's response was to remove him from the Board, saying, "You've become disruptive and negative."
The president reluctantly accepted Bolton's resignation, and told reporters, "I'm not happy about it." As a new national debate begins on Iraq, there will be many more things the president won't be happy about, but may have to accept.
U.S. deaths have now reached 2,900, and Iraqi deaths are in the hundreds of thousands. For their families and loved ones, reality set in long ago. It is the reality that we must now all be accountable to every day in the new debate on Iraq.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I too am somewhat encouraged from Gates's blunt answers, although I suspect the hearings were somewhat 'posed'.
I also see where the long awaited Iraqi Study group has released its report, and reccomends diplomatic engagements with Iran and Syria. I think it is a good idea, albeit one that may be too late. The only real bargaining chip the US has are the troops in Iraq, and now Iran and Syria see the 'handwritting on wall' that the troops will be leaving soon. That will only make negotiations more difficult.>
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | December 6, 2006 6:57 PM
Oh, puleeze! The UN is a deeply, deeply flawed organization. The level of corruption throughout the UN is staggering. The level of corruption in the UN dwarfs anything in the Clinton and Bush Administrations combined, yet Jim (rightly) rarely fails to call out domestic corruption - especially when committed by Republicans. Ambassador Bolton was one of the few folks who recognized that and tried to slap some reality into the place.
The UN's recent history of Oil-for-Food, Sex-for-Food, child abuse, and inaction in the face of genocide should be ample evidence that reforming the UN was more important than working with it, since working with it means little or no change.
Your claims to be any kind of moral authority becomes very weak when you won't speak out against corruption wherever it is.
Once again, Jim Wallis demonstrates that political ideology trumps morality.>
Posted by: timks | December 6, 2006 7:07 PM
I like that Wallis is pleased that Bolton is stepping down, but cannot offer any compelling reasons why he is pleased other than "Bush is unhappy".
I suspect that diplomacy will work with Iran and Syria about as well as it did before the Iraq war, which is to say, not at all.
Not sure why Wallis is so giddy over all of this. Well, yes I am, but he shouldn't be.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2006 7:09 PM
We have won the argument over Iraq and won the war in Iraq when we have accomplished the Common Good. It is in that we should find our joy.
Speculative comments like, 'there is much more President Bush will be unhappy about,' do not strengthen the work to elevate the dialogue. It is impossible to know how the 'realities' of Iraq have rested on President Bush's heart and mind. We spend far too much energy defending ourselves and seeking to win arguments rather than winning the Common Good.
If anyone simply wants to stake out the 'winning position' in Middle East policy, the last century could lay out pretty good advice, "Oppose whatever policy is in place."
A simple step for religious leaders to take in advancing the Common Good would be to eliminate the question, "Are we winning the war?" Was that really the best question to help all involved focus on what would be the Common Good? What benefit was there for this endless argument, for painting Bush into a corner (sometimes of his own making) and then all the interest in Gates answering the question differently?
Language of winnnig and losing leaves many of us with impossible options. Winning a war typically involves domination. But it is not our intent to dominate. But the language makes me feel like I don't even want to win because it is not my intereste to dominate. So my option is to lose the war. Which is not what I want. The language pushes us to paralysis.
Elevating dialogue to the Common Good most often involves elevating the questions we ask.>
Posted by: PJ | December 6, 2006 7:16 PM
More Republicans are getting wary about military interventionism. That's good news, although of course they don't go nearly as far as we wish.
Unfortunately, the same is not true of Democratic politicians. They will speak against the Iraq War but don't seem to have learned many lessons. House Democrats ran on a platform of which the first plank was a military buildup, including a doubling of the Special Forces, critical for wars like Iraq. Right after the election, Senate Majority Leader to be Harry Reid called for a $75 billion dollar increase in the military budget.
The Democrats in Congress seem bent on preparing America for more wars like Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, Jim Wallis has not spoken out against that. We need some moral leadership!>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | December 6, 2006 7:42 PM
Wallis is out to get Bush and timks and kevin are out to get Wallis--all the makings for a great, informative dialogue.
What with the confirmation of Gates and the Iraq Study Group report we may be poised at the threshold of a very significant "new way forward" for our government, our nation and the world. So how 'bout if everyone just takes a deep breath and in our conversation we try to exemplify some of the "bipartisanship" the ISG called for. Even Warner, Levin and Kennedy were gushing all over each other on the Senate floor this morning. Could a little more civility on the part of the contributors to this blog be so hard to swallow? After all, we are all in this together, unless some of you intend to be the first settlers of NASA's new colony on the moon.>
Posted by: Randy | December 6, 2006 8:00 PM
timks....
Who said anything about the UN??????>
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | December 6, 2006 8:36 PM
Kris,
Jim Wallis did in his post.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2006 8:46 PM
PJ
I think JW's language toward Bush is uncommonly mild. I personally think Bush is a war criminal, and that the Common Good includes the accountability of leaders for their actions. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, thousands of Americans are dead and thousands more have permanent disabilities. The problem isn't about language. The problem has to do with reality, and while I agree that the language of winning and losing is totally inappropriate, it is language which originated from the white house, and the language from Gates and the white house is beginning to sound much more real. Imo Gates is far from an ideal candidate, but he has to deal with a Democratically controlled Congress and it is, in fact, only the political realities of the Democratic win that has opened the way for a reality based dialogue. All the nice words in the world would not have brought about the firing of Rumsfeld and Bolton, and the strong words the Republican leaders now face are far more humane than their policies of lies,shock and awe.
I admit Jim's words are far more palatable than mine, and I agree with you in wanting a more reasoned and respectful political discourse in America, but that discourse will have to be able to deal with the realities of some very big mistakes.>
Posted by: Joseph T | December 6, 2006 8:51 PM
I think the idea is that some of the combative figures who have created this disastrous atmosphere of denial and belligerence toward accountability and are now slowly being replaced by (hopefully) more realistic people. Given Bolton's ideological commitments, it is unlikely that he would have had the ability to manage the change in perspective and approach that is needed on the Middle East. So yes, some feel that it is a good thing that he's gone and are rightly happy about it because it's a sign of change at a very high level.>
Posted by: splinterlog | December 6, 2006 9:37 PM
The Iraqis lost quite a few more folk under Saddam remember. This is an ongoing slaughter from way back, not just our Alliance vs two factions in a civil war.
I have worked with muslims who claimed allegiance to al-quaeda in the '90s (packing lettuce in the UK) and I cannot address their ideology. You can try and sing their religeous songs with them, tell them the truth as you see it, but prayer is about all the rest you can do, I believe.
Your own battles over significant issues in the USA are always going to be in the way of your foreign policy imho. Leaders are more often deluded than crooked in my experience. Bush has his point of view, and he needs addressing, not shouting at. (Lousy loudmouth Limey opionons lol!)>
Posted by: Tony Jarrett | December 6, 2006 9:40 PM
I suspect that diplomacy will work with Iran and Syria about as well as it did before the Iraq war
I think if there is an effort to engage Iran and Syria multilaterally, far more coul dbe achieved that the chest thumping (on both sides) before the Iraq war.>
Posted by: splinterlog | December 6, 2006 9:42 PM
Dear Jim
you cannot proclaim yourself to be representing God's politics while at the same time tearing down the reputation of people in the Bush Administration. You may not like these people but God did not make you his judge on Earth.
Thank you>
Posted by: matt | December 6, 2006 9:47 PM
Randy - I'm not out to get Jim Wallis. I agree with him on many things, but I don't mind pointing out his blindspots just as many folks here relish pointing out mine.
Jim Wallis seems willing to overlook the UN's proven structural and moral problems, which have killed and harmed many times more people than president Bush's alleged crimes have.>
Posted by: timks | December 6, 2006 9:51 PM
The truth is the world is a tough place. Ask those in the Sudan... Try speaking to these people about peace through diplomacy and see what you get. Here is a place the U.S. military is not really involved.
Sometimes you must negociate from a position of strength and that may mean paying the price in war. And Yes people will die. We can't even stomach losing 3,000 soliders in Iraq. We are weak and becoming weaker. Osama Bin laden was right. He said we wouldn't be able to go the long haul! The only reason these others are saying we are losing is that it is now politically correct to do so.. Anything else gets you fired. And if the situation were to change today so would thier statements. Don't think so watch, because the situation will change and I can promise you this, no one will like it.
Finally any other nation at any other time in world history who invaded a country occupied it for five years and lost only 3,000 soliders from thier home country would have been declared military genius! Yes more must be done and people will die. But I'd rather do it now and get it over with.. Does anyone know how many people where lost in the Iran and Iraq war? You will be surprised... And yes I know we aided Iraq in that war as well...
We truly need leadership that is morall I agree... But I'm not sure if it is to be found through these steps that are being taken now.. i think they will despise us for not staying the course and make us pay really in the end... ap>
Posted by: Al | December 6, 2006 9:54 PM
Once again we have apologist for neo-conservative policies. Going back to Clinton, etc. shifting the discussion to the UN. I was supprised that gay marriage wasn't thrown up as some form of defense for the Iraq war lie.
This whole adventure in Iraq is in Bush's lap. And, the people of this country have rejected it. A bi-partisan group has said so without a single dissent.>
Posted by: Butch | December 6, 2006 9:55 PM
Here's my prediction. "diplomacy" with Iran and Syria goes nowhere, but provides a convenient shield for us to exit Iraq. The result is chaos, which is what Iran was hoping for all along. The maneuever is labelled a success because it allows us to forget about "Bush's war".
Meanwhile, we wait for the next calamity to occur before we are reminded that there is, in fact, a worldwide faction of militant Islam that (surprise, surprise) still hates us. Strangely, it seems that this movement was around even before "war criminal" Bush became the presidency.
Depending on whether the president at the time is a Democrat or a Republican, Jim Wallis will either support or oppose their actions in response to said calamity. After a few more years, we'll get tired of whatever that response might be. Muslims will demonstrate no such waning of zeal.
Repeat cycle until we find ourselves in the midst of something that everyone can agree is a World War, in which our freedoms hang in the balance. This will either lead to a new cultural awakening, or the end of our nation at the hands of militant Islam. Either way, by this point, Jim Wallis' "non-partisan" ministry will look about as prophetic as his communist sympathies circa the 1970s do now.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2006 9:59 PM
It IS revealing that our sports obsession as a culture seems to permeate some people's thinking about everything. They seem to know the difference between winning and losing but not the difference between right and wrong. I suspect that many people who have changed their minds about Bush and his people would be happy if we were "winning" and are only mad because we're "losing".
As for Bolton and Bush, I believe there is no place for arrogance, beligerence or denial in public affairs - especially those on which people's lives depend. That has nothing to do with party. We as citizens judge public officials every day and we are right to do so. Their performance and our national impact on the world are OUR responsibility. They are our delegates in the nation and the world. We judge their words and thier actions but not their souls because only God can do that.
As a last thought, I'm very concerned that the Iraq situation does not have a positive solution primarily because there does not seem to be a concept of nationhood in Iraq. There seems to be only Suni, Shiite and Kurd. The Prime Minister clearly cannot call on national military or police to restore order. There are no national military or police, just warring militias. That to me is the fatal flaw in the concept of turning security over to "the Iraquis". What Iraquis?>
Posted by: Ann T. Dubas | December 6, 2006 10:07 PM
First to Al, are you so willing to be one of the 3,000 to die in the Iraqi war or your child or your brother/sister or wife? I guess it's pretty easy to minimulize 3,000 lives when it doesn't pertain to you.
And second, i am a born again christian, raised in a very right wing republican household but am now a card carrying member of the democratic party. and let me once again say i am a born again christian. you can actually be both. so here is my second point/question, when and how did it get to be okay with christians to go to war? The reason for our entering the war with Iraq changed so many times i'm not sure what the reason is now. Oh, maybe it's the rah rah patriotic, "we're fighting for our freedom" reason. Does anyone in the christian community stop to think is going to war Christ-like? Then what does turn the other cheek mean? What would Jesus do?>
Posted by: Christy T | December 6, 2006 10:26 PM
"Finally, reality has set in. Or, more truthfully, it has been forced on the administration by the vote of the American people."
Remember, Jim Wallis, reality has a liberal bias.
As for Dr. Gates, it is clear that along with John Murtha and Jimmy Carter and over 50% of Americans, Gates "hates our troops" and "hates Freedom" and can't wait to impose falafel-wrapped copies of the Koran on American children as they are forced into same-sex marriages.
Our only hope is to repeat Bush's line: The U.S. is winning its Preemptive War of Choice Against Iraq. The U.S. has always been winning its Preemptive War of Choice Against Iraq.
Keep repeating the above and swiftly attack anyone who dares to suggest otherwise. It's what Jesus would do.>
Posted by: Tenoch | December 6, 2006 10:28 PM
Tim ks wrote "I'm not out to get Jim Wallis. I agree with him on many things, but I don't mind pointing out his blindspots just as many folks here relish pointing out mine.
Jim Wallis seems willing to overlook the UN's proven structural and moral problems, which have killed and harmed many times more people than president Bush's alleged crimes have."
How about some examples of your agreement with Jim Wallis. How about some examples of UN actions that have been so destructive.
Tim and Kevin
Many who have examined Bolton's career have come to far more critical assessments than what Jim W. voices. Even when the R's owned the Congress they couldn't get this guy approved. There are very good reasons or this. If you want to disagree with what JW is saying you should defend Bolton ; even that would be peripheral to the substance of the article. I agree with others that attacking the U.N. seems silly and irrelevant.>
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2006 10:37 PM
Gates is approved - so we have a new SOD, how long is it going to be before he is vilified by the Dems on Capital Hill?
You (blue people) really believe that dealing with Syria and Iran will accomplish anything positive in the Mideast. These countries have threatened US and ISRAEL - they are not interested in peace until we are either neutralized or off the face of the planet. You think the UN is going to make things better. How many resoultions did they make against Iraq that Saddam H blew off. Sanctions - sure...lets just tell the French, Russians and Germans where they can make more money at our expense. Thanks for Clinton/Carter we will be dealing with N. Korea real soon. So Blue People - what are we going to do? Lets talk and define terms because we both talk english but we do not convey the same message. I am willing to select the issue(s) that we need to deal with, draw up what is the desired outcome for the situation. I will even commit to paper for our discussion the plan so that we have something to talk about...not just 'change'. See you at the table and have a sharpe pencil.
Still waiting for an official comment on 'Bright Eyes'...>
Posted by: Robstur | December 6, 2006 10:46 PM
Ann,
I would say that our obsession with sports is a byproduct of the way we view war, and not vice versa. That said, "winning" is vitally important, because losing entails death and loss.
Perhaps there is merit to the idea that there should be three separate states based on religious identity. However, if separate Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish states develop, we can quess which one of those won't be around very long.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2006 11:08 PM
Butch - Your comment is the first time I've ever heard anyone accuse Jim Wallis of being a neocon.>
Posted by: timks | December 6, 2006 11:19 PM
Joseph --I greatly appreciate your (and others) capacity to dialogue AND hold passioned views. Jim's language is mild--Agree.
But if his call is to Common Ground, I wish to contribute by asking we dialogue in a way that elevates the convesation. And we need to be reflective and disciplined in upgrading our own conversation.
There is a hoard of consultants, public relations squads, speech writers and journalists creating language every day to frame the questions and answers.
Getting rid of winning/losing language does not answer anything. but it opens the door to a framing of the issues that more closely reflect reality.
I highly value comments made above about the necessity to honestly engage reality AND make concrete assesments about political leadership. What I am saying is bad questions lead to bad information leading to bad decisions, bad propoganda, and worthless debate.
I understand the 'breath of fresh air' that many felt when Gates said "No (we aren't winning)." But it was only refreshing after months/years of listening to this "win/lose", "stay the course/cut-and-run, etc. etc. language.
Elevating the conversation to the "Common Good" is to ask questions that get to the fundamental ethical, purposes we seek to accomplish. It is not to deny nor weaken strongly held commitments by the Parties or other partisans.
Ann asks, "What Iraquis?" If we can't conduct political dialogue that results in the advancement of a Common Good; why do we demand Suni, Shiite and Kurd to do so.>
Posted by: PJ | December 6, 2006 11:24 PM
Ann T. Dubas said, "As a last thought, I'm very concerned that the Iraq situation does not have a positive solution primarily because there does not seem to be a concept of nationhood in Iraq. There seems to be only Suni, Shiite and Kurd."
You make a good point here, but you understate the problem. The predominant ethnic group in Iraq is Arab but the majority of the Arabs are Shiite Muslim. Kurds are a separate ethnic group from Arabs but primarily Sunni.
There are also Turkmen and a few other ethnic groups. Not to mention the ever-shrinking number of Arab and Kurdish Christians.
Iraq is a real melting pot. Why can't they get along?>
Posted by: timks | December 6, 2006 11:24 PM
Anonymous said, "How about some examples of your agreement with Jim Wallis."
I've mentioned them before, but Jim and I agree on the preeminence of Christ, the primary but not only work of the Church is spreading the Gospel, the Holy Bible as the Word of God, loyal American, Christian brother, the importance of helping the poor as part of our Lord's commission, etc.
Anonymous also said, "How about some examples of UN actions that have been so destructive."
Did you read my post? I listed several.>
Posted by: timks | December 6, 2006 11:30 PM
Even though I fully support Bush's reasons for being in Iraq, I doubt that we can turn Iraq into a peace-loving democratic country. Obviously, with the viscious struggle for power going on between Sunnis and Shiites, it would be very difficult to establish peace and democracy. Was Bush wrong for trying? No. Will we be better off to walk away and try dipolomacy? NO!!! If Mr. Wallis thinks that some sort of liberal charm and diplomacy is going to win the hearts of Islamic Radicals, he is far more deceived than President Bush. If Islamic Radicals achieve their goals in Iraq, which now it seems we will stand back and let them, we had better be prepared to defend our own homeland down the road and see far more people killed before we either win, or are subjected to defeat. If we can't stop Islamic Militancy in Iraq, where can we stop it?>
Posted by: JP | December 6, 2006 11:31 PM
We unleashed what is going on in Iraq, the 3 factions have not gotten along for about 1200 years and we think that is going to change?
We just talk in cirles, when are we going to accept our part in all this.
Bush rattles his swords at Iran then we tell them not to cause us any trouble in Iraq, are we fools? What did we expect.>
Posted by: Butch | December 6, 2006 11:32 PM
One other thing Anonymous said, "I agree with others that attacking the U.N. seems silly and irrelevant."
Here's an organization that is directly or indirectly responsible for billions and billions of dollars of fraud, turned a blind eye while genocide was being conducted, allows pedophiles and other deviants to wreak their damage on children and other defenseless persons while in the UN's employ, yet Jim Wallis prefers someone who is willing to "work with" this organization rather than reform it.
And you think my criticism is silly and irrelevant? What a cold-hearted person you must be.>
Posted by: timks | December 6, 2006 11:36 PM
We can keep talking about the UN.
I remember well when baby Bush said "bring it on", well they have and we don't know what to do.
The only answer is, its Clintons fault, or Carter.
Takes guts to say "I was wrong".>
Posted by: Butch | December 6, 2006 11:44 PM
Curious? Does anyone have a clue what the Iraqi's want us to do?
I've heard a couple of snippets on the TV but I haven't really heard anything specific.
I don't know what the answers are? But am curious what either side thinks and what the Iraqi's may or may not want is an issue. Do any believe it makes any difference?>
Posted by: MB | December 6, 2006 11:51 PM
Who is the former congressman, the Viet vet in the wheel chair, it s his fault.
Don't forget the liberal press and the elite academics and Hollywood.
We ve got to find someone to blame, Stay the course , we can blame someone, now lets get our heads together. Appoint another bi-partisan committee to agree whom we can blame.
I ll just throw one out, Hillary, if she had not tried to do something about health care.>
Posted by: Butch | December 6, 2006 11:58 PM
This is a pretty devistating critique from Wallis: he's cheering because "A lot of stuff happened that Bush and conservatives don't like..." What does any of this mean? I don't know...
Of course, saying we're "winning" or "losing" a war says little about the strategies we're employing. My guess is that Bush and Co have been saying we're winning the war in order to boost troop morale more than anything. Getting someone in his administration to say "we're losing" doesn't mean much practically speaking.>
Posted by: jessie | December 7, 2006 12:16 AM
Whoa, it was the coalition of the willing, if they had not been willing we never would have been there.
Bush needs to fly on to an aircraft carrier and declare, "We are unwilling". Should aircraft carrier have been capitalized?
If France and Germany had been willing then we could leave and blame them. I ll never eat French Fries or Kraut for what they did to us. That s the ticket, yes that s the ticket, it s the French and Germans.>
Posted by: Butch | December 7, 2006 12:30 AM
"Does anyone in the christian community stop to think is going to war Christ-like?"
Um, yeah, that has been discussed at length on this and many other Christian forums that I have seen. Has any anti-war Christian thought that maybe, just maybe, they aren't the fist person in history to come to the conclusion that Christ forbids war? Have any of these folks stopped to think whether there might be a counterpoint to this argument?>
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2006 1:43 AM
These "vital interests" what are they? Are they American vital interests? No. Governmental vital interests? Yes. Christian vital interests? No.
It is important to notice the difference.
I don't know how I feel about the whole Bolton thing. If we were saying, "The UN is a farce, and chicken, so we're gonna be completely uncooperative." I'm okay with that.
I hope we don't have diplomatic success with Iran or Syria, and that our elected officials have the resolve to do nothing about it.
I know, that sounds chicken, too, but what has "doing something about it" ever done for us? Why do we have to be involved over there at all (no Zionists need apply)?
Wallis fails to recognize that government is the problem, and thus bigger government (UN) can't possibly be part of the solution.
PJ, what is this Common Good? What common good looks like to me is free markets' ability to feed the entire world and develop medicines for most of the world's diseases.
Randy, bi-partisanship requires belief in big government. It negates the possibility of the government doing less, or even better, nothing. It also absolves Christians of their responsibility to do something personally.
Joseph T, this Common Good stuff is really creepy. Where did you get this term? Should we be doing cost-benefit analysis of the war to tell us what is moral? Is efficiency moral?>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 2:03 AM
Jim amd others:
Cost of Iraq miitary campaign $8 million per month and $4Billion all on the national debt. How to pay for this is very rarely mentioned. During WWII luxery taxes Bonds ans other sacrificies were made by the civilians to pay for the war. The Iraq invasion/occupation has gone on longer than WWII but instead of taxes to pay for the administration cut taxes. No funds for the Military should be approve by congress without taxes to pay for the appropriation. I have written and called my Representatives and Senators with But theyhaven`t taken any action. Help inform them that this must happen.
Glen Carey>
Posted by: Glen A Carey | December 7, 2006 2:03 AM
Anonymous, "to go to war or not to go to war that is the question".
Is that the quote you are looking for?
I have a crazy little take on Christianity, Jesus came one day and said I have a new deal, maybe I'm talking about the new covenant. All manner of things happened in the Old Testament and He said we re going to do things differently. He turned over a few tables; I think politicians were changing money. They were the Abramoffisees, they wore black hats and a scowl. The Abramoffisees worked with the Christian Coalition a fledgling lobbying firm. I m sure biblical scholars can help with references. Could be in the holy book of Wall Street Journal 3:16.>
Posted by: Butch | December 7, 2006 2:43 AM
Now that we have completed the Vietnamization of this Iraq war, that is we have allowed the press to determine military strategy, define victory and appoint our military leaders, we should send in the helicopters and evacuate everyone. First, of course, would be the hundred thousand or so contractors getting fat off the war in Iraq.
I guess it too much to ask the American military to win a war they are involved in... we've almost the reached the death toll of 9/11. Better quit now.>
Posted by: charlie | December 7, 2006 2:45 AM
off topic.
What's next for big activist pushes?
My vision is that third parties will form an alliance to change the legislative structure of states so they are unicameral and with a hybrid between a representative and a majority rule legislative system.
The goal would be to enable third parties to gain a better foot-hold into power so that, if they appeal to the center, they can succeed more in getting the main parties to take up their issues.
I think this is the sort of issue that would fit well with Sojo/ Call2Renewal's purpose.
dlw>
Posted by: dlw | December 7, 2006 3:09 AM
Great Charlie, I knew one of my proposals would catch hold.
It is all the news media's fault, we could win the war on terror, haven't heard that much lately, if the news media would report it properly.
Thanks Charlie, now lets get behind this idea, we have an excuse that has wheels.>
Posted by: Butch | December 7, 2006 3:26 AM
re: question about what the 'common good' is.
Jim Wallis' national radio address asserted politics has been failing to deliver solutions to pressing issues because the commitment to the common good has been lost. I've just been suggesting we honor that perspective and conduct our dialogue in a manner that advances the 'common good.'
In general, I understand there to be a long conversation (going back to Plato/Aristotle) about the 'common good'--in general referring to a society that functions for the good of all.
This ethical approach is not without some problems. But part of recent conversation on this Blog relates to the place of religious/Christian action in the political sphere.
I suggest an important contribution of religious leaders to escaping our political quagmire is the elevation of the dialogue based on a shared morality (areas of agreement on the common good).
I believe this is an element of Wallis' argument. This does not require parties abandon core principles/strategies (e.g. Free Market forces)--but that they then apply those fundamentals to the common good. e.g. "OK, if you are so committed to Free Market Solutions--then work this thing out as to how Free Markets will best deliver new, high-cost medications so they benefit all.>
Posted by: pj | December 7, 2006 3:35 AM
I am absolutely not for free market solutions. The free market is for business, a corporation is required by law to make all the money it can. In fact if a corp does not attempt to make all the money it can a stock holder can sue.
Now comes government, when free market forces interfere with the common good the government intervenes for the people.
A free market system says if we have the money we can buy a gas guzzler, since your gas guzzler causes the price of my gas to go up then you pay a luxury tax and we find a balance.>
Posted by: Butch | December 7, 2006 3:54 AM
If we can, I want to get back to the liberal press. They reported that we were driving Humvees up and down the streets of Iraq maintaining order killing Al-Quada and the press reported that they were poorly armored.
If we can get the press under control we can get the war on terror back on track.>
Posted by: Butch | December 7, 2006 4:23 AM
"since your gas guzzler causes the price of my gas to go up then you pay a luxury tax and we find a balance."
No. Gas guzzlers consume more gas, and are inherently more expensive to fuel. The increased demand drives prices up, people buy fewer gas guzzlers. the balance finds itself. This is not a compelling case for having government pick economic winner and losers via taxation.
A good number of gas guzzlers aren't luxury cars anyway, and a good number of luxury cars aren't gas guzzlers.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 7, 2006 4:25 AM
Amazing how these "comments" look more and more like chat boards (and spin off-topic just as rapidly)>
Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | December 7, 2006 4:49 AM
We have a war on terror and we must find support for this. Iraq has been a problem and we must find someone to blame.
The liberal press is the problem, everything would be under control if we get them under control.
Lets get behind this, a few talking points, sound bits, this will fly.>
Posted by: Butch | December 7, 2006 4:58 AM
Glen A. Carey said, "...The Iraq invasion/occupation has gone on longer than WWII..."
Um, wrong, Glen. WWII started on September 1, 1939 and ended six years later.
The "Iraq invasion/occupation" is not quite four years old.>
Posted by: timks | December 7, 2006 5:18 AM
My question in all of this is what is he right answer. Bush should be accused of war crime. Albright admits that economic restrictions during the Clinton Administration took hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Saddam gassed 200,000 Kurdish people. There is alot of daeth and destruction centering in the area. What is the proper response? Economic restrictions did not work, war is not working, Saddam in power was not good either. Give me the answer. What would God's Politics be in this particular instance? I hope people read this understanding I am trying to ask an honest question. Political theorizing on this side(from either the left or right) looks quite different when it hits the ground in Iraq. What is the solution. I fear that I am quickly becoming an advocate of the Pietist withdrawal from political interaction. Help me to understand what a different Christain approach would look like.>
Posted by: Jeremy Harke | December 7, 2006 10:05 AM
Reality is Jim wallis, that you will not preach the Gospel to the lost.
You dwell in political social endeavors like Herod on a throne. You appear well fed and politically powerful.
You pretend to abhor war, but will not lift a finger or toungue to admonish Muslims and to convert them to follow Jesus Christ. . .
. . . and to stop THEIR violence and nation building by use of war.
Forget something Jim?>
Posted by: Donny | December 7, 2006 10:41 AM
Question: Are truly moral values (like truth, honesty, respect for others, preservation of life, etc.)compatible with the "common interest" or with global economy ? Question: Why war? If a nation decides to go to war, it must convince the people of that need, for it costs lives and money : to instill the notion that there is a need because it is to defend our nation and our values - then we have fear instead of freedom. Mos people prefer to have their basic needs assured even if there is little freedom: an example, if you talk to most of the people from the ex- Soviet Union they preferred their life before the "tables were turned".When we read through Histroy, we realize wars were meant always to defend "our interests" against those of others, namely economic interests - that's where the power is. Christhian values have a way of being a flag to hold up when accountability for past actions is out of the question. Forgive me, forgive yourselves - it is difficult to tell the truth and win elections at the same time. I agree we need a change (the whole world does)- peace keeping should be the first option if one does not stand to lose by that. Otherwise, we have to defend our positions - then comes the choice of strategy, based on evaluation of the situation. Unfortunately, those who can decide sometimes rely on wrong evaluation or they have economical ties and interests that are not compatible with high moral values ("charity begins at home")... What to do now? Someone said the diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria will create a way out of the mess. Very possible. It will become messier, anyway, as things stand.>
Posted by: Ana Leite | December 7, 2006 12:34 PM
Mr Wallis are you doing anything different than what the prideful religious right does? Taking your political stand, claiming moral authority, invoking Christ or God whenever necessary and attacking your enemies rather than loving them? It seems the only difference between you and them is your political persuasion. When will there ever be a voice of truth that isn't ultimately a pawn of politics. When do you advocate a position that is opposite of the Democratic agenda? Please advise me if I am wrong.>
Posted by: david henderson | December 7, 2006 2:28 PM
If we disbanded every organization and bureaucracy because of corruption, we would not have the Red Cross, the U.S. Congress, the office of the Presidency, nor a multitude of other NPOs. We need to look at what we can do to effect changes, not just dismiss the UN out of hand. That attitude is both simplistic and arrogant on our part. Like our system of government, it is the only international regulating body we have, so let's be realistic in how we deal with it rather than letting emotion over-rule our intelligence!>
Posted by: Liz Hornbaker | December 7, 2006 3:08 PM
Jim, Don't let your manifest hatred of President Bush and the Republicans immpair your critical thinking. It looks like that might be happening. The Dems made a lot of promises - which is easy to do when you are out of office - but even a casual observor can see that in many respects they are reverting to form even before they are sworn in.
Nancy Pelosi, the much lauded, is already settling old personal scores, or trying to,in a manner that would have made Joe Martin, Sam Rayburn, or Tipp O'Neill blush.>
Posted by: John D. Sens | December 7, 2006 3:22 PM
Liz - Who has called for the disbanding of the UN?
Isn't reform, which Bolton was advocating, "effecting changes"?
Which is more likely to improve the efficiency and reduce corruption at the UN: reform or doing nothing, which Jim Wallis is essentially advocating?>
Posted by: timks | December 7, 2006 4:18 PM
As a UK Christian who's just discovered this website and its rhetoric, I have to say I'm somewhat shocked at JW's insistence that the US (if not the UK & EU and perhaps the whole world too) MUST talk to Iran. Has he truly any concept of what that would mean. Irans leader considers that he is ushering in the Messiah - remember Him - the One we love and serve i.e. Jesus, but not in Ahmadinejad's eyes - no, his Messiah is going to destroy Jesus and convert us all to Islam, and this guy is the one who's going to bring him onto the world scene. Why would any self respecting Christian want to consider dialogue with a guy who openly states he will be pushing to destroy Christianity at its core!?
Apart from that, something ONLY the Israelis have cottoned on to, is how the enemy (aka fanatical Muslims if not all) think - they thrive on perceived weakness. As soon as you enter into dialogue, you're already providing them with the notion that you're unable to do battle with them any other way, and that you inherently think you can convince them to change their mind on something. Only GOD can do that, and yet somehow we seem to think its how to progress in this current crazy situation. Muslims (radical or otherwise) have no interest in how you would like to see them change - they only want to convert you or destroy you, and Ahmadinejad has already openly stated that in his open letter to Bush. So remind me please - why is Jim Wallis pushing for this dialogue to take place?? :(>
Posted by: TikkiRo | December 7, 2006 4:30 PM
"If we disbanded every organization and bureaucracy because of corruption, we would not have the Red Cross, the U.S. Congress, the office of the Presidency, nor a multitude of other NPOs."
Correct. I'm not sure anyone is calling for disbanding the UN.
"We need to look at what we can do to effect changes, not just dismiss the UN out of hand."
Neither has anyone dismissed the UN out of hand. I think, rather, that they are not quite the magic bullet that Wallis and others might hope. Their corruption with regard to Oil for Food has done tremendous damage to OUR credibility in Iraq. While we do not disband organizations because of corruption, we do ask them to make key changes before we engage them on issues of vital national interest.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 7, 2006 5:26 PM
I would like to see some Biblical quotes on Jesus calling for uniting on the common ground among the various parties of his day. I'm having trouble finding that.
Am I misreading scripture, or did Jesus actually call for all of the parties to repent and turn from their ways? The Republicans and Democrats are both calling for wasting even more money on the machinery of death. The Common Ground would be to spend most of our money on death, but I have trouble seeing that as the Christian approach.
This is the season when we hail the "Prince of Peace" - maybe it's time to follow him and not just mouth platitudes? Instead of trying to win the favor of one faction of the ruling war class, shouldn't we be speaking prophetically to all of them?
My problem with Jim Wallis and Sojourners is that they claim to be Christian but refuse to be prophetic.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | December 7, 2006 6:23 PM
My comment is a liitle late in the day and maybe off target, but I'd like to respond to Bill Samuel's closing remark, "My problem with Jim Wallis and Sojourners is that they claim to be Christian but refuse to be prophetic." While this distinction worthy of discussion, let's be generous and define a Christian as any one who wants to be and is trying to take up his own cross and follow Jesus' teaching. I think we ought to knock off all this "claim to be" rhetoric and take one another at our word.>
Posted by: Douglas Donaldson | December 7, 2006 8:23 PM
dlw, your call for third parties is useful. Instant runoff voting may be of some help in this area. The problem with democracy is that there are always some options left out. The market, on the other hand, provides limitless options. The easiest answer is to let the market do most of the work. If and where there are externalities, these are the responsibility of the church, not the government. Nice homepage, btw.
pj, I don't know that we really do want a society that functions best for the good of all. Do we want a society that functions best for rapists? Of course not... Well then, who gets excluded? We can talk about "the good of most" which is efficiency, but there is no "good of all". It is a myth. There is an underlying element of exclusivity to all moral truth.
Religious leaders can help religious followers (that sounds awful, like we are all cattle of one breed or another...) to be religious.
"The most political thing a christian can do is to gather with other christians on Sunday morning." (Stanley Hauerwas) Because this demonstrates to the world that they are not christians. The exclusivity of the church is what gives it meaning.
Likewise, christians can take an exclusive role in meeting the needs of the least of these. By trying to compel unbelievers into a collective action we water down our own identity. We make grace cheap rather than costly. (Bonhoeffer)
What shared morality is there out there? The best I can muster is "Do all you have agreed to do. And: Don't encroach on others or their property." (Richard Maybury) These two rules set the basis for all contract and tort law. I don't see much room for agreement beyond them.
As far as discovering new, high cost medications to benefit all... we make better progress finding these medications when those who can afford to pay for them get them first, and then the cost of successive recipients diminishes over time. If christians want to foot the bill for this, okay, though it may cloud the price structure's ability to meet the most pressing need the most efficiently.>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 8:31 PM
Thanks for restating the fact about the pre emptive war in Iraq. Add the Iraq Study Group's report to Gate's testimony, and the hundreds of reports from major networks in Iraq; the evidence is clear, the war was a major moral and political mistake.
Can Bush be man enough to admit this and proceed?>
Posted by: Ron | December 7, 2006 8:40 PM
Butch,
How do businesses make money? By selling people things they want. How do they survive? By selling for less, or by lowering their costs (using fewer resources-better for everyone). How do they get bigger? By satisfying more people's desires. What is bad about satisfying people's desires? By allowing people to own their labor (and anyone can if they are willing to take the risk) and to enjoy the fruit of their labor (by not taxing it all away) we encourage those who can work to work more. They produce more. There's more to go around. There's less sickness and starvation. Do you realize that most of the world was diseased and starved most of the time before free markets and limited government were attempted in America? Why hasn't America ever had a famine?
Who decides what is in the common good? We can't just throw these terms around so cavalierly. See above questions about common good.
My gas guzzler causes the price of your gas to go up... that's interesting. It might be true. I'd like to study up on that one...
If there is an increase in demand (gas guzzler) it would cause supply to expand slightly as well. I think the price would go up, but only proportionally, not directly. And even if it does, it does not change the fact that the gas is going to its most highly valued use in the overall economy, which is what you are implying. If I am willing to pay more for the gas than you are, then I must value it more. And if we are looking for the greastest "common good" (ugh) then we want what is most efficient (I don't know what other criteria we might use here, what you think is the highest good, or what I think is the highest good?). If I value the gas more, then it ought to go to me, because I will make the greatest use of it. It will satisfy me more than you.
If you tax my gas, and not yours, then I am being forced to pay for my gas and yours. Of course I will choose to get rid of my SUV. That's rough, because it will now be more difficult for me to carry the five kids I adopted from women who would have otherwise aborted their children around. Don't demonize SUVs. I know its popular, but its wrong.>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 9:16 PM
"Amazing how these "comments" look more and more like chat boards (and spin off-topic just as rapidly)
Kris Weinschenker " I don't understand, do you resent our conversation or only our comments? Please engage our comments, you are more than welcome. Otherwise introduce an interesting comment to the discussion. We are not all here just to discuss what any one person wants to talk about. That's what freedome of speech means.
Butch,
I agree with you completely about those griping about the "liberal press." People get what they pay for, and they pay for what they want to hear. Different people want to hear different things. Few people want to hear everything, or even a representation of everything. And no one is forced to, nor ought they to be. But decision makers ought to be rightly informed. I think they are. I think they are faced with incentives, however, which influence their decisions and often create bad decisions.
timks,
The Iraq war has gone on longer than it should have, and so did WWII. WWII was over when Hitler lost the battle of Stalingrad. He had overextended. He was doomed to failure. That's about the time Americans were bombarded with government propaganda demonizing the Germans and glorifying the Soviets.
The US Government demanded an "absolute surrender" which was clearly impossible for those in power to accept. The US Government didn't give them an incentive to stop fighting. The US Government never should have entered the war, the US Government never should have provoked Japan. The US Government never should have funded Hussein vs. Iran, or the Afgans vs. the Soviets. The US Government never should have gotten involved in any foreign conflict.
Jeremy,
"What would God's politics be?" To renounce the use of force. To put oneself in harm's way to protect innocents if need be, but to never call for collective action. Don't withdraw from political action, demand that politics withdraw from the private sphere.
Donny,
Jim is trying to preach the gospel. Don't be ugly about that. I think both of you are blinded by a pagan sort of statism. I mean that is the stricktest sense of the terms.>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 9:34 PM
Ann Leite,
First: Christians believe in virtues, not values. We are imitators of a way of life, the way Christ lived. We do not attempt economic transactions among various values of good behaviors and bad behaviors. We simply respond to the call of Christ and immitate Him.
The question is not "Why a war?" It is "Why a nation?" Or at least, "Why a centralized national government?"
Once we have decided on such a form of concentration of power we are stuck with the powerholders 3 perpetual desires: 1. To keep the power they have. 2. To use the power on somebody. and 3. To get more power. I am not deluded. This IS the nature of power.
Power holders in the US are not permited to use their powers on American citizens to too great a degree, but they are allowed to use their power on people outside the US, so they like to do that.
You are right that people prefer security ot liberty. It's too bad, its part of the sin nature, that sort of pagan mindset. We cannot allow ourselves to be trapped into that.
Economic interests are immediately corrupted when they come into contact with politics. The nature economic interest of each person is to provide for themselves and their families, and hopefully to have a little left over to trade with someone else. If this is done "economically"-through trade, everyone ends up better off. If it is achieved "politically" through forced redistribution, everyone will end up worse off because the more productive will have had their incentive to production reduced.
All political actions are out of the question for Christians.
I favor bringing all our boys home. Freedom was spreading faster when people chose it volutarily. They did this primarily with their feet, by emmigrating from their homelands to places with greater liberty. Of course, this would require opening our borders and being willing to accept a higher level of risk. When other nations lose their tax bases due to emmigration they eventually have to adapt their policies for greater liberty. We must look to the long run on these issues.>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 9:51 PM
Liz,
The Red Cross is voluntary. The UN is compulsory. It has no reliable feedback mechanism. Free actors don't need a regulating body.
John,
I also hope that Jim Wallis will be as critical of bad democratic policy as he has been of bad republican policy.
TikkiRo,
Do you really think that Islam poses a threat to the world? Do you think God thinks Islam is a threat? Which is worse, paganism, worshiping many gods (political ideologies) or monotheism worshiping the wrong one god?
I am not so pessimistic. Now, I know you are swimming in muslims over there in the UK. I've got a plan for you, cancel all government programs that involve redistribution of wealth, including healthcare. Dis-enfranchise everyone. Take the incentive away. Give up your own privileges.
Ah, but everyone, at least in my experience, is more protective of their priviledges than their rights. I've met many a man who would gladly sell his right to free speech for a>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 10:00 PM
I've met many a man who would gladly sell his right to free speech for a welfare check. Anyone care for a dose of soma?>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 10:00 PM
Kevin,
I dismissed the UN out of hand because I am arguing on principle not prcticality. That's what Christians do. They do the right thing, regardless of the circumstances or personal sacrifice involved. All this appeal to practicality is idolatry.
What should we do practically? Practically, we should get our principles right. (To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton)>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 10:04 PM
Right on, Bill. I'm gonna go read your blog...
Douglass, good point. Bill, let's not call them apostate, but I concur on the challenge unto the prophetic.
Okay, I'm done monopolize the page, I've caught up.>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 7, 2006 10:11 PM
Has any anti-war Christian thought that maybe, just maybe, they aren't the fist person in history to come to the conclusion that Christ forbids war? Have any of these folks stopped to think whether there might be a counterpoint to this argument?
Counterpoint? That's why there was an Empire-wide Christian uprising against Roman Imperial policies and persecutions against Christians...er wait...that's why Christians meekly bent their neck to the Roman sword and were celebrated as martyrs. That's why Jesus led an Army...er wait, he allowed himself to be crucified.
Then again, they (christians) did change their tune once they became the official state religion.
Is that the counterpoint to the anti-war christian message you were looking for?>
Posted by: Aaron | December 8, 2006 12:10 AM
"Is that the counterpoint to the anti-war christian message you were looking for?"
Nope. In fact, your post reinforces my point.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 8, 2006 1:25 AM
jurisnaturalist said, "The Iraq war has gone on longer than it should have, and so did WWII. WWII was over when Hitler lost the battle of Stalingrad. He had overextended. He was doomed to failure. That's about the time Americans were bombarded with government propaganda demonizing the Germans and glorifying the Soviets."
Huh? If WWII was over after the Soviets destroyed the German Sixth Army, why did the Germans and Russians keep fighting for 2 1/2 more years? Your opinion that the war went on too long is irrelevant to the question how long was the war, which is the point I was addressing.
My father in law is an American WWII vet. I'll have to ask him if he remembers all the government issued pro-German propaganda prior to February 1943. Since Hitler declared war on the US in December 1941, I'm sure that will be a big surprise to him.
I'm pretty sure the pro-Soviet progaganda began around June 1941, when the German forces crossed the Russian frontier.>
Posted by: timks | December 8, 2006 2:12 AM
pj
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post. I think we are mostly in agreement , especially about the silly win lose, good evil language which distracts us from seeing the possibilities of respectful dialogue. War is inherently a losing proposition as there are almost always better ways to challenge injustice with better long term consequences. And the first place we must always confront evil is within our own actions and attitudes.>
Posted by: Joseph T | December 8, 2006 2:14 AM
As I read the Iraq Study Group report, as summarized in its own executive summary and also in the NY Times reporting, I am disappointed with the lack of any
explicit recognition of the injury our U.S. Government has done to the people of Iraq, in the region, to the United Nations system of international law, and, not least, to ourselves. Doesn't the Christian faith tradition require a practice of confession [truth] before reconciliation can go forward?
My attention was caught by the phrase "move ts combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." How, exactly, did they get there and what have they been doing so that we now are seeking to move them out? I know that it will seem futile to point out that a series of bad choices led us to this decision point. I simply want to note that it was a very irresponsible act to send an armed invasion force to Iraq and it seems optimistic to hope that these men and women can now be extracted responsibly.
The diplomatic initiatives envisioned by the ISG,
specifically with Syria and Iran, with wish lists of
how the members of this group wish these neighbors to change their policies and practices, offers no list of incentives or concessions that the U.S. could imagine providing to Iran and Syria in order to help stabilize a region that has been destabilized by acts of war initiated by the United States and the United Kingdom.
The ISG makes no recommendations in its summary about using the United Nations Security Council or other U.N. institutions to address the crisis in Iraq. This may be consistent with U.S. policy, which has sought to mislead the U.N. with false claims about nonexistent threats before the war and then ignored opposition by thoughtful U.N. member states in our rush to war in 2003. In my opinion, it does not serve the interests of Christian faithful and other people of conscience and goodwill who seek strengthening of
our system of international law as a way to check the unlawful actions of sovereign states.
The reminder by the ISG that "there must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts" was welcome. I see this as an implicit criticism of U.S. policy which has allowed successive governments of Israel to behave without consequences toward people
and communities on lands occupied after the 1967 war. The challenge this policy recommendation would pose to long-established U.S. relationships is not described.
The focus on "milestones" that the Government of Iraq must meet to move toward national reconciliation, security, and governance will shift responsibilities to that government, largely a creation of U.S. occupation and election strategies, without examining its own capacity for reaching these. As with the No Child Left Behind system of high-stakes testing with inadequate resources, the ISG milestones appear to justify the departure of U.S. forces but have little concern for the outcome and its
consequences for the Iraqi people. If there was a
moral justification initially for rescuing Iraqi
people from lawlessness and tyranny, has that moral obligation now been shifted to Nuri al-Maliki and his government so the U.S. can, in a scene that calls to mind Matthew 27:24 as Pilate washes his hands in order to assert his innocence, pretend that we can evade our
responsibility for the violence and loss?
I am glad that the Iraq Study Group has offered a
strong signal that the time has come for a change. I wish that more attention had been given to those of us in and out of faith communities who opposed the rush to war in 2002-03 and predicted many of the consequences described by the ISG. I would
hope that as we bring faithful Christian people together at the National Cathedral on Friday, March 16, we have a deeper response to our national crisis than a program that, like the ISG,
manages to avoid much reflection or call for sacrifice to heal the wounds of this war.
All best wishes for Advent,
Mike Benefiel>
Posted by: Michael Benefiel | December 8, 2006 2:39 AM
timks,
The Germans and Russians kept fighting because of absolute surrender. The Russians didn't want the Germans to just stop attacking, they wanted revenge. They wanted to annihilate Germany. For Germany to cease to exist.
This is contrary to the Christian tradition of "just war" - now, hear me out. Just war theory states that use of force has limitied justification. There was a thread about a sniper a while back...
If a just actor is to use force, he may only use it, and he may only use the least amount of force possible to cause an encroaching force to cease its encroachment. As soon as Germany started retreating, Russia should have ceased fire.
In America we gave up this ethic in the civil war.
If Russia had let Germany retreat, the war would have ended sooner, perhaps immediately. Germany had already lost half its army. Britain and Russia were together out-producing Germany in arms. If surrender had been allowed, millions of lives would have been spared, including, perhaps, many of the Jews.
Ask your dad what the worst battle of WWII was. 28,000 marines died at Imo Jima. Over 1 million died at Stalingrad. Your dad may know this fact, but he is only one out of a handful. Only 200,000 Americans died in all of WWII. That's less than 10% of the number of Germans and Russians who died along the Eastern Front. That doesn't count civilians.
What we have observed is the worst kind of death possible, death by government. As long as we seek governmental solutions to our problems, our fates are the same.>
Posted by: jurisnaturalist | December 8, 2006 3:02 AM
Nope. In fact, your post reinforces my point.
What is your pseudo-christian point?>
Posted by: Aaron | December 8, 2006 3:48 AM
The Iraq war has taught us that the pre-emptive strike doctrine is counterproductive. Just think what would have happened if either the U.S. or the Soviet Union would have implemented this doctrine during the Cold War!>
Posted by: Nic Samojluk | December 8, 2006 5:36 AM
jurisnaturalist, you're off point. How long was the war? Six years, not three.
Your discussion is not germane to the question.
It is also irrelevant if Russia had let Germany retreat, because Hitler wouldn't let Germany retreat. Paulus had to disobey Hitler's orders in order to surrender to the Red Army.>
Posted by: timks | December 8, 2006 5:55 AM
"What is your pseudo-christian point?"
That Christ never commanded governments not to defend themselves, and that Romans specifically grants governments the authority to use the sword for justice.
Now, if you are interested in examining this argument, go ahead. I would urge you to try to do so without using ctrl-v.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 8, 2006 6:46 AM
Dear JW:
It is a relief that more informed minds are beginning to see the light or find their nerve. I am still quite puzzled how we are going to extract our selves from Iraq. It appears that smart people are getting on the ship to leave and the president is refusing to obtain his own boarding pass. I would be happy to leave him there along with the the VP and the Corporations who are profiting from this state of affairs. Our guys gave their best but as Gates admitted, this administration has failed them.
IF there be refugees fill the boat with mothers and children. Our hearts should prepare to embrace the children of Iraq.
Why is it that so many believe that Iran can't wait to over see their corner of Shia Iraq? Has anyone noticed that there are tons and tons of munitions still left on the ground. The Sadam regiem bought tons of this stuff from us and left behind stock piles of it. MOre than our guys could keep an eye on. Where do they think the insurgency gets all their free explosives for IEDs? There is enough of this stuff to go on bombing like this for years.
If Iran thinks that handling the Shia militias (who would go at each other as easily as they brutilize the Suni),is going to be a piece of cake they are as naive as Bush was. Does Iran have the military ability to contole the situation any better than the US?
Wiser heads in Iran are going to think twice about that. They would rather see America agonize over the Iraqi delema and stand on the side lines heckling us. Why should they want to see Iranian young men loose their lives policing regions of Iraq full of IEDs and rivaling militias? We can only anticipate that the threat of being dominated by Iran might actually unite desparate Shia war lords in the region against a more familiar oppressor.
This would be easy to solve if it was as simple as three distinct sides. But the Iranins, Syrians and Turks know that it is a can of worms with fireworks on the loose. Nobody is getting out of this with out paying a price.
We are blind if we don't realize that regardless of the solution we come up with there will be an avalanch of refugees in every direction.>
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | December 8, 2006 11:55 AM
The other really depressing thing about all of this is that exiting an occupation is more expensive (cost more in dolars and cents) than entering it in the first place. Don't ask me why but that's how these things seem to work. Look at what our tab was for leaving past occupations.
The longer our military stays the more stuff they end up leaving behind. Lets be more careful what we leave behind this time.>
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | December 8, 2006 12:19 PM
That Christ never commanded governments not to defend themselves, and that Romans specifically grants governments the authority to use the sword for justice.
Christs words on behavior pertain to Christians. Paul isn't Christ. And I'm pretty sure Christians were in a very small minority and there was no concept of a "Christian" nation at the time.
Now, if you are interested in examining this argument, go ahead. I would urge you to try to do so without using ctrl-v.
Hmm, I don't recall using ctrl-v, just a fairly well read background in pre-Nicene (pre-Roman state) Christianity. There are a few soldier saints from the time, but it was usually due to giving up the soldiering lifestyle for martyrdom.>
Posted by: Aaron | December 8, 2006 12:53 PM
"Christs words on behavior pertain to Christians. Paul isn't Christ. "
And, therefore, Paul is to be disbelieved? The Bible is the word of God. If you do not believe this, then it is you who is the pseudo-Christian. Therefore, Paul's words about the role of government are God's words.
You also insinuate a false choice between Paul's view of government and Christ's command to leave peacably with one another. That's where your argument falls apart. Jesus never made statements about the role of government, or even said that we may not join the military.
That does not mean we must join the military, or that our nation musy engage in this or that war. Contrary to Jim Wallis' opinion, the Bible is pretty short on public policy proposals.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 8, 2006 4:24 PM
And, therefore, Paul is to be disbelieved?
Paul is quite scant on anything Jesus actually said, unlike the Gosples which are flush with grand eloquent speeches that the 'apostle' writers somehow remembered decades later.
The Bible is the word of God. If you do not believe this, then it is you who is the pseudo-Christian.
I'm exOrthodox, not even christian anymore, I only used pseudo-Christian against you in the same sense you use it against Jim Wallis in your blog. If believing the Bible is the Word of God is your criteria for a christian, then I'm sure Mr. Wallis shares the belief in Holy Scripture that you do and you have no right calling him pseudo-christian.
Therefore, Paul's words about the role of government are God's words.
Paul had no problem injecting his own opinion in his epistles, nor is there agreement 9except among the faithful) that all his epsitles are actually written by him. But you take that on faith, I can't argue with you beleiving Paul was infallible in everything he wrote doctrinally.
You also insinuate a false choice between Paul's view of government and Christ's command to leave peacably with one another. That's where your argument falls apart. Jesus never made statements about the role of government, or even said that we may not join the military.
Jesus did, however, tell us how to behave towards ones enemies, I believe it hs something to do with a nebulous concept called love, I'm also pretty sure he showered down blessings upon the peacemakers. Now I see where you are confused as GWB has said when he's talking about war he's really talking about peace. Nor did Jesus say a follower of him could kill. And as I said before, Paul's idea of government DID NOT include the concept of a christian nation. My argument stands, though I'm sure you'd like to keep the later theological innovations caused by the Roman State's adoption of christianity as it fits your comfortable American view. That you want to break with the early martyr tradition of the church is your problem, I'm just pointing it out.
There's an interesting parable about a guy wanting to join Jesus but he wanted to bury the his dead first, to which Jesus said let the dead bury the dead, if you can rationalize that with your self-professed christian identity, your castigation of other self-professed christains, and the time dedicated to both watching sports and commenting on them in your blog, by all means I'm all ears.>
Posted by: Aaron | December 8, 2006 6:48 PM
"If believing the Bible is the Word of God is your criteria for a christian, then I'm sure Mr. Wallis shares the belief in Holy Scripture that you do and you have no right calling him pseudo-christian. "
If I say that believing the Bible is the Word of God is a criteria for being a Christian, it does not necessarily follow that I think that believing the Word of God is the sole criterion. I also believe that accepting Christ as your savior is necessary to be a Christian.
I have no evidence that Wallis has done this (his "conversion passage" revolves around Christ's work to help the poor) and I have plenty of evidence to suggest he does not believe it to be true. This does not stop him from using his faith to promote his political agenda, his organization and, by extension, himself.
"I'm exOrthodox, not even christian anymore"
Then I am not clear on why you came to Christy T's defense. My point was that she is emphatic about her viewpoint without having examined the Christian counterpoint, which you claim doesn't exist because Christ's words trump Paul's. Given that you apparently believe neither, I'm not sure where you are going with this.
"Paul had no problem injecting his own opinion in his epistles, nor is there agreement 9except among the faithful)"
Correct, there is not disagreement among the faithful. But I am faithful, and so I believe what Paul wrote. That doesn't make my viewpoint unbiblical. Your running in circles here.
"Jesus did, however, tell us how to behave towards ones enemies, I believe it hs something to do with a nebulous concept called love, I'm also pretty sure he showered down blessings upon the peacemakers."
He said not to seek vengeance on our enemies. He didn't tell governments that they couldn't have a military force. He does not say we cannot defend ourselves. He doesn't say that anywhere.
" Now I see where you are confused as GWB has said when he's talking about war he's really talking about peace"
Yeah, thanks for clearing this up.
"And as I said before, Paul's idea of government DID NOT include the concept of a christian nation."
This would actually reinforce my point. Even if I concede your argument that Christ forbids us to kill under any circumstance, the only way you can link this to government action is to say that we are a Christian nation, which we are not. If we wanted to be, it would require some big time changes in our Constitution et al...
"My argument stands"
Not really.
, "though I'm sure you'd like to keep the later theological innovations caused by the Roman State's adoption of christianity as it fits your comfortable American view. "
Disagreement with your argument does not necessitate this.
"if you can rationalize that with your self-professed christian identity, your castigation of other self-professed christains, and the time dedicated to both watching sports and commenting on them in your blog, by all means I'm all ears."
I'm sorry, you are making the argument now that I should not watch sports, or cannot watch sports if I wish to remain a Christian? I have not hears that following sports was forbidden in the Bible. Are you saying that I have too much free time? I don't think Christ's reference to the dead burying the dead relates to the use of free time.>
Posted by: kevin s. | December 8, 2006 8:09 PM
Jim Wallis' comments continue to totally disqualify him from the rational, non-partisan he tries to promote. His last 3 weeks on SojoMail prove he is clearly (and solely) in the Democrats control.
I listed to his address last weekend - invited by the (shocker) DEMOCRATS to speak for the weekend address.
Hey Jim, rename you book ... "God is a Democrat." You are a charlatan and a plain old LIAR.
You may believe that you are uniting people by being non-partisan, but instead you are polarizing the country even more. Very sad.>
Posted by: TruthTeller | December 8, 2006 9:51 PM
Truthteller,
From my reading of the essay, Jim Wallis is simply stating his opinion, and it happens to be more liberal than yours. I don't think he's trying to be non-partisan. I think he's trying to find a politcal course that will best reflect his Christian religious beliefs. I'm not a Christian, but from what I know of Jesus' life and teaching, he would probably have little patience with the warring, lying, torturing bunch that's in power now. I don't think that invading and occupying another country that posed no threat and did not attack us jibes with Christain teaching. Wallis is glad that a few people are finally getting the courage to stand up and ask questions and challenge what has been going on under the Bush administration, as am I.>
Posted by: Blue | December 9, 2006 2:56 AM
Blue, we should stand up and ask a lot of questions all the time on every issue.
I was watching a show on c-span about the press and they talked about how Ari Fliesher (sp) said WMD's everyday at the White House press conference.>
Posted by: Butch | December 10, 2006 3:52 AM
My prayer now is that God will guide those in leadership and they they will follow HIS direction. Hopefully the truth can set us free from the hate, division, and lack of love that has governed our nation for so many years.>
Posted by: Paula | December 11, 2006 8:38 PM
Paula, I concur. My prayer is the same as yours although I'm sure the Lord has been guiding us all along. The sticky part is the paradigm shift that leaders need to make to distinguish between asking for enlightenment rather than sponsorship from the Lord. When we ask for enlightenment the outcome may not be such a convenient fit with designs for politics and power.>
Posted by: dsmith99156 | December 12, 2006 1:54 PM
To Christy T..
I was in Iraq... I am a born again Christian as you say if that is what you want to call it. I am a follower of Christ...
Also, so you know both of my brothers are in the military & one of them saw combat as well... Enough said... I try to speak of only what i know.
Interesting I grew up in a Democratic home... And I am now a republican..
;-) The reason we went to war was not just WMD but that got more people on board.. Maybe they had them..Maybe they didn't, but they where guilty of everything else including violating the UN sanctions and such, and if you don't belive they also harbored and helped terrorists you have to live in a fantasy land. they are not going to give us signed documents...
Finally I do not belive that the bible teaches us to be pascifists some time we must take a stand and fight for what we believe to be right, and there are times when you can do this without fighting. But this is not one of them just as Germany was not one in World War two. Had Christians not fought we would be speaking German and not in a free Germany either... AL>
Posted by: Al | December 13, 2006 12:49 AM
Al, Our political differences aside, who would Jesus bomb?>
Posted by: dsmith99156 | December 13, 2006 11:22 AM
Actually history reveals that the Alies would have had a much more difficult time if it wasn't for a great deal of passive resistance in the lands and ports which the Germans over took. The war would have lasted far longer. Perhaps long enough for Germany to obtain the bomb.
If it wasn't for the effective participation of the passive resistance movement in Europe the Americans might have lost to the Germans.
I'm not referring merely to people like Schindler from the movie "Schindler's List". The people in the northern port areas of Europe nearly shut the Germans down to a snails pace with their antics. They even held a strike at one point.
Meanwhile back in America there were German immigrants who still spoke German at Church and in their neighborhoods, a people who didn't want anything to do with the war. They came here to leave Germany behind. They were not great fans of the Kaisers or Hitler. They had no interest in taking iether side. Some of them were the members of peace churches who were held in contempt and distrust for their passive beliefs in both Germany and America.
IF you are going to quote history do not resort to selective facts.>
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | December 13, 2006 11:37 AM
I'm sorry, you are making the argument now that I should not watch sports, or cannot watch sports if I wish to remain a Christian? I have not hears that following sports was forbidden in the Bible. Are you saying that I have too much free time? I don't think Christ's reference to the dead burying the dead relates to the use of free time.
You don't think that reference has anything to do with your free time? Talk about cherrypicking and selective reading. Jesus' parables are quite clear. I can just see you now before Jesus, "Lord I want to follow you but FIRST I have to watch the BCS and comment about it in my blog", I think He'd have some choice words about you being a sheep and departing from him. Of course your reading and mileage may vary, but yours does seem to be a very self-serving, selfish, mememe, nationalistic "christianity", it does amuse me how you castigate other christians.
...I have not hears that following sports was forbidden in the Bible
You truly are a breed of biblical literalist I have never seen before.
If I say that believing the Bible is the Word of God is a criteria for being a Christian, it does not necessarily follow that I think that believing the Word of God is the sole criterion. I also believe that accepting Christ as your savior is necessary to be a Christian.
And one who has accepted Christ should bear fruit, since by their fruits you'll know them, I don't see much fruit from you, just angry hatred and vitriol and a disdain for biblical ethics (except of course those that coincide with your special blend of nationalism and American christianity).
He said not to seek vengeance on our enemies. He didn't tell governments that they couldn't have a military force. He does not say we cannot defend ourselves. He doesn't say that anywhere.
So loving your enemies, praying for them, if someone takes your coat give them your cloak, turning the other cheek, that laying down your life for a friend means nothing but laying down your life for those that hate you, being an example in nonresistance and being crucified, telling Peter to put away his sword, etc etc etc, is somehow tacit permission to defend oneself and/or use military force if its in your best interest?
This would actually reinforce my point. Even if I concede your argument that Christ forbids us to kill under any circumstance, the only way you can link this to government action is to say that we are a Christian nation, which we are not. If we wanted to be, it would require some big time changes in our Constitution et al...
I think you missed the whole point, if Paul had a concept of a christian nation, would Romans 13 still sound the same? Paul thought the parousia was imminent afterall, his idea was that christians should be model citizens, they had not yet suffered under any systematic persecution. In being model citizens, they would show the Roman government that Christianity was a-ok and bring others to Christ before the end. You can't divorce Paul's commentary from his political situation.
Sorry to take so long getting back to you, I do not have internet over the weekend and it took me awhile to find the correct blog.>
Posted by: Aaron | December 13, 2006 3:03 PM
looks like Wallis is getting smitten by his public and the media. He is now another pundit, opining.
Reality is, ugly domestic political corruption and Islam extremists who want us dead. The extremists and corruption have the edge due to commitment. Our politicians will not address either reality.
All the talk/dialogue will not result in solutions. A strong leader might be able to defeat the enemy, ie. corruption and Islam extremists.
Wallis' opinions on the Iraq Report are irrelevant.>
Posted by: jerry | December 13, 2006 6:08 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?