What Might Have Been (by Duane Shank)
Five years ago today, on March 18, the British Parliament debated whether or not to support the pending U.S. attack on Iraq. It was already clear that the Bush administration was determined to attack, and desperately needed support from the U.K. That morning, Sojourners placed an ad in five major British newspapers – The Guardian, The Independent, The London Times, The Telegraph, and The Financial Times.
The ad was signed by five American church leaders who had met with then Prime Minister Tony Blair a month earlier in London – Jim Wallis (President of Sojourners), John Bryson Chane (Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C.), Clifton Kirkpatrick (Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church USA), Melvin Talbert (Ecumenical Officer of the United Methodist Council of Bishops), and Daniel Weiss (Immediate past General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches in the USA).
Headlined, "Prime Minister Blair, it is two minutes before midnight. We need you to be a true friend to America in this critical hour," the ad began, "The world needs you to find a 'third way' between war and inaction. It is two minutes before midnight, and the world's people are desperate for an alternative to war." It outlined a six-point plan with solid options for disarming Iraq without war.
The debate in Parliament was heated, and we heard that the text of our ad had been read on the floor. Nonetheless, the final vote approved the government's motion calling for military action against Iraq. There were significant defections by Labor Party members voting against their prime minister, and several high-level resignations from the cabinet. But the U.K. was committed to supporting the U.S.-led war.
Five years later, with the American, British, and Iraqi lives that have been lost, and the hundreds of billions of dollars that has been spent, we cannot help but wonder how history might have turned out differently had that appeal been heeded.
Duane Shank is the senior policy adviser for Sojourners.
Add to:
Category: Iraq, United Kingdom, War
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Heck, the leaders of the "Christian" President's own denomination counseled him not to rush to war. If he doesn't listen to his church elders, it makes you wonder if he had any concern at all for the moral dimension of his decision. It is his chosen denomination, after all.
Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 5:33 PM
I and I -
I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. The presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, to which I belong, was among a number of church leaders who asked to meet with Bush during the leadup to Iraq to discuss alternatives to war. They were asked, in all seriousness, to explain why the president would want to meet with people who didn't agree with him, and responded that it is always worthwhile to hear a different point of view.
They never got their audience with the president, and to me, that speaks volumes.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 18, 2008 6:15 PM
Just another political activists web site hiding under the guise of christianity with their own self created theology.
Posted by: ts | March 18, 2008 6:48 PM
"Just another political activists web site hiding under the guise of christianity with their own self created theology." (sic)
It goes both ways as far as I'm concerned - there are plenty of people defending the war under the guise of Christianity with their own self-created theology.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 18, 2008 7:11 PM
Very true--we don't know. The world's structures would likely still be very fallen. We'd likely have all the same forces at work creating a different mix of good and evil.
I can say thank-you to the five who met with Tony Blair with a proposed option. For walking out the best they could their calling--within their realm of responsibility.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 8:16 PM
I wonder what would be the state of the Classical School of the Meades would be, or those that Saddam and his sons cruelly brutialized, and survived, had we not gone in? How many Iraqi's are abe to live now because Saddam and his sons are no longer in power?
It seems if we are to protect the least and the lost, would Iraqi's qualify in that category? Or are they just not a politically correct enough group to be considered worth helping?
Paul
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | March 18, 2008 10:11 PM
I'm convinced that such a serious action as "preemptive war," with that vast outlay of taxpayer money, on the fantastic notion that the the US administration loved "Iraqi Freedom" so boundlessly and felt under such terrible threat by evidence for weapons that even at the time was at best highly ambiguous, could only take place because A) political and corporate leaders had their ulterior motives and B) large segments of the populations of democratic societies don't follow the news anywhere near closely enough - or they lack basic critical thinking skills, and something ought to be done about that in the schools. (Of course, it's kinda hard to improve the schools when you lack the money because it's all tied up in a war.)
Good for your action. I called my local NPR station at the time, in DC - some talk radio program, I forget which one now - and voiced my vehement opposition, for all the good it did.
Paul - originalfaith.com
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | March 18, 2008 11:24 PM
It seems if we are to protect the least and the lost, would Iraqi's qualify in that category? Or are they just not a politically correct enough group to be considered worth helping?
Paul
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | March 18, 2008 10:11 PM
So when are you going in to Darfur, Paul? Tibet?
Posted by: canucklehead | March 19, 2008 1:12 AM
I BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON. WITH THAT SAID. IF WE HADN'T WENT TO WAR, WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPEN TO US AND WHERE WE WOULD BE AT. BUT SINCE WE CAN'T GO BACK, WE SHOULD PRAY THAT GOD'S WILL BE DONE HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE WAR WAS RIGHT OR NOT. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS WATCHING OVER EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON. I PRAY THAT HIS WILL BE DONE.
Posted by: DONNA T. | March 19, 2008 7:16 AM
"They were asked, in all seriousness, to explain why the president would want to meet with people who didn't agree with him"
It's the President's JOB to listen to people who don't agree with him. It's called weighing all the options. A wise person would have done that, especially when so many lives were at stake.
Posted by: squeaky | March 19, 2008 9:21 AM
This is not a commentary on Donna's point, and has nothing to do with what she is saying. Rather, this comment is but an observation that is meant to be humorous...
Whenever someone writes in all caps like Donna did above, it reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live sketch with Dana Carvey in which they spoof Robyn Leech's "Lives of the Rich and Famous."
"I'M ROBYN LEECH!!!!.....I'M SHOUTING!!!!........
..................................................
I DON'T KNOW WHY!!!!!
Posted by: squeaky | March 19, 2008 9:27 AM
canucklehead: So when are you going in to Darfur, Paul? Tibet?
Paul
Are the Tibetians more deserving of our help than the Iraqi's? Or the refugees in Darfur? What about all of the children that attend the Classical School of the Meades? Are they not as deserving as those in Africa?
How do you decide who is worhty of our help and who is not? What makes one group more deserving than another?
Paul
Posted by: Paul C, Quillman | March 19, 2008 9:46 AM
Bush/Cheney and the neocons had already made the decision to invade Iraq well before the US Supreme Court installed these criminals in power.
They ignored the advice given to them by our most experienced diplomats and military advisors.
They ignored the millions around the world who demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq.
Is anyone surprised they ignored the ads placed in British newspapers by Sojourners'?
They listen to no one and accept no responsibility for the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.
The longer they stay in power the more damage they will do.
IMPEACH!
Posted by: justintime | March 19, 2008 10:26 AM
Paul C, Quillman
That's the point. The middle east has oil. That's where we'll go. We have the might, so we have the right; we deserve it and we help ourselves.
Sadly
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 19, 2008 10:36 AM
That's exactly it, Deryll. Unlikely we would have responded in the first Gulf War if Kuwait didn't have oil. Unlikely we would have attacked in the second war if not for the possibility of gaining control over the world's second largest oil supply which would give us the leverage over OPEC that we so badly desire. When the neocons always drooled over Iraq's oil supplies, it is difficult not to make the conclusion that they leaped on the apparent WMD excuse to strike. And with the nation still reeling emotionally from 9-11, it was a perfect time to dupe Congress into it. Insidious.
Posted by: squeaky | March 19, 2008 11:34 AM
Why Dick Cheney doesn't listen to public opinion:
"I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls," he said in a segment of the interview broadcast Wednesday on "Good Morning America."
Cheney added: "Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succceeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there."
________________________________
Cheney goes fishing on the 5th anniversary of his illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq:
MUSCAT, Oman - Vice President Dick Cheney went fishing in the waters between Oman and Iran on Wednesday, borrowing the Sultan of Oman's 60-foot royal yacht for the mission.
A Cheney spokeswoman said the vice president, his wife Lynne, and daughter, Liz, a former State Department official who is traveling with her father as a private citizen, headed out under sunny skies into the Gulf of Oman on "Kingfish I," owned by Sultan Qaboos bin Said.
Posted by: justintime | March 19, 2008 12:20 PM
Paul: If you imagine that what we've done in Iraq is to "help" the Iraqis, then I can only suggest that you get your news from a greater variety of sources.
Or do a little research and try to find Iraqis who'll tell you life there today is better than it was five years ago - beyond the circle of ex-patriots that the administration put into place there as the nominal government and who helped provide the misinformation that led us invade.
Paul M. - originalfaith.com
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | March 19, 2008 12:23 PM
Paul: "How many Iraqi's (sic) are abe (sic) to live now because Saddam and his sons are no longer in power?...Or are they just not a politically correct enough group to be considered worth helping?"
Oh, Paul, how silly! We could also ask "how many Iraqis are dead now that would have been alive had we not invaded Iraq? Or are they just not a patriotically convenient enough group to warrant our mourning of their needless deaths?"
Posted by: I and I | March 19, 2008 12:27 PM
I received this in the mail yesterday. There are very few positions or statements with which I agree completely. This is one of them:
Toward a Just and Peaceful Solution in Iraq: a policy paper on the war and occupation of Iraq prepared by Pax Christi USA
http://www.paxchristiusa.org/IraqPolicyPaper.pdf
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 19, 2008 1:35 PM
This is a very constructive policy paper, nn.
I too agree with 'Toward a Just and Peaceful Solution in Iraq' - especially this nutshell statement:
'Peace is the fruit of Justice.'
Posted by: justintime | March 19, 2008 4:15 PM
Daryll: That's the point. The middle east has oil. That's where we'll go. We have the might, so we have the right; we deserve it and we help ourselves.
Paul: So what makes one group more deserving than another group? Why do you think that we should go to Darfur, and ignore the people in Iraq? Be careful not to read anything into what I have written here when you respond.
Squeaky: it is difficult not to make the conclusion that they leaped on the apparent WMD excuse to strike.
Paul: Saddam signed a cease fire agreement. The cease fire required Saddam to allow a no-fly zone, and unfettered access for weapons inspectors to go where they pleased. Saddam repeatedly broke the agreement. He is now, finally, paying for the consequences of his actions. No one seems to remember any of this.
Paul M.: If you imagine that what we've done in Iraq is to "help" the Iraqis, then I can only suggest that you get your news from a greater variety of sources.
Paul: I take my information from people who are on the ground in Iraq. I do not need some desk reporter in New York or Atlanta telling me how to interpret what someone who lives there sees on a daily basis.
I and I: Oh, Paul, how silly! We could also ask "how many Iraqis are dead now that would have been alive had we not invaded Iraq? Or are they just not a patriotically convenient enough group to warrant our mourning of their needless deaths?"
Paul: There are quite a few Iraqi's that are dead because of the war. It is the reality of life on a fallen world. Of course I mourn their deaths.
Again I ask, why are the Iraqi's not equally deserving our help as anyone else in the world?
Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | March 19, 2008 6:17 PM
Paul: There are quite a few Iraqi's [sic] that are dead because of the war. It is the reality of life on a fallen world.
Thank you for making my point for me--sin led us to launch this wicked war.
Posted by: I and I | March 20, 2008 9:42 AM
Is anyone surprised they ignored the ads placed in British newspapers by Sojourners?
Of course not.
The neocons had been planning this since at least the late 1990s.
9/11, nothing to do with Iraq, was an excuse - they knew they could fool enough people to support an invasion. ('Saddam, Osama... you all look alike anyway.')
(Of course not only have the causes of 9/11 not been corrected - the chickens come home to roost - but have been exacerbated.)
And...
Mainline liberal Protestant denominations don't have the social and political clout they did 40 years ago in the civil-rights and anti-Vietnam War protests.
So of course Bush dissed the leaders of his own church.
The neocons not only flipped off the UN and world opinion (here, common sense) on this but blew off the Pope, who still has some clout as head of the world's No. 1 Christian church.
So no, I'm not surprised.
Nor that Blair the Poodle's government complied with them.
At least the UK is doing the right thing now, quitting Iraq.
Blog.
Posted by: John Beeler | March 22, 2008 12:18 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?