I have been having this discussion with a friend lately, and it was suggested that I post my thoughts here. The discussion included whether war, or in this case, the war in Iraq, was necessary, constitutional, or biblical. So here are a few thoughts. I would appreciate any comments.
Some would argue the constitutionality of this war, but President was acting on information he received. That and he was acting to protect our country and the freedoms afforded in it. So many people seem to forget that fact, and would rather nitpick the war than to support our troops who willingly go into harms way, risking life and limb to protect our right to say negative things about them.
Is the war necessary? Maybe, maybe not. What if we had never gone into Iraq? What would it be like today? Maybe they would have had WMDs by now. How many more people would have died under Saddam's rule? Is it better to wait for another attack on the US to go in, or to do a pre-emtive strike and make sure another attack does not happen?
Now to the important question. Is it biblical? I guess you could ask if war itself is biblical. Yes and no again. Due to the fall on man in the garden of Eden, sin was introduced to the world. Now, people no longer got along. We see the first murder recorded in Gen 4. As there are more and more people on the earth, people start taking sides in a matter. To complicate things, God confused their languages at Babel. Then disagreements start a fight, people join sides and you get a little war. All the result of sin. Selfishness, greed, jealousy can all start a war, or just a wrong reaction. I guess I am saying war is a result of sin.
God used war. He told Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan. Isn't that war? And God commanded it. He also allowed other countries to make war with and to conquer Israel as punishment for disobeying. Again this is a result of sin being in the world, but God used it.
How does all of this tie in to the Iraqi war? I don't think you could claim it is unbiblical. All one can say is that God is using it somehow. How would you know that God isn't using the US to punish Iraq? I just don't think you can make a claim as to a war being unbiblical. We do not know why God has allowed it, or what He is doing through it.
War is never pleasant. People get hurt and people get killed. It is not easy to watch someone die. You do learn to deal with it though. It is not easy to deal with death, especially when you know the person wasn't saved. You know that he is suffering more in eternal separation from God.
If war could be avoided, and lives saved, it would be great, but you cannot always avoid it.
Switching Gears
12 years ago
2 comments:
The constitution requires Congressional declaration of war. That was never done for Iraq. Ron Paul proposed a declaration of war be considered in committee, but his fellow Congressmen dismissed this notion as "archaic" and ended up with an "authorization to use force". (The committee discussion was accounted to me by the Congressman's son.) I believe our recent wars have all been without a formal declaration of war since WWII. That is a technicality, and it could be argued that any form of authorization is legitimate...
Regarding the Biblical question, we should look to what is a "just war". Obviously war is right and necessary, but the Christian view of "just war theory" would conclude that defensive wars are right, but offensive and agressive wars are wrong. It is the same ethical principle that we understand killing a person in self defense is right, but homicide is wrong. The Iraq war is the moral equivalent of premeditated homicide, theft, vandalism, kidnapping, etc. There was not a shred of defensive purpose involved in the war. Iraq wasn't the slightest threat to us, even with WMD's.
I realize that Israel's invasion of Canaan was offensive war, but it was also directly commanded by God. That is a non-normative example of war, as are many other examples of God's special commands that are not intended to be a pattern for our lives. (Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Deborah's civil leadership, Peter walking on water, etc)
If we were going after terrorism (I argue that invading Afhganistan was justified) we would have taken out Saudi Arabia because most of the 9/11 hijackers were from there, and I don't believe any were from Iraq. Al Queda has a greater presence in Iraq now than before "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was commenced. If you read Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" you will learn that Bush's advisors were talking about the necessity of invading Iraq long before 9/11, so it didn't have anything to do with terrorism. That is a highly recommended and well written book.
Those are my brief and somewhat scattered thoughts on the topic.
-Bryce
Bryce,
Sorry I have taken so long to respond. Thank you for your comments.
You are correct that our recent wars have been without formal declaration. But I would say that an authorization to use force from Congress is legitimate and legal.
I will not say much about Just Way Theory. It is easy to find and read about. All I will say is that an offense or aggressive action can be anything from physical action to a threat to an insult. Not all should result in action, but can be used as justification.
As for there not being a shred of defensive evidence, I will disagree with you. If you do some research, you will find that three of the leaders in the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly documented by the CIA as being in and operating in Iraq. They were also being supported by Iraq, and that means that we had as much right to use action against Iraq as we did in Afghanistan. As for Saudi Arabia, maybe we should have been kicking butt there as well, but because that country is trusted more in the Middle East, I would say that many of the people that were involved in the 9/11 attacks used that country for visas because they could get into the US that way. If they had tried to get in through Iraq or Iran, they probably would not have made it. There are a lot of ways to justify the war in Iraq, although I don't think the government picked the best way to push it.
I am reading the book you recommended. I would advise that you not trust everything just because Buchanan wrote it. Some of that book seems to be a personal attack against Bush. I will say that I do agree with a lot of what he says regarding the problems in the government, but many of those problems started way before Bush.
The last thing I will address is your statement: "The Iraq war is the moral equivalent of premeditated homicide, theft, vandalism, kidnapping, etc."
How is it the equivalent? Is it because we freed them from tyranny? Is it because we are paying to rebuild their country? Is it because we have opened that country to free speech? Is it because we have introduced fair laws? Is it because we gave them a chance to rule themselves and make a better country for themselves? Are you saying this because there are cases where soldiers rape, murder and steal? It is true that can happen, but that is not the majority. There is far more good that has happened over there.
If you really want to accuse someone of premeditated homicide, theft, vandalism, kidnapping, etc, maybe you should go after our congress that will rob its own and kill its own to make a buck for themselves. Don't take it out on the soldiers and military that are fighting to protect your freedoms.
Let me also say that self defense is totally different than war.
Post a Comment