Sorting the mess of Iraq
26 04 2007I remember watching Tony Blair on TV, talking with a some members of the “public”, trying to convince them that the war on Iraq was needed. It would be easy, and politically correct to say that I didn’t believe him, but I did. I came away thinking: he knows something that he can’t tell us; that is why he is arguing for us to go to war.
I remember doing a sermon in church about just war, and would a war in Iraq qualify as a just war. I was a little troubled that all diplomatic channels hadn’t been exhausted, but it seemed to fit many of the other criteria. And anyway Saddam was a bad man … the world would be safer place if he was no longer around.
I remember watching the iconic pictures of the statue of Saddam Hussein being felled, the Iraqi people taking their shoes off and hitting the statue with them (the equivalent of our spitting on the statue). I remember thinking that maybe it was all worth it after all … the war had been won, Saddam had gone (or at least been toppled), the country would be better.
I remember watching the news when Saddam was captured, disheveled, gray, thin, and unkempt, with US soldiers looking in his mouth. Now it would be better. Now there was no chance of him returning. Now the country could move on.
I admit it; I am one of the many people (the percentage of people now against the war has increased by over 20%) that wasn’t really against the war, but now clap every time someone says in a political debate that we should never have gone into Iraq. I was wrong. Good start … maybe a very good start if some of our politicians could do that. But what do we do about Iraq? Stay in … after all we created the mess? Pull out … we are now just making it worse? Just now I am not sure any politician is making much sense, as they generally argue for one or other, and neither options is looking that great.
But Tony Campolo is making a lot of sense. His piece is the first thing I have read that I think this could just work. He suggests a brilliantly creative way of maybe undoing some of the wrong of the past few years: it fits with my Christian morals and values, it seeks to bring restoration to Iraq and it acknowledges that many of us weren’t against the war at the beginning, but often have conveniently forgotten that.
Go on read what Tony Campolo has to say, and then leave a comment here as to what you think. Hopelessly unrealistic or a voice of reason?
Tags: Iraq War, Tony Campolo, Just War, Tony Blair
Hi Rupert! I’m very glad you dropped in to say hi. I think of you and your family when I occasionally attempt to blend frozen fruit
I won’t be at the next Vista since I am in between Cambridge and Luton, having left leadership there and Gav not letting me on his leadership team until I’ve served my time putting out the chairs…
But I’m sure our paths will cross soonish - i read Tony Campolo’s blog and particularly liked the suggestion that a new form of policing occurs with those who know the language and culture - seems completely obvious in hindsight doesn’t it?
I agree about Tony Campolo’s stuff. I just went: “Yes of course” when i read it … why didn’t i think of that?
I think the suggestions are excellent, but think they gradually reduce in likelihood of happening as they go on. An arabic/islamic peace-keeping force does seem a good way forward, but, as a word of caution, I’m not well-versed enough about the real politics of the region to see the potential pitfalls. To reverse the situation, if britain had been invaded by an islamic army, would we feel happier about French or German peacekeepers than Arabic ones? - probably, but it might re-ignite older tensions as well.
Even if it did happen, its important to remember that it should only be seen as a transitional step to the stage where Iraq is able to govern and police itself again. I think it probably is a better transitional step than UK/US forces, but would in itself take time to organise. Which still leaves the question is Iraq today better or worse with our forces there? I lean towards the line of we should never have gone in, but having gone in we do have a responsibility to act in the best interests of Iraq - not necessarily ourselves, and that until there is an alternative in place its probably better for us to stay in.
Financial reparations would be great - I’d be interested to hear how Tony Campolo arrived at the figure he did - but rather less likely to happen as public opinion swings more just to withdrawal as quickly as possible. And I’m afraid I cannot see George W Bush going before the UN to ask forgiveness, but maybe I’m just too cynical.
I’ve not got much to say on his proposal…to be honest I don’t know what to think any more. However I do feel like it is a sin to stand by and watch a country suffer, which was basically what was hapenning before the invasion. I don’t give two hoots about WMD, I care about an evil dictator who is ruining the lives of millions of people. I am glad the US and the UK had the balls to go in and take him down. Was it illegal? I don’t care. Did they take justice into their own hands? I don’t know…this is where it gets confusing…on one hand a country sins by doing nothing, or the other hand the country sins by presuming God’s will. Is it really sad that there is so much violence now that the UK/US/others have invaded? Yes, terribly so. It seems no matter what decisions are made, people suffer. No wonder the early Christians always used to say, “Marantha!”, which I think roughly means, “Come Lord!” (i.e. come back and save us all and put the world to rights!)
I did notice that the article wrenched an OT verse out of context and slapped it into a completely different situation: that old chestnut, 2 Chronicles 7:14. If I had a pound for every time this verse was taken out of context I think I would have made it rich a long time ago…I’ve just about run out of patience with this carry on…its everywhere I go…verses thrown around without care for context, setting, genre, not to mention Christocentric exegesis…we’ve not even mentioned hermaneutics yet…I’ll have to blog on this and stop ranting on your blog!
OK - so here’s the question alastair …
Saddam was a bad guy. But do two wrongs make a right?
Be interested too in your further thoughts on the 2 Chron verse? How do you see the context and how that applies to us today?
Which wrong are you referring to? Lying about WMDs, is of course wrong, and that cannot be righted by any further action. I guess what I am wondering is that is the evil being unleashed in Iraq right now an inevitable consequence of the evil regime that preceded it … cause and effect and all that … I think of the terrible suffering in the former soviet states, basically due to a wrecked economy. Even though communism was removed relatively peacefully (certain conflict zones excepted), the void left behind has caused untold poverty and hardship. In other words, communism, even though it has gone, left a trail of damage in its wake. Perhaps this is the case when toppling regimes such as Sadam’s?
Why is it wrong to attempt to take him down? Its certainly not wrong for a government in their own country to burst into someone’s house and arrest them. Only we have a construct of man called International Law, which says you cannot invade a country and intervene. So we all stand back in the West and just mutter about sanctions, whilst untold suffering occurs all over the world….
Something is wrong somewhere!
Do you get where I am coming from?
RE that 2 chron verse, I will blog on that soon I think…
I guess that was in my mind when i was talking about wrong. I can’t see jesus dropping bombs and fighting in a war. Ghandi didn’t take that approach, not Martin Luther King. War is tragic, horrific and wrong. Even if we have to do it, it is still wrong. So Saddam was evil. He caused untold suffering. But is another wrong of war justified by his evil? That i am not sure about. We may have unleashed a demon far worse than the one that already existed in Iraq.
And i think that is part of your point about the horror now existing in Iraq … which i think is a really good point.
I have read some stuff about the myth of redemptive violence, but have yet to be convinced by the argument…I don’t think turning the other cheek, or the witness of Ghandi and King applies here: or at least, I don’t see how it applies. The problem is that the violence is not directed against us, its directed against the Iraqi’s (pre invasion). We are told to love our neighbours. What would you do if your neighbour’s house was invaded by an armed robber, and you happened to be a witness…? Apprehend him by force? Call the police to apprehend by force? I can’t see how you can turn the other cheek at all. Either way, someone must act, and act with force, to apprehend the “evil” person. Otherwise you do nothing, and sin. That’s my point!
The only thing the West really did (pre war) was apply sanctions, which only hurt the people we were claiming to help.
Don’t get me wrong, I am horrified by the violence and suffering of Iraq, but I am wondering if it would have occurred anyway, as a result of Sadam’s regime. In other words, he is culpable (in part?) for the aftermath of his regime.
Also, I am not sure theologically about the Greek philosophical ethic of “the lesser of two evils”. Do we ever see this in the scriptures? I know its not clear cut either way, but if its possible to live a holy life pleasing by God (and it should be), then does necessary evil actually exist on a personal level? Or does God always provide a way which is “right”, even it it saddens us to chose it? I don’t really know, but I do wonder if that is the case.
I think Wink is coming from a pascifist point of view. But he doesn’t interpret Jesus as calling us to be door mats, but rather to stand up for our rights as human beings, but to do so in a non-violent way. Turning the other cheek is often misunderstood, but it required the other person to hit with the fist, rather than slap. To slap someone was to suggest you were thier superiour. To punch someone was to suggest you equal. So Jesus was saying (i think) turn your cheek to remind them that you are human as they are. If they do it again, they must know what they are doing is wrong. I find it very compelling.
I don’t really have any answers in relation to Iraq … but i did hear some people suggesting that we “bombing” Iraq with kindness, rather than sanctions or bombs - turning it all on its head. To be honest i don’t know more than that. I am just not sure war / violence is a way of sorting out the problems in the world.
“I can’t see Jesus dropping bombs and fighting in a war” — is that because our image of Jesus is not true to who he really is? The NT writers hint that Jesus was the “Yahweh” of the OT. Peter says that Jesus was the one that rescued Israel from Egypt. And yet how many people died from the 1st-born-child-bomb dropped by Jesus? I see a problem here whereby we become gnostics and start saying that Jesus isn’t the God of the OT, or we become liberals and say the OT is all fairytale anyway, or we become just plain crazy and say that God had a bad temper in the OT and is all grown up now (Mark Driscoll jokingly refers to the OT as God’s hormone-driven High School days!.
The OT presents Yahweh who is tender and motherly, and Yahweh who is a Divine Warrior with a Sword in hand. Do we believe Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead in the bodily form, or just the tender, loving Shepard?
Also, if we say the cross changed it all, then haven’t we fallen into a pagan propitiation model?
- none of this is to say we should do likewise and drop bombs, however!
of course all our views on Jesus are incomplete. there is the difficulty of the change from OT to NT - which if you don’t mind i won’t respond to here, just now.
But when i read the gospels, i see Jesus consistently shying away from the use of physical force to bring about his agenda. Others wanted to do it. he didn’t. And i can’t shake that … the feeling that resorting to violence is the sign the we have lost the war, even if we win the battle.
And back to Iraq: I think by going into Iraq, we have contributed to that country’s bloodbath. But we have also made the world a much more unsafe place … i do think we have done a very good job of recruitment for extremists groups.
point taken about Jesus shying away from violence. He always seemed to have God “magically” let him escape angry mobs, until his “appointed time”.
Yes it is sad what has happened to Iraq, but we did not make two ethnic groups hate each other! They already did, and Sadam just forced the lid down tight on a boiling pot. That is how it seems to me anyway.
Agree about the last point — especially with the U.S army.
Two things …
… firstly, I would want to hear what the people in the occupied country are saying. I think that’s difficult through the media, but one way is to read Riverbend’s blog - now published in two volumes, and also at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/. We are talking about it, but she is talking from a position of living it. I can pass you Riverbend Vol 1 (Aug 2003 - Sep 2007). The following link also highlights a number of Iragi bloggers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6612983.stm
… secondly, we can refine our thoughts on Iraq by trying them out on other situations. Such as Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, imploding with no hope as he attempts to hold on to office until he is 90, while the life expectancy falls to 34 for women and 37 for men (in 1990, it was 62). Should we be doing more to advocate and support neighbours in a “regional solution” to that one? What can we do to support the voice of the church within Zimbabwe against someone who is just as much a tyrant as Saddam, and is arguably taking his people to even lower depths of poverty?
Thanks Neil. I have read some of the stuff from Riverbend’s blog … really sobering stuff. I feel incredibly moved just reading a few articles. Incredible. Thanks for passing it on Neil.
I have always thought that Zimbabwe highlights the hypocrasy of the invasion on Iraq. Mugabe is just as bad as Saddam - but we won’t go into Zim as they don’t have the oil (and perhaps being generous they don’t seem to have threat of WMD).
Both points are hepful to the discussion. Thanks.
I agree re Mugabe — my gut instinct is to say lets invade and blow the sucker away, but if I accept your pushback above towards a non-violent solution, what would that be? How can we individually and as a church respond to these crazed wicked dictators? Just even thinking about this gets me so mad!
I don’t know Alastair … it is a good question. With small children, it is often said you have to find the thing they really want to do, and deprive them of that if they keep flouting the rules. I think that is often what we do with nations.
But i wonder, with children, if it is better to find what they really want to do or have, and offer it to them if they behave well. It may seem much the same, but i think there is all the world of difference. That is what i think we need to find with mugabe and others. It does require knowledge and some creative thinking. I don’t really know enough about the situation to come up with something, but i do think it is possible…
Hey…
I think your theory might work well with children (let us know how you get on!), but I am not sure it works with institutional evil…I think I need to get my head round how the Atonement deals with Evil, and how it offers Justice, even to those suffering. Wright has written on this recently and I think I need to get to grips with this. Without an understanding of what Jesus has done, my personal inclination is to somehow do what perhaps only God should do, which is to bring vengeance. Does Walter Wink say anything about this? (BTW do you have his three books on Powers?)
We’ll see about children … whatever, i guess we will get some stuff right and some stuff wrong!
It may not work, but then i don’t think what we have done until now has really worked either. Hey ho!
I am about to buy Wink’s book in the next few weeks … the discussion here (and elsewhere has inspired me!