Now that dawn has lit on President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, an indisputable case has been made to war with Iraq. But can the cause be indisputable yet its fulfillment unjust? We see examples of government doing the wrong thing for the right reason all the time, viz the myriad federal and state social programs. Witness in the coming weeks our aggression against the Mohametans in Baghdad: the right thing being done for the wrong reason and its attending consequences.
Indeed, by the parameters for war with Iraq, set as our operations in Afghanistan were winding down, the evidence is convincing. The United Nations would love to hamstring our war efforts, but even their own inspectors had to acknowledge that Saddam is deceptive, albeit couched in diplomatica and drivel. Bush translated their cant well: "He hasn't accounted for ______. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it." My analysis to that: material breach. Missiles are being tuned as we speak.
However, that set expectations were not met does not imply the expectations were, in themselves, reasonable. While until this writing I had yet to give outward criticism of the administration's plan for action in the Middle East, in hindsight the expectations set were expectations geared toward a reasonable chance of starting a war, and doing so while absolving the United States of the responsibility of starting it. Frankly, I'd rather we'd charged into Iraq months ago on a simple declaration of war issued by a president certain that truth and Providence were on his side. This manipulation is...well, it's a manipulation. And even if there are good reasons for destroying Iraq, I fail to see how our plan will make the war more just, more final, or more righteous - both today and later through the eyes of historians to come.
The past few weeks we have heard much from our soundbite Senators, expounding on what a 'world leader' would do, presuming that whatever Bush is doing is the antithesis of it. Unlike their windbaggery - that a world leaders should be making the world 'safer for democracy through negotiated peace' - my vision of world leadership looks more like a pit bull on a ten-foot leash, and woe be unto anyone who dares enter the circle uninvited. Some call this isolationism - I call it saying what you mean and meaning what you say in a world where everyone knows the rules. Problem is, our pit bull likes to go on long walks, and we should worry that he may never find his way home. There may well be a dog down the street that 'needs killing,' but who's guarding the front yard, meanwhile?
Our futile quest for world peace never ends, for there is always just one more Great Satan to fight; only one obstacle left until the world truly is 'safe for democracy.' That this futility goes unrecognised by most of humanity should be proof enough against evolution, and likewise enough reason in itself that there never will be a lasting peace brought about by men. That the Bible mentions the primary function of our rulers in government is to wield the sword against evil doers should tell us that the most we can do is secure the perimeter, like in the above pit bull example. We are, in the current action, operating outside of our jurisdiction, and while the enemy may be despicable in character, it very well may be he perceived as riding on the high road - winning the favour of the world and their aid in defeating the 'evil American Empire,' much as the Allies of World War II defeated Nazi Germany's ambitions for world leadership.
This estimation most probably is wrong, but is all too possible. Let us pray for our soldiers and leaders, for mercy, and for forgiveness as we repent of our evil.
