Você está na página 1de 62


Iraq War
Spring 2009 2009 Spring

The Rev. Dr. Robert Allan Hill

General Editor

Br. Lawrence A. Whitney, LC+

Managing Editor

Thomas Reis CAS 11 Tyler Sit COM 11

Artistic Editors

(c) 2009 motives. All rights reserved.

7 9 17 21 27 33 43 49 55

Letter to Readers Reections on the Gandhi/King Legacy

and the War in Iraq

The War in Iraq: What Works? Just-War or Justice? Reections on War Is a Defeat for Humanity The Iraq Project & Just-War Theory Memorializing the Global War on Terror What Are We to Do About the War in Iraq? The Last, Best Hope?
Getting Into and Out of the Iraq War

Marsh Chapel
Marsh Chapel is the center of religious life on the Boston University campus. The envisioned mission of Marsh Chapel is to be a heart for the heart of the city and a service in the service of the city. A heart for people and a vibrant service of Sunday worship are the center of our life. Within this mission three top priorities stand out: rst, to expand the national voice of Marsh Chapel; second, to expand the ecumenical ethos of the chapel community that We preach a gospel of grace trains future clergy; and and freedom, a responsible nally, to expand the hospitality and body of Christian liberalism. the congregation itself. Marsh Chapel harbors a non-fundamentalist expression of faith. The roots of our history lie in Methodism. The branches of our future stretch out to the oikumene, the whole ecumenical world. We invite you, encourage you, to join us on Sundays from 11am to 12noon for worship, here at 735 Commonwealth Avenue. The service is also broadcast live at WBUR 90.9 FM in New England, or on the internet at wbur.org.

Dear Reader,
Welcome to the inaugural edition of motives magazine. Marsh Chapel at Boston University, is happy to share with you this rst edition of our new annual journal. Upon its dedication in 1949, Daniel Marsh said of the chapel that bears his name let this chapel at the center of the university campus signify forever the centrality both of intellectual and experimental religion in education and also of devotion to Gods righteousness in human lives. It is in this spirit that Marsh Chapel is very pleased to announce the publication of motives, an academic and religious journal for the 21st century. Through an interdisciplinary approach, motives will explore the conviction that Christ can not only be found at the heart of culture, but that culture can be found at the heart of Christ. The journal will be a platform upon which dialogue will occur among voices across the gracious center of academic and ecclesiastical life. Motives will aspire to transcend political and theological differences and remind us that we are, as we have ever been, bound together by a common hope for the future of this world. The inaugural issue of motives, autumn 2008, analyzes the war in Iraq. Our contributors to this issue are Andrew Bacevich, Jay Corrin, Olga Yaqob, Andrew Fitz-Gibbon, Frederick Glennon, Raymond Helmick, Allison Stokes, and Robert Allan Hill. This groups intellectual acumen, diversity of background, and, most importantly, willingness to be part of a larger conversation will, no doubt, initiate a fascinating and important

conversation about an issue that has raised some of the most serious moral questions of our time. The tentative subject of the 2009 issue of Motives is Darwin and Faith, which will draw extensively from next years Summer Preaching Series at Marsh Chapel. It is our hope that motives will serve as a forum for substantial reection on issues of a theological and pastoral moment from the perspective of responsible Christian liberalism. We are delighted to invite you become a part of our edgling endeavor, with your prayers, words of encouragement, careful reading, and future support. Grace and Peace. Bob Hill

Reflections on the Gandhi/King Legacy and the War in Iraq

The Rev. Dr. Allison Stokes
After the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, E. Stanley Jones received a cable from America, asking him to write a book about his long time friend. Jones initially set aside the request as impossible. He had served as a Christian missionary in India since 1908, known Mohandas K. Gandhi since Gandhis return to India from South Africa in 1915, and loved his Hindu friend, despite their differences. Even so, the task was daunting. As time passed the evangelist felt an inner urge that overcame his hesitation. His book, Mahatma Gandhi, An Interpretation, would be a symbol of his gratitude to the man who taught me more of the spirit of Christ than perhaps any other man in East or West.1 Sixty years later I have been invited to write an article on the United States war in Iraq for the inaugural issue of Boston University Marsh Chapels new journal Motives. In contemplating this assignment my mind turns to E. Stanley Jones account of the world signicance of M. K. Gandhi. Writing at the time of Gandhis death three years after the dropping of the atomic bombs upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Jones was convinced that Christendom had gone astray and that Mahatma Gandhi is Gods appeal to this age.2 God had raised up a Hindu who did not believe in the Cross, but revealed its power by applying it.3 In the article that follows I will discuss Jones interpretation of Gandhis life and teachings; the inuence of Gandhiindeed, of Jones book about Gandhion Martin Luther King, Jr; and the power of the Gandhi/King legacy for critiquing the six year war and occupation in Iraq. At the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, our mission is to educate about nonviolence and to inspire and support efforts that promote harmony in our communities. At the Interfaith Chapel, we work to promote interfaith dialogue, cooperation and collaboration. I draw on these professional endeavors and personal commitments to offer some historical and theological reections from a Christian perspective. I salute the launch of Motives. May this new e-zine become a signicant national voice and a contributor toward the vision of beloved community. Nonviolent Resistance and the Death of G a n d h i ( 1 / 3 0 /4 8 ) Mahatma Gandhi was shot in Delhi on his way to his daily prayer meeting. The Rev. E. Stanley Jones, who had just arrived in the city but was not present, describes what happened after the wounded leader was carried into Birla House: A half hour later a secretary came out and brokenly announced to the stricken crowd, Bapu is nished. The father of this country was nished. It was strangely like that cry from the cross: It is nished. In both cases they seemed nished. But in both cases it was just the beginning.4 Jones had come to Delhi to try again to convince Gandhi to agree to a celebration of the launching of the Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Movement. Jones wanted to commemorate the dramatic beginning of the Salt March in March 1930 when a little man wearing a loincloth and carrying a walking stick had gone out from the Sabarmati Ashram to do battle with the greatest empire that ever existed, and had promised not to return until independence had been gained. Jones observed that Gandhis technique had been applied before in history, but never on such a scale: He would match his capacity to suffer against the others capacity to inict the suffering, his soul force against physical force; he would not hate, but he would not obey, and he would wear down all resistance by an innite capacity to take it.5 Years later, independence gained, empire defeated, Gandhi had pushed aside Jones suggestion of a celebratory pageant. In retrospect Jones reected that his own suggestion for a pageant was surpassed by a pageant that

only God could have produced. That fateful day a man stepped forward saying, You are late today, Mahatmaji, then red three shots point-blank.

furnished the method.8 In fact, King owed a debt of gratitude to E. Stanley Jones, as King explained to Jones daughter Eunice Jones Matthews, when he met her in 1964 at a reception given He sought to stop the Mahatma and his ideas. Stop in his honor by the president of Boston University. As she him? He only succeeded in freeing the ideas and spirit tells the story, when they met Dr. King became animated, of the Mahatma from his frail body and making them and explained that her fathers book had persuaded him to the possession of the human race. For an astonishing take up the Gandhian method. Mrs. Matthews identies the thing took place. I had suggested that he march into precise page that had triggered the ah ha moment for King. Sabarmati in a humble, but triumphal procession. In his copy he wrote, This is it! in the margin of page 88.9 Instead he marched into the soul of humanity in the Here Jones describes the Mahatmas belief: most triumphal march that any man ever made since the --that nonviolence is the method of the strong, not death and resurrection of the Son of God. The Roman the method of the weak and the cowardly triumphal processions were tawdry --that it is better to ght than to compared to this. It was worldtake up nonviolence through fear or King often said Christ wide; it was all-embracing. 6 cowardice --that by using the right means, furnished the spirit and In his moving reections on the right result will follow motivation, while Gandhi the meaning of Gandhis death, Jones links Jesus and Gandhi. Never did Nonviolent Resistance furnished the method. a death more ttingly crown a life, and the Death of King save only onethat of the Son of ( 4 /4 / 6 8 ) God. The missionary was convinced For King a selling point of Gandhis that this humble Hindu leader, who method was that there was no gained independence for India by his method of nonviolence, stagnant passivity about it; it was the way of the strong served in life and in death as an instrument of God. He was man. King explained that although the nonviolent resister martyred at the height of his powers on a stage that only is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind God could set. His death won millions of unconverted, and emotions are always active, seeking to persuade his conrmed the halfhearted, and set on re the convinced.7 opponent that he is wrong.10 In a segregated, racist culture, Several generations after Jones wrote these the Negro activist (as he called himself in the manner of words, they have proved to be true. Mahatma Gandhi has the time) needed great physical courage, for death was a indeed marched into the soul of humanity. His message terrifying and ever-present threat. that you must be the change you wish to see in the world Michael Eric Dyson, an ordained Baptist minister, is imbedded in global consciousness, and inspires peace writer, radio host and sociology professor, has written activists everywhere. eloquently about how King fought death, talked death, and faced death.11 Dysons interpretation of the meaning of M a h a t m a G a n d h i s I n f l u e n c e o n M L K , J r. Kings death is reminiscent of Jones interpretation of the The impact of Gandhi was enhanced and magnied meaning of Gandhis death. Dyson writes: by the inuence of his life and teachings on the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In speaking about the Civil Rights Whites have long since forgotten just how much heat movements technique of nonviolent resistance, King often and hate the thought of King could whip up. They have said Christ furnished the spirit and motivation, while Gandhi absolved themselves of blame for producing, or failing


to ght, the murderous passions that nally tracked King down in Memphis. What his assassin couldnt see through his viewnder is that his bullet would shoot King into legend; the form of his report only thrust King into an even larger and richer life than the one he lived.12 In the context of this discussion it is notable that the memorial statue to Dr. King that will soon be installed on the National Mall in Washington D.C. has been faulted by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts for being confrontational in character, whereas a meditative King was expected. Artist Lei Yixin, one of Chinas most celebrated sculptors, points out that his work was inspired by a famous photograph of Dr. King standing with his arms crossed in front of a picture of Mahatma Gandhi. The Washington Post commentator Eugene Robinson notes that a deant King changed a nation through the force of his indomitable will. Robinson argues: [King] didnt ask for an end to Jim Crow repression, he demanded it; he didnt request equal justice he required it. Confrontation, basically, was the whole point.13 King confronted the Johnson administration over its Vietnam War policy in an historic address delivered on April 4th, 1967, a year to the day before his assassination. Speaking from the pulpit of the Riverside Church in Manhattan, to a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam, King broke new ground in linking the triple scourges of racism, materialism, and militarism. With the simple substitution of Iraq for Vietnam (and terrorism for communism), one can read A Time to Break Silence and imagine Kings words were intended for us today: Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Iraq. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Iraq. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we

have taken. 14 T h e Wo r l d S a y s N o t o Wa r a n d t h e I r a q Invasion Six years ago citizens in cities around the globe witnessed to a longing for nonviolent resolution to conict when they participated in The World Says No to War day. The coordinated, worldwide demonstrations of February 15th, 2003 were unprecedented. Estimates were that as many as fteen million people joined in protests against the anticipated U.S. attack on Iraq. It seemed to be a grassroots embrace of the You must be the change message, an expression of the will of the people. But former President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and company imperiously dismissed the voice of the millions at home and abroad. In March the Shock and Awe bombing began. As a tactic to build and sustain support for war Bush, Cheney and administrations spokespersons exploited the events of 9/11 and incited public fear. The tactic is age old. A United Methodist pastor and social activist describes how national leaders have used fear to manipulate Americans. The Rev. Wayne Lavender writes from a personal perspective: I grew up being told that I needed to fear communism and the Soviet Union. Hundreds of billions of dollars and rubles were wasted on the senseless policy of mutual assured destruction. Although the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there remain enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth many times over. I grew up during the Vietnam War. The war was described to the American public as a war against communism. We were told that if communism won in Vietnam, a domino-like effect would take place, with nations falling to this evil way of life one after another until the United States itself would be threatened Contrary to the fear instilled into us by our elected leaders, communism did not spread. In fact, in 1991, sixteen years after the fall of Saigon, the Soviet Union collapsed. China, the worlds largest remaining


communist country, has introduced many free market reforms. Capitalism, rather than communism, is spreading through the world.15 If fear mongering were the most egregious offense of the Bush administration, the offense might have been overlooked, but of course, that was not the case. The offenses were legion. They violated Americas core values. And they were impeachable. Even though a grassroots effort to impeach the President did not succeed, the movements determination to name and expose the Presidents high crimes and misdemeanors was achieved in June 2008 when Dennis J. Kucinich presented a resolution with 35 Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush in the U.S. House of Representatives.16 They included: Invading Iraq, a sovereign nation, in violation of the UN Charter. (Article VIII) Torture: secretly authorizing, and encouraging the use of torture against captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places, as a matter of official policy (XVIII) Rendition: kidnapping people and taking them against their will to Black Sites located in other nations, including nations known to practice torture (XIX) In the name of national security, the President justied these illegal acts.17 M e a n s a n d E n d s T h e I r a q Wa r a n d Occupation In critiquing the war and use of torture, it is especially fruitful to focus on what Gandhi and King had to say about means and ends. Mohandas Gandhi observed that the belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a mistake that even those who are considered religious commit. You cannot plant a noxious weed and expect a rose to grow, said Gandhi. He objected to violence as a means because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. E. Stanley Jones believed that the greatness of Gandhi was that he would not look at end results. He would

focus on the right means; the right result would follow. Use the wrong means, and sooner or later they will plague you,18 wrote Jones of Gandhis belief. In 1958 Joan Bondurant, a professor at the University of California Berkley, published the rst theoretical study of Gandhis philosophy of conict, Conquest of Violence.19 Here she writes extensively about means and ends in Gandhis thought, noting that he viewed ends-means as convertible terms: nonviolence is both the end and the means.20 It is said that Martin Luther King called Conquest of Violence his favorite book.21 This is not surprising because King shared Gandhis conviction, so skillfully analyzed by Bondurant, about the means-ends relationship. In one of the great philosophical debates of history, King took a stand against those who argue that the end justies the means. To have peace in the world, King preached, ends and means must cohere. Why? Because the means represent the ideal in the making, and the end in process.22 The commitment to the method of nonviolence that Gandhi and King shared was based on their understanding of the nature of reality. Both had no doubt that when one uses the right means, the right ends follow because the universe guarantees it. King spoke about a power in the universe that works for justice, a cosmic companionship. He understood this truth to be universal and independent of ones religious tradition. King explained: It is true that there are devout believers in nonviolence who nd it difficult to believe in a personal God. But even these persons believe in the existence of some creative force that works for universal wholeness. Whether we call it an unconscious process, an impersonal Brahman, or a Personal Being of matchless power and innite love, there is a creative force in this universe that works to bring the disconnected aspects of reality into a harmonious whole.23 In writing about Gandhis method of nonviolent resistance Jones made a similar point about the nature of reality:


Gandhi brought to focus in himself universal principles inherent in our moral universe. Those principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation.24 A principle of nonviolence held by both Gandhi and King is respect for the humanity of the oppressor. They taught that the effort of the nonviolent resister is not to humiliate or defeat ones opponent, but to win him over by appealing to his heart and conscience. In Kings words, the desired end is the creation of beloved community. The end is reconciliation, not the bitterness the aftermath of violence brings. Our nations diminished moral standing in the world community underscores Gandhis teaching: use the wrong means and sooner or later they will plague you.

The Power of the Gandhi/ King Legacy He would focus on the Long before President Bush Change Agents right means; the right left office, an overwhelming majority of Mohandas K. Gandhi urged Americans had concluded that War is others not to revere him, not Mohandas result would follow. Not the Answer and that the best way K. Gandhi urged others not to revere him, to support our troops is by bringing them not to lift him up on a pedestal. Claiming home. Before the 2008 Presidential to be an average person with less than election, citizens determined to effect change through the average ability, he had no doubt that any man or woman democratic process were mobilized by a belief that the could achieve what he had achieved, if only he or she would outcome would be decisive given the candidates opposing make the same effort and cultivate the same hope and faith. views on the war. A Barack Obama campaign slogan It is incumbent on all who endorse the way of reminiscent of GandhiWe are the change weve been nonviolence to become assertive agents of change. One waiting for galvanized young people to political action. person who has taken up the challenge is Captain Paul K. The impact of Gandhi and King on global Chappell, U.S. Army. He has written a remarkable little book consciousness is incalculable. Through raw physical courage based on personal experience and study, Will War Ever in the face of death, these twentieth century heroes led their End? A Soldiers Vision of Peace for the 21st Century.26 His people in demonstrating the power of nonviolence to effect thesis is compelling, and if generally embraced, could be change. When they won independence for India and civil harbinger of a turn around in human acceptance of war as rights for African Americans absent the use of violence, a given, similar to the turn around in human acceptance of they proved the astounding efficacy of a strategy commonly slavery as a given. viewed as unrealistic or nave. This soldier suggests that we need to reject the With the election of President Barack Obama, it common belief that human beings are by nature belligerent seems we are now on the cusp of a revolution, a cultural and warlike because it is erroneous. In the face of danger shift of incalculable magnitude, for which Gandhi and and conict human beings naturally prefer ight to ght. King prepared the way: a global embrace of dialogue and Chappell explains that in battle every armys greatest diplomacy as the way to conict resolution. I can envision a problem is keeping soldiers from running away. The

time when true patriotism is turned upside down to signify not the willingness to suffer and die in combat, but instead the willingness to suffer and die in nonviolent protest against injustice and war. A harbinger of this revolution is the famous June 1989 photograph of a Chinese demonstrator in Tiananmen Square standing alone and vulnerable in the path of advancing tanks. His courageous deance inspired people worldwide. (The column came to a halt, resuming only after the protester had climbed up onto the lead tank and talked with the crew.) Dr. King was optimistic about the future. On the night before his death, his voice lled with emotion as he assured his listeners that he had seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the Promised Land.25


tactic for doing that relying is on the ghting persons unconditional loveof family, of community, of nationin urging him/her to ght to protect. It is not killing in battle that is admired and honored, but rather, self-sacrice. Being loving helps soldier to be brave. Captain Chappell writes: The fact that human beings have survived in communities for thousands of years proves that unconditional love is more powerful than hatred. If human beings did not have a stronger inclination to cooperate, care for each other, and survive rather than to way war, we would not be alive to discuss these ideas today. 27 And herein lies the hope for peace. Chappell gives examples of several soldiers of peace, including Mahatma Gandhi, who during the Boer War led his men on to the battleeld, under the re of enemy guns, in order to carry soldiers to the base hospital. Unconditional love was the source of Gandhis courage, writes Chappell.28 I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It is perfect for book clubs and congregational study groups. Its a quick read, but profound, and is sure to provoke substantive discussion. What is more, publisher prots and all author royalties from Will War Ever End? will be donated to charitable organizations that support war veterans. I conclude with hope and a prayer. May the achievements of Gandhi and King continue to inspire such visions of the possible, and with the enlightened policies of a new administration lead our nation back to its highest ideals.

The Rev. Dr. Allison Stokes works as Director of both the M.K. Gandhi Institute of Nonviolence and the University of Rochesters Interfaith Chapel. The M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence was founded in 1991 by the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, Arun Gandhi, and his wife, Sunanda. The Institute is hosted by the University of Rochester. Their mission, is to educate about nonviolence, and to inspire and support efforts that promote harmony in our communities. The Interfaith Chapel was built in 1970 as a bold signal of University commitment to diversity. As the words above the entrance suggest, it was to be,a house of prayer for all peopleto celebrate their religious traditions and spiritual practices.


1 E. Stanley Jones. Gandhi, Portrayal of a Friend. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983): 8. 2 3 4 5 6 7 ibid 159. ibid 151. ibid 150. ibid 13. ibid 16. ibid 41. 13 Eugene Robinson. Democrat and Chronicle.12 A. 14 A Testament of Hope, The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. 238. 15 Wayne Lavender. Counting Ants While the Elephants March ByThoughts on Church and State, Poverty and Terrorism, War and Peace. (Ithaca Publishing, 2007): 173. 16 Dennis Kucinich. 35 Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush. [online]<http://kucinich.house. gov/NEWS/DocumentSingle. aspx?DocumentID=93581>. 17 Since the Inauguration of President Obama, many on the left have criticized him for not taking the lead in holding the Bush-Cheney administration accountable for its abuses. In response Cynthia Boaz wrote a piece for truthout, explaining why this is not Obamas task, but rather that of the people. Obamas Justice: Reconciliation, Not Retribution. [online]<www.truthout. org/021809J>. 18 E. Stanley Jones. Gandhi, Portrayal of a Friend. 88. 19 Joan Bondurant. Conquest of Violence. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958). 20 ibid 34.

21 Maxine Hong Kingston. Celebrating Women Role Models and Their Inspirations. [online]<http://berkeley.edu/news/ berkeleyan/1999/0303/women. html>. 22 A Christmas Sermon on Peace. A Testament of Hope, The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. 254-255. 23 E. Stanley Jones. Gandhi, Portrayal of a Friend.149. 24 I See the Promised Land A Testament of Hope, The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. 286. 25 I See the Promised Land A Testament of Hope, The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. 286. 26 Paul K. Chappell. Will War Ever End? A Soldiers Vision of Peace for the 21st Century. (Weston: Ashoka Books, 2009.) 27 27 ibid 37. ibid 35.

8 An Experiment in Love. A Testament of Hope, The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. ed. James M. Washington. (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1986):17. 9 Authors conversation with Eunice Jones Matthews on October 27th, 2007. 10 An Experiment in Love. A Testament of Hope, The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. 17. 11 Michael Eric Dyson. April 4, 1968; Martin Luther King, Jr.s Death and How It Changed America. (New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2008). 12 ibid 55


The Rt. Rev. Dr. Andrew Fitz-Gibbon, LC

Pragmatism is a deep vein in the American psyche, and not merely the more philosophical kind exemplied in John Dewey and William James. On occasion, as an expatriate Brit I nd the everyday American focus on valuing that which works refreshing. Old Europe is full of that which no longer works. And who wants to be bothered with something that doesnt work? Yet, this practical bent refreshes only sometimes. Max Webers rational irrationality, doing things just because, also has its merits. I suspect that it is Webers irrationality that gives life a sense of meaning but that is for another occasion. In this article I want to take a closer look at pragmatism and the war in Iraq. In what sense has it worked? This seam of pragmatism is, perhaps, why there has been much talk in the US media of whether and in what ways the war in Iraq has worked. It seems the American public is more easily persuaded by pragmatic than idealistic argument. The enormous cost of a prolonged war is only worth itin dollars, lives, and US worldwide prestige if it can be shown that it has worked. President Bushs Mission Accomplished speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 was perhaps a clear appropriation of this insight. Those opposed to the war have been tempted to argue from two different, but still pragmatic, standpoints. First, wars never work and therefore, all wars are wrong. Second, this particular war has not worked and should not have been engaged in. A well-fought war in Afghanistan (or perhaps, Iran) would have worked better. The rst argument is similar to the argument that violence never works. The problem with the argument is that it is quite clear that in some circumstances violence does work. The bully who wants the smaller boys candy punches the boy and takes his snack. Violence works and the bully repeats the violence as required. A mother wants her obstreperous child to be quiet. The daughter continues to play up. In exasperation, the mother lashes out. The child is hurt but becomes quiet. Violence works. Goals are achieved. The argument that wars never work is of a similar kind. The unpalatable truth for those opposed to war on pragmatic grounds is that wars do work some of the time. The second argument recognizes this fact, but argues that the war in Iraq has not worked in accomplishing anything good, or at least the bad outweighs the good. Yet, the war in Iraq may be said to have worked on a number of levels. Whether Saddam Hussein was seeking to develop WMDs or not, it is clear he was a brutal dictator. He was removed from power. In that sense the war worked. Iraq is still struggling to come to terms with life without dictatorship. There are the beginnings of democracy and the institutions of democracy. It will take time, but the rst essential steps have been taken. The war has worked. Following September 11, 2001 there were justied reasons to think that al Qaeda would again use terrorism on the US mainland. By waging war in Iraq, the focus of al Qaeda has been on ghting US troops there. There has been no other attack in the USA. The war has worked. The war has been fabulously expensive. Yet, in its wake many jobs have been created in the military-industrial complex; contracts in Iraq have been extensively offered to US companies. That has worked. Further, in any time of war, a country is united, if not behind its leaders, then at least behind its troops. After all, these are our young men and women. They did not start the war, but they are there at our bidding. They risk life and limb for our sake. We must support our troops, whether this is the right or wrong war. Even those initially opposed to starting the war rally behind the troops in the eld (witness the Support Our Troops bumper stickers). The war has worked in providing national unity (even if fracturing at present). Finally, the surge has worked. Adding more troops to the melting pot in 2007 was pragmatically right. Numbers of US deaths have fallen. Numbers of IEDs have been greatly reduced. A number of Iraqi provinces have been stabilized. It has worked. I am aware that the above is overly simplied and in each instance where I suggest the war has worked, an argument can be made to say that it has not worked, or not

The War in Iraq: What Works?


worked as effectively as I suggest. There is also a negative This popular pragmatic approach is implicit in much argument to be made that even if some things have worked political and media rhetoric with respect to whether the war others have not. For example, jobs may have been created has worked or not. It suffers from the same critique of most forms of utilitarianism: it is a pretense to think human life in the military-industrial complex, but national debt in the can be given a utility value and compared to social, political USA has soared. On balance, it may be that the war has or economic changes. The overthrow of a dictator equals not worked economically. Nonetheless, it is clear that on a the death of how many children? Human life is cheapened number of different levels an argument can be made that the for the sake of some supposed greater good. The popular war in Iraq has, at least partially, worked. pragmatic idea of what works is morally inadequate with Yet, what does it mean to have worked? Some kind regard to the war in Iraq or any war. of utility calculation is required. With an issue as complex as Michael Nagler takes a different approach in his The a war, there are many factors that would need to be weighed Search For a Nonviolent Future. He suggests that more care is in the balance. The most signicant issue in war is the loss needed when considering what works. His comments arise of human life. Traditionally, there has been a distinction in the context of whether nonviolence works. It is often said between military and civilian deaths, the latter having by pragmatists that whilst nonviolence is more moral signicance. All loss of life is a good ideal, violence often accomplishes important, yet for arguments sake I will more. Nagler is among those who have assume that military deaths are expected Human life is argued that nonviolence works in ways and I will consider only civilian casualties cheapened for the sake better than violence. (Others are Peter in Iraq. Though the exact number will Ackerman with Jack DuVall and Gene never be known, estimates vary from of some supposed Sharp.) Naglers creativity is to draw a 74,000-81,000, Iraqi Body Count; to greater good. distinction between work and work.2 100,000-150,000, Iraqi Health Ministry; He readily acknowledges that violence to 650,000, The Lancet; to 1.2m, Britishworks in accomplishing short-term, practical goals (as based Opinion Research.1 By any estimate there have been I have argued that the war in Iraq has worked). However, a large number of civilian deaths. Given this large number violence does not work in the long term and with regard to of deaths, has the war worked? A pragmatic argument will higher human values. give weight to the various accomplishments (as partially Nagler uses the rst Gulf War as an example. listed above) as against the loss of life. In arguments of this Though the war worked in removing Iraqi troops from kind, exactitude is impossible. Nonetheless, there are broad Kuwait, the allied military action caused untold suffering limits to what might be considered a reasonable number of to millions of Iraqis. The ensuing trade sanctions produced civilian deaths relative to the other accomplishments of the further hardship and the deaths of hundreds of thousands war. How many deaths would be reasonable in the utility of mostly children. Western military presence in the Gulf calculation is anyones guess. More than a million might be (particularly Saudi Arabia) greatly angered certain Islamic considered too high for the accomplishments of the war. radicals and led to the horrors of September 11 2001. Yet, less than a million might be considered acceptable Though Saddam was subdued for a while, it was considered collateral damage. In such a calculation predicted deaths necessary to launch a second Gulf War. In other words, under the continued brutality of Saddam Hussein, had he not the short term worked did not translate into long term be overthrown, would also need to be considered, as would worked. Violence always produces further violence in a spiral predictions for the use of WMDs against, for example, the of harm. Nagler argues that though violence sometimes Kurds. The loss of lives would be weighed against the value works it never works. However, nonviolence sometimes given to US homeland security, to stability in the Gulf region, works but always works. Nagler gives a number of or to any number of factors.


examples to support his thesis. Nonviolence, when practiced conscientiously has worked from the Dharasana salt factory in 1930 to the death of Father Kolbe in Auschwitz, to the Springtime in Prague in 1968.2 Naglers proposal for absolutist nonviolence is winsome and persuasive and is derived from a long tradition. Though Nagler is rooted in the Hindu tradition, all the other major world traditions have similar minority nonviolentist traditions. Nonviolence, in all these traditions, is more than simply refraining from violent actions. Ahimsa, love, nonviolence (the terms are used interchangeably not only in Nagler but also in Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi) is a positive, complex idea. It is somewhat akin to the Hebrew idea of shalom. Nonviolence is a primordial force that involves both theoria and praxis and refuses a simple denition, a whole-being experience.3 It is a way of being that seeks to deal with violence rst of all in the individual psyche and then through loving action. So far, I have contrasted a popular pragmatism concerning what works with the more nuanced pragmatism of Michael Nagler. His approach is more morally justiable than popular pragmatism. Yet something else is needed. Nonviolence is more than a mere tool to accomplish a social or political goal. If that was the case, then if violence could accomplish the goal perhaps, and most likely, faster than nonviolence, then why not use violence? Nonviolence is thus more than a tool. Nonviolence has intrinsic and instrumental value. An instrumental value is the value something has in its uses. Its use is toward some other end. Something with intrinsic value has value in and of itself. It is an end rather than merely a means. For example, a tree has instrumental value as a piece of wood that is used to make a table. The table is the end toward which the tree is instrumental. Yet, environmentalists have suggested that to see the tree as merely instrumental toward some other end is ultimately problematic. It does not value the tree in itself as having intrinsic value. Further, Immanuel Kant recognized the notion of intrinsic value with regard to human beings in his various expressions of the Categorical Imperative. Human beings are ends in themselves. To merely use another person for whatever reason is to violate the integrity of the person.

That which has intrinsic worth is amongst our highest human aspirations. Goodness, truth, and beauty (in the old Platonic sense) are not instrumental toward anything else. The higher human values like compassion, friendship, love, forgiveness, and reconciliation are values of that kind. Nonviolence, another way of saying goodness, is such an aspiration. Nonviolence is both the means and the end. In Naglers sense, that which works is that which is intrinsically good. Violence, conversely, (and hence the war in Iraq) can only ever be at best instrumental. It could never be an end in itself. Further, violence, can never lead to the telos of love for the act of violence is a negation of love in any meaningful sense. As a counterpoint to mere pragmatism consider one tragic occurrence where extreme violence was addressed with loving nonviolence. On October 2, 2006, in a one-room schoolhouse, a gunman killed ve Amish girls. He then took his own life. Several other girls were seriously injured and continue to suffer the consequences. The response of the Amish community was to forgive the deranged man, to care for his family, and to establish a support fund for them. The example of Amish love and nonviolence has been a source of hope and goodness for all who consider it. Yet, it is difficult to see in what way it worked. What was accomplished? What of justice or punishment? Nonetheless, it clearly worked in Naglers sense. The Amish community found a response that countered violence by asserting love. Nonviolence works. Love works. More than that, nonviolence is an intrinsic good, good in and of itself regardless of the outcome. Can there be a pragmatism that is linked to what works and not merely what works? This would be a new kind of pragmatism. It would be a consistent nonviolent praxis that critiques violence as a solution. At the very least, when discourse turns to whether or not the war in Iraq has worked, questions need to be raised about what it means for anything to work. Where can goodness be found?


1 Iraq Violence in Figures. [online] accessed July 28, 2008. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_ depth/629/629/7036068.stm>. 2 M. N. Nagler. The Search for a Nonviolent Future. (Maui: Inner Ocean Publishing, 2004). 3 4 ibid 97 ff. ibid 51.

The Rt. Rev. Dr. Andrew Fitz-Gibbon, LC

All ancient books recognized as scripture by the different religions share something in common. They are all shaped by an ancient, pre-modern worldview. This causes some difficulty in reading and interpreting as we try to bridge horizons between then and now. It is all the more difficult when these ancient texts give us moral guidelines that are repugnant to us. I do not think that humanity has evolved in the last 3,000 years in terms of essential changes to the human psyche and its associated behaviors. We are just as violent and aggressive now. We are just as kind and loving now. But, in that time human thinking and expectations have evolved. There is an accumulated wisdom. Much of the wisdom derives from the ancient texts and has stood the test of time. We still rely on this wisdom. I am thinking of issues like, Do not kill. Though an ancient idea, it remains very much part of that which we ought not to do. The ancient wisdom has been supplemented and given newer explanations in ideas such as the dignity of the human person, the right to personal autonomy and other human rights. We generally find it easy to reject elements of the ancient traditions that we have outgrown (and for good reasons). We have rejected the imperative to stone adulterers to death or to cut off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread or to consider a woman unclean for an extended period after childbirth. Yet, religious folk still have a hard time rejecting something ostensibly from the mouth

from The Abbots Blog

Further Reading
Ackerman, P., & DuVall, J. (2000). A force more powerful: a century of nonviolent conict (1st ed.). New York: St. Martins Press/Palgrave. Sharp, G. (1973). The politics of nonviolent action. Boston: P. Sargent Publisher. (1990). The role of power in nonviolent struggle. Cambridge, MA (1430 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge 02138): Albert Einstein Institution. Sharp, G., & Paulson, J. (2005). Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century potential. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, Inc.


of the founder of a religion, be it Moses, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad or the Guru Nanak. For good reasons, we treat the sayings of these people with extra respect. I think that was the motivation behind the publishers who include the sayings of Jesus in red in some Bibles. The words in red are the extra special words among all the other special words. Jesus tells a story about a couple of debtors and ends with this: His Lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart. Forgive under the threat of torture! Torture is about power over, about coercion, about inflicting pain and suffering to achieve some end. We also know now that psychologically very little good is ever produced through torture. Any confessions made or information received is often bogus. Under extreme pain human beings will say whatever the torturer wants to escape the suffering. It is for good reasons that the United Nations under the guidance of Eleanor Roosevelt included this statement in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Whenever a government official tries to tell you that what they are doing is not this, but something different, there is prima facie evidence to suggest that this is exactly what they are doing! Returning to the words of Jesus that tell us

that God the Father-Mother is prepared to torture people (and this is a large element in the traditional church doctrine about eternal hell fire) what are we to make of it? There are four options: a) This is the teaching of Jesus and we must accept it. God endorses torture. b) This is the teaching of Jesus and it does not mean what it seems to say. c) This is a redaction of the early church. It is editorial comment and does not come from the mouth of Jesus. It is fine to reject it. d) Even if this is the teaching of Jesus, it reflects Jesus as a person of his own day. It is part of first century culture. We are free to reject it. In part, the option you choose will depend on other things, like how you treat the scriptures, and how ancient texts affect contemporary moral issues among others. If you think every word of the Bible is inspired by God and must be accepted as true, this text will provide problems. For me, there is nothing redeeming in the idea of torture. I reject torture as demeaning to human relationships and an unworthy idea to project onto God who is love. That Jesus was a child of his day seems incontrovertible. That Jesus embraced ideas we now find repugnantoften on the basis of the other things Jesus saidseems also clear. Did the early church editors add to the words of Jesus? Im sure they did, but sifting through the sayings and deciding which is which is, as we now say, above my pay grade. I leave that to other specialized Biblical scholars. http://lindisfarnecommunity.blogspot.com


Just-War or Justice? Reflections on Getting into and out of the Iraq War
Fred Glennon
War is a violent, deadly, and costly business, which runs counter to the predominant Christian message of peace. Because of this, it is important for Christians of all stripes to engage in serious reection any time their nation seeks their support to use war as the means to its ends. As the Iraq war continues into its sixth year, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, the deaths and wounding of thousands of military personnel and Iraqi citizens, and the demise of the international and human rights reputations of the United States worldwide, leaders and citizens are questioning more earnestly the motives and rationale that led the Bush Administration to declare this war in the face of world opinion to the contrary and the motives and rationale behind calls to end it. The breadth and depth of such inquiry is good, even if the timing is a bit late. But the pretext for such reection should not be simply to lay blame, for we all bear some part of that burden. Rather, the analysis should provide opportunity for all people of faith and conscience to think more critically about what drove us to this war in the rst place, to nd resolution to the war in ways that treat all parties with dignity and justice, and to discern alternatives other than war (whether just or not) to resolve our conicts in the future. Critical reection on the motives of nations before engaging in war is at the heart of just-war theory, so much a part of Christian ethical tradition since the time of Augustine. Just-war theory seeks to reduce if not eliminate state sanctioned violence in the world by forcing those who propose war to justify their actions in public and specic ways. The theory includes such criteria as having a just cause, the right intention, a legitimate authority, using proportional means, and declaring war only as a last resort. The prevalence of this theory in principle, even if consistently violated in practice, is evident when we see leaders, seeking to thrust their nations into war, publicly follow the criteria as they lay out their justication. President Bush suggested that the cause for war in Iraq was just: the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world.1 His intention, to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, was right because in his view, freedom is Gods gift to every person in every nation.2 Moreover, A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.3 He also indicated that he had the legitimate authority to do this granted to him by Congress. While he agreed that the United Nations was the right place to start, because the U.N. was not fullling its purposes, the U.S. had the legitimate right to act on its own. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.4 He promised that the force used would be decisive but measured and would spare innocent civilians from harm.5 Many Christian leaders have suggested that the Bush administration did not meet all of the criteria before beginning the war in Iraq. The threats to security and peace, whether immediate or anticipated, were related to Saddams possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Given that no weapons were found, and evidence that inspections had been more successful than claimed, the just cause is suspect. From his speeches leading up to and since the beginning of the Iraq war, it would appear that President Bushs primary motivation was regime change for the cause of freedom and democracy which he promised to pursue zealously, if not religiously. In his view, and the view of some conservative evangelical leaders, America is Gods agent in bringing about freedom and democracy to all people, especially those living in the Middle East. In the words of Richard Land, spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Convention, the only major Christian denomination to support the war, to whom much is given, much is required.6 Regardless of whether or not one thinks this American exceptionalism is a right intention, it appears that Bushs religious zeal may have been tainted somewhat by a more selsh motive. According to former White House press secretary Scott McClellan, Bush wanted to bring freedom to the Middle East as part of a broader legacy he hoped to leave as President, even if it meant a policy of coercive


democracy.6 With regard to legitimate authority, many world Christian leaders suggest that the only legislative body with legitimate authority to declare war is the U.N., the organization charged with overseeing international peace and justice of which the U.S. is a founding member. Was this a war of last resort? While most observers think that we could have waited to let inspections and sanctions work, Christian theologian and ethicist, Dan Maguire, contends that given the bloated military budget of the United States, spending more than the next eighteen largest nations combined, it is clear that war is not seen as a last resort; rather, the use or permanent threat of military violence ranks high in our policy options.8 Finally, with regard to proportionality, it strains the imagination at this point to believe that the good achieved by the ouster of Saddam Hussein outweighs the economic, political, and human costs that this war has generated. Of course, we may believe as some do that justwar principles are either no longer relevant or need major revision to be applicable to the world in which we live. While using just-war criteria to justify the war in Iraq on the one hand, President Bush challenged the idea that, in this day and age of global terrorism, the only just cause for war is defense against an immediate threat. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.9 Thus, the National Security Strategy of the United States includes preemptive or preventive warfare.10 This revision of a just cause clearly violates the centuries old tradition which states that the only just cause for engaging in war is an act of aggression that has either already happened or is imminent. To include preemptive warfare as a means to prevent possible future threats opens a Pandoras Box of possibilities that threaten global peace and security. Those who support such a revision, as even some pro-war Christian advocates do, have not given serious thought to its implications beyond this war. Perhaps, instead of revision, what is really needed is for those advocates of just-war theory to reaffirm this tradition by standing up and publicly denouncing the Iraq war as an unjust war. As Drew

Christensen, editor of America, contends, condemnation will serve to uphold the integrity of the Just War Tradition. A refusal to condemn a war that was so evidently misguided compromises the Just War both as an intellectual doctrine and as a system of social control over state violence.11 While condemning the motivation for beginning the Iraq war publicly may be helpful in reasserting the relevance of the just war tradition and deter this and future administrations from such misguided courses of action, we must also seek an end to the current conict. Is the solution simply to exit as quickly as possible? What motives and principles should serve as the criteria for such resolution? In her book, Justice in an Unjust World, Karen Lebacqz says that biblical justice is reconciling justice.12 Its goal is always to restore the relationships that have been damaged as a result of the injustice perpetrated by the oppressor against the oppressed. It requires respect for the dignity and rights of others, responsibility for insuring that they are protected, honest recognition of and public remorse for our part in wrongdoing, reparations for those harmed by our actions, and repentance from the ways that generated the injustice.13 If we adopt Lebacqzs perspective on what biblical justice demands, resolution of the conict, rst of all, must respect the rights and dignity of all parties. To his credit, President Bush emphasized the protection of human dignity as a crucial motivation for the war on terror of which the Iraq war is a part: Once we have recognized Gods image in ourselves, we must recognize it in every human being.14 A central component of that image is the God-given desire to live in freedom and justice. For Bush, however, respect for that image does not include anyone he labels as an enemy. In his dualistic thinking, acts of terrorism illustrate that there are two types of regimes and people in the world: good and evil, friend and foe. There seems to be no middle ground in the doctrine that undergirds his crusade against terrorism (which many Muslims perceive as a war against their faith and culture): The doctrine which says either youre with us, or youre with the enemy.15 This labeling of anyone who is not part of the coalition of the willing as enemy is critical, says former President Jimmy Carter, if we are going to destroy them: In order for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the inhumanity of war, we nd it


necessary rst to dehumanize our opponents, which is in the Vatican of the Catholic Churchs role in the persecution itself a violation of the beliefs of all religions.16 By labeling of Jews and the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africas others as enemy we feel that we can do with them what we misguided support of apartheid, indicate that it is possible will, including torture and death. for institutions to take responsibility for their corporate Instead of respect for the rights and dignity of action in the past, not in order to make individual Christians only those people who agree with us, justice demands today feel guilty but as a mature, public act of institutional that we demonstrate respect for all persons, including our repentance.19 enemies. The wisdom expressed by Jesus in his Sermon Justice also requires that we assume appropriate on the Mount, where he admonishes followers to love responsibility and make suitable reparations. President-elect your enemies, illustrates the truth that treating people we Barak Obama has suggested that we must end the war in dislike as unworthy of the respect and dignity of all human Iraq responsibly. But what does such responsibility entail? beings undermines the possibility of reconciliation and We have destroyed the lives of millions of Iraqis and the perpetuates injustice. And it is this injustice that we must infrastructure of their nation. It is troubling to watch U.S. address. Many Americans wonder news media outlets account daily about the reasons behind what we for the casualties inicted on U.S. treating people we dislike as perceive as the worlds hatred for us and coalition military forces during unworthy of the respect and and our way of life. President Bush the war while making infrequent suggests, They hate us because reference to the harms experienced dignity of all human beings we love freedom.17 But this narrow by Iraqi citizens. As the Anglican undermines the possibility of Bishops admonish: The suffering construal turns a blind eye to the broader concerns others have that reconciliation and perpetuates and death of Iraqi civilians matter. relate to the injustices perpetrated They need to be taken into account injustice. by the United States through our as part of the moral calculus of efforts at political, economic and war.20 We have a responsibility cultural empire building, pushing our interests and values for working with the Iraqi people in restoring their society. at the expense of those of others.18 While the removal of The U.S. cannot simply walk away out of concerns over our Saddam Hussein from power and the establishment of a economy or national debt. We have the obligation to help democracy in Iraq may be good things, it is imperative that them to rebuild their security and their economy in ways people of faith and conscience acknowledge that our nations that are benecial to them, not necessarily to American motivations in this war were driven as much, if not more, by security rms, contractors, or our need for cheaper oil. The our own national interests as they were by the desire to free real challenge will be to provide just the right amount of the Iraqi people. assistance on their timetable that respects Iraqi rights and Moreover, justice demands that we should express dignity and helps to prevent future injustice in that country remorse for our complicity in enabling and supporting and the region. Such responsibility also includes working Saddam Husseins repressive regime as an ally against Iran more cooperatively with the U.N. and other nations in the through the sale of arms and other strategic measures; region and the world to foster the growth and stability of Iraq and for our part in contributing to the suffering of the Iraqi as a sovereign people in the hope that such cooperation will people through oppressive sanctions. Our hands are dirty. end the violence that begins with injustice. While political leaders may be hesitant to express such Finally, justice demands repentance, a change in remorse publicly, people of faith have done so in the past the ways and patterns of behavior that lead to injustice and should do so again. As the Anglican Bishops note, and war. Conict between human beings and between public expressions of remorse, such as the confessions by nations may be inevitable, part of the human condition.


But does it mean that the resolution of such conicts must always end in state sanctioned violence? Is decisive military force the only means to secure peace and justice in the world? For many Christians and people of other faiths, the answer is no. At the beginning of the Iraq war, leaders of Friends Organizations in the U.S. declared that war always represents a profound failure. It shows the failure of individuals and governments to address conditions of poverty, injustice, and oppression that lead to war. It shows a failure of will and creativity among those in our own government and others to seek alternatives to military force to resolve our conicts.21 Robert McAfee Brown writes that at the root of the spiral of violence in the world is injustice. People who experience injustice revolt against that injustice, often violently. In turn, those who perpetrate the injustice respond violently in repressing the revolt, which only generates more injustice. If we are serious about our Christian commitment to peace and eliminating violence in the world, then we must work diligently to replace injustice with justice for all people.22 Hence, Dan Maguire rightly contends, justice is the alternative to war.23 Ironically, this insight is not lost on President Bush. Old patterns of conict in the Middle East can be broken, if all concerned will let go of bitterness, hatred, and violence, and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform, and reconciliation.24 One could discern from this that he believes that the elimination of poverty and political repression can lead to lasting peace and justice. The problem is that he only envisions this in the context of eliminating the threat in the rst place through war. Yet recent history is full of examples of using peaceful and nonviolent means to end conict, such as Gandhi in India, the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., and the unilateral moves by U.S. and Soviet leaders to reduce Cold War tensions. Such peaceful alternatives take courage, imagination, determination, and appropriate practices as the authors of Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War suggest.25 But they hold the promise of breaking rather than perpetuating the cycle of violence by engaging parties

to conicts in meaningful dialogue toward reconciliation, and freeing up tremendous resources to address societal problems and injustices that are at the root of such disputes. Such reconciliation, which is at the heart of biblical justice, ultimately provides the best hope for a more peaceful world. As Nobel Peace Prize laureate, former President Jimmy Carter, reminds us: The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice. We can choose to alleviate suffering. We can choose to work together for peace. We can make these changes - and we must.26

Fred Glennon was awarded the American Academy of Religion Excellence in Teaching Award, 2008. The award recognizes the importance of teaching, and honors outstanding teaching in the field.


1 George W. Bush. We will prevail: George W. Bush on war, terrorism, and freedom. (New York: National Review, 2003): 237. 2 3 4 5 ibid 255. ibid 227. ibid 233. ibid 237. 14 George W. Bush. We will prevail: George W. Bush on war, terrorism, and freedom. 119. 15 ibid 187.

16 Jimmy Carter. Nobel Lecture. [online]<http:// nobelprize.org/nobel_prized/peace/laureates/2002/carterlecture.html>. 17 George W. Bush. We will prevail: George W. Bush on war, terrorism, and freedom. 185. 18 Z. Sardar & M. W. Davies. Why Do People Hate America? (New York: The Disinformtion Company, 2003). 19 Working Group of Church of Englands House of Bishops. Countering Terrorism. (London: The Church of England, 2005) [online]< http://www.cofe.anglican.org/ info/socialpublic/international/foreignpolicy/terrorism.pdf>. 20 ibid 22.

6 Richard Land. A Christian defense of the war in Iraq. [online]<http://www.beliefnet.com/story/188/ story_18823_1.html>. 7 Scott McClellan. What Happened. (New York: Public Affairs). 8 Dan Maguire. The Horrors We Bless. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007): 59. 9 George W. Bush. We will prevail: George W. Bush on war, terrorism, and freedom. 160. 10 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (Washington, DC: The White House, 2002). [online]<http://www.whitehouse.gov/ncs/nss.pdf. 11 Dawson Christensen. Of Many Things. in America 191, 6. [online] <http://www.americamagazine.org/content/ article.cfm?article_id=3732>: 6. 12 Karen Lebacqz. Justice in an Unjust World. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1987). 13 ibid ch. 6

21 A statement from leaders of Friends Organizations in the U.S. [online]<http://www.quaker.org/iraqwar.html>. 22 Robert McAfee Brown. Religion and Violence. (Louisville: Westerminster/John Knox Press, 1987): ch. 1. 23 Dan Mcguire. The Horrors We Bless. 68.

24 George W. Bush. We will prevail: George W. Bush on war, terrorism, and freedom. 228. 25 Just Peacemaking, ed. G. Stassen. (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004). 26 Jimmy Carter. Nobel Lecture.


War is a Defeat for Humanity

Sr. Olga of the Eucharist
From December 16, 07- January 9, 08 I took a service trip to Iraq inspired by the teaching of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other. The Biblical image that called to me in prayer during my preparation for my trip was the image of the wedding at Cana. As I contemplate my people in Iraq. It is easy to see the suffering and poverty caused by war and embargo. As I look at my people in America I see also the suffering caused by the experiences of 9/11, by the war in Afghanistan, by the fear of terrorism and by the war in Iraq. I see my people as having run out of the wine of Christs love and I hear the voice of Mother Mary calling to her Son. Interceding for her children that have run out of this wine of peace and of joy. As a response, I hear the voice of the Lord as He turns to me and invites me to be the one to help Him plant the seeds of the grapevines which will bring this wine of peace to His people. The Blessed Mother has always been present in every step of life. She also became a big part of my journey to Iraq. I was aware that the year of 2007 was the ninetieth Anniversary of the apparition of our Lady in Fatima, where she encouraged all people to pray the Rosary for the purpose of peace. Conscious of this, and seeking Our Ladys intercession, I planed to stop in Fatima on my way to Iraq to spend two days in prayer and seeking the guidance of Our Blessed Mother before continuing this journey. I wanted to go there in remembrance of her message in 1917 when she appeared during the 1st World War, Say the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war... If they do what I tell you, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace. The war is going to end [World War I] I arrived at Lisbon airport on Monday, December 17 in the late afternoon. At the Shrine of our Lay of Fatima I met the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and had a brief conversation with them. One of them told me that I should take a statue of Our Lady of Fatima to Iraq for the intention of peace. I told her that if I had to take a statue of Our Lady to Iraq, Id have to take another one to my other home, America. Later that afternoon, I was granted my request and received the two statues. Two days later I arrived in Istanbul, Turkey to change a ight to get to Amman in Jordan. I arrived in Amman at 3 am and stayed in the airport hotel for a few hours. Then in the morning I took a taxi to get where my two sisters live among other Iraqi refugees in Amman. I was overwhelmed by joy and surprises. It was an emotional experience to see my nieces and nephews; I could not recognize any of them - those who were born after I left, and those who had grown so much since I left. Making the decision to take this trip to Jordan then to Iraq, I knew I wasnt going to make big changes but only to offer them the gift of presence during the Christmas season. At the same time, in my rst day with my sisters and other Iraqi refugees in Amman, I heard some very overwhelming stories and painful realities. How much the war has impacted them and changed them. In my heart I wished if I could take away all their pains and sufferings. It was painful for me to see each family, with their children, living in one bedroom apartment in a very poor neighborhood. Waiting from month to month to receive coupons for rations from some humanitarian organizations or churches. Three days later I arrived to the north of Iraq overwhelmed by many emotions. When I stepped on the ground of the airport of Sulumaneia in the north of Iraq, I knelt and kissed the ground with many tears, holding in my heart all the Iraqis and Americans who have shed their blood on this soil, as well as all the Iraqis who had to ee and leave their beloved country because they had to. I felt as if I wanted to hug the whole country on behalf of every Iraqi refugee who has missed their homeland. I stood there and I was the last person to get to the line for customs. Outside of the airport I was looking for my other sister and her family. It was the same experience that I had in Amman. I could not recognize most of them. For the rst few minutes in the car, driving from north to my hometown, we were all silent because I didnt know what to say after being


away for almost ve years. of Baghdad is like a home for me. When I left for the rst Before I left to Iraq it was my hope that I would time to come to the United States in 2001, I wanted to pack arrive during the Islamic feast (Al-Adha). It is the big Islamic a little bit of air of Baghdad and some waters of Tigress and feast. I wanted to arrive and visit as much as I could my old Euphrates. During that time, I felt as if I was a sh that would Muslim neighbors as I used to, growing up as a child in my die if taken out of water. When I got to the airport, after country. I wanted to offer the gift of presence and solidarity four years and seven months of being away from Baghdad, to the innocent Muslim people of my country who have been suddenly all the memories and experiences became alive. I suffering because of what some of the insurgents have done wanted to run out of the airport as soon as possible to go and in the name of their beliefs. nd all the people that I left behind, since 2001. At the same Some of the other intentions of my trip to Iraq time, I was hesitant. What if I do not nd them? I didnt know were to be present to the Christian community during the who was still alive or who had died. I wasnt sure who was Christmas season. Thanks be to God, the Lord granted me still in Baghdad and who had ed out of the country. that desire. I continued my journey throughout Iraq in various The next day I tried to nd a way to visit the Nuncio towns and cities. I visited some Muslim neighborhoods. and the Cardinal of the Chaldean Church. First I stopped I also visited the bishops of the Syrian to visit the Nuncio where I wanted to Catholics, the Old Assyrian Church present the statue of Our Lady of Fatima and the Coptic Church (who celebrate All that I wanted to offer that I brought from Fatima to Iraq for Christmas on January 7). I also had a visit intention of peace. The Nuncio was and to bring to Iraq was the to an old Protestant Church that used to in Jordan, but his secretary Monsignor the gift of presence. be the only one in Iraq before the war. I Michael Crotty, the First Secretary of the also visited numerous villages in the north Apostolic Nunciature in Iraq, welcomed where they have received many Christian me with a very warm greeting. I explained refugees who have ed from the Baghdad to him the purpose of my visit and the because their Churches and homes have been attacked. It intention of bringing the statue of Fatima to Iraq. He was very was in my plan to leave Baghdad for the end of the rest of the happy and encouraged to hear about my mission. Then after places that I wanted to visit because I knew that was going that, I explained to him my desire and my efforts to visit the to be very dangerous. I was afraid that it would impact the American troops in Baghdad. When he saw my deep desire rest of my journey. to do that as a part of my mission, he offered to help me nd I ew from Arbil to the international airport in a way to visit the troops. Baghdad, which was closed since the rst Gulf War. When During my visit I found the situation in Iraq chaotic the plane landed, my heart was beating so fast. I didnt know no security, a lot of places still do not have running water what to expect. For me, Baghdad is not only the capital of or electricity. Most of the neighbors, if they get power two my homeland, but also the very heart of many experiences hours a day, are lucky. Once a week, when most of the people that I lived when I was there. Right after the rst Gulf War get running water for a few hours, they are very quick to I moved to Baghdad, where I felt the Lord was calling me save the water in big jars for use during the week until the to serve the poor people who suffered because of war. The next time they receive water. We took a sponge bath once years previous to my entering into religious life were very a week, which was the most that every Iraqi person could powerful years of witnessing Gods work in and through me do. We had to be careful with how much water we used per for the homeless, the handicapped of war, and the orphans person. During the day people have to be careful where to go, who were abandoned after their parents deaths. It was also even for basic reasons such as shopping and getting bread there that I entered religious life and made my vows as a or groceries. Most of the children dont go to school because religious sister. Every road, every street, every neighborhood their parents are afraid that their kids will be kidnapped.


Most Christians can not make it to church once every few months because of the persecution and all the church bombings that have happened in the past four years. The next day I was able to visit the American troops; my heart was torn between them and my people. I found them also wanting to share their stories. The day of my visit was the Sunday of the Feast of the Holy Family. I met with the Catholic Chaplain of the Air Force in the American base who helped me to spend some time with some of the soldiers. I was very happy to nd out that some of them were from Massachusetts. During my lunch time with them, they started sharing their stories about their families and how much they miss being home. One of them told me, with tears in his eyes, when I gave him a hug, Sister, this is the closest Ive been to home since I came to Iraq. By seeing you, I feel I went home. Another one started sharing with me about his six year old son, how he cannot understand why Daddys away. I promised them that when I got to Boston, I would visit their family. After my visit to the troops, I went to visit the Chaldean Cardinal to express my solidarity with him and the Christians of Iraq. On the last day, I tried to visit my former community. I went to our convent, the motherhouse. I was shocked that it was empty. I walked on that road, knocking on door after door. Most of the doors were closed with no answer. And behind the one that opened, I found people that I did not know. It broke my heart that I could not nd even one neighbor that I knew from the years that I lived there. The most painful part of my journey was the loss that I experienced by losing the people that I loved, served, and grew up with. And the most difficult part was not knowing where to nd them. I left my neighborhood crying. All that I had left was a picture that I had taken outside of a closed door of my old convent. The next day, as I tried to nd a way to y back to the north of the country, I was told that the airport was closed. The situation was becoming more challenging after I visited the troops. I had to hide from place to place without telling even the people that I loved where I was going the next day. I couldnt tell them, not because I didnt trust them, but out of my fears for their safety. It broke

my heart that I had to stay away from the people that I ew thousands of miles for, so that they wouldnt get hurt by the insurgents because of me. The following day I made the decision to rent a car and drive up to the north of the country for a six hour long ride. It was a very dangerous decision to make, but I had no other choices. During that trip I experienced the possibility of death, which the Iraqi people and the American soldiers have lived daily since the invasion. How could people live daily life without knowing who is their friend and who is their enemy? Fear is everywhere, confusion and uncertainty everywhere, pain and sorrow everywhere. I arrived to the north with so many things in my heart to pray about. It was an experience of a few days, but its intensity was as if I was there for years. It is something that will live with me forever. After a few days it was time for me to depart from my homeland. In the early part of my trip I took a lot of pictures, but the camera was stolen from me after a day of being in Baghdad. The sisters gave me another camera and I took some other pictures on the second part of my trip. On the day of my departure from Iraq to Amman, I offered many prayers of thanksgiving to the Lord, for allowing me to experience this trip, through its blessings and its challenges. I even thank the Lord for the loss of my camera, because I learned from this trip that the past will always be part of who we are. Its not something that we hold onto, but something which we can learn from. My past, which I lived in Iraq, will always be part of who I am, with or without those pictures. The images and the stories that this trip has imprinted in my heart and my memories will never be taken away. I felt that in this trip the Lord was preparing me for something even bigger. I dont know what it is yet, but I know it will come when its time for me to know. In those moments I was consoled by the words of my patron saint, St. Therese of Lisieux, The greatest honor God can do a soul is not to give it much, but to ask much of it. I know in my heart, that whatever the Lord will ask me, it will be His way of honoring His little servant who desires His will more than anything else in this world. It may seem like I traveled a lot and may not have accomplished much. This is probably the reaction of many people, as they contemplate the vast gulf of need that is


present in the area. It may be difficult for them to understand what good a simple journey may do. Whose hungry stomach will it ll? What village will it help rebuild? None of these were the goals of my trip. As a Religious Sister I have no great economic wealth or worldly power. All that I wanted to offer and to bring to Iraq was the gift of presence. Today, as I look back on my journey and reect on my present time here in America, I believe even more that I am called to continue the journey of my hope for peace. The challenges, the darkness, the pain of war and violence that I experienced in Iraq could not diminish the light of hope that I have and the power of love. This trip gave me a stronger conviction for the need to pray for conversion of hearts. May the hearts of the Iraqis and the Americans be open, for the love that can heal and reconcile. Love is the road to lead to forgiveness and forgiveness is the key that opens the door of peace. I close my journal with the words of Martin Luther King, Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the rst hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.

A Conversation with Sr. Olga

Thomas Reis
There's a bright faced woman that walks the campus of Boston University dressed in her order's traditional habit. She smiles sweetly at all those who pass by, addressing them by their names, and blessing them with a beautiful day. Recently, she has received a lot of attention for her trip back to her home country of Iraq this past Winter Vacation. Middle of six children to an affluent oil worker, Sister Olga of the Eucharist was born in Kirkuk, Iraq in 1966. From a young age, she was drawn to Catholicism and the Blessed Mother Mary in a region where the Assyrian religion is prominent - a Christian sect where nuns or female clergy members do not exist. After multiple attempts at running away from home to convents, her parents decided to "punish" her by sending her to college, the rst of her siblings, in order to physically separate her from the Church. But the call was still too strong to resist, so her parents tried a second tactic in order to stop their daughter from becoming a religious person and leading a celibate lifestyle, which was frowned upon by parents in the region. In a second attempt to remove her from the religious community, Sister Olga's parents orchestrated for her to run away to Jordan and then the United Kingdom with her youngest and only brother. This was explained to her as a way to prevent him from having to ght in the Kuwait war. It was only before she boarded the plane she found out that her parents had promised her hand to a man in the United Kingdom. "In my heart," Sister explains "I knew I was engaged to Jesus." So, she stopped herself from getting on the plane, instead sending her brother alone. For this act of disobedience to her family, she was disowned for 7 years. Having been exiled from her family, she moved into Baghdad where she led a poor lifestyle and she continued her pursuit to be accepted in her Assyrian religion as a religious member. Having lived as the daughter of a wealthy oil worker to living out of a garage in Baghdad, the effects of the rst Gulf War shook Sister to her soul. From this she knew she


had to actively help the community. In 1995, the Bishop of Baghdad got word of Olga's spiritual desires. In response, he gave her permission to join the Assyrian Church as the rst nun and, as such, she founded the rst order of nuns in the religion that year. Because Assyrian was not the religion in her heart, she still practiced her Catholic traditions in secret. This secret put Sister's status as a nun in the Assyrian religion in jeopardy, as her superior didn't approve. So in 1999 he gave her and ultimatum to "change or leave." She had to choose whether to stay in the community she had been helping for years and deny the religion in her heart, or chose her religion. She likens this choice to Abraham's in the Old Testament. He waited years for God to give him a son and once he had him, was asked by the Lord to sacrice him without hesitation. In the same way she waited years for God to give her a path into the religious life and now asked to give it up so as not to deny Him. She was dismissed from the Assyrian Church that year. In response to this the people of Baghdad rose up in protest, but for that year she says, "I lived in hell for a year [but] the more I suffered for the Church the more I loved it." She joined a seminary in these times in order to further her religious education and graduated as Suma Cum Laude from her class. Her achievements were so great in this male dominated eld that Rome itself recognized her accomplishments. And it was eventually through this reputation that two Jesuit priests offered to let her study for her MA and Ph.D. at Boston College. She came here not knowing any English at all so she was soon put in Boston University's Center for English Language and Orientation Program (CELOP) and fell in love with the campus. It was during this time in that States that she also was given the chance to convert from her Assyrian past to Catholicism and become a Catholic nun. In December 2005, Olga retook her vows as a Catholic nun at Marsh Chapel. The process was completed. Since coming to the States, she has revisited Iraq twice: once in 2003 and once this past December 2007. She is often asked why she goes back to the community she left, especially with regard to her Holiday-time visit. In response,

Sister says that "as God gave us the gift of presence-Jesus Christ-on Christmas. I too want to give the Iraqi people and American soldiers the gift of my presence [...] I want to show the American soldiers the other side of the Iraqi heart." Many people too wonder how they can help to change the atrocities occurring in the Middle East and around the world. For this question, Sister tells a story of her childhood. As a girl, she heard a homily from a pastor that said "you can see the face of God in the face of the waves, hear His voice in their sound." Unfortunately, she lived in a part of Iraq where there were no bodies of water around to experience this, so she was afraid she would never get to see and hear God. Luckily, one year their father decided to take them for a vacation up north to a house by a lake. She was so excited that she would nally get a chance to witness God. When she got there, however, the lake was still, placid and smooth. She did not understand how this could sound like or look like the Lord. As she sat there disheartened, ddling with pebbles, she threw one in on an impulse. The small pebble disrupted the placid surface and created ripples with a decisive plop. So excited by the noise and appearance she began tossing in more pebbles and watched as the ripples intermingled with one another until the surface of the lake was changed. In the same way, she says, that is what we are called to do. Not to be preoccupied by changing the world as a whole, but by lovingly tossing one pebble of good into a world frozen in its calamities. And if one person does something small and it ripples out, and another does something as well, soon our ripples will mingle together. That is how we gradually change the whole. How we break this silence and stillness to affect the world. And that is precisely what this warm-hearted woman, who has seen so much adversity, tries to accomplish each day-small acts of genuine love.


The Iraq Project & Just-War Theory

Jay P. Corrin
President George W. Bush offered a number of reasons for going to war against Iraq. In addition to the mission of bringing democracy to people whose human rights were trampled by a brutal dictator, there was the claim that Iraq was an imminent military threat with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), harbored international terrorists and was involved in Al Qaedas attack on the World Trade Center. All these justications were undergirded by the theological premise that America was doing Gods work. President Bush asserted that his actions were morally imperative, central to the duty of promoting Christian justice. The presidents advisor, Karl Rove, had developed a political strategy to mobilize traditional Protestant groups who would be enthusiastically supportive of the administrations domestic and foreign policy initiatives. Although Evangelical Protestants constituted the mass base for the presidents plans, much of the intellectual gravitas for his strategy was provided by a group of neoconservative Catholic theologians who gathered around Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic convert from Lutheranism who launched the highly inuential journal First Things. Its primary mission was to turn back the secular tide of American culture, a trajectory abetted by what Neuhaus saw to be the misguided reforms of Vatican Council II. As part of this project Neuhaus and company have also given theological support to President Bushs muscular foreign policy for advancing democracy and capitalism, both of which are believed to be an integral component of Americas moral recovery. Those who provide considerable intellectual clout to Neuhauss initiatives are George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow and past president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and author of the highly acclaimed and laudatory biography of Pope John Paul II.; Michael Novak, winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, and Jean Bethke Elshtain, Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago. Damon Linker, the former editor of First Things, has given the label theocons (theoconservatives) to Neuhauss coterie. These are the high-powered public intellectuals who work closely with the neocons in the Bush camp but are committed to returning America to what they see to be its Christian religious roots. This would require religion itself to be more closely embroidered into Americas political culture and raises problematic issues concerning the separation of church and state. 1 Richard John Neuhaus is himself a highly inuential and politically connected force on the political right, serves as an advisor to President Bush, was a personal friend of John Paul II, and is architect of the ecumenical dialogue and increasing working political alliance between conservative Roman Catholics and the Protestant right. It was Neuhaus, some say, who taught Bush how to speak Catholic. The most polemical of the theocons is George Weigel. In his latest book, Faith, Reason, and War Against Jihadism (2007) Weigel has advocated the elimination of Islam as one of the three religions of the Book. He has proposed a new world order, a feedom project patterned after the administrations Iraq war, but one that makes the promotion of religious freedom a priority. 2 Those who disagree with Weigels ideas, i.e., people outside the coalition of those who understand, are not real Americans but rather members of the Unhinged Left and Unhinged Right. 3 As late as 2007 Weigel could argue that President Bushs project to introduce democracy to the Arab world via Iraq was neither an exercise in cowboy apocalypticism nor Wilsonian romanticism but rather a practical objective based on a realistic assessment of the post 9/11 world. The theocons have little tolerance for those who disagree with their reading of domestic and foreign policy matters. The Neuhaus-Weigel alliance have based their advocacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the rubric of just war theory. This tradition consists of rules regulating combat that date back to Aristotles Politics but owe their more complete forms to the writings of St. Augustine (we


go to war to gain peace), St. Thomas Aquinas and Francisco and ordered political community whose maintenance de Vitoria (1486-1546), who saw the Spanish conquest of required the employment of judicious force (this assured the Americas as a breach of Gods justice. 4 This moral code tranquillitas ordinis, a Latin phrase employed in Augustines makes a distinction between when a war is permissible or City of God). Weigel contended that American Catholics obligatory (jus ad bellum) and how a war should be carried had forsaken this heritage with the bishops pastoral letter out (jus in bello). There have been subsequent additions of 1983, The Challenge of Peace. 7 This represented in to these criteria, most of which having been codied by his view a deviation to pacism, since the bishops asserted international law and accepted by the Vatican and other that the use of nuclear weapons could never be a justiable Christian denominations. means of conducting warfare. 8 Moreover, the bishops Augustine maintained that only a competent insisted that the just war tradition creates a set of rigorous authority could declare war. This became a crucial criterion, conditions that must be satised if war is to be morally since in Medieval times there were peasant revolts and permissible. It is a decision that requires extraordinary petty private wars carried out for mercenary purposes. A strong reasons for overriding the presumption in favor of second jus ad bellum criterion is right peace and against war. 9 Weigel was intention: a war has to be directed convinced that American Catholics the rule of proportionality to an identiable political result (not from Dorothy Day to J. Bryan for religious conversion). A third [...] stipulates that the evil Hehir had become too pacist, too imperative is the stricture of just isolationist, too soft on communism against which force is cause. This rejects wars of conquest and too critical of American foreign and today legitimizes belligerent policy. As a remedy to such timidity directed must be greater acts only in the case of self defense. he proposed that American Catholics than what can reasonably be reclaim the Augustinian heritage of 5 A fourth criterion is the rule of proportionality. This stipulates expected if war did not ensue. peace by developing an updating that the evil against which force of just war theory, one based on a is directed must be greater than what can reasonably be more realistic understanding of power that appreciated the expected if war did not ensue. necessity of nuclear deterrence, a strategic defense, strong Rules and customs constituting jus in bello also anti-communism and intervention in other countries to have been elaborated over the centuries. 6 The principle assure international peace. of noncombatant immunity states that the harming of After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the civilian life and property must be avoided if at all possible. catastrophe of 9/11 Weigel and his associates at First Things The standard of necessity stipulates that military force is turned their attention to matters of international terrorism. forbidden if there are alternative means of achieving just The cautionary tone of official Catholic and mainstream ends. There is no set canon regarding just war theory. It Protestant responses to the issue of targeting Iraq as the is rather a tradition, and those who contributed to its source of Americas terrorist nightmare was dismissed by principles have insisted that just causes must be guided by Weigel and company as the product of political contingency, moral limits. pacistic temperament and a pusillanimity wrought by the Theocon thinking on the morality of using military aftershocks of the Vietnam War. These groups, it was argued, force owes much to George Weigels 1987 book Tranquillitas had tilted to the left politically in a dramatic way over the Ordinis: The Present Failure and Future Promise of American past decades and were now lined up with the left wing of the Catholic Thought on War and Peace. Weigel claimed that Democratic Party. American Catholics are the heirs of a heritage from the time In response to the bellicosity of the Bush of Augustine in which peace was understood as a dynamic administration toward Iraq, the U.S. Catholic bishops in


November 2003 proclaimed they feared that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. 10 The United Methodist bishops had expressed similar sentiments, taking the position that just war starts with a presumption against war. Only the Southern Baptist Convention supported President Bushs aggressive policies leading up to the invasion of Iraq. In addition to the peace churches such as the Quakers and Mennonites, virtually all the leaders of mainstream Protestant churches expressed varying degrees of opposition to employing military force against Iraq on the grounds of failing to meet the criteria governing traditions of a just war. In addition, many high prole Catholic leaders took issue with President Bushs call for what he called a war on terrorism. Writing in America shortly after the attack on the World Trade Center Father J. Bryan Hehir saw it necessary to distinguish the notion of war from terrorism as part of Americas post-9/11 strategic thinking. In order to remove some of the passion that comes from invoking war, claimed Hehir, it would be more prudent and productive for Americas defense to initiate an internationally coordinated, long-term effort to erode the basis for terrorism in the life of states and nations. 11 George Weigel considers Father Hehir to be the chief intellectual architect of what he calls the de facto pacist default position on matters of conict, a perversion of the classic content of the just war tradition. Weigel disdainfully noted, for example, that Catholic Church leaders after 9/11 used terms such as tragedy or crime rather than recognizing the reality of an act of war against the U.S., thereby betraying an ignorance of international terrorism. If the Catholic Church were to make its proper contribution to the national debate against terrorismthe struggle for world order in the Augustinian senseit was imperative, asserted Weigel, to retrieve, renew, and extend the just war tradition.

Weigel objected to the claim that just war tradition was based on a presumption against violence. Instead, he asserted that the classic Augustinian tradition is a theory of statecraft and begins with the presumption that

rightly constituted authority has a strict moral obligation to defend its citizenry. 13 Weigel claimed that Catholic commentary after 9/11 inverted the tradition by highlighting in bello questions of proportionality and discrimination, thereby giving them precedence over in bellum (just cause, competent authority, etc.). The inversion proved problematic because it placed a heavier burden of moral analysis on contingent judgments, largely a product of the Catholic default pacistic position. Weigel insisted that just war tradition required competent authority to dismantle or destroy the terrorist networks that threatens peace of the order. Thus there exists a moral obligation to ensure that the lethal combination of aggressive regimes, weapons of mass destruction and credible delivery systems not go unchallenged. In this regard the Catholic Church had an ethical obligation to develop and extend the just war tradition to meet the political threat of terror coming from the outlaw regime of Saddam Hussein. On these grounds Weigel and his associates steadfastly defended the Bush administrations assertions of preemptive military action against Iraq. 14 Weigel insisted that Saddams use of chemical weapons against his own people, his feverish efforts to obtain and deploy WMD and support of terrorists amounted to an aggression under way. 15 And therefore just war theory would not morally overrule preemptive strikes against the perpetrators of terrorism. 16 The matter of making the decision to invoke war rested with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognized as those who exercise prudential judgment for the common good, meaning, in effect, the legitimate and competent authorities in government. For Weigel the meaning here was clear: the duty of religious leaders is to teach the principles of tradition regarding armed force in the service of peace, justice and freedom. But it was not their authority to determine whether those criteria applied to a particular case. That was rather the prerogative of public officials. Weigels writings provided a grid upon which Michael Novak, Jean Bethke Elshtain and others elaborated their own justications for war against Saddam. Elshtain made reference to Saddams thumbing his nose at the U. N. resolutions, his WMD and support of terrorism, but she


saw the most important justication for intervention on humanitarian grounds: Thomas Aquinas, among others, insisted that preventing the innocent from certain harm could well be a justied casus bellithe innocent being those without the means to defend themselves. 17 Using force to protect the innocent (Iraqi citizens from mass murder) is a Christian obligation of caritas, or neighborly care. Elshtain also believed Saddam himself was of sufficient threat to warrant preventative war. 18 Michael Novak has gone so far as to expand just war principles to legitimize the presidents National Security Strategy, which makes preemption and prevention the cornerstone of U.S. Military policy. The N.S.S. states that America has the right to exercise self-defense by attacking rst to forestall or prevent hostile acts. 19 Although Novak deftly skirts the fact that Bushs Iraq project amounts to preemptive action, he argued that 9/11 introduced what he calls asymmetrical warfare. This is a new strategic concept developed by international terrorist groups who are not responsible to any public authority, have no country of their own and operate through clandestine assistance from outlaw regimes. Asymmetrical forces represent an unprecedented challenge requiring the expansion of just war criteria to address the danger. Since Saddam Hussein had the means to wreak international destruction, had given shelter to terrorists and possessed the weapons to help them, the imperative of just cause made it morally obligatory for competent public authority to initiate war. 20 In addition, Novak asserted that war against Iraq could also be justied as an enforcement of the 1991 cease-re agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War. 21 The new potential for asymmetrical war cast the behavior of Saddam into an entirely new light. Since he had aunted Security Council Resolution # 1441 by refusing to disarm and prove he possessed no WMD, Saddam presented a clear and present danger to international peace. The theocons were correct in insisting that just war traditions needed to be updated and expanded to meet the challenge of what Novak called asymmetrical war. They were wrong, however, in using the Bush administrations Iraq project as a compelling example of legitimate just war decision-making. The theocons were challenged on every

count by Catholic and Protestant authorities alike. Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Martino (President of the Pontical Council for Justice and Peace), the inuential and authoritative Jesuit journal in Rome, Civilta Cattolica, and the U.S. Catholic Bishops have all denounced the plans of President Bush to invade Iraq on just war grounds. 22 U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican James Nicholson invited Michael Novak to Rome in order to make the administrations case for the Iraq invasion. A letter of protest signed by more than sixty prominent Catholics was faxed to the Vatican challenging Nicholsons invitation. However, Novaks presentation had no success with the Holy See. Novak blamed his missions failure on Vatican antiAmericanism. On 4 March 2003 John Paul II sent Cardinal Pio Laghi, his personal peace representative, to make a last minute appeal to President Bush. On returning to Rome after his appeal, the cardinal told John Paul that he sensed something Calvinistic in the presidents iron determination to battle the forces of international terrorism. 23 It was Bushs Calvinistic Manicheismthe conviction that ones foes were evil, thus depraved, in opposition to the elected virtues of Gods favoredthat informed Pio Laghis remarks. The Vatican feared this sense of election (President Bush claimed that he had gotten approval for his project from Jesus Christ) combined with the perceived perversity of Americas enemies could produce unending global conict. Christian theologians received crucial secular support for their cause from Michael Walzer, Professor at the School of Social Science, Princeton Institute of Advanced Study, one of Americas leading political philosophers and experts on just war theory. 24 In several essays written as the controversy unfolded and ultimately published in his book Arguing About War (2004), Walzer condemned the decision to invade Iraq, the way in which it was conducted, and the American occupation. The Iraq project, he concluded, was injustum ad bellum (no imminent threat with inspections in place), injustum in bello (no exit strategy) and injustum post bellum (proteering via crony capitalism and chaos). 25 In the nal analysis the theocons greatest betrayal of both just war tradition and conservative philosophical principles was their rigid commitment to a political agenda. George Weigel announced that what he called moral


muteness in time of war was itself a moral stanceand an immoral one at that.26 For this reason his theocon allies stressed the moral imperative of making a strong public case for invading Iraq on just war principles. Citing section 2309 of the Catholic Catechism stating that conditions for a just war must be met by the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good, Weigel and company insisted that the critics defer to the competent authority of the White House. Weigel spoke of a charism of political discernment that is unique to government officials i.e., statesmen to whom civilians must defer. But as Archbishop Rowan Williams pointed out, there is no charism that goes with political leadership. Charism is rather a gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed for the building up of the Mystical Body of Christ. A democracy presumes that the wisdom of any politician is open to challenge. What should be expected from political leaders, argued Williams, was not charism but virtue. 27 There is a terrible irony in the theocons insistence throughout the Iraq imbroglio that patriotic Americans should defer to those of competent political authority. 28 What ever happened to the conservative suspicion of governmental authority? At what point does conservatism defer without question to the directives of state bureaucracy? These matters are especially relevant given the subsequent discovery of the political deception and fraudulent use of intelligence by the Bush administration to legitimize its war. Father Neuhaus in his regular First Things column went relatively silent on the war once things began to unravel in 2004. The theocons have yet to concede the full impact of the failure to nd weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or that there has been no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The major issue as pointed out by Peter Dula, Mennonite Central Committee Iraq Program Director, was not only that the theocons got it wrong but that they compounded the sin through their own moral muteness in a time of war. 29


1 The theocons are to be distinguished from the neocons by the fact that the latter are primarily secular and Jewish. Although they have similar objectives, the religious differences have at times created conicts in their alliance. For more information: Damon Linker. The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege. (New York, 2007). The term theocons was rst used by Jacob Heilbrunn in Neocon vs. Theocon, New Republic, December 30, 1996. 2 George Weigel. Faith, Reason, and War Against Jihadism. (New York, NY, 2007): 126. 3 ibid 37. (Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006): 280-281 for a fuller discussion of this matter. 6 See, for example, the Geneva Convention (1925) and the Second Protocol to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1977) banning chemical warfare. Several other conventions have addressed prisoners of war, the protection of civilians, etc. 7 The Catholic historian Jay P. Dolan, Professor of History and former Director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at Notre Dame University, has been highly critical of Weigels thesis, asserting that it is not the case that the Catholic tradition includes a theology of peace ( tranquillitas ordinis). Catholic scholars over the centuries did indeed discuss matters of peace, but their ideas were never integrated and developed into a recognizable theory of peace. Nor is it true, Dolan points out, that from the early 19th century up to Vatican II this peace tradition had been further developed and rened by the American Catholic hierarchy. See Jay P. Dolan. Dening a Good Fight. in The New York Times. (26 April 1987). Dolan and Weigel are representative of two conicting schools of Catholic historiography. Dolan reects a more progressive rendering of American Catholicism that emphasizes the importance of democratizing and opening up the Church to lay participation (these views are expressed most prominently in the National Catholic Reporter). Weigel and his First Things associates are more traditional in their interpretation of Catholic history (referring to themselves as the classic school) and are more critical of the reforms of Vatican Council II. For a fuller treatment of such matters see George Weigel. Freedom and Its Discontents: Catholicism Confronts Modernity. (Washington, DC, 1991). 8 Weigels ideas on nuclear weapons were both inuenced and corroborated by James Turner Johnson, Professor of Religion at Rutgers University and author of numerous books on the historical development and contemporary use of just war tradition. Both men drew on the work of Paul Ramsay, who argued for the possibility of a rational, politically purposive use of nuclear weapons, especially counter-force warfare. The U.S. bishops rejected any and all war ghting uses and plans for the use of such weapons. 9 The National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Challenge of Peace: Gods Promise and Our Response. 83.

4 Vitorias writings have been published by Cambridge Universitys Texts in the History of Political Thought: Pagden, Anthony and Jeremy Lawrance, eds., Francisco De Vitoria: Political Writings, Cambridge, UK, 1991. 5 Both article 2 (4) and article 51 of the United Nations Charter rules out anticipatory selfdefense. In effect, these strictures would not recognize the legitimacy of preemptive or preventative wars. See Douglas P. Lackey. Just War Theory. in Applied Ethics: A Multicultural Approach, 4th edition,


10 Joe Feuerherd. Opinions Clash on Just War. National Catholic Reporter. 7 February 2003. 11 J. Bryan Hehir. What Can Be Done? What Should Be Done? in America, 8 October 2001. For an appreciation of Father Hehirs prescient argument see Daniel Byman. The Five Front War: The Better Way to Fight Global Jihad. (Hoboken, 2007), and Philip H. Gordon. Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World, (New York, 2008). Father Hehir, a renowned theologian specializing in Catholic social teaching, had been Dean of the Harvard Divinity School. He resigned in 2002 to become president and CEO of Catholic Charities, U.S.A. Father Hehir played a key role in drafting the inuential 1983 Catholic Bishops Statement on Nuclear Weapons. 12 In his efforts at recovering this tradition Weigel recommended that his readers engage Robert Kaplans Warrior Politics, a book that praised the soldiers pagan ethos, a recognition of the inevitability of conict that promoted a realistic appreciation of the boundaries of the possible. Although Weigel objected to paganism, he did see merit in Kaplans form of moral realism but believed it would be enriched by an

encounter with classic Catholic just war tradition. 13 Weigel drew on the support of James Turner Johnson to give credence to his ideas on this matter. Johnson argued that the presumption against war rst appeared in the U.S. bishops 1983 pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace. He asserted that this was a judgmental deviation from classical Augustinian notions of what was required for tranquillitas ordinis, because it was largely shaped by the bishopsconviction that nuclear weapons could never be morally employed (it produced gross destructiveness). The experience of two world wars also served to give weight to this view, leading to the pervasive spirit of modern-war pacism, which in the case of the 1983 pastoral letter became linked with nuclear pacism. This has become more broadly accepted as descriptive of the just war idea in Christian circles, but Johnson insisted that it was a distortion of classical just war principles, which recognized the necessity of using force to maintain peace. Such thinking has no practical relevance on the more limited types of warfare in the postWorld War II era and certainly no bearing on how to address issues of humanitarian intervention and the war on terrorism. See James Turner Johnson. Just War, As It Was and Is.

First Things. January 2005. 14 For a more complete explication of Weigels ideas on all this see George Weigel. The Just War Tradition and the World Order After September 11. in Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 5.3, (2002). 15 George Weigel. Just War and Preemption: Three Questions. The Catholic Difference. (2 October 2002). 16 George Weigel. A Moral QuestionIs It Ever Right To Go First. The Michigan Catholic. (11 January 2002). 17 Jean Bethke Elshtain. Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World (New York, 2003): 185. 18 Jean Bethke Elshtain Responds. [online]<www. dissentmagazine.org/ article/?article=664>. 19 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the future Pope Benedict XVI, dismissed the notion of preventative war and pointed out that it never appeared in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, the


Vatican foreign minister, also noted that no provision for preventative war is made in the United Nations Charter. Yet in practice preemption has been an accepted military tactic. The moral philosopher Michael Walzer argued in his book Just and Unjust Wars (1977) that a nation might pre-empt a crippling attack by another but only if the attack were clearly imminent and grave. The Bush administration has gone beyond Walzers stricture to attack when the threat is neither imminent nor grave. 20 See Michael Novak. Asymmetrical Warfare and Just War. in National Review. (10 February 2003). And Civilian Casualties and Turmoil. in National Review. (18 February 2003). 21 The Holy See, however, did not recognize the legitimacy of the Gulf War. On the other hand, it supported the use of force in Rawanda and Kosovo. 22 John Paul II said on 16 March 2003 as the U.S. was preparing for the invasion of Iraq that the use of force represents the last recourse, after having exhausted every other peaceful solution, in keeping with the well-known principles of the U.N. Charter itself. (Quoted in Fr. Alfonso Aquilar, LD. A Year After Iraq: Catholic Just War Doctrine.

National Catholic Register). In his World Day of Peace Message Pope John Paul claimed that the ght against terrorism came to be linked solely to punitive operations but must be conducted also on political and educational levels in order to eliminate the underlying causes of violent acts. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote a lengthy critical assessment of Weigels support of the White Houses war policies in First Things, March 2004. He was considerably uneasy with Weigels arguments because they encouraged a weakening of moral theology to sustain a political agenda. 23 Quoted in John L. Allen, Jr. All the Popes Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks. (New York, 2004): 316. Allen, the National Catholic Reporters special correspondent to the Holy See, devotes an entire chapter in the book to a complete chronology of the Vaticans statements opposing the war in Iraq. 24 It was not clear beforehand how Walzer would come down on the issue. He had supported the preemptive Six-Day War of 1967 and Israels preemptive strike against Iraqs nuclear facilities in 1981, as well as the Gulf War, the Kosovo

intervention and the invasion of Afghanistan. 25 Walzer also disagreed with Elshtains justication for war on humanitarian grounds. Major human rights violations were made after the 1991 war and were now over. Punishment is not a permissible just war criterion. 26 George Weigel. Moral Clarity in a Time of War. in First Things. (January 2003). 27 Rowan Williams. War and Statecraft: An Exchange. in First Things. (March 2004). 28 In this case President Bush and the Pentagon failed to heed the analysis of other competent authorities: the views of the Army and the State Department. Their conclusions were rejected and their committees silenced. See James Fallows. Blind into Baghdad. in Atlantic Monthly. (January-February 2004). 29 Peter Dula. How Conservatives Got It Wrong. in Commonweal. (3 December 2004).



Memorializing the Global War on Terror

Andrew J. Bacevich
A mere seven years after 9/11, with U. S. forces still actively engaged (and sustaining casualties) in Iraq and Afghanistan, the question may seem a trie premature: how should the United States memorialize those who have served and sacriced since the beginning of the Global War on Terror? Yet to judge from recent experience, the issue is one that may soon appear on the nations political and cultural agenda. For whatever reason, with each successive modern American war, the lapse of time between the wars conclusion and the dedication of the national memorial intended to honor those served grows shorter. The Vietnam War ended (for the United States at least) in 1973 and the famous Wall opened in 1982, a mere nine years later. In contrast, although the armistice that halted the ghting in Korea occurred in 1953, it was not until 1995, forty-two years later, that the Korean War Memorial made its appearance on the Mall in Washington. Then there is the case of World War II. The Japanese surrender of September 1945 ended this most destructive of all wars; although sixteen million Americans had served between 1941 and 1945, fty-nine years passed before President George W. Bush nally dedicated the World War II Memorial in 2004. At least a considerable number of World War II veterans were still around to savor the moment. The same cannot be said for the generation that fought World War I. Its now been ninety years since the war to end all wars came to a close on November 11, 1918 and the Mall is still without a memorial honoring those who served in that conict. If the nation ever gets around to erecting such a monument and there is little reason to believe that it will those who fought the war will have long since passed from the scene. So if the pattern of the past century continues, the debate over how to memorialize those who fought and those who died in the ongoing generational struggle against violent Islamic radicalism will soon be joined. It may already be overdue. That debate promises to be complex and contentious. Set aside any aesthetic considerations which are certain to attract intense scrutiny, especially since the World War II memorial, the newest major addition to the Mall, has proven such an artistic disappointment. When it comes to memorializing the Global War on Terror, even more fundamental questions are likely to occupy center stage. Here are three. First, when exactly did the war begin? The simplest answer that the Global War on Terror began with the attack on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon is historically unsatisfactory and profoundly misleading. Well before 9/11, combatants in this struggle were already exchanging blows. Islamic radicals, to include members of Al Qaeda, had for many years been launching violent attacks against Americans. Recall the following: the near sinking of the USS Cole in October 2000; the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998; the June 1996 attack on the U. S. Air Force barracks at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; and the rst attempt to bring down the World Trade Center in February 1993. Arguably, the famous Mogadishu reght of October 1993 also qualies for inclusion certainly Osama bin Laden viewed the subsequent U. S. withdrawal from Somalia as a signicant victory for the Islamist cause. For its part, however ineffectually, the United States had begun to respond in kind. In August 1998, for example, the Clinton administration had targeted Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan with an attack by several dozen cruise missiles. Two years earlier, President Bill Clinton had already declared terrorism the enemy of our generation and had vowed to defeat it. Do these early skirmishes form part of the larger conict that after 9/11 has been commonly referred to as the Global War on Terror? Or to pose the question in a different way, what would be the basis for excluding, say, the victims of the Cole incident or of the Khobar Towers bombing from a memorial intended to honor those killed in the ght against


violent Islamic radicalism? Yet to incorporate these incidents from the Clinton era into the 1990s into the narrative of the Global War on Terror does not denitively answer the question of when that war began. Instead, it invites an even broader search for the wars start date. Why stop in the 1990s? In October 1983, for example, Islamic radicals, in all likelihood members of Hezbollah, orchestrated a successful attack on the U. S. Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport in Lebanon, killing 241 American military personnel. Were these not early victims of the Global War on Terror? Is it possible therefore that the war had already been underway for decades prior to 9/11? There is no easy answer to this question. Yet before deciding upon what sort of memorial to erect honor those who served in that war, Americans will have to reach a consensus on exactly when the war began. The second question is this one: who should the memorial honor? This is, who qualies as combatants and as casualties in the Global War on Terror? Should a memorial to those who gave their lives in that war include the members of the armed services killed in the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 while sitting at their desks or chatting next to the water fountain? The answer to that question is self-evidently yes. But how about the civilian employees of the Department of Defense killed alongside their uniformed co-workers in that very same incident? How about the reghters and police officers who gave their lives in New York that same day? Were they not, in effect, killed in action? Should not a memorial to the heroes of the Global War on Terror also include the passengers of American Airlines Flight 93 who stormed the cockpit of that hijacked jetliner to wrest control back from the terrorists intent on ramming it into its intended target? Were these not de facto citizen-soldiers who sacriced themselves in the defense of their country at the very moment when it was under direct assault? There are more complications still. If a national memorial for the Global War on Terror should honor the soldiers who fell while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, as it obviously must, then why not include the civilian federal

employees State Department officials and intelligence officers who also died for the same cause in the same places? Frequently, these civilians were actually serving alongside their military counterparts. In the case of CIA paramilitaries recall CIA agent Mike Spann, who in November 2001 became the very rst American to die in Afghanistan -- their roles were indistinguishable from those of actual soldiers. (Spanns interment in Arlington National Cemetery further blurs any distinction between soldier and intelligence operative). Of course, employees of the federal government were not the only civilians on these battleelds. In Iraq and Afghanistan, several tens of thousands of contract employees have also served, many of them performing exceedingly hazardous duties. Consider the truck drivers who convoy supplies from Kuwait up to Baghdad and to the other major U. S. military bases in Iraq. They are doing jobs that in previous wars were performed by soldiers, for example, the troops (mostly African-Americans) who kept the famous Red Ball Express running, supplying U. S. combat forces across France and into Germany after the Normandy invasion. Today, lacking a sufficient number of soldiers to perform such logistics functions, the army relies on contractors. Granted, these contract drivers dont volunteer their services gratis. They get paid, sometimes handsomely. (Soldiers too get various bonuses and tax breaks for serving in a war zone). Yet their contributions have been absolutely essential to sustaining the war effort. General David Petraeus relies on these drivers in 2008 as much as General Dwight D. Eisenhower did back in 1944. Does not fairness dictate that a Global War on Terror memorial should recognize their contributions? Navigating through this thicket of issues whos in and whos not -- promises to be challenging. Individuals and groups denied recognition will take offense. Yet before any decisions are made regarding the nature of a memorial honoring those who served in the Global War on Terror, deciding who exactly the memorial honors and who is excluded will be an imperative. Then there is this third fundamental issue: does the Global War on Terror even provide the correct organizing principle for such a memorial? Is the United States actually


engaged in a global war to defend itself and its allies The rst possible answer is that no connection from possible terrorist attack? Or is that phrase simply exists that the United States invaded Iraq for reasons a politically convenient contrivance that conceals a more unrelated to the Global War on Terror, 9/11 in effect complex reality, akin perhaps to Josef Stalins invention providing a pretext for the Bush administration to pursue a of the phrase Great Patriotic War to describe Soviet pre-existing agenda requiring Saddams removal from power. participation in the German war of 1941-1945? Various observers have speculated on what that actual This question obliges us to consider in particular agenda might have been. Some have speculated that George where the Iraq War ts into the military narrative of our W. Bush was determined to outdo his father by nishing the times. The Bush administration and its supporters have job his daddy had left undone. Others have said that the insistently described Iraq as the central front in the Global real aim was to seize control of Iraqs substantial petroleum War on Terror. There are problems with this assertion, reserves, a White House friendly to fat-cat oil executives however. For starters, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had acting at their behest. Still others have ngered American nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. He had no meaningful Zionists occupying positions of inuence: convinced that connections with Osama bin Ladens Al Qaeda organization. Saddams Iraq posed an existential threat to Israel, they were Indeed, these two enemies of the United determined to pursue regime change in States had little in common apart from Baghdad. their common antipathy for America. If those who conceived the Iraq Saddam Husseins After all, Saddam was a Sunni and bin War did so for reasons having little to do regime represented all with defending the United States from the Laden is a Shiite; Saddam was a secularist intent on expanding Iraqi (and therefore that bin Laden loathes. threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism, his own) power; bin Laden aims to spread then it makes little sense to remember strict sharia law throughout the world those who served and sacriced in Iraq by of Islam. Saddam Husseins regime lumping them in with those who served represented all that bin Laden loathes. Indeed, the Al Qaeda and sacriced as participants in the Global War on Terror. launched his war on the United States during the 1990s Iraq War veterans will deserve their own distinctive tribute. because the U. S. presence in the Persian Gulf was getting in Americans might still erect be a memorial to those who did the way of his efforts to purge the Islamic world of Saddam serve in the Global War on Terror, for example veterans of and others of his ilk. Afghanistan, but those who served in the Iraq would merit Furthermore, there is no evidence that Saddam separate recognition, reecting their wars independent himself or his cronies played a substantive role in any of existence. This points to the construction of two new war the earlier terrorist incidents noted above from the Beirut memorials instead of just one. bombing of 1983 to the Cole incident of 2000. Indeed, Yet there is a second possible answer to the at the time of the Beirut bombing, the United States was question of how Iraq relates to the larger struggle in which busily courting Saddam Donald Rumsfelds now notorious the United States nds itself enmeshed throughout the courtesy call on Saddam in Baghdad occurred just two Greater Middle East. This answer begins with the premise months later in December 1983. that the actual aim of the United States in undertaking So if Saddam was not himself an Islamist and was this enterprise is not to purge the world of terrorism, not responsible for any terrorist attacks against the United but to accomplish something quite different: namely, to States, then how does the Iraq War actually connect to incorporate the Greater Middle East into the American the larger struggle in which the United States nds itself imperium, either pacifying or dominating a region of the enmeshed throughout the Greater Middle East? world that is both strategically critical and a source of There are two possible answers to that question. considerable trouble. To put it another way: the aim of the


United States in its various and ongoing post-9/11 military adventures is to achieve in the Greater Middle East what it achieved during World War II and the Cold War in Western Europe and East Asia, two other strategically critical regions that had been sources of trouble until pacied by the United States. Viewed from this perspective, to describe the vast military enterprise in which the United States nds itself enmeshed as the Global War on Terror is a misnomer. That enterprise is not (as President Bush would have us believe) a war of self-defense directed against violent Islamic radicals; it is a war undertaken to expand American power and to ensure ready access to energy reserves critical to the functioning of the global economy. A more accurate name for that conict would be: The War for the Greater Middle East. The Iraq War certainly qualies as an integral part of the War for the Greater Middle East. Members of the Bush administration (wrongly as it turned out) had counted on a quick and easy victory over Saddam Hussein to jumpstart the process of pacifying or dominating the region as a whole. Be that as it may, those who have served and sacriced in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan and other lesser theaters of operations) did so on behalf of this larger (if misguided) strategic vision. Recasting the Global War on Terror as the War for the Greater Middle East wont solve all of the problems related to deciding what sort of memorial to erect in honor of those who served and sacriced in this conict. The name change does little to clarify the issue of who qualies for commemoration and who doesnt. Yet it may help decide when the war began. Historians are pretty much in agreement that the problems besetting the Greater Middle East became international problems during World War I when Great Britain and France overthrew the Ottoman Empire and carved up the region to satisfy their own imperial ambitions. In that sense, the War for the Greater Middle East could be said to have begun (albeit without U. S. involvement) between March 1917 when British troops liberated Baghdad and December 1917 when they liberated Jerusalem. The United States eventually entered the War for the Greater Middle East between

February 1945 when President Franklin Roosevelt committed the U. S. to providing for the security of the Saudi monarchy and May 1948 when President Harry Truman recognized the existence of the newly created state of Israel. The U. S. became a full-edged combatant in this war in August 1953 when the CIA (collaborating with British intelligence services) overthrew Irans Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and restored the Shah to the Peacock throne. Of course, re-designating the Global War on Terror (2001-) as the War for the Greater Middle East (1917-) robs the conict of the moral clarity given it by the Bush administration and the wars most fervent supporters. The War for the Greater Middle East is not a war of good against evil, but a war of oil and empire, of oppression and exile, of ancient religious antagonisms and crass contemporary ambitions, of recklessness and miscalculation. The War for the Greater Middle East has few redeeming features and many sobering lessons to teach. Yet certainly we can say this: Such a war deserves a place of prominence in our nations capital and in the consciousness of the American people.

Andrew J. Bacevich is the author of the recently published The Limits of Power:The End of American Exceptionalism (2008).



What are We to do about the War in Iraq?

Fr. Raymond Helmick, S.J.
It has become such a malodorous swamp of American policy that anything said about it has automatically a contentious character. We know we were misled into our invasion of the country in March, 2003, by false information which we suspect may have been deliberate deception of Congress and the public. The war has since become mired in reports of torture brazenly authorized by our own government, of illegal surveillance of our own citizens. Security responsibilities have been farmed out, at enormous expense, to civilian contractors who are accountable to no one for their reckless killing of Iraqi civilians. We have heard, from the beginning, of corrupt practices by corporations closely tied to ranking gures in the U.S. Administration, who commonly operate on no-bid contracts. The large segment, however, of the American population that unswervingly supports the war has found its opinions conrmed over the last year and more by the successful lowering of the levels of violence brought about by the troop surge policy implemented by General Petraeus. For a long time we claimed nevertheless that the political progress toward eventual reconciliation that the surge was meant to facilitate had simply failed. But that too has become less convincing in recent months as Sunni tribal groups who were the center of Iraqi insurgency have come over to the American side (though not to the side of Iraqi government), as the Shiite parties at least begin to temper their violent rivalries, and now as the Maliki government itself feels secure enough to reject Bush Administration demands for a humiliating Status of Forces Agreement that might have reduced the country to an American colony. It remains that the United States must start at a low level to reconstruct its alliances and repair the loss trust and respect that we have suffered in every part of the world. The truculent debate in the Security Council that preceded the war, in which our close allies argued strenuously against the invasion, manifestly doubting the phony premises on which U.S. decisions were made, marked the effective end of the NATO alliance, as could be seen in the distance the NATO countries subsequently maintained from the war. Only Britain went along with our government, as a result of Tony Blairs conviction that the UK must always stand by the United States no matter what. It proved politically catastrophic for him. Britain had eventually to draw down its station in Basra, in the face of popular insurrection and a erce breakdown of law, to a few troops huddled more safely at the airport. A group of small countries which, largely through intimidation, agreed to contribute token numbers of troops to the coalition of the willing, have for the most part similarly bailed out. The war stands now as an issue in the national election. While anger about it remains the predominant response, these signs of partial success enable Senator McCain to run on the premise that the Bush war, despite all the original mismanagement, could yet result in success, even victory. And even Senator Obama, with his record of having opposed the war from well before the actual invasion and his promise, made in a time of darker prospects, to remove the troops one brigade at a time over a period of sixteen months, has now to rethink his options on how to extricate the country from this disaster.

. . . . .
Why are we there? Early in January, 2003, a couple of months before the invasion I wrote to Secretary of State Colin Powell an image which he later used in arguing against the war to President Bush, namely that we would ght the war by the Pottery Barn rules: you break it, you own it. We have wrecked Iraq, and have acquired responsibilities from which we cannot, with decency, simply walk away. Staying there may be the least constructive thing we can do. But


we owe amends for the destruction we have wrought. It is not pretty to think what life has become for the people of Iraq, frightening enough under Saddam Hussein but now incomparably more disrupted and desperate. We have given no welcome or serious help to the millions who have been displaced from their homes or driven as refugees into neighboring countries which cannot sustain them. Of the successive reasons, one after another proven false, that our government gave us for invading Iraq development of nuclear and other ABC weapons, some sort of link with Al Qaeda or with 9/11 only one remains: the vile character of dictator Saddam Hussein. Those who suffered most from his rule are grateful to be rid of him. He had subjected the Kurds, the ethnically different people in the north of the country who amounted to some quarter of the population, to an actual genocide. He had systematically excluded the Shiites, who formed the great majority of the population, from participation in political life. His power had sufficed, when both Shiites and Kurds, at American prompting, rebelled against him in 1991, to put down both insurrections with massive brutality. He had run what Kanaan Makiya called, in the title of his 1990 book, the Republic of Fear. It was right that he should be overthrown, and very difficult for the people under his thrall. Whose responsibility was it to deal with a Saddam Hussein? Our country has evaded questions like that about many other countries. Often we have maintained alliances of convenience with dictators as murderous as Saddam Hussein, and in fact did it with him through the 1980s, when it suited us. Were we justied in invading to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein? Our governments public answer is that we did it to promote democracy, to give democracy a footing in the Middle East and make Iraq a beacon to the other nations of the region. We act disdainfully of the Middle Eastern peoples as if they had no inkling of the meaning of government accountable to its people or no real desire for it. We have a long learning curve ahead to learn how these peoples value control over their lives, the freedom of their community and their culture.

But democracy comes through peoples own choices; not, like Maos concept of power, from the barrel of a gun. All the peoples of the Middle East have learned by now that, when they hear this American government talk about democracy for their countries, the translation is subservient government. A real advancement of a peoples freedom has to enable them to free themselves and take charge of their lives. Colin Powell convinced the rst Bush administration, in 1991, that a full invasion of Iraq could only leave us lording it over an unwilling occupied people. Was there an alternative? My own experience tells me there was.

. . . . .
Since 1973 I have known closely the Kurds of Iraq. I was able to see at close range how they were rst supported in their struggle with Baathist suppression, mainly as a convenience to the Shah of Iran in his very different contention with Iraq, and then, in 1975, betrayed by the United States once the Shah had obtained what he wanted. The Kurdish expectation, that they had no friends in the world, became very familiar to me. From the time the Iran-Iraq war was winding down, in 1987, I made strong recommendations to my Kurdish friends. The unity they had maintained before 1975, under the leadership of Mustafa Barzani, had then been shattered, but their principal leaders, Mahsoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, were striving to work together. They were being subjected to the horrors of Saddam Husseins anfal campaign against their people, a genuine genocide, complete with the poison gassing of their cities, as at Halabja. I urged both that the old saying need not be true, that the Kurds could indeed have friends, just at this time when the Iranian and Iraqi governments knew they had to end their war, but were unable to do so without the help of the international community, i.e., of the UN structure and the major powers. But there was a condition of their being helped by these outside powers: that they not disrupt stability (a


major sin in international affairs) by seeking independence government. Yet they erected democratic institutions which and challenging the borders of the several countries Iraq, survived a struggle for scarce resources between their two Turkey, Iran and Syria among which the people of their main parties. They welcomed into participation in these nation were divided, but instead seek their safety in a institutions any Arab Iraqis, Sunni or Shiite, who were able democratic Iraq. Their priorities, I suggested, should be: 1) to take part. Effectively they were training the cadre of their human rights, in the face of the genocidal attack they experienced politicians who could have transformed Iraq were sustaining from Saddam Hussein; 2) their cultural without an external invasion. rights, to teach and use their language, forbidden in the An argument was to be made, which I personally several countries where they lived, to cultivate their history pursued throughout the Clinton years, that the United States and their traditions; and 3) to communicate freely, across could easily have helped the Kurds to make their area a the borders that divided them (but without disrupting those stunning political, economic and democratic success. The borders), among the Kurdish communities of the several U.S. government apparently feared, throughout the period, countries. that help for the Iraqi Kurds would too much alarm the Turks, The Iraqi Kurds were proud that they had never who would worry about any encouragement to separatism practiced terrorism. Those for their own much larger Kurdish recommendations opened for me a population. Yet the Kurds remained continuing relation with both Talabani The Iraqi Kurds were proud committed to a non-separatist policy, and Barzani, who through subsequent pursuing their better future within a that they had never practiced better Iraq. years acted in accordance with them. They experienced their worst All Iraq would have been terrorism. calamity in 1991, when they followed watching, and Saddam Hussein, for the American Presidents call to rebel all his ruthlessness, could not have against Saddam Husseins Baathist survived such a spectacle of success. regime and were crushed. He would have been reduced to the roi fainant, the helpless The U.S. stood by as that internal effort to change king who could not provide the good life that his subjects, the regime was suppressed, but the avalanche of Kurdish including the half-million Kurds living in Baghdad, could see refugees across the border into Turkey persuaded the in the autonomous area of their own northern territories. American government to come to the aid of its important Collapse of the Baathist regime and the development of Turkish ally by providing cover for the refugees return. A an open society in Iraq, grateful and friendly to the United no-y zone, protected by American power from incursion States, would have come without invasion or occupation or by Saddam Hussein, was declared over the Kurdish areas of the ruin of the country. Jalal Talabani made regular visits to Iraq. The Kurds, for the next twelve years, lived in a practical the United States through all these years in pursuit of such a autonomy within Iraq. policy, but officials would never so much as talk to him. The Here was opportunity for an internally generated opportunity was still there through the early Bush years, and liberation of Iraq. The Kurds in 1992 held, within their strenuously argued as a viable alternative to a war that could precarious territory, the most democratic election ever never have turned out other than a disaster. yet seen in the Middle East. They remained subject to a All that is now water over the dam. The destruction double boycott: they suffered all the international sanctions has been done and Humpty Dumpty cannot simply be maintained against Iraq as a whole during those years, returned to his seat on the wall. Government in Iraq and were further boycotted within Iraq by the Hussein has been placed necessarily in the hands of people who,


whatever their good will, have no background for building or even understanding an accountable system. The rivalries of Sunni and Shiite populations not really religious rivalries, but the mutual resentments of a huge Shiite population that has been excluded from any real voice in what happened to their lives ever since Britain rst established Iraq under Sunni hegemony in the 1920s and a Sunni population which now found itself deprived of the privileged position it had held all that time have been let loose and have violently riven the country. Only massive American force now holds it at bay. The Kurds in the North are forced to assert maximum autonomy as a defense against domination by forces that have none of the democratic aptitudes they have developed under so much stress. Their situation tempts them now again to the separatism they have so long renounced. The massive oil resources of the Kurdish territories, that could have been the engine of the development the U.S. failed to foster, are only now receiving attention, and become now sources of dissonance between them and Arab Iraq. Empowerment of the vast Shiite majority in Iraq, with its dearth of governmental experience and its reliance on the Iranians who sheltered its leadership through the years of Saddam, have placed Iran, to the chagrin of the Bush Administration, in the regional drivers seat. The best news coming out of Iraq remains, as it has been all these recent years, the work of Iraqs Kurdish President, Jalal Talabani, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zibari and other competent Kurdish officials.

. . . . .

The war, then, with all its faults of planning and management, was a critical miscalculation, the failure to recognize an alternative which, at small cost, would have beneted all, saved American and Iraqi lives, preserved the honor and reputation of the United States, now so critically damaged, and actually have accomplished the transformation of a key Middle Eastern country, out of its own human and cultural resources, into a model open society such as all the peoples of the region would desire.

But was the war policy poisoned from the start? For an answer to that we need to look to the White House document of September 20, 2002, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. This, as a rationalization of preventive war, formalizes the disregard of law that has become the central characteristic of Bush Administration policy. Much had gone before, notably the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay detention center and its already established practice of torture. But the National Security Strategy document was the centerpiece of the argument for invasion of Iraq and an intended template for American policy into the indenite future. Two doctrinal points shaped the document. The rst was that United States military power must, for all future time, massively predominate over all other nations. The second was that the United States, to protect that dominance, was entitled to initiate preventive war against any challenger. We should rightly bridle at this, because it is an impossible demand. Effectively this is the building of an empire, claiming to prevail over all others by sheer show of power. Nothing is clearer in history than that empires bust, that their claims become insupportable and people do everything in their power, including building up their armaments or the simple strategy of total non-cooperation, to free themselves from such domination. That makes the rst premise of the security document a mirage. The second, the preventive war doctrine, ies in the face of the moral intelligence of the last millennium, defying the basic criteria of justice in war. The moral analysis is necessarily damning. In the practical order, we have to recognize that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that a license for the United States to attack any nation we deem threatening grants equal license to any nation or power capable of it to attack us. In combination with the motivation our empire-building gives to all others to try to contain our overweening power, this has every prospect of being the death-knell of the United States. It is rather hard to imagine what the world will be without any strong defender of the rights we have learned to respect


over our long Western history. We would do well not to imagine our Western selves better than other peoples of the world, but those are things of universal value.

we would once again be a trusted voice in world affairs.

. . . . .

Are there then things the United States can yet do to untangle this moral, political and strategic morass into which we have entered by our own governments doing? We should recognize rst that there are no good options. That was in fact the conclusion of the BakerHamilton commission that examined the question in 2006. The relative success of the surge policy carried out since then has produced ameliorations but no real solutions. The most basic problem now facing the United States is that no one can any longer trust us. We are a disgraced and discredited player in international affairs, even to those who have been our closest traditional allies. Iraqis, with their decient experience of freedom, are left pretty much to nd solutions on their own. For the United States to have a signicant voice, it has to work rst to reestablish trust. In the Middle East, the most signicant barrier to such trust is our performance on the Israeli-Palestinian conict. It is, and has been, within the power of the United States to insist that that conict be addressed in terms of international law. We have been the screen to protect Israel from its clear demands. This has been no favor to Israel, as the conict is that countrys principal problem, and its future requires a just solution, which American policy is actually preventing. This topic is taboo, and is not the matter of this article. A great part of the American Jewish public has become conscious of the damage to Israel, to the Middle East region and to the world, as well as to American interests that our blind policy and our constraint of those Israelis who do know how to address the problem are causing. If indeed we did the things that are within the power of the United States to help Israelis and Palestinians come to a just and mutually satisfying resolution of this long-standing conict, the reputation of the United States would soar, and


The Rev. Dr. Robert Allan Hill

T h e C h r i s t i a n Tr a d i t i o n As todays reading happily reminds us, we are from a deep, though intricately varied ethical tradition that enshrines seless love, christocentric love, cruciform love as the cherished ideal of human behavior. As you wish others would do to you, do also to them. Over 20 centuries, and speaking with unforgivable conciseness as one must in a brief summer sermon, two basic understandings of war and peace have emerged in Christian thought. As you know, these roughly can be called the so-called pacist and just war understandings. Pacism preceded its sibling, and innitely extends to all times the interim ethic of the New Testament (which even in Luke, a late writing, expects that the coming of Christ will soon make moot our ethical dilemmas, and so tends to err on the side of quietism, or, in the case of arms, pacism) : to him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also. Many utterly saintly Christian women and men have and do honor this understanding with their seless commitment, including many in this congregation today. My own pulpit hero, Ernest Fremont Tittle, the best Methodist preacher of the 20th century, did so from his Chicago pulpit through the whole Second World War. While personally I have not been able, to this date anyway, to agree with him, I never compose a sermon on this topic without wondering, and to some degree fearing, what his judgment might be. The multiple theories of just war, or war as the least of all evil alternatives, have developed since the Fourth Century and the writing of St. Augustine. Here the command to be merciful, even as God is merciful is understood tragically to include times when mercy for the lamb means armed opposition to the wolf. The New Testament apocalyptic frame and its interim ethic are honored, to be sure, but supplemented with the historic experience of the church through the ages. Many utterly saintly Christian men and women have honored this understanding with their seless commitment, including some present here today, and some who are not present because they gave their lives that others might live. Just war thought includes several serious caveats. Last September we together recalled these, in ve forms: just cause in response to serious evil, just intention for restoration of peace with justice, no selfenrichment or desire for devastation, use as an utterly last resort, have legitimate authority and have a reasonable hope of success, given the constraints of discrimination and proportionality (usually understood as protection of noncombatants). Response. Restoration. Restraint. Last resort. Common authority. These two venerable pillars of Christian thought, pacism and just war, demarcate the limit of received Christian teaching, from scripture, tradition, reason and experience. The Dilemma of Leadership This winter we Americans prosecuted a war upon Iraq. Our action was apparently successful. Both those who considered such an action a tragic necessity (a clear majority in this community and elsewhere) and others who considered it an unnecessary tragedy (a signicant minority in this community and elsewhere) give thanks that most of the hostilities have now been concluded. We have as a church ministered with and prayed for many of our own younger women and men who continue to serve their neighbor by serving their country. Today, in special measure, we pause to honor their courageous self-giving, and to continue to pray for their well-being. Neither the effectiveness of our military nor the personal courage and faith of our soldiers and sailors is in doubt here. Now that the dust of the desert has partly settled, though, we may want to consider what we have done. To any fair minded consideration, this war, in direct contrast to virtually ever other American conict, was unabashedly prosecuted outside of inherited Christian ethical teaching. Of course, pacism was discounted, but so too were the caveats of the just war theory. Our action was preemptive not responsive, unilateral not commonly authorized, a

The Last, Best Hope?


deliberate but not a last resort, and, for all the technological victorious or you can be Christian, you can be successful or wizardry available, still brought death to thousands of you can be virtuous, you can survive or you can be good. But unarmed civilians. Iraq 2003 is Americas rst selfnot both, argued Machiavelli. consciously post-Christian war. Is this the best we can hope for? Are the horns of Now it may be, and some will argue strongly that Machiavellis dilemma unbreakable? it must be, that future Christian thought, in contrast to the For the country to survive are we forced to give up past, must make space for unilateral preemption given the the application of our faith to matters of war and peace? Is dangers now abroad. Not for one minute do I discount the this what our strategic future must now entail, unilateral momentum of this emerging position, even though it is not, preemption? just now, one I can support. Let us reason together. Let the Or is there a more hopeful path? discussion evolve. But let us also be clear: just war theory does not currently make space for unilateral preemption. A Last, Best Hope What is darkly fascinating about the winters action The very nature of a real philosophical dilemma, is that the dilemma of leadership in which we Americans and this truly is one, is that it does not admit of any easy found ourselves was precisely resolution. You may be pleased rendered ve hundred years that the sermon is about to end, ago. In the Italian Renaissance, For the country to survive are we but not so pleased that it cannot the Florentine philosopher conclude in a major chord of forced to give up the application resolution. Nicollo Machiavelli, quietly composed a frightful, but perhaps It was Abraham Lincoln of our faith to matters of war and unconquerable, understanding of who sang the praise of this great peace? leadership and power, and thus of land, as the last, best hope of war and peace. He argued that the humanity. Our hearts are with his leader could be either effective or Christian, but not both at heart on this, especially today. I am afraid that the dilemma the same time. He would have to choose between effective, Machiavelli alone had the early resolve to dene will remain powerful and sustainable leadership, on the one hand, and with us for a long time, including into the time when we are, Christian virtue, on the other. He could be successful or as a people, doing less of the killing and more of the dying. right, but not both at the same time. I am indebted to Isaiah Not forever shall we be solely imperial and supreme. No, Berlins rehearsal and summary of Machiavellis frightful even the British Empire had its sunset, as our grandchildren argument: will have cause to remember. It is in fact impossible to combine Christian virtues, I do however believe that before dusk comes we as for example meekness or the search for spiritual salvation, a people can, in some measure, live out Lincolns majestic with a satisfactory, stable, vigorous, strong society on earth. hope. I offer, I believe in continuity with the Scripture as read Consequently a man must choose. To choose to lead a today, two promissory notes. Christian life is to condemn oneself to political impotence: We may be entering an Epoch of American to be used and crushed by powerful, ambitious, clever, Forbearance. You will remember something of forbearance, unscrupulous men. patient restraint, a great power for doing good. Sometimes What Machiavelli most clearly stated has been the it is better to have patience than brains. If we can restrain thorn in the esh of Christian political ethics for the whole ourselves, in the future, from making scapegoats of some in modern era. As Machiavelli predicted, none have been order furiously to retaliate against other hidden foes, that able or willing to fully face and nally solve his dilemma: is, if we can forbear, we shall nd that the community of As a leader, and particularly a military leader, you can be peoples will see in us a last best hope. We may model, as


a people, a path forward into a time of freedom, pluralism, toleration, compromise, and peace. We may also be entering an Epoch of American Spiritual Discipline Against Resentment. Here I simply refer to a great American and a greater Rochesterian, Christopher Lasch: The only way to break the endless cycle of injustice, Niebuhr argued, was nonviolent coercion, with its spiritual discipline against resentment. In order to undermine an oppressors claims to moral superiority, (one) has to avoid such claims on their own behalf. Again, in the connes of a sermon, and a summer homily no less, I can only sketch. Our Rochester writers essays distilled this theme, a spiritual discipline against resentment, from the lives and writings of Niebuhr, Martin Luther King, the Boston Personalists, the Progressive Leaders of our Burned Over district, and many others. He saw, as we too may see in the Lukan passage earlier read, the necessity of holding at bay those deeply human sentiments that easily, and tragically, attach themselves to us when we are fearful, attacked, and violated. For a future to emerge that is more than simply a repetition of the patterns of the past, a people must develop a spiritual discipline against resentment. If we can model as a people this discipline others around the globe will nd cause to agree with Lincolns assessment of this land as a last, best hope. How is one to nd such power? Truly I see no other source than a confessional reliance on the Christ of Calvary. An Epoch of Forbearance. A Spiritual Discipline against Resentment. I am not at all sure that I can dene these for you, but I can give you an example, in life and speech. It was the genius of Lincoln, which best bespoke this twin hope, especially in his second inaugural. Within two months he was dead. Yet listen to his wise admonition to forbearance and discipline against resentment: March 4, 1865 (in passim) At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the rst On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending

civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert itBoth parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conict might cease with or even before the conict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just Gods assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat o f other mens faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we ho pe, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmans two hundred and fty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood d rawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. With malice toward none, with charity for all, with rmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to nish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.


The Rev. Dr. Robert Allan Hill Dean of Marsh Chapel, Professor, New Testament and Pastoral Theology, Chaplain to the University, Boston University The Rev. Dr. Allison Stokes Director of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, Director of the Interfaith Chapel University of Rochester The Rt. Rev. Dr. Andrew Fitz-Gibbon, LC Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Center for Ethics Peace and Social Justice, SUNY Cortland Fred Glennon Professor of Religious Studies LeMoyne College Sr. Olga of the Eucharist Campus Minister, Catholic Center Boston University

Jay P. Corrin Division of Social Sciences, Chair Professor of Social Science College of General Studies Boston University Andrew J. Bacevich Professor of International Relations and History Boston University Fr. Raymond Helmick, S.J. Faculty, Theology Department Boston College.


Photo Contributor
Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) arose from a call in 1984 for Christians to devote the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war. Enlisting the whole church in an organized, nonviolent alternative to war, today CPT places violence-reduction teams in crisis situations and militarized areas around the world at the invitation of local peace and human rights workers. CPT embraces the vision of unarmed intervention waged by committed peacemakers ready to risk injury and death in bold attempts to transform lethal conflict through the nonviolent power of Gods truth and love. Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq initiated a long-term presence in Iraq in October 2002, six months before the beginning of the U.S. led invasion in March of 2003. The primary focus of the team for eighteen months following the invasion was documenting and focusing attention on the issue of detainee abuses and basic legal and human rights being denied them. The deteriorating security situation in Baghdad seriously affected CPTs presence. In November 2005, four CPT personnel were taken hostage, resulting in the murder of CPTer Tom Fox and the rescue of the remaining three in March 2006. Following an evaluation phase, CPT relocated its violence reduction work to the Kurdish north of Iraq in late 2006, based in Suleimaniya.


735 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02215 617-353-3560 www.bu.edu/chapel chapel@bu.edu