Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
To Escalate The War Now Is Criminal
That Jesus called us to non-violence and not to “just wars” is painfully clear. And the fact that Jesus said the peacemakers, not the war-makers, are the ones who will be blessed; and that when he commanded us to love our enemies he really meant it—is also quite evident.
But, admittedly, no nation state is going to behave that way; it’s hard enough for those who call themselves disciples of Christ. So Augustine, Aquinas, and others came along to give the state some criteria or benchmarks to decide when and whether wars were just. And since governments are not about to live by the ethics of Jesus, that’s probably a good thing. At least, as the "Just War" theory intended, the violence of the state would be restrained by some very rigorous criteria.
Paul suggested the same in Romans 13, that the state has an ordering role, but not a blank check.
NO, by the classic criteria of a “just war,” Iraq was not one. Not even close. And at the time of the run-up to the war, a majority of church bodies and their leaders around the world said just that.
Pope John Paul II was quite agitated about Iraq and, had he been a younger man, might have actually intervened to prevent the unjust war. Even most evangelical Christians around the globe were against the American war in Iraq, and continue to be—a fact that the U.S. media also missed. There were others, like the American Southern Baptists, who supported their President’s war but, on an international scale, they were clearly the exceptions.
There is absolutely no way that the American invasion of Iraq could be considered a “last resort”—one of the just war criteria. The inspections were working to find and contain any weapons of mass destruction Iraq might have had, and the Bush administration both misrepresented and manipulated the alleged threat from the WMDs. The administration lied to start a war.
Over time, the brutal Saddam Hussein could have been isolated, undermined, and overthrown (a very worthy goal) from pressures internal and external, and serious proposals were on the table to do just that when Bush went to war. Instead we bombed the children of Baghdad and then allowed the country to slide into bloody chaos.
There was never adequate “authority” to wage this war (another criterion)—the United Nations, NATO, and the vast majority of the world’s people and nations were against it. Only Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair thought this was a good idea and their political legacies will be forever shaped by the worst foreign policy decision either country has made in decades. Iraq also failed the tests of “proportionality” and “discrimination” with all the societal damage it was likely to cause (and has); and the horrible number of innocents that have been lost through the tactics of “shock and awe,” the resulting insurgency against American occupation, and now the civil war that has turned into ethnic cleansing.
There was never an “imminent threat” from Saddam, as we were told, no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and Bush’s war in Iraq was not a central front in the international campaign against terrorism, but has turned out to be a serious distraction from it (though the war itself has now transformed Iraq into a haven and school for terrorism).
The idea of there even being a government in Iraq is another myth of Bush rhetoric and, for the young servicemen and women who daily die, it is cruel joke to learn we have no real partners in Iraq. The goal of democracy is even not even given lip service anymore; there is only endless sectarian violence—with the government forces themselves simply a part of the tribal warfare.
The depraved scene of Saddam Hussein’s hanging revealed more a revenge lynching than an act of national justice—and became a brutal metaphor for what Iraq has now become. American lives are now both the prime targets of the insurgency, while they are also caught in the cross-fire of a civil war. To send more troops into battle in a senseless “surge,” without any new plan for political resolution between Iraq’s intransigent and hateful factions—is morally irresponsible.
We’ve tried this before and failed. A new surge will simply mean more young Americans in body bags and wheel chairs, more families left without dads, moms, sons, or daughters, and more slaughter of innocent civilians. The war in Iraq was unjust; to continue it now is criminal.
There is no winning in Iraq. This was a war that should have never been fought—or won. It can’t be won and the truth is that there are no good solutions now—that’s how unjust wars often turn out. The mistaken war in Iraq can only be mercifully ended, in ways that cause the least damage to everyone involved: the Americans and the Iraqis, the volatile surrounding region, and a world longing for security. That will likely take new international leadership to help fix the mess of Iraq, because U.S. leadership has brought one calamity after another. We’ll see if the Democrats can offer something better. Unjust wars can cause massive human suffering. When will we learn that?
By
Jim Wallis
|
January 14, 2007; 4:33 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: A Just War? Does The Emperor Have Clothes? |
Next: Morally Wrong to Abandon Iraq Simply To Save Ourselves
Posted by: wiccan | January 15, 2007 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
War other than for defense is imorral, what the US & Britan was without doubt imorral, but let's no drag religon into it and start quoting GOD through the bible. After all as I know it GOD didn't write the Bible man did and choose what HE wanted in it and disregarded what HE didn't want in it!
War should only be fought in self defense not preemptively. Also all political leaders should be required to have thier children on active duty in the military during thier tenor in office to make sure when war is called for itis out of neccessity not arogance!!
If the Arab-Isreali issue was handled in a seriously honest manor instead of giving Isreal whateber it wants almost all of the middleeast issues would be resolved.
Think about what us Americans would do if some came to our country and raided, stole, and split it into tiny fragmented pieces like was done to Palistine. I think us Americans would be loading up our shotguns and making homemade bombs, I guess we would then be considered terrorist & extremists. I assume then that the rest of the world would have to wage a war on terrorism against us.
Posted by: gurv69 | January 15, 2007 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What shameful mendacious drivel. Whether or not the original intervention was justified, we are now in Iraq under a UN mandate and at the invitation of the popularly elected, internationally recognized constitutional government, to assist it in establishing security and ending civil violence. Mr. Wallis should be deeply ashamed and should immediately drop to his knees and beg forgiveness for this willfully ignorant and inexcusable lie.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2007 8:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you, Mr Wallis.
Posted by: Emm | January 15, 2007 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Joshua Steimle...
Wow, I hope that your a christian who will soon come to understand what Jesus means to me and many other deciples of Jesus. What you said in your statement above basically over rides exactly what Jesus teaches by you using the word "but" after saying that God hates war, i'm guessing you have read the sermon on the mount?
Your putting Jesus on the back burner. Or are you a christian that is into Jesus for just because you get a ticket into heaven? haha. If you don't beleive the things that Jesus teaches and apply them to your life, why be a christian? Jesus wasn't killed for the hell of it, he was killed for living radically. He was revolutionary in his teaching. No one liked what he had to say. By you making that statement, you are driving more nails through his feet and wrists.
PEACE
Jusitn
Posted by: Justin Aller (New Castle,PA) | January 14, 2007 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Of course everyone is for peace, with a few wacko exceptions, but even the Bible contains quite a bit of violence at God's command:
4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
Ezekiel 9:4-6
I'm not saying that the war in Iraq is just, and I do believe that God and Christ hate war, but anyone who has studied the Bible will see that there are times when God condones, even commands, that massive amounts of people be killed, even so far as to include women and children. Evidently God's wisdom and foresight allows him to see that the alternative to these deaths would be worse than the deaths themselves. Some places in the Bible say "thou shalt not kill" while others say "thou shalt utterly destroy." The only safe route is to always do what God says, but if you believe God stopped talking to man after the Bible then I guess that's hard to do.
As far as Bush, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives go--I don't know who's right and who's wrong. I'm not sure any of us have the data we need to make accurate decisions. But what I am sick of is seeing people who ignore the parts of the Bible that don't support their viewpoints and ignorantly promote other parts out of context. It's nice and comfortable to jump to conclusions and make judgement calls based on limited information, but the situation is much more complicated than that.
Posted by: Joshua Steimle | January 14, 2007 11:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Please forgive my sin of omission. God please Bless this servant of Your Word. A most worthy, and faithful teacher he is. Bless his whole family with Your Everlasting Love, Faith, Peace, and Beauty, Always...please.
Posted by: Vulcan_7 | January 14, 2007 8:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Sir, just about everything these so-called neo-cons do seems to border on criminal. See the work of The Christian Science Monitor at http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html Respectfully submitted for your consideration on this day Sunday January 14th, 2007 Vulcan_7, no longer the Frozen1 I have had a melt-down since last we met, Sir. Your work is on my to do list. :)
Posted by: Vulcan_7 | January 14, 2007 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
you said:
"We’ll see if the Democrats can offer something better. Unjust wars can cause massive human suffering. When will we learn that?"
Are you now calling for the impeachment of President Bush for abuse of power and "high crimes and misdomeaners", or are you not?
Please be direct on this issue. And communicate your opinion directly to your senator and congressman today.
Thank you.
Posted by: Bob | January 14, 2007 6:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well said, Mr. Wallis.
Posted by: Ba'al | January 12, 2007 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you very much, Mr. Wallis! Concerning the war in Iraq, I agree with what you've said here, and I admire how it shows clarity in your practical faith, having read "God's Politics" and subscribed to Sojourners for a while. Please continue to sound the clarion call for peace!
Posted by: UncannyAvenger | January 12, 2007 9:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
"Anonymous:
What shameful mendacious drivel. Whether or not the original intervention was justified, we are now in Iraq under a UN mandate and at the invitation of the popularly elected, internationally recognized constitutional government, to assist it in establishing security and ending civil violence. Mr. Wallis should be deeply ashamed and should immediately drop to his knees and beg forgiveness for this willfully ignorant and inexcusable lie."
Sir or Madam,
I have been unable to find the UN mandate that authorizes the US and allies to "assist it (present Iraqi government) in establishing security and ending civil violence." I was unable to find any UN mandate at all regarding the US's invasion, excuse me, liberation of Iraq.
Where did you find it?