Morally Wrong to Abandon Iraq Simply To Save Ourselves

If war is justified -- morally, since it's a matter of action and choice (we can subvert any naturally bellicose tendencies?) -- it cannot be inherently evil. This argument (and a great deal of what follows) is muddleheaded.

just an observation- when 9-11 happened the entire world was sympatico with america- it was a uniquely opportune time for bush to have used that "political currency" and spend it on availing america of the world wide support that was being offered- only a political moron would have been able to change support and sympathy into alienation and repulsion-
georde is 'special' alright...

BGONE where are those angels with shields?
ps i spent some time looking for the 150 wars at any given time- at usip- un- amnesty international- cspan (where i heard it but couldnt find it-
but i heard the figure on cspan for what its worth- or maybe it was ba'al that questioned it- i get you 2 mixed up sometimes...

Stan, good observation. There's not much sign a pullout of Iraq was planned even if everything went as hoped. Whatever are they thinking? Maybe all this "just cause" stuff is smoke to conceal something much larger?

Let's see what the Dems do now that they have a little power. If they start "staying the course" we know there's something we're not being told in the grand plan of which Iraq is just a water hole.

You don't suppose they're planning to shoot God? lol

Agreed: "War is evil. War represents a failure of leadership. Nevertheless, as this is a far from perfect world, I believe that there are times when war can be justified."

However, the rest, for example "... To be considered a just war the conflict needs to be the last resort to settling a dispute, it must be defensive in nature; it must have clear objectives; operationally, it must be proportional to the threat, and it must have a good chance of success with minimum loss of life.

Additionally, the target of attack must be combatants. Not only are non-combatants illegitimate targets, excessive non-combatant casualties disqualifies the conflict as just in any sense." is a problem.

It tries to justify a war that is not for self-defense. The ONLY war that is justified is for self-defense, when you have been attacked.

One problem we have is that Bush looks and talks like he ought to be competent, yet he proves over and over he is not competent in maintaining the Constitution of the United States of America, which he has sworn to do.

The second problem is the Congress is a dud - and under the same influence as Bush.

The war supporters seem to be incapable of considering the possibility that the best way to help the Iraqis bring peace to their country is for American forces to get out.

The mess was created by the ignorant, paternalistic assumption that only American force could bring order to the region. It has instead brought chaos and destruction. Why we should now believe that a continued )and now increased) American military presence will suddenly begin to have a positive effect?

Ann O.:

You want us to exhaust every means at stopping the civil war in Iraq before leaving, and claim that "there have been a number of proposals which might possibly do the job." You name one: "diplomacy now including the Iranians, Syrians, etc."

So, we should stay and die, while we talk to the Iranians and Syrians supplying the weapons used to shoot at us. What WILL we talk about? Their military success? This option is just a non-starter.

Have you noticed that all of the Christian panelists and posters accept that some wars are justified? Did Jesus the Christ say that? Whatever happened to "Turn the other cheek?"

If these "Christians" really believed in Christian doctrine they would oppose all wars including "defensive" wars.

And if they really believed in life after death and the Christian Heaven, they'd advise others and themselves that it's better to simply accept death in war than to advocate or participate in a defensive or other war.

The inescapable conclusion is that these "Christian" panelists and posters don't really hold Christian beliefs, particularly concerning the hereafter.

Bush, Cheney, and the neocons are not dumb. In fact they are extremely skilled in controlling human minds. When someone maintains they didn't have an exit plan from the war in Iraq, has it not ever dawned that their plan did not require an exit plan? And that an exit plan wasn't wanted then or now? Didn't Bush declare Mission Accomplished and never miss a stroke or even start planning to pull out! Who knows what his mission was that he accomplished! There may have been some technical reason for declaring mission accomplished that we the people don't know about.

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 whatever it wants almost all of the middleeast issues would be resolved.

Think about what us Americans would do if some other country came to the USA 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.

Candide, we were attacked, 9-11-2001. The question is "who done it." The short answer is Allah. The 19 and their many cheerleaders and sports fans come from all over Islam. The attack is the most devistating in our history, dwarfs Pearl harbor in dollar damage as well as 50% more lives.

Statistically, well over 90% of Americans say shoot back. The question then becomes, "at whom?" Who does one shoot back at when attacked by a God?

At the war college they study the latest ways to win WW2 with a single blow, (every play is a touchdown play). They don't have a clue about how to fight a God. I'm kidding of course but it's too tempting not to notice, Gen Myers, chair of the joint chiefs preaching. Makes sense. Onward Christian soldiers marching off to war. Where? Where is Allah? Where does a "few good men" go to shoot him and retaliate?

Then I have to ask the question. If angels can't be shot then why do they have shields? I'm afraid a few good men will have to shoot a lot of bad angels before Allah is dead. The good news is they can. The problem is locating them.

There's a map at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul There's OFFICIAL pictures of angels and they clearly have shields, are toting weapons, the works showing us it's a job for the Marines.

Dubya is not 100% wrong and almost right on one point. He says it "fight them there or fight them here." He missed 9-11-2001. They're here Mr President. Fight them there is the option. Win here first or lose there.

What we owe Iraq and don't owe: we owe Iraq repair of the terrible damage we have done to them, materially. We don't owe them a solution to their civil war. We can get our troops out and still fulfil our obligations to them.

We broke Iraq; we need to fix it. But fix only what we have broke, not more.

This is a no brainer, we don't need theological just war theory; we need common sense.

"Having unleashed this pandemonium of tribal blood-letting it would be wrong of us to abandon the field simply to save our own lives."

WHO'S "WE", KEMO SABE....this argument is NOT going to work this time. Same little guilt trip used during Viet Nam.

"We gotta STAY cause if we GO, we can't STAY."

Enough is enough. Mothers AGREE. NOT ONE MORE SON OR DAUGHTER FOR AN IDEOLOGICAL WAR STARTED ON LIES.

Never again.

omigoodness that jumped out at me- meant party animal- not part animal!

Thank you Mr Wheeler- ican in no way claim credit for the above words- i pasted them from a simple search on rules of war in islam- believeit or not i pasted this one in particular for its brevity-

this is by no means a complete example of the rules of engagement-

actually i might state with a tiny bit of amusement- that while this is new information to americans- it has been disseminated widely in the islamic world and implemented for 1470 some years- muslims really are quite aware of it already.

as the islamic world has been painfully aware of the west since its' inception- i am thinking that perhaps it is the wests turn to recognize that there are other beliefs and modes of existence thatdonot consider america the center of the universe- i kwow this is unpatriotic blasphemy-

one thing i might comment on- the Augustine whose books i read was a self admitte part animal for some years before he embrraced catholicism- and even after fathered many many children out of wedlock with a nun- but i guess those were different times-

i would also venture that if oil were not an issue any longer- the west would not treat muslims as 'equals' it is the oil that forces the west to even start to consider muslims even sub-human- let alone equal- we dont exactly have a history of mutual respect with muslim nations do we?

take the oil dependence out of the picture and the accompanying monies and power- and it doesnt seem likely we americans would treat our muslim neighbors on an even keel- our only interest inmuslim contries has always been plunder-(there is also a code concerning that issue in islam)

and i have to count- i canot even- how many times praying muslims say peace every day- we say peace of ALLAH to you- and back every time we meet- why the middle east must be a veritable cornucopia of peaceful greetings on a constant basis- andall over the world when we pray 5 times a day whie ithers are sleeping beofre daybreak we are saying peace peace peace- o well sorry i went on so long as is my wont-

i really appreciate the civility of your tone and attempts to be fair and understanding-

so if i was hard or fast in my response i apologize- now ill say what i always say
peace (hee hee)

Have a good trip jihadist. Don't forget to "bring home the bacon." Make sure it's kosher.

Dodger and Bgone,
Saw your responses to my postings in other threads of On Faith. Wish I had time to respond, but can't. Have to travel here and there for business.

I don't want to be seen as rude in ignoring your postings to me, but really, I do enjoy all your postings, and can't resist teasing you both on some:)

What can I say, I am an Islamic banker by profession and a satirist by compulsion. Never met a true believer of God and Islam with a sick sense of humour before ? :)

I'll be reading your postings when I return after promoting Islamic finances with no investments in gambling, pornography, arms/weapons, alcohol and pork etc. You both can't live without all those? Never mind. Millions and millions of Muslims can :)

Peace be with you both, Dodger and BGone, and kind regards.

And no, I am not an American, or an European, or a Middle Eastern, or an African or a South Asian, or a Muslim migrant in a country with a Muslim minority.

Dear Rt. Rev. Mr. Sisk,

By your defense of the concept of a "just war" you have shown that you are not a Christian.

You are also mistaken in your view of our simply leaving Iraq.

You wrote:

"Having unleashed this pandemonium of tribal blood-letting it would be wrong of us to abandon the field simply to save our own lives.

"We must take those steps that will, as quickly as possible, bring to an end the civil war that is engulfing Iraq."

(1). There are no steps we can take to end the civil war in Iraq.

(2). Our simply leaving Iraq immediately would most likely minimize the suffering of all who are involved in that country. The conflict and strife in Iraq will not be ended until after a complete meltdown of the country and a dreadful bloodbath. There is no way around this fact. After it has happened, time and nature will slowly reconstitute Iraqi society, as they have done so many times before, elsewhere in the world in similar situations.

Paradoxically therefore, the sooner the climactic calamity takes place, the sooner a more stable Iraqi society will emerge, and the suffering there will have been minimized.

"Abandoning" Iraq is the best thing we can do to help all who live there. Trying futilely to forestall the inevitable disaster will only increase suffering and delay a happier outcome for Iraq.

Mr. Sisk writes "Having unleashed this pandemonium of tribal blood-letting it would be wrong of us to abandon the field simply to save our own lives."

Striking how he writes "OUR own lives", since I am sure Bishop Sisk is writing this from the safety and comfort of his office or home. It's winter in New York, he may even have a fire going in the fireplace. I would be willing to bet that no member of the Bishop's family is currently serving in Iraq. So Bishop, have you been to visit a military hospital recently? Have you seen the kind of wounds that bombs produce? Since you note that the conflagration is already uncontrollable, do you see other people's inevitable sacrifice as some sort of penance that needs to be paid?

Anne O

One other thing. Restricting the flow of arms sounds nice. However in this case our attempts to supply an Iraqi army and police force that is entirely infiltrated with members of various militias means that we have added more than enough arms to make things miserable there for a long time. That, along with the fact that we failed to secure very large arms and explosives depots in 2003 after the Iraqi army disappeared into the woodwork. Also, have you looked at a map lately? The Syrian and Iranian borders are very very long, and our only discourse with them consists of threats. Note also that the Administration prefers to thumb its nose at the UN (which is admittedly not a very effective group).

Anne O, the Administration refuses to engage in diplomacy with anybody -- they prefer to dictate terms, even from a position of weakness. That approach is part of the reason we ended up in this mess. The other is a messianic and completely misguided sense of righteousness. I can see that you hope for the best, but do you really trust that the people in charge of things now will succeed given their track record and their steadfast refusal to listen? At this point the presence of US troops is an irritant that probably makes things worse. Adding the 20,000 more is a purely political move to make it look like he is doing something.

Does anybody have the Vegas line on how long it will be before they make an unauthorized "preemptive" attack on Iranian territory? Whatever it is, I'll take the under.

Victoria,

I must say that what you've brought to the table is a wonderful example of why we must stop treating the Islamic world as a whole as potential terrorists. I wholeheartedly agree with what you have written, but the word needs to be spread out to the rest of the Islamic world. They need to be reminded that the word Islam mean Peace, and that they do not have to be shepherded by the Wahabis, just because they have the oil and the money. What we really need to do is to remove this dependence on oil that the rest of the world has. Then, and only then, will we really be able to converse with the Islamic world on an even keel.

HEWITT ROSE tells us:

Haven't you noticed that we have not be able to stop the Iraqi civil war? Saying that we must stay in Iraqi and stop the civil war is as useful and rational as wishing for a basement full of gold.

Hi, Hewitt,

While it is true that so far we haven't been able even to reduce the bloodshed, it seems to me that just as we should have exhausted every means towards peace before going to war (if there had been WMD, which there weren't), so when deciding to leave ISTM we should exhaust every possible means of trying to get the Shiites and Sunnis to stop the bloodshed.

There have been a number of proposals which might possibly do the job. It seems to me that morally we must not leave the people to this blood-letting without trying every moral means to stop it. And that includes diplomacy now including the Iranians, Syrians, etc. Obviously somebody is supplying the arms and they need to be included in the negotiations.

While I'm at it, ISTM that one of the main reasons that the world is plagued with these relatively small wars is that the arms trade flourishes in spite of local laws. Surely the U.N. should have as it's main diplomatic objective getting the nations to put teeth into their laws about selling arms to foreign nations and insurrection groups. This seems to be a non-issue these days, but it should be made an international one. No arms, no wars.

Ann O.

Please forgive my sin of omission. God Bless this man and his entire family. Keep him in your Light and Love and Peace. Always.

Haven't you noticed that we have not be able to stop the Iraqi civil war? Saying that we must stay in Iraqi and stop the civil war is as useful and rational as wishing for a basement full of gold.

"we should no" above should read "we should not"

WAR IS EVIL. WAR REPRESENTS A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP. NEVERTHELESS, AS THIS IS A FAR FROM PERFECT WORLD, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WAR CAN BE JUSTIFIED. yes bishop, i agree unfortunately.
HAVING UNLEASHED THIS PANDEMONIUM OF TRIBAL BLOOD-LETTING IT WOULD BE WRONG OF US TO ABANDON THE FIELD SIMPLY TO SAVE OUR OWN LIVES.
i whole heartedly agree dear shepherd. how about to save our national soul? how about to help bring as rapid an end to the tribal bloodshed as possible? there are a number of sane ways we could directly do so, but as long as this pseudo-con traitor is in the oval office, we can not trust ourselves. it would be analogous to being host to a demon. you never know when the demon will show and take over your body as your soul watches in horror, or simply wakes up to the living nightmare left in the demons wake
WE MUST TAKE THOSE STEPS THAT WILL, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BRING TO AN END THE CIVIL WAR THAT IS ENGULFING IRAQ. MANY ARGUE THAT THE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF IT BY BRINGING OUR TROOPS HOME. APPARENTLY THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT THE WAR MUST BE ESCALATED TO BE RESOLVED.
i think that natural rotation of our troops out of iraq, and redirecting their replacements into afghanistan would be a good first step. additionally, having iraq petition the united nations for peace keeping assistance is a way that we could be morally involved in the solution to this problem of the neo-cons making. as far as the oil goes, perhaps the united nations should incorporate a body of international corporate businesses. in that way, these corporations could meet just as the governments of the world meet to hash out rationing of scarce resources in a fair and equitable manner. we need to address the overwhelming power that international businesses now exert over national governments in an open and honest way instead of doing so under the table and in the darkness. also, we should no abandon the findings of the iraq study group report. president carter still has much to offer.
HE NEEDS TO MAKE THE CASE WHY HE IS RIGHT THIS TIME WHEN HE HAS BEEN SO WRONG FOR SO LONG. dear episcopal shepherd, that case should now be out of his hands and placed into the hands of congress and the judiciary. this president has squandered with reckless contempt every opportunity afforded him, including that from his father, to turn himself back to the light. congress should also investigate the so-called neo-con group for crimes against this state and against humanity. i direct your attention to the work of the christian science monitor neocons 101 found at http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html respectfully submitted to you on this sunday, january 14, 2007 vulcan_7, an episcopalian also.

"Having unleashed this pandemonium of tribal blood-letting it would be wrong of us to abandon the field simply to save our own lives"

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! WE WERE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

IT MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE LIKE BUSH IN OFFICE!!! HE IS A DISCRACE TO THE WORLD!!! BUSH AND HIS CRONIES HAD THEIR OWN COVERT AGENDA BUT IT FAILED MISERABLY!!FROM THE VERY OUTSET,THEY CAREFULLY FRAMED THIER WORDS TO MAKE US BELEIVE ALL THE LIES THAT LEAD UP TO THE WAR..... SO HE WANT'S TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY...WHO THE F*** IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS ASKING FOR IT!!?? THIS IS JUST ANOTHER LAME EXCUSE TO JUSTIFY THE WAR!!

BUSH IS THE MOST INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT EVER!!!FORGET ABOUT THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE COST OF WAR. IT'S THE LIVES THAT WERE TAKEN-ON BOTH SIDES-THAT CAN NEVER BE REPLACED!! I READ THAT BUSH SLEEPS WELL AT NIGHT AND IT MAKES YOU WONDER IF BUSH HAS ANY FEELINGS AT ALL!!
CHENEY IS NO DIFFERENT!! AND TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT GOING TO WAR EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE NO WMD WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT HE IS THE MOST ARROGANT OF THEM ALL!!YOU COULD PUT A GUN TO HIS HEAD AND HE WILL STILL TELL YOU THE SAME THING!!HE WILL NEVER DOUBT, NEVER, QUESTION HIS DECISIONS FOR FEAR OF ADMITTING A MISTAKE. I PRAY TO GOD THAT WHOEVER BECOMES OUR NEXT PRESIDENT, HE /SHE WILL HAVE THE WISDOM TO MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE...

you said:

"We must take those steps that will, as quickly as possible, bring to an end the civil war that is engulfing Iraq. Many argue that the way to do that is to get out of the middle of it by bringing our troops home. Apparently the President believes that the war must be escalated to be resolved."

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.

Thank you.

You sensibly write "he needs to make the case why he is right this time when he has been so wrong for so long."

Actually, whatever he says, he will not be believed (for good reason), and he needs to be opposed vigorously by everyone with a conscience.

Sir- since you are speaking reasonably- i think you have deprived the argumentative types of their fodder- if you dont mind im going to post something here rather lengthy- i didnt want to monopolize the post before but i think perhaps its ok- i do so because it is in agreement with your considerate remarks

)
VICTORIA:

War has always been a complex subject for objective study or analysis. Given the nature of man, one cannot imagine a world without wars. The best we can strive for is to have a code of rules for war. It is the merit of Islam that it does provide such rules, which remain ever nobler and more realistic than any other code existing for the conduct of war.

Concerning the rules of combat as outlined in Islam, the following points are important to note:

In war as in peace, the injunctions of Islam are to be strictly observed. Worship does not cease during times of war. Islamic jurisprudence maintains that whatever is prohibited during peace is also prohibited during war.

Allah says in the Qur'an what means:

*{Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities.Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:190)

The above permission to fight clearly lays down the following conditions: (1) Never commit aggression; fighting is allowed only for self-defense. (2) Fighting must never be against non-combatants or non-fighting personnel.

The Prophet used to instruct his followers during battles and tell them not to be embittered or inclined to commit treachery. He asked them to spare non-combatants, particularly children and hermits. Caliph Abu Bakr gave the following instructions to the commander who led the campaign to Syria:

"Do not betray, be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children, the aged or women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruit trees. Do not slay a sheep, a cow, or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who stay in hermitages for worship; leave them alone to what they devote themselves to."

Justice is highly valued in Islam and no Muslim is allowed to violate it even in times of war against their bitterest enemies. From the early days of Islam, medical assistance was available to all irrespective of religion or creed and was even given to the enemies. The medical profession itself was specially honored in Islam, and it was the duty of the Muslims to offer help in this regard to all.

A well-known example is that of Salahuddin Ayyubi (Saladin), who gave medical help to his opponent Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, who was seriously ill during the Crusades. He sent his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well. This is in contrast with the behavior of the invading crusaders. When they entered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, they slaughtered seventy thousand Muslims, including women, children, and the elderly: "They broke children's skulls by knocking them against the wall, threw babies from roof tops, roasted men over fires and cut open women's bellies to see if they had swallowed any gold."

This description was given by Edward Gibbon, the famous historian; and in modern warfare, this example is paralleled by the atrocious behavior of the Serb army in Bosnia, to quote just one instance.

For the first time in the history of warfare, it was Islam that adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is to be sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury. Islam made it obligatory to feed prisoners.

Ibn Umayr, one of the captives of Muslims in the Battle of Badr recalled: "Whenever I sat with my captors for lunch or dinner, they would offer me bread and themselves [eat] the dates, in view of the Prophet's recommendation in our favor." Please note that in that desert situation, bread was a more luxurious item of food than dates.

Islam clearly prohibits subjecting captives to ill treatment by denying them food, drink, or clothing. According to Islamic law, the captive belongs to the state and not to his captor. The ruler has the ultimate option, as he sees fit, to grant him freedom immediately or at a later time, as he sees fit.

Sometimes enemy prisoners were exchanged for Muslim prisoners held in enemy hands. An acceptable ransom for release was for the prisoner to teach ten Muslim children to read and write. Combatants were set free upon their word of honor not to fight again; and if they broke their promise and were caught again, they might be severely dealt with.

Islam never fought civilian populations, but only fought despotic rulers. Islamic war was one of liberation and not one of coercion. The liberated people had the freedom to choose their religion, and Muslims often fought to ensure this freedom.

The process of active intervention to stop or remove aggression is a development that modem international law has recognized. And fourteen centuries before the establishment of the League of Nations and later the United Nations, Islam decreed such responsibility. This principle is based on the Qur'anic saying, which means:

*{ If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies then make peace between them with justice and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just).
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.}* (Al-Hujurat 49:9-10)

One of the major shortcomings of modern international politics is its scant regard for moral obligation. Time and again, treaties and agreements are flouted. From the outset, Islam has emphatically prohibited breach of trust and treachery. Recent examples of signing a pact with a nation with a hidden intent to attack it are diametrically opposed to the rules of combat Islam has laid down. The Qur'an tells us what means:

*{O you who believe!Fulfill your undertakings…}* (Al-Ma'idah 5:1)

The Qur'an also says what means:

*{Fulfill the covenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not your oaths after you have confirmed them; indeed you have made God your surety; for God knows all that you do…}* (An-Nahl 16:91)

If Muslims sense the violation of an existing treaty by the enemy, they should first declare the annulment of that treaty before embarking on war again. The Qur'an clearly says what means:

*{If you fear treachery from any group, throw back [their covenant] to them, [so as to be] on equal terms: for God loves not the treacherous.}* (Al-Anfal 8:58)

The fact is that there are no rules of war more humane and realistic, than the rules of Islam.

PEACE