World Needs A Strong United Nations

Hello! Good site!

Thank you!

Hello! Good site!

Thank you!

Why blame the war in Iraq on the White House? Iraq was seen as a threat LONG before Bush was in office. Mustn't forget history.

Has anyone heard of General Sada? Probably not. What about Bill Tierney? Surely not (unless he's depicted as "crazy") I wonder why....

Hmm.. The Kyoto protocol.. How about we research the methods used for the UN/Gore global warming study? Then, let's look up the origin of chaos theory. What are the similarities? What are the differences? Considering the origins of chaos theory, is the UN global warming study valid and reliable? How so?

Heavens! We had more evidence for WMDs in Iraq than the theory that HUMANS are causing global warming! You know how many billions the Kyoto protocol would be a year? All that on a theory? Global warming is real, but there is MORE evidence that we are NOT the culprits than that we ARE.

However, it's like Darwinism now. Any scientist that goes against the "it's our fault" mantra will be shunned, and has been. Don't take my word for it. Everything I have mentioned can be researched. Look at both sides and make your own decision.

Anyway, Bishop Wright, WWMD about WMD? (What Would Messiah Do about Weapons of Mass Destruction?)

I appreciated Bishop Wright's article, and many of the comments, particularly Ohlman's. I think it's important to distinguish between the Bishop's excellent NT teaching and his foray into the more murky area of politics. Good on him for taking the plunge (as long as it doesn't take too much time away from his theological work). I won't always see eye to eye with him on how things are being playing out in the political arena, but that won't diminish my view of him as an excellent theologian who is able to speak clearly about Jesus to our culture today.

Totally agree with Tom Wright (as always)...but he continues to turn a blind eye to all that Britain continues to do in the world (more or less behind the scenes ....as they know the craft quite well).... England's role in empire did not end 50+ years ago and that they were not innocent with respect to WWII....the unfortunate truth is that England supported/helped to arm Hitler behind the scenes for quite some time as they feared the rise of Bolshevism to be a greater threat...history will also show that Britain was the chief influence of the United State's overthrow of Mossedeq in Iran in 1953 (to protect their oil concessions.....and much of the Unites States foreign policy during the Cold War and of course in support for Saddam Hussein....I love Tom Wright and his writing continue to impact millions world wide..but he chickens out when it comes to speaking out against the powers within London...

This was a well written observation of the mistakes that the Western world continues to make. But like Todd R. said, I am not sure if a more powerful UN is the answer. It seems that these multi-national assemblies are more there in theory than in reality.

I also appreciate that Dr. Wright risked writing outside the confines of academia. Some really silly postings can be found here by us commoners.

Ben, I understand the point you are making, but I cannot entirely follow you here. I am not at all certain that the measures put in place prior to the Iraq invasion were sufficient to prevent the potential danger to authentic US (not to mention world) security concerns. That we (the US) were (and are currently!) able to obtain cooperation from other nations has its importance for sure, but the US cannot rely upon this, nor necessarily seek/depend upon consensus, permission or international support for what it may need to do to in maintaining national security. Further, and perhaps more to the point, before the 'world needs a stronger UN', the world needs a vastly reformed UN. While the UN in potential can be an invaluable instrument in the world, it has all too often demonstrated itself to be an ineffectual and largely corrupt institution, as, among other things, the 'oil for food' scandal has shown. We also know that nations such as France and Russia were 'in bed' with the Hussein regime (not to mention Syria!!). Again, while attempting to gain international support and cooperation is appropriate, the US cannot, under any circumstances, depend upon such in matters of national security. I also believe 'security' is more than 'fire power', but, of course, it unfortunately (!) cannot preclude such. This is a complex matter.

To Chris,

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of the options to be faced in Iraq. In the light of the dreadful events of 9/11 etc the response of the Bush administration is understandable.

You say, "Does he ignore the apparent threat posed by Iraq, a state sponsor of terror, which nearly every informed voice believed still possessed WMD (and of which the previous administration warned)? Does the US, along with the UN, simply waive their fist to every world threat without ever having any intention of following through with stated consequences for their actions in violation of said mandates? Especially in a post-911 world, is that a wise policy to follow for any nation responsible for the security of its citizens?... What the US is doing in Iraq, whether we ultimately agree or disagree with it, can be seen first and foremost a matter of US nation security that is the responsibility of the US and not the UN."

To your points: We (the community of nations) were far from ignoring the threat of Iraq - the UN was on the ground and Iraq was being monitored from the no fly zone by the US and UK. That kind of "scrutiny" was in place and in order in light of the history of Saddam. So there is realistic follow-up (if only this had been coupled with realism about what war/violence can do to rectify wrong). On the last point, it is becoming clear - being rammed home by events since the invasion - no nation can be secure simply on its own. Taking less account of the international community as in this action, it is now clear and should have been before, has led to less security. And exploding the consricted perspective drawn by our fears, security is much more than a matter of fire power. All this points to the urgency of what Wright proposed here even if there are some valid criticisms and refinements to be made.

Actually, yes, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror (the facts pertaining to this are available for you to consider). But the point of mentioning the terror attacks upon the US was not to say that Iraq was directly responsible for these, but to only demonstrate the heightened threat of terror given these occurrences. To say that the Bush administration 'cherry picked the intelligence' is for me beyond the realm of reasonable debate. And Hussein was NOT cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors--again, the burden of proof was on him to demonstrate that he destroyed all of the WMD that we know he had and used prior (and I'm still not convinced that these were not taken out of Iraq during the several month build up to the war). However, to say that Iraq did not pose a sufficient 'threat' to warrant invasion (and thus the many lives--American, coalition partners and Iraqi--lost) is a point that is worthy of discussion, as is any criticism with respect to the way we went about confronting Iraq (i.e. should we ever put are military in the role of 'nation building'?; can the US successfully help facilitate democracy here?; are we doing more to inflame terror by our current attempts?; should we have not spent the time we did seeking UN approval in the first place and utilized, rather, immediate strategic strikes?, etc.), as is the apparent hypocrisy in the way the current administration has handled all of the various matters pertaining to national security (i.e. securing the borders, the even greater threat of Iran, etc.). My main concern was to argue against an overly simplistic view of the current action being taken--I might have responded quite differently if the article was attempting to whole heartedly affirm everything the US is currently doing in Iraq. It is also important to have a certain historical perspective and recognize, for instance, the numerous mistakes that occurred during the second world war (but, again, I'm not suggesting that we should then simply overlook mistakes made). Further, I take exception to the sort of conspiracy theories offered up to explain the US action without provided specific evidence to support such; again, this is unethical. Also, now that we are there, it would seem to me to be a mistake to simply pull out. I fear that the consequences of doing that would be quite severe, causing even greater harm in every respect.

As with all decisions, there are always risks; we do not have the luxury of knowing in advance the results of our choices. What is the cost of going to war? What is the cost of NOT going to war? Which, in the end, will protect more innocent lives?

The problem of evil, which you allude to, is a serious matter and certainly a cause for doubt in Christian faith, or any form of theism--but a discussion about this will require another post at a later time. But, if you are interested in exploring the Christian faith further, you might want to read some of N. T. Wright's articles, which you can find at www.ntwrightpage.com

Well, if Christianity is true, this should trivial to fix. For Jesus said that whatever is asked for by two or three believers in his name will be given. So, get two or three Christians together to pray for this to go away, problem solved.

Ironically, this article by Mr. Wright shows that it is up to man, and not God, to solve our own problems. If God existed, there wouldn't be these problems.

Chris,

It is well known that most intelligence reports did not show Iraq to be a threat, and the Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence it wanted. And kicked out or discredited people that disagreed. Iraq was NOT a sponsor of terrorism, and there is no link to Iraq to things like the attack on the Cole. Hussein was an "infidel" to Osama, and Hussein wanted nothing to do with Al Queda.

We kicked out the weapons inspectors, not Iraq. The UN was saying it was finding nothing of consequence, so we yanked them out and started bombing.

Bush lied on television about the aluminum tubes despite having been told that was a non-issue. And in the process of the war based on lies, upwards of a half million Iraqi civilians have died.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the writings of Bishop Wright are of enormous value to the church and to the field of NT scholarship. I whole heartedly agree with the theology that informs Wright’s comments here. However, I cannot fully agree with Wright’s assessment on Iraq. Like Wright, I do believe that all violence is contrary to God’s creational intent, but there is in the present age an unfortunate need for a judicial use of violence by appointed authorities to protect the innocent. Perhaps it may be helpful to review the events leading to the Iraq conflict. The cease-fire agreement after the first gulf war was consistently violated by Saddam Hussein—a total of 17 UN mandates. Every major intelligence agency in the world believed Hussein still possessed WMD, and, in any case, the burden of proof fell upon Hussein to demonstrate that he did not currently possess them, not upon the US or Great Brittan to demonstrate that he did--and we do know that he both possessed and utilized them previously. Further, in point of fact, Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. The US had suffered the initial terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the attack upon the Cole and, of course, 911. So what does Bush do? Does he ignore the apparent threat posed by Iraq, a state sponsor of terror, which nearly every informed voice believed still possessed WMD (and of which the previous administration warned)? Does the US, along with the UN, simply waive their fist to every world threat without ever having any intention of following through with stated consequences for their actions in violation of said mandates? Especially in a post-911 world, is that a wise policy to follow for any nation responsible for the security of its citizens? While we cannot be sure of all of the intentions that lay behind the Iraq invasion, it is simply unethical to make the sort of accusations that Wright does without offering actual evidence to support such. What the US is doing in Iraq, whether we ultimately agree or disagree with it, can be seen first and foremost a matter of US nation security that is the responsibility of the US and not the UN. A positive corollary to this is that an evil despot has been removed. An enormously negative corollary to this is that many innocent people have died (as many also did throughout the reign of Saddam), as was certainly the case--and on a much grander scale--in both world wars. To claim that the US is in this instance functioning as an imperial power like Rome, attempting through force to spread ‘peace and justice’ throughout the world, makes for interesting books on Politics and the NT, but is an over-simplification of the current state of affairs.

Good comments all, even the nasty ones. I generally agree with the Christian comments by Dr. Wright and some of the posters. However, the underlying premise is that a strong world government (i.e., the U.N.) is needed and would be good to police everyone. That is not biblical, but sociological. It may or may not be the best method to keep societal evils in check --but don't give it religious garb.

Bishop Wright,

Thank you for always holding before us the great vision of God's new creation and all its implications, present and future. And thank you for your efforts to practice what you preach.

Your work has given me so much hope and joy and guidance these past seven years and I am grateful.

Praying for you.

In response to: “World Needs A Strong United Nations”

"Doing justice, in whatever form, is always about anticipating in the present God’s eventual design to put the whole world to rights, to gather up all things in heaven and on earth into Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.10)."

For several months now, I have been very glad to have read and heard much from Bishop Wright, including "Simply Christian." As stated in his above statement, I agree that the Christian God (YHWH) has already made the world perfect and is going to clean up the world from its evils in days to come.

But, Wright doesn't stop with YHWH doing all the work. Jesus came "to give us life and life more abundantly." What does this mean? It means that He has given us the means by which we can live in Him and work by the power of His Spirit to live in His kingdom now. As Christians, we are called to pray the Lord's (which is really the Disciple's) prayer which asks the Father to let His kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven (Matt. 6).

Christians have already received citizenship into YHWH's Kingdom. Why do we want to live someplace else?

The call of the Church (of all denominations) is called to live out the Kingdom. And one of the ways to do this is to submit to those over us in authority as Paul states in his letter to the Romans. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13.1).

Thus, if it is a command for us to abide in His kingdom on earth while submitting to the authorities placed over us, how can the world truly come to peace in Jesus Christ? The answer lies in us praying for those in authority. That is why so many of the faithful pray prior to each election.

If the United Nations, as Bishop Wright suggested, is the body of authorities needed to run this world, why not bathe each member in prayer daily so as to see YHWH working through each one according to His purposes? Then, and only then, we will be able to see in the present world the Kingdom of God being established.

Thanks, Samuel. Good points, Ben.

Ben, I agree with you completely about the calling of each of us to SPEAK God's truth to the powers that be. I have been involved both in teaching and in advocacy as they relate to what our nation should and should not do. I've even been on three "lobbying missions" to Washington DC, where our group had audience with several important government and World Bank officials. I have a ton of published letters to editors in my files.

But now, at 64, I am feeling that it might be better for the follower of Christ to LIVE God's truth before the powers that be. That is how God's truth dismantled the Roman Empire. People who heard the gospel of Christ from Paul and others were empowered by the Holy Spirit to live -- and die -- in such a way, that those who saw the emptiness of their sensual and materialistic lives were compelled to ask what it was that made Christians live and die like they did.

The evangelical church today has often done so poorly in demonstating what it means to follow Christ that our words sound empty.

I love Tom Wright's theological perspectives, but I also feel that his powerful influence in the evangelical community could be jeopardized by his political opinions.

I'm a graduate of Bob Jones University, where we were taught not only the truth of Scripture, but were also virtually compelled to agree with how the university leaders applied them to politics and to the nitty-gritty of our daily lives. Because their views were typically of the old segregationist South, some of their applications of truth were a far cry from what I believe Jesus would have been comfortable with.

I'd like to see Tom Wright succeed more and more in making a positive impact on the church through his teaching, but then let those of us thus taught make our own opinions about how biblical truth ought laid before the public -- by both action and example.

I think he will remain far more effective in his very special role if he is not drawn into these fruitless debates about the supposed motives and supposed facts that we simply cannot know with certainty.

Praying in this hurting place with you Dr. Wright. Thanks, Daniel.

First, I highly respect Dr. Wright.

And, although I must admit to being torn over the merits over which was the "lesser of two evils," and I do not think the prevaling thought that 9/11 was Saddam's fault (either in part or other), but there was a sense that he was a danger that unchecked could lead to another 9/11 type event. The aftermath of the invasion, war, etc. has proven that all assumptions, hopes, objectives, etc. are subject to the complexities of the world we live in.

But I DO (and I cannot state this FIRMLY enough) completely agree with his belief (evidenced in his actions) that as followers of Jesus that we have been called to speak words of judgement to power. And if he is convicted that the United States and/or President Bush is acting in an unjust manner, it is imperative (as a follower of Jesus) that he point that out.

I think there is a challenge in studying scripture and discerning our situation, and so our response. But we are called not only to do the first but the latter as well. That is the blindspot in Dean Ohlman's note. We can, like Rudolf Bultmann in his time, go on blithely reading and disecting scripture without any relation to the powers of evil doing their deadly work all around us.

Wright's position may need refinement, something needed to be done about Iraq under Sadam (with UN already there did that need to be invasion from the US and Britain no matter what?), but we are called to bear witness to the gospel of truth by our own alignment with that gospel and speaking it to our world.

To "BGone":

Although you probably won't read this, your sadly simplistic and quite arrogant Biblical critiques, particularly those concerning "end-times" and such, are quite satisfactorily dealt with in Dr. Wright's own books. You might like to reference "The New Testament and the People of God" for an explanation of the proper way to read Jewish Apocalyptic literature, ie. Revelations and such which will help correct your mistaken view of 1st century expectations on the subject.

You also might like to check out the rest of his series on Christian Origins and the Question of God. It will quite solidly put to rest of your "historical" and "intellectual" objections to Christianity.

Dr Wright: God bless.

Derek

Dean Ohlman, I'm with you.

I appreciate Dr. Wright's sound theological understanding of the Christian responsibility and calling within the nations. I have learned much from him. His emphasis on our working in the direction of putting things right in the world is commendable. He encourages Christians to be involved in the affairs of state as much as we are legally permitted to do so. In so doing, we have to make judgments about what is wrong and right in our nation's affairs.

And there's the rub. As a fellow follower of Christ, my judgments about Bush, Blair, and the United Nations are somewhat different from his. Hence I might believe our nation -- and his nation -- SHOULD do and not do different things. When a wonderful theologian like Dr. Wright uses his position of leadership in the church and weighs in with his opinion in a public forum like this, I feel it weakens his effectiveness as a spiritual leader. His opinion, like mine, is not Scripture and is based as much on our lack of knowledge as it is on our supposed knowledge of the facts. For instance, I do not accept as fact the opinion that Saddam's suspected WMD never existed and were only used as deliberate deception to get us into war. Neither he nor I know the truth about that. So to base an opinion on the lack of knowledge and on personal suspicion about both Bush's and Blair's motives seems to me to be unwise.

I would far rather have Dr. Wright teach me, as a voting citizen of the United States, the truths of Scripture than attempt to convince me how I must apply them to current affairs of state.

Many of the comments posted here prove that this sort of public forum is a waste of his valuable time. Matthew 7:6 is the Scripture passage that fits this kind of forum.

The comments here are almost as confused and confusing as the Iraq war. Some people are intent on greasing the wheels of chaos - here or there. The intent in Wright's piece seems clear, find a moral basis on which to address this situation so we can avoid some of the destructive chaos we are now dealing with. The UN has done enough to show it can be a credible instrument, the way forward is to strengthen it as a power balance to give the smaller countries in the world a voice (what other avenue is there?). Give the UN the authority to act robustly in "police" actions so war is less inevitable in case of conflicts. This is a proposal that is worthy of consideration.

Uh aside from the many moonbats that are posting here, Mr. Wright, can you actually offer any evidence that the West put Saddam into power or is that just one of those little leftist lies that you throw out there......

Seriously, Saddam was his own man pure and simple....yes, we did support him against the radical islamic govt of Iran and rightly so...Saddam was the lessor of 2 evils ....I will always take a secular nationalist arab against a Islamic radical terrorist supporting govt such as was and is Irans!!

I guess by your logic, we shouldn't have supported Stalin against Hitler either??

I do not expect much from leftist moonbats....I do hold you Mr. Wright as a fellow Christian to a higher standard of truth telling!!

Dr Wright,

A good article--why am I not surprised? And I agree with your contention that there never was much doubt that the Iraq invasion "served, obviously and visibly, the financial, economic and business interests of some powerful voices in and around the White House." As such, it was not--and could never be--just, no matter how we define that word.

But I would disagree somewhat on your view of the United Nations. I would say for all the hatred & ridicule poured on that hapless bunch of diplomats they performed their function well during the runup to the Iraq invasion--ie they reflected the attitudes of their populace. Democratic countries in LatAm actually voted AGAINST their overbearing neighbour to the north. So did non-democratic countries in Africa. In fact, the countries that showed a "democratic deficit" were countries like Italy and Spain, where public opinion was overwhelming anti-invasion. I am not including Britain, because opinion here was far more mixed. The British wanted to wait and see if any weapons were forthcoming, they were, in short, pragmatic.

The US must now withdraw for the simple reason that its actions have already prevented it from fulfilling ANY role in the region, American pretensions to the contrary. The coming bombing raid on Iran--and we would be very foolish not to recognize that it will happen--will only solidify the region's view of that country as "bogeyman". And despite what the US thinks, it is NOT their sphere of influence.

Ultimately, the inhabitants of a region are responsible for it. Unhappily the elite in the US thinks of THEMSELVES as the ME's dominant players. When will they learn?

I'm tired of hearing how important it is to gain UN approval and support for things. The UN is utterly undemocratic. In the General Assembly, huge countries have the same vote as Micronesia. And constitutional democracies -- countries in which the government has at least some legitimate sanction from popular elections -- have no greater voice that dictatorships that don't reflect the public will.

The Security Council, for its part, is just a collection of powerful countries establishing cover for doing what they want. A single country can veto a resolution that has the support of the rest of the Security Council. By definition, then, the institution can't do anything that goes against the interests of the US government -- or any other government that sits on the council.

Where is the legitimacy of the UN?

What's the name of the UN General replacing Anan? Yeah, he is a silent one, to ensure the UN does nothing especially not to interfere with US and UK imperialism....

David:
Please stop confusing faith by introducing facts. Revelation must be interpreted otherwise it's just a bad acid trip.

All the stars fell from the shy but the sun did not fall from the sky. Explain please. The sun is not a star. Stars are itty bitty things like fireflys. They're not very smart. One took a key and unlocked the door to the shaft to the abyss.

Now about the shaft that passes through the earth all the way down to the abyss. Explain please. The earth is flat and stationary in space.

Haven't you heard? The world is coming to an end any minute now.

Requirements for world to end.
1) Jews return to their homeland.
2) Wars, Afganstan, Iraq
3) Rumors of wars, Iran, Syria
4) 3rd great Anti Christ, you

Jesus will be along any minute. When you hear the raptures...

Note: Muslims are trying to save the world from ending by getting the Jews out of Palestine. Christians insist the world end and are helping the Jews stay in Palestine. "You" can stop the world from ending by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and making a giant donation to God at the big harvest of souls festival.

And you thought you were powerless.

"Though God will eventually do this completely and fully, he does not want the creation to lapse into complete chaos in the present age, and so calls into being structures of human government and authority to bring about a measure of order, some kind of anticipation of his eventual putting-to-rights of all things."

Wasn't "Jesus" supposed to do this, about 2000 years ago? Methinks, poor old Paul and his like, were so distraught that the "end" did not come, he launched the first great "apology", and this quote from your article re-negotiates it. And so the four cornered gospels, read, "short, novella fictions designed for spiritual initiations" (check "Nag Hammadi") were edited for the temple fall, yet not the end, as ol John lamented on in Revelations.

Oh, but the sky is as clear as it ever was....

Totally agree with the good Bishop's conclusions, despite completely irrational premises. What matters is that we all get to the injustice (in fact, crimes committed by the U.K. and U.S. governments in this war), not that we approach the issue from different perspectives.

Thank you.

BISHOP WRIGHT tells us: YES, I KNOW – this, quickly, to those who at once pour scorn on the very mention of it – the United Nations has been a laughing-stock and, despite many successes (some unsung), has had many failures and muddles. But part of this is because America has had a strong vested interest in keeping the UN weak (just like America doesn’t like the idea of an international court of justice, or the Kyoto protocol, etc.).

ANN O. comments: It seems to me that Pres. Bush's incredible confidence that he knows all and that he is free a Pres. of the U.S. to do as he chooses is essentially grounded in the too common American over-emphasis on personal freedom. I mean the attitude that "I know best" and I can do what I please. Spoiled brats all.

Where there is no recognition of our own limitations and downright deficiencies and there is no consequent recognition of our fundamental need to rely on others, there is no possibility of a nation governed by reasonable people.

Absolute freedom also corrupts.

Ann O.

Bishop, speaking of morality, I wonder if the Anglican church celebrates mass, the reenactment of the crucifixion? And if it does, are gold chaliecs used to hold the body and blood of Jesus. One last question. Does that gold have a history Jesus, as written in the Bible, would approve of using?

I think of the gold taken from Spanish galleons coming from the "new" world by Sir Francis Drake. The Anglican church is in favor of returning stolen property to it's rightful owners?

It's my opinion the person on who's life the fictional person Jesus was based, Amenophis IV would have approved, about 70% at least. She did not approve of the ban, the use of excessive force to quell uprisings or force at all to fend off invaders of Canan regions. They impailed her for saying she was the son of God. It took 3 hours, the usual time for her to die.

"Granted, Saddam was a monster (though one who had been created and trained by Western powers when it suited us); but we haven’t invaded Zimbabwe, have we? The fact was that an invasion of Iraq served, obviously and visibly, the financial, economic and business interests of some powerful voices in and around the White House."

---------------------------

Well said.

However, I'm not sure I agree that a stronger UN is the answer. What UN you are talking? There is the UN Assembly, and then there is the Security Council. I'm not an expert on the UN but it seems to me these two bodies function in isolation with the latter having a great deal more power than I am comfortable with. But I agree, something must be done about the US and other super power's ability to manipulate this body for their own selfish ends. Perhaps "beefing up" the Assembly's powers is good start.

Geez bishop: AUTHORITY?
Now there's a word you seem to take for granted. Authority is like fire, once started it takes over. But how does one start fire, I mean authority?

"Because one of the God-given tasks of authorities.."

I see you are relying on God to establish authority. I got some really good news. God is out for that purpose. We have a thing called a constitution that trumps God and establishes all the authority allowable.

There's better news yet. The Bible is a proved hoax. So eaven if I give you God to establish authority, get it started like fire so it can take over, you will need to find yourself another God. Your old God broke so you need a new God, or. We can turn to the wisdom of the people. They justified the Iraq war. I think they have changed their minds just like your defunked God changed his mind about his creation, the people of Jericho.

The news is really bad. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul makes a compelling case that your old God, the one that's broke is really Devil. The supernatural being that lives in the fire of hell, the one that Moses made the deal with is Devil according to your faith? If that's not your God then forget it. Try Devil for the justification of the Iraq war and things clear right up.

You ask "Why can our friendly allies in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia not send in their forces instead, and provide a Middle Eastern solution to a Middle Eastern problem?"

I will hazard three guesses.

(1) They are not that friendly. Really they are not.
(2) The leaders of those countries do not see it in their own personal interests since why should they take sides?
(3) They perceive that it is useless given the size of Iraq and the nature of the place and they don't see any reason to weaken their military, and anyway, it is a uniquely Anglo-American tendency to want to police the world.