Table of Contents | George W. Bush, the great "decider," described the report of the Iraq Study Group with its 79 recommendations as "very constructive" and "worthy of study." But, in light of the rumblings from the media and the re-definitions of his administration, he meant that they are "out-of-date" and "more in tune with the Middle East of 1991...." His press secretary, Tony Snow, claims that military leaders in Iraq agree that "troop increase, done right, could reduce the violence." When I hear comments on that order I wonder why no one in the administration of George W. Bush ever communicates with those who were in the administration of George H. W. Bush. The senior Bush knows better and wrote about his perspective in a book entitled A World Transformed. You may wish to read what he wrote for yourself. You can order it from this Amazon.com advertisement. So what is "the grand strategy" of President Bush? A surge! Wow! That's brilliant! It's the same old stuff described in Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. But, like the Iraq Study Group report, such a plan and policy ignores the root cause of violence in Iraq, namely, the occupation of Iraq by foreign, infidel troops. According to an essay in The Washington Spectator by Dilip Hiro, a London-based journalist and author, "A recent poll in Iraq showed 78 percent of Iraqis felt that the presence of foreign (non-Muslim) troops was provoking more conflict than preventing it and 58 percent thought that if the U.S. left within six months it would decrease violence." If a "surge up to 21,500 troops" isn't the answer, what is the solution? Hiro has a proposal that offers promise. He argues, "More than U.S. troops and military instructors, Iraq needs peacekeepers, mandated to stabilize that hapless country, to provide time and space to Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders to hammer out compromises within the framework of Iraq as a single state. Washington should turn to the U.N. Security Council to provide a stabilization force and the Security Council should then approach the Arab League and the Islamic Conference Organization for help. With a U.N. mandate, Arab troops would become internationally sanctioned peacekeepers in Iraq." He concludes, "In short, the only way to cure the malady that is leading to the death of Iraq as a unified state is to diagnose it properly -- to trace its origin to the poison injected into Iraq's body politic by its continued occupation by tens of thousands of foreign, non-Muslim troops -- and to cure this by draining the venom and replacing it with a healing medicine of lightly armed Muslim peacekeepers." Mr. President, have you considered this answer? "Surge" is embedded in "insurgency." Surging will make things worse, not better! Geiko Muller-Fahrenholz, in an article entitled What If? that the Christian Century, January 9, 2007, adapted from his book America's Battle for God: A European Christian Looks at Civil Religion, expresses his view that 9/11 was an opportunity that the U.S. missed by preparing for war against the al-Qaeda network. "An entirely different approach might have been taken." The article refers to a book called America Right or Wrong that raises the question of "why a country which after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had the chance to create a concert of all the world's major states -- including Muslim ones -- against Islamist revolutionary terrorism chose instead to pursue policies which divided the West, further alienated the Muslim world and exposes America itself to greatly increased dangers." The article concludes by claiming, as I do, "The alienation of predominantly Muslim countries has reached new intensity." The Bush administration must listen to these voices. I pause to "walk in the moccasins" of the Iraqi people and to try to think their thoughts with them. What would I do if Iraq or some other country had chosen a "pre-emptive" war against my country? In violation of international treaties. As far as I know "pre-emptive war" is not accepted as an essential element in the policies of any nations. What would I do if that nation claimed that my country had weapons of mass destruction pointed in their direction? What would I do if that country was responsible for the deaths of 665,000 civilan non-combatants? What would I do if I learned that the occupying soldiers were abusing fellow citizens in their prisons? What would I do if the armed forces of that country were patrolling the streets of New York City, Washington, D.C. and Chicago? My hunch is that there would be every attempt to expel them peacefully and diplomatically. If that didn't achieve such a goal then would I turn to violence? Probably. N. T. Wright, in his book For All God's Worth: True Worship and the Calling of the Church, offers these challenging words. "Blessed are the peacemakers; how will we ever learn that, in a world where war in one country means business for another, unless the church stands in the middle and says that there is a different way of being human, a different way of ordering our common life? How will that message ever get across if the church is so anxious not to court bad publicity that it refuses ever to say or do anything that might get it into trouble either with the authorities for being so subversive or with the revolutionaries for insisting that the true revolution begins at the foot of the cross?" I wish I could say that I knew of a church somewhere in the world that had really grasped this strange agenda and was struggling to live by it...I regret that I don't often come across them." I am full of hope because there is some evidence, however scant, that the church is willing to stand against the tide of blind patriotism in favor of a loyalty to gospel that includes loving country faithfully! How can we get the message to the President? Since writing the opinion expressed above, the president has rejected any significant changes in his policies toward Iraq; he did admit that mistakes had been made. But, George W. Bush gives no indication that he learned anything from the November 2006 election, from the Baker-Hamilton Commission report or from the vocal and sustained opposition expressed by Congresssional hearings. In face of mounting opposition from both houses of Congress, he has reiterated his position that he will "decide" and do what he thinks is in the best interest of this country! He is one arrogant and stubborn Texan! I wonder if unresolved grief and continuing recovery from alcoholism help to explain this facet of his personality? Yet, it is this "messianic complex" that alarms me the most! Politics parading in the guise of religious certainty is a characteristic that is blind to reality. The best hope I can see is he can't succeed himself! The bumper sticker 1/20/09 is hopeful. I am trying to be patient. Then I read such books as State of Denial by Bob Woodward and my patience gets pushed to its breaking point. His book describes the poliltical careeer of George W. Bush from the time he was seriously considering running for president through the first year of his second term. He ends with this observation. "With all Bush's upbeat talk and optimism, he had not told the American public the truth about what Iraq had become." And change isn't evident. As I plowed through this massive book my cup of hope was drained and I was just short of despair. For me, the root of that despair is described eloquently by Fareed Zakaria in his cover essay for Newsweek, June 11, 2007. "Having spooked ourselves into believing that we have no option but to act fast, alone, pre-emptively, we have managed in six years to destroy decades of international good will, alienate allies, embolden enemies and yet solve few of the major international problems we face." In the meantime, I can't forget that the Bush Administration has squandered more than 3,100 lives of U.S. troops and has scattered "morally toxic political and humanitarian catastrophes" across Iraq. As far as I can see, only withdrawal from Iraq of all U.S. troops will end this disastrous venture. Stephen F. Cohen, writing in The Nation for March 26, 2007, asserts that a "determined and complete withdrawal is now a moral imperative -- the only way to begin redeeming our nation for its role in the death and destruction in Iraq. The time for political evasions and ambiguities on the part of our leaders in both parties, especially would-be Presidents, is long past. Every month this war continues, more than 3,000 Iraqis and 100 Americans are likely to die, each new death further darkening the stain on America's honor and on the conscience of its true patriots." There is more. There is the blueprint designated Leaving Iraq Honorably: The McGovern-Polk Proposal, described by Gordon C. Bennett in the Baptist Peacemaker for Spring of 2007. It tells about a creative way of thinking "outside the box" that seeks another way other than the unilateralist and 'might-makes-right' foreign policy of the present administration. In essence, they argue for "phased US and British troop withdrawal...to begin now, and be completed by June 30, 2007....Anglo-American forces might be replaced with some 15,000 lightly armed soldiers drawn from Muslim countries, under the aegis of the United Nations. These troops would be more acceptable to the Iraqi people than the American...." I support these views as a principled citizen and concerned follower of Jesus. Just as Jesus was concerned for peace and even offered his benedictory words "blessed are the peacemakers" to his followers so I choose to follow and learn from him. |