www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Persecution of Assyrian Christians

LT, I rarely agree with your posts, but this is one time I am with you 100%! This whole thing was a set up from the word go. And God only knows how long it will take us to wriggle out way out of this mess. Can we all say "VIETNAM"?
Don

Administrator,
I greatly admire and respect your leadership on the board. However, I think you have no grounds to reject my tying Gulf I to Gulf II. The Bush administration people do it themselves. Most notably the work of Paul Wolfowitz, who produced a strategic policy overview during late Bush I, only to revive it as policy in Bush II after 9/11. Wolfowitz himself has openly acknowledged that the "new environment" post USSR and then later post 9/11 opened possibilities to pursue policies not politically tenable in the early 1990s. Don't flay me until you've read what the Bush people themselves have and are saying. I base my comments entirely on their self-stated analysis of their policies. If there's anything about television mentality to this it is buying into facile, media-hyped rhetoric about liberating people. The point stands that we have shown ourselves only eager to liberate those on top of oil or other strategic resoursces. Also, and I respectfully point this out in light of your own excellent record on this issue, the point also stands that the Holy Father vehemently criticized this war, rejected all sorts of specious "just war" arguments, and called on Christians not to endorse this war. He has been proved right and the Administration has been proved wrong, both in principle and in the particulars of planning and executing an end game that would really improve the lives of the Iraqi people. What I say I say with a heavy heart and as a Bush supporter and based upon what the Bush people themselves are saying in media venues a little more elevated than Fox Network sound bytes. I think that Christians in this country have got to be rock solid consistent when we talk about our issues, including the just and legitimate use of national military power in the cause of the common defense. We have not met those standards in Iraq. Saddam was terrible but that never seemed to matter until the politics of killing him became convenient. I repeat that we will have no credibility on this stance (liberator) until we apply our standards across the board, in season and out, to national advantage or not. Until we do that, then the rest of the world is wholly justified in charging us with cynicism and a political exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy.

1. If you read my posts from before Operation Iraqi Freedom you will see that the liberation of the Iraqi people from a murderous dictator was the main justification I presented supporting the morality of the war. Even now, if you read past the bias in the American media you can see some wonderful things happening in Iraq. Most Iraqis realize that a generation of hardships and decaying infrastructure will not be rebuilt overnight.

2. The current administration certainly has many faults but it most certainly did make the argument of the liberation of the Iraqi people as one of many arguments. It has been my expressed opinion that the WMD was a significant reason but should not have been emphasized as much as it was as a justification for OIF.

If there had been a valid weapons-inspection program and if Hussein was actually cooperative I might agree with L-T that it should not have been interrupted. The reality is that the weapons-inspection program was not very good (even Hans Blix has admitted as much, that the inspectors saw only what Hussein want them to see) and the program would have not determined in a year of inspections what it could not determine over the past 10+ years.

Ken,

While Gulf II certainly did wrap up the unfinished business of Gulf I I think that your accusations are both unfounded and unwise. Wolfowitz is correct that the fall of the USSR creates a new political environment (amazingly, Russia was almost an ally in cleaning up Afghanistan by offering the use of some of its bases). Instead of melting into the abyss of infectivity of the United Nations we should be maximizing our moral authority and power to do good for the world. That doesn�t mean military involvement everywhere. Sometimes, however, the example that is set here and there will do wonders.

With all due respect, the oil argument is pretty worthless. If there were countries who were not willing to sell us oil then your argument might make some sense. But that�s simply not the case. There has always been plenty of oil and if we had the sanctions lifted against Iraq and it came to full production the world price for crude would have dropped, allowing us to buy more for less. [Now if you were arguing that we should have ignored Hussein and first went after the problems in Saudi Arabia that would be another story.]

I have read what the Bush people are saying. I have also read what his opponents are saying. I think its absurd to believe that the media hyped any rhetoric about liberating the Iraqis. All they did was denounce OFI and predict hundreds of thousands of Americans dead in a multi-year conflict. I think what we need now is to put back the embedded reporters so that we can see what is actually going on in Iraq.

I highly respect the Holy Father but in reading his statements I notice that he also called on Hussein to cooperate. And, he did not speak infallibly. I�m always amazed that so many people give the evil ones a pass yet call the moral ones to judgment. [Yes, I�m still sore that in the 1970�s and 1980�s our own Byzantine bishops did not issue statements disagreeing with the NCCB statements that kowtowed to the Soviets promoting a false peace!]

I do agree that Christians in this country have got to be rock solid consistent when we talk about our issues, including the just and legitimate use of national military power in the cause of the common defense. And that in many case we are not consistent in applying our standards. In the case of Iraq, however, we certainly have met those standards in OFI and the action was and is just.

Admin

Whether one completely supports or opposes the military ocupation of Iraq, I think we must all soon face the reality that this entire operation has been a failure, and that the Iraqi people may very well not want American style democracy for their form of government.

The rather small crowds of Iraqis, that cheered Coalition Forces when the war ended, have vanished and now have been replaced by mobs that cheer when soldiers are killed or wounded. The question of whether it was worth it all, may only be answered when the lives lost and dollars spent reach a level that is unacceptable to the American public.

Personally, I don't have an answer as to what should have been done about Saddam Hussein. But I think we should hold those in our own government accountable, who apply the policy of arming the lesser of two villains i,e Bin Ladin vs the Russians, Hussein vs Iran.

Based on what criteria? Saddam's gone, probably ain't coming back. Since that was at least one of the objectives, it sounds like that much of it was a success.

I don't peruse many pundit sites, but if you'd read some e-mails written by our troops and posted on Andrew Sullivan's blog (www.andrewsullivan.com [andrewsullivan.com]), you'd see how much good is coming out of this. Of course, the Kennedys, Deans, and Gepharts of this country aren't about to point that out. (And I say that as a registered Democrat.)

Administrator
All due respect returned. I compliment you on your measured and charitable tone while debating so complex a topic. Let me address a couple of points.

The oil argument, as advanced by the Naderite left is probably worthless, but that is not the oil argument. The United States in part targeted Iraq because our leaders believed that a U.S. control and revitalization of Iraqi oil infrastructure could a) help pay the cost of ousting Hussein b) create a US friendly supplier, economically and technically tied to us and able to ease our dependency relationship on the Saudis and c) increase our political leverage in the region. It does not mean that anybody wished to take Iraqi oil hostage permanently nor that there is a refiner's conspiracy behind the oil argument. It means, again in the words of administration officials that the oil itself was a target and a motivator for our efforts to reshape the political landscape of the Gulf region. As it turns out that decision was both unwise and unsubstantiated; it also means that US decision making about dealing with offensive or immoral regimes is heavily colored by economic, not solely ethical/moral considerations. Perfectly plausible as raison d'etat, not too attractive in promoting a policy based on norms of freedom, justice, disinterested service in the world community, etc. in which rhetoric these actions have been garbed. In effect, a chance to rework Iraq's profile to our advantage in the world oil market was a backhanded move against the Saudis. I don't know that that has much to do with quality of life in Iraq.

Some media, pre-war did indeed promote disaster scenario's and deserve your censure for it. Not all media did, not most of what I read did (I don't use TV for news if I can at all help it). Plenty of media backed the Administration's arguments, and once combat ensued, even the TV coverage turned overwhelmingly favorable. Media has not served us well in this instance and did in fact accept the liberation line with little resistance.

Nobody in their right mind is advocating for Saddam Hussein. Everybody I have heard comment, and I would say you and I in particular, are in full agreement that his reign was little more than a disgusting Caligula-esque rape of the Iraqi people. If anybody ever did qualify for getting overthrown, Hussein would top that list. The question remains, however, in doing more good than harm and in having a reasonable chance of leaving the region better off in the long run than if other alternatives had been taken. We are far from such an assurance and have already wreaked much harm. The cost of Saddam's ouster has been disruption of the international order, damaging alliances, cutting loose rampant crime and disorder in Iraq, spiraling expense to us, loss of control of the domestic agenda by the President at a time when we critically need to reclaim the budget process, the judiciary. The Iraqi's have been in places months without electricty, safe water, medicine. We discovered no major Iraqi military unit ready to defect, no police force worthy or safe to use, oil and other infrastructure much more deteriorated than thought, no WMD, no 9/11 involvement, no credible successor (regime or person) to Hussein. None of these promised finds are even on the horizon. There are very good arguments, among Pentagon sources, that Defense Dept. planning of this affair has been inept, if not incompetent. We have good reason, without listening to leftists or those soft on dictatorships, for having serious reservations and doubts.

Moreover, if the United Nations is such an ineffective body, then why was the President of the United States there today, hat in hand, trying to spin a deal for international involvement in a situation he now acknowledges is not within our sole power to solve. I remember this same man there about a year ago telling that same body that we did not need them, that we would prove our dubious case against Iraq/Hussein, that we could carry on without international agreement.

The Holy Father did call on Hussein to cooperate but did not say that his failure to do so would justify the US invasion.

Let us then return to the article that began this thread. What of the Iraqi Christians and those others for whom an anarchistic Iraq is a virtual death sentence. People, who otherwise would have lived, are going to die specifically because of conditions created by our invasion. How do we measure the good or bad of that? For whom do we speak as Christians if not other Christians and others too weak to speak for themselves? Since we (most of us) are Americans, are we boxed in to agreeing that whatever our government decrees is best, even if that policy is manifestly raison d'etat and only secondarily or dubiously humanitarian? If the Pope did not speak infallibly, are we to say Bush did? Despite the unhappy wimpiness of the Church in former times (like the mushiness on the USSR, a criticism of yours with which I agree) are we to assume the secular authorities are de facto more competent to rule on issues of morals and Christian ethics?

Returning all due respect, you do not raise my confidence that you are familiar with the policy literature on this issue. You say you are reading what the Administration is saying. Are you reading PNAC, are you reading the transcripts of interviews prepared for the Frontline report on Iraq, the Wolfowitz's strategic situation report shelved during Bush I in 1992, the policy thinking of Richard Pearle (including by the way his seminar on how to invest in the US dominated Iraq, given before combat), Donald Rumsfeld's vision of a re-made Middle East and so on. Because if you are then you will know and have to honestly acknowledge that discussion of Hussein's personal crimes was rather low on the list of reasons for making war on him, that these men favor an American empire (which to their credit they are not ashamed to call such), that they hope to expand this war especially in Iran, that they assume the alliance with Israel is worth overlooking human rights abuses there (including the abuses against Arab (EASTERN RITE!) Christians, that they have no interest in taking on issues of religion if they can help it. It makes no difference to them what happens to Christians in the theatres of war, so long as US interests are advanced. That's fine for politicians; it is unacceptable for Christians to think that way. Kingdoms pass. The US will pass. The Kingdom of God endures.

Lastly, by what measure is the action just? The Pope and the Curia said it manifestly did not qualify as a just war. Who then says it did? Once having seized that authority, why then do we complain about McBriens, Weaklands, Reuthers, etc.?

Huh? With all due respect this makes no sense. Every news report that they have dug up another thousand bodies murdered by Hussein sings the success of this effort. The only way it could be considered a failure is if Hussein or someone as bad is returned to power and the people of Iraq enslaved again. Even the New York Times (which opposed OIF and continues to criticize every aspect of the rebuilding effort) reported today that a poll taken throughout Iraq last week showed that 2/3 of Iraqis say the American intervention to remove Hussein was a positive thing for their country and look forward to the rebuilding of Iraq and that over half of Iraqis think that the Coalition is doing a good job rebuilding Iraq. Those aren�t numbers to sneeze at. One simply cannot expect that the rebuilding of a society that was torn apart over a generation will occur in six months. It took almost 20 years after WWII before Germany and Japan received their full sovereignty. Bosnia is still on that path. Yet we expect it occur overnight in a country that has been devastated during the last 25 years by a murderous dictator?

Regarding the lesser of two villains, one must choose one�s allies where one can when necessity forces one to. In WWII we chose a horrible country (the Soviet Union) that was murdering its own citizens to fight an even more horrible country (Nazi Germany). The choice was worth it and Europeans are free because we made that choice.

Administrator,
In your honorable zeal to advance your argument, perhaps you have overstepped yourself. Do you really intend to say, on a list chock full of European Slavs and descendents of such, that the US alliance with Russia ensured the freedom of the European peoples? May I recall to you the Soviet East European bloc? The persecution of the Church throughout the region? The gulags, purges, military occupations? If these people were freed by the Russian alliance and its outcomes in 1945, why did they die in droves trying to get away from territories "liberated" by the Red Army? Our choice of allies in WWII was a calculated, even arguably necessary, move in our national interest. It was not particularly moral for all that. Pope Pius XII affirmed that as of 1939/40 the Nazis were probably the greater threat to the world and the Church, but he reminded Christians that they could not have anything to do with the cooperation with or extension of Communist regimes outside of pre-existing 1939 lines. The US facilitated and agreed to just such an extension, only creating the Truman doctrine to stop post-1947 expansion. Meanwhile, arguably 100 million people withered under Soviet domination. It was not a pretty outcome even though it worked out for the US.

NB the Russians are not today particularly happy to have the US in Afghanistan, they are not giving us bases. US forces are using bases in the so-called "Stan" republics near Afghanistan. These republics were once under Soviet domination but are not ethnically Russian and are today independent. If there is an actual Russian based utilized by US forces, I will happily stand corrected, but to my knowledge that is not the case.

On the point of giving the occupation time. It is true that many years were required to bring Germany and Japan to fruition. However, in neither case did it require many years to make them functional, non-criminal societies. Moreover, both of them cooperated with their occupation and hardly any US servicemen were killed for political motivations. Neither country produced a post-occupation guerilla war, which is precisely how our military leaders characterize the current conflict in Iraq.
Lastly, when the Administration led the US into this war, they did not cite a years' long reconstruction program as part of the package. They argued that Iraq could be "brought on line" in a matter of months, that the US phase of the occupation might be concluded in less than two years (some were saying 12 months) and that a ready to go Iraqi successor regime lay dormant only awaiting US support to activate. None of these claims has proved accurate. To say now that we should settle in for a decades long reconstruction of Iraq is to change the rule mid game. It is also to postulate an action of which we are simply not capable: not in terms of cash, political support, manpower, other defense obligations, or in the longevity of this current Administration.

Ken,

Thanks for the post. I think we�d both enjoy a long discussion over a few cold beers.

You make some very interesting points but I respectfully disagree with many of them. I am glad that you clarified your points on the oil. In a perfect world each country would make decisions solely on what is ethical and moral. But this isn�t a perfect world. Let�s admit it. It is far easier for nations to do what is moral when there is a clearly seen benefit to it. There is certainly nothing immoral about a) using the oil dollars in Iraq to rebuild that nation; b) in creating another democratic society based on our world outlook (I happen to believe that despite all the problems our society faces our society and Western values are morally superior to those of Communist China or the Taliban); and c) increase our leverage to do more societal good in the Mid East in the future. What would be unwise and immoral would be if the only reason the administration engaged OIF was because of the oil and if they really didn�t care about the Iraqi people. There is no evidence to suggest that the administration acted only for oil interests and really doesn�t care about the Iraqi people. As it turns out, the lives of the Iraqi people are immeasurably better off and they have the potential of a positive future to look forward to. I think that even the fact that there are no Iraqis dying by the thousands in Hussein�s torture chambers speaks to the wisdom of the decision.

I also disagree about the media. I read numerous newspapers and keep abreast of the various news channels and networks and most did promote an anti-OIF agenda as well as promote a disaster scenario. Once the combat ensued there was plenty of American media that remained anti-war and kept up such predictions until the statue of Hussein was pulled over. Then they moved immediately into attack mode against the effort to win the peace and have stayed there. I do agree that in general the media does not serve us very well in these situations as everything gets reduced to sound bites.

Your question about the long run is a fair one. If the Iraqi people are better off in the long run then the effort will have been worth it. In short term things certainly are better for the majority of the Iraqi people. A shortage of electricity, water and medical supplies for a limited time is far outweighed by the long term potential of freedom.

I�m not overly concerned about disruption of the international order and the damaging of alliances. Some things are more important and countries that are interested only in talk and never in action are not real allies.

Has there been a lack of visible major expectations that have not materialized? Definitely. There were an incredible number of defections during the war that decimated the Iraqi forces but the infrastructure certainly has been more deteriorated than we expected. No direct 9/11 involvement has been found but dollars have been traced. Were any of these legitimate stumbling blocks to helping the Iraqi people gain their freedom? I don�t thinks so.

Did we watch the same speech by the president at the United Nations today? I saw no president approaching hat in had. I saw a president speaking with pride and a sense of accomplishment, a president who invited the rest of the world to join us is doing what is right for the world. I saw someone willing to continue to do what is right even if the rest of the world does not.

What of Iraqi Christians? Can we really suggest that mere survival under a murderous dictator is better then a chance at working with their neighbors to forge a democratic society? We certainly should speak for Christians who are too weak to speak for themselves but we also have a responsibility to speak for all peoples who are too weak to speak for themselves. And who has stated that Bush has spoken infallibly? I certainly have not. I have simply stated that there is a time when forcible action is justified and that I believe that this is one of those times. There are a lot of things I can criticize Bush for but I believe that his actions in this issue have been correct and motivated by good intentions.

I�m assuming that by PNAC you are referring to the Project for the New American Century (William Kristol, et al)? I have read some of their stuff and need to read more. I am most intrigued that they have been labeled as �neoconservative�, which is pretty much a derogatory term for Jews who have embraced certain elements of conservative thoughts. I appreciate some of their points but I do disagree with many others (at least in what I�ve read). I am not a big supporter of the politics of Israel and that would be a very interesting discussion.

By what measure is the action just? How about by the fact that we are saving thousands of Iraqis (including children) from Hussein�s torture chambers? Would another dozen years of ignoring the situation have been preferable? I agree with the Holy Father that war is a horrible thing, something best avoided. Yet I also believe that there are times when one must wage war to preserve peace. Sometimes you have to after the people in the bad neighborhoods before they begin taking over your own neighborhood.

Admin

You are correct. Change that to read �western European people�. And yes, the bases we have been given access are in either Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan. I am guilty of continuing to think of Russia as still controlling these now independent countries.

Regarding criminal societies, is it really fair to characterize Iraq as a criminal society? The problems are being caused by a small percentage of Hussein loyalists and those who have come to join them. They will be rooted out in time if we have the will and determination. Yes, the situation is certainly different but no one promised that Iraq would be a functioning, self-sufficient democracy in a matter of months (�brought on line� never referred to self-government, just a rudimentary but functioning society). And six months is certainly not the two years the administration talked about.

I�m sorry but your argument seems to be that if every detail cannot be controlled cleanly and everything wrapped up in a few months then it is not worth doing.

Admin

Instead of believing news media posturing and agenda edited media clips I think the the words of a person right in the middle of it are most telling.

22-September-2003 -- Catholic World News Brief

CATHOLIC PRIEST SERVES ON LOCAL IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL FOR RECONSTRUCTION
Baghdad, Sep. 22 (Forum 18/CWNews.com) - A Catholic priest has been appointed to a local governing council in post-war Iraq, the Fides news service has reported. The appointment was announced shortly after the bishops of the Chaldean Catholic Church protested the omission of Catholic representatives from the national governing council.

In the new Iraq, Mosul--the historical Ninive where Christians have always been present-- has on its Provincial Council, the civil authority in the area, a Chaldean priest, Father Louis Sako. Father Sako, a parish priest in Mosul, is also a consultor to the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

Fides Service asked Father Sako about the situation and about his work in the field of social assistance.

Fides: What do you think of the present situation in Iraq? Is life better than in the past?

Father Sako: Before the US-led war of liberation, Iraq was one great barracks full of soldiers and arms. No one was allowed to criticize or protest, life was militarized. Today, although there are still many problems, people live a more normal life, there is an atmosphere of freedom and democracy. People are free to choose their representatives, hold street demonstrations, publish newspapers. Of course the war has not restored security as we would wish, but gradually things are working out. Peace is a project which requires time and it depends on the efforts of everyone. Today in Iraq there is a new spirit and I am very optimistic that the future will be better

Fides: As a member of the Council, are you not afraid of being attacked by terrorists?

Father Sako: I am not afraid because I defend the poor and the oppressed, I work for the good of Christians and Muslims, and I see that people appreciate this. The Council offered me five bodyguards, but I refused because I think we must be examples of confidence: I know God will protect me because I am working for the good of the civil community in Mosul.

Fides: How can you do the work of a parish priest and be a member of the Council?

Father Sako: A priest must always organize his time to include the priestly ministry and other services. I have a lot of lay people who help me in the parish. And my political commitment will be temporary, only for this period of transition: I accepted the position because I want to make my contribution toward building a future of peace and serenity in which Iraqi Christians will also benefit.

Fides: How many Christian representatives are there in the Mosul Provincial Council?

Father Sako: The Council has 24 members: 16 Arabs, 3 Christians, 3 Kurds and 1 Turkmen. The members form various commissions: I am on the Commission for culture, university, and religious buildings. I must say that my experience of dialogue with Muslim intellectuals and leaders facilitates my work for the Council, where I am addressed a Abuna, or Father.

Fides: What does the Council do? Does its activity include initiatives in favor of the local Christian community?

Father Sako: We work for the good of the whole community in Mosul and the problems we face are often due to the fact that the fall of the regime brought sudden change and people need time to get used to the new situation. As a member of the Council I work to protect the social, political and religious rights of the Christian community. Today Christians may have their own newspapers (in Mosul there are already five new Christian publications) and there are plans for Christian radio and T V channels. We are also trying to retrieve land around St George's Monastery in Mosul which belonged to Chaldean monks and was confiscated by the Saddam Hussein regime and to help the return of the people forced at the time to abandon their homes and villages. In some towns, where the people are mainly Christians, the Council, which governs the whole province, has chosen a Christian mayor for surrounding villages like Alqosh, Karakosh, Telkef.

Admin and Lance,
Both of you present points well taken. And because I am on the gloomy side of this argument and do not really wish for what I fear to come true, I do not want to become dogmatic about my doubts and criticisms. I pray for US success in Iraq, so long as that is defined by the higher ideals we have expressed in this conflict. As I have stated, I fear these will not be realized. However, in support of the story Lance posted, please see:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030924-080344-5035r.htm

I am deeply appreciative of the tone and spirit of such a forum where an overwhelmingly complex and controversial subject can be talked out in charity and I credit much of that spirit to the Administrator.

I too am pierced by the line in the original article, "we have sacrificed all for Christ".

As with many aspects of the current situation, where confusion reigns, time will bring clarity. Let us hope and pray for clarity, healing and justice for the Iraqi people and for God's mercy and protection for our civil authorities and all in our armed forces.

My reasons for calling Operation Iraqi Freedom a failure are as follows. 1. Since the war officially ended on May 1, Iraq has been in a state of anarchy, which the UN and even Paul Bremer now admits is worsening.
2. Iraq's infrastructure is in shambles, and the cost to rebuild it, may well be unacceptable to the American public. Note that George Bush received his lowest approval rating since being in office, after his 87 billion dollar aid request.
3. The majority Shi'ite population is becoming increasingly discontent.
4. Paul Bremer and others have admitted that Al-Qaeda cells have now infiltrated the country.
5. A growing segment of the US population apprehensively views this conflict as the beginning of another Vietnam, i,e a war with no end in sight.