Bishop Timothy Whittaker
Peace Rally
Sarasota, FL
February 15, 2003
Every day I pick up the newspaper or turn on the TV and I feel bombarded. I feel that I am continuously being pressured to believe the official version of the truth about Iraq. The official version of the truth is the interpretation of reality presented by the President of the United States and his administration and most of the mass media.
The official version of the truth goes like this: Saddam Hussein is a dangerous dictator who has weapons of mass destruction that he intends to use against Americans or against his neighbors in the Middle East. He is a mad man who cannot be contained or deterred. Therefore, he must be driven out of Iraq by a mission led by the United States and a coalition of other nations. When this happens the world will be a more secure place. Indeed, we can install a new government in Iraq that will be a model for other nations in the region. And the sooner this is done, the better. After all, he has shown that he cannot be trusted, and we have waited 12 years for him to comply with the terms established by the United Nations after the Gulf War.
This story is told over and over, and after a while most us Americans are worn down to submission. We sigh, and say, "Oh well, I guess this is right. After all, the government knows more than we know."
But there is more to reality than we are being told. Consider what is usually left out of the official story of the truth. For one thing, there is very little said about the costs of an invasions and the occupation of Iraq. I do not just mean the financial cost, but I mean the human cost. A lot of people who are alive and healthy right now are going to be dead or maimed after this invasion is over. Given this brutal fact, don’t you think we ought to slow down a bit and see if there might be some alternative to all out war?
For another thing, there is very little consideration given to the fact that containment and deterrence have worked for 12 years. Who has Iraq attacked over the last 12 years? During the years the U.N. inspectors were in Iraq the first time, more weapons were destroyed by the inspectors than were destroyed in Desert Storm. The new inspectors have just begun their work. Iraq has admitted them back into the county. Yes, it is true that Iraq has not fully cooperated as it should and their lack of cooperation is serious. But isn’t it wiser to keep the inspectors there and let them continue their work until we see if they can be as effective this time as they were before?
Moreover, we never hear the administration talk about the risks of an invasion. All we hear about is the risk of not invading. Once we invade, we shall have to live with the consequences. One of the most dangerous consequences is that we will inflame the passions of hatred and revenge by millions of people from whom the terrorists draw their recruits. And, by the way, wouldn’t it be prudent to have our own homeland security up and running before we set ourselves up for a violent reaction?
Also, we never hear any discussion about what it means to fight a just war. President Bush claimed in his State of the Union address that this would be a just war. Yet I have never heard anyone in the administration give a serious rationale for why this would be a just war. The assertion is made, but the explanation is not given. The concept of just war is a 1700-year-old moral tradition that was first proposed by St. Augustine in the 5th century. Some of the criteria for a just war are that it must be a last resort; it must be openly and legally declared; it must be a response to a specific instance of unjust aggression; it must be fought in a way that distinguishes combatants from noncombatants; and it must be fought by means that are proportionate to its ends. On several counts, an invasion of Iraq would not meet the traditional criteria of a just war. Just consider one of them: a just war must be a response to a specific instance of unjust aggression. An invasion of Iraq would not be a response to an act of aggression by Iraq; it would be an offensive movement by the United States to prevent a possible act of aggression by Iraq. This principle of "preventative war is a clear violation of 1700 years of the moral tradition of just war. Up until now preventative war has been seen as foolish and dangerous because there is so much room for miscalculation and because, once used, it will be used again, either by the United States or some other nation, like India or Pakistan. An invasion of Iraq will not only rearrange the map of the Middle East, it will rearrange the map of morality about war. Do we really want to begin the 21st century by obliterating the principles of just war, especially the principle that a just war is a response to a specific act of unjust aggression?
Then also we never hear in the official story of the truth just how different this war would be from the Gulf War. The Gulf War was fought by a genuine alliance authorized by the United Nations to preserve the stability of the Middle East by expelling Iraq from Kuwait; this war would be a total invasion of a nation to change the regime in Baghdad and to set up a new government. The dynamics are quite different. That is one reason why so many people in Europe and all over the globe are opposed to this war. That is also why we cannot predict how the citizens of Iraq will respond if they are invaded.
Of course there is truth in the official story. Saddam Hussein is in violation of requirements of the United Nations, and he cannot be trusted with weapons of mass destruction. There is a serious concern here. The alternative to invading Iraq is not to do nothing. Force is required: the force of containment and deterrence and international pressure involving the task of inspecting Iraq’s arsenal and destroying its weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, when so much is at stake in an invasion, don’t we and the rest of the world deserve to hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Do we not hear the whole truth because, if we did, we might want to try something else other than an invasion right now? When there is a single-minded determination to go to war, I tremble. I tremble because of both the predictable and the unforeseen consequences. The partial presentation of the truth combined with a seemingly predetermined choice of war could be a recipe for human folly of historic proportions.
Let no one question the patriotism of those of us who point out truths that the administration will not speak or who disagree with our government’s plans. No, it is because we love our county that we feel the way we do. We want America to show the face of steady and measured leadership to the world, not the face of a bully. We want America to be respected and admired, not hated and feared. We want America to act with wisdom, courage and patience, not to react because of fear.
There are some people who would object to a religious officials discussing national policy in such frank terms. They say, we should stick to religion. But religion is about our relationship to God. The living God is not just the Lord of our personal lives, God is the Lord of the world and the judge of all nations. We who are Christian, Jew or Muslim cannot avoid the task of exercising practical wisdom in deciding whether or not we would support a war. Indeed, the just war tradition was developed by one of the Christian church’s greatest saints and theologians for the purpose of giving us moral guidance in analyzing the complex realities of life in the world and making decisions about war with a clear conscience before God. May the Spirit of God illumine and guide our President George Bush and all of those in places of authority and each one of us who must give an account of the way we have lived.