Two years later many Americans, including this one, are questioning their earlier support of the invasion of Iraq. For me the struggle has not been one of second guessing the "evidence". It's easy to do so in light of the many errors, even perhaps misrepresentations, regarding what the situation in Iraq was. But as I read Michael Novak's recent letter on the "First Things" blog I'm reminded of how little evidence was really required to support our efforts based on traditional "just war" theories. (It's worth reading Novak's original Vatican lecture referenced in the letter to learn more about the "just war" theory).
No, I'm still convinced that the threat of biological/chemical attack aided and abetted by Saddam was quite real. Having worked for a biotech company and learned in some detail the mechanisms of such an attack, I am regrettably still convinced this is a real possibility. It just won't be supported by the same players.
And this gets closer to the heart of my questions surrounding the invasion: Does even a "just war" ever accomplish anything in the long run? Surely it is not sufficient, but is it necessary?
I've never been a pacifist, and I'm not one now. At least not yet. But if "just war" is necessary but not sufficent to bring about peach, we surely lack the remaining ingredients in the world today. Of course I don't expect to find the "solution." To my friends who would point out that answer is surely Jesus Christ, I would respond:
Yes. You are absolutely correct, and we are to abide in Him so he may abide in us which makes us a key part of the answer. Yet this brings me right back to where I started: How am I to play my part in the answer? Did Jesus fight a "just war"? Did he not teach that our battle was not against the Roman Empire which, like Saddam Hussein, held together its infamour Pax Romana through brutality and oppression? Isn't the battle against the powers of darkness who fuel the Cult of Personalities so prominent among the political powers then as they are today?
For now my questioning is leading me to read Miroslav Volf's Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. I'm only 1/3 of the way into it but I can see why Brian McLaren gave it such high marks. Volf, a Croatian theologian now teaching at Fuller Seminary, has experienced first hand the horrors exclusion in the name of piety (such as the Serbian Orthodox ethnic cleansing in the Balkans).
One the things I'd like to do this coming year is read more studiously, or at least to capture notes from my reading. I love to read, and I read a lot, but sometimes I wonder if I'm not reading too much. Perhaps by taking the time to capture things as I go, I'll moderate the pace and retain more of what I do read. We'll see.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thanks for your kind words, Amy. It is a really challenging topic. I'm particularly sensitive to the fact that while I contemplate these things in my cozy home, much, if not most world, faces evil much more tangibly, often just outside their door. And yet I have a hard enough time dealing with the "sin that crouches at the door" of my soul much less figuring out how to deal with the more fundamental injustices of the world. But this is not an excuse for failing to take a stand on these matters ... one way or the other or somewhere in between ... within my little sphere of influence. Perhaps "stand" is too strong a word, because you're absolutely right about the need to embrace ambiguity. As the great philosopher Pogo once said "we have met the enemy and it is us". In any case, all i can do now is ponder, pray and discuss the issues with other fellow sojourners who also wrestle with the issues. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Post a Comment