More Thoughts on Bush's Iraq

The previous post on Demotovation led to a few email discussions, thanks, fellows. Here are some further thoughts cut and pasted from those conversations:



Ok. I'm with you . . . we can't retreat. The welfare of Iraq is vitally important to the welfare of the USA. I agree. But I don't think the President does. That's my point. I think he's pursuing the welfare of the USA at the expense of Iraq. To use my "morale" analogy -- If morale is bad in the company, firing people doesn't help the problem, obviously. That's only going to create worse morale. Rather, we need to fix the problem at its root. Bad wages? Bad management? Poor working conditions? Whatever the issue is, that's what needs to be addressed. The morale problem is the consequence of the root issues, so treating the morale is not going to help.

So, in Iraq, Muslims and terrorists are anti-USA. Why? Because of our "immorality." We are sexually permissive, yes (think Hollywood, Baywatch, etc.). But more than that, I think, we are consumeristic. We consume so much. Clearly, the United States has enough disposable income to end extreme poverty worldwide. Every 5 seconds, a child dies of hunger. That's 5 "September 11th"s every day! We are rightfully outraged by the attacks on September 11, but why aren't we outraged that our brothers and sisters worldwide are dying needlessly in such numbers? We choose, as a nation, to allow this to go on. It would cost us greatly to end hunger worldwide, but we could do it -- we choose not to. We prefer a secure retirement, or better home stereo system, or whatever, rather than give food to people who are starving.

The old adage, "If you want peace, work for justice" makes sense to me. Why should I have an awesome stereo when someone else can't get enough food to keep living? Because I'm so smart? Because God loves me more? Because I'm white? Because I'm American? I had no choice in any of these things. None of this means anything. It's not fair. Justice dictates that we help others. I'm not talking about handouts. I'm talking about leveling the playing field. Those who are starving to death are more than happy to work for their food. No doubt about it, but we won't let them.

I don't see Bush's "new" plan addressing these kinds of issues. Until we start addressing these issues, terrorism will continue. There's nothing to lose! You can't fight or negotiate with a (nearly) endless supply of suicidal attackers. It is our aggressive stance toward the world that provokes the violence. A more aggressive stance will not end the violence.

I think the Middle East is vitally important for our country. Especially now that we've started the war. Failure is not an option, which is why I oppose the President's plan. It drives us further to failure. More troops in Iraq means less violence. That makes sense to me, but it won't work long term. It works short term because the USA military really is amazingly powerful, and we can quell any resistance. But, the amount of force it takes will incite more violence, not pacify, I believe. Our domination is the reason for the resistance. Further domination doesn't help.

Is this not the way of Jesus? Of the gospel? The way to victory is through peace. The first shall be last, the last shall be first. "If a man would follow me" (that is, the Messiah, the King, the Victor), "let him take up his cross first." "Whoever finds his life will lose it, whoever loses his life, for my sake, will find it." The path to personal joy is through personal sacrifice. Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Sure, it's counter-intuitive, but that's the foolishness of the cross.