U.S. soldier deaths in Iraq this month have risen over 50 in the first half of the month and the prospect is good that September will be the first month that over 100 may die as part of the sectarian and insurgent violence. This threatens to destroy any progress that might have been made as more Americans die needlessly. Violence in the Middle East is nothing new and has been the main method used by government against its people for thousands of years. Life has always been considered "cheap" because morally the rights of the people are not guaranteed by either law or tradition.
Against that backdrop, the people of the United States often feel stunned that our soldiers are placed in a situation where there are no rules and the enemy is relatively undefined by society. Thus, in Sunni areas we are protecting Shia and vice versa in Shia areas. The northern part of Iraq can be even more confusing because the Kurds have both of the other groups in their areas also.
Is there a moral reason why we should be continuing our involvement in Iraq? The Bush administration, which says it prides itself on being "morally committed" to staying in Iraq seems to be out of touch with the 60 to 70% of the American people who think we should withdraw. Bush talks about "staying the course" and "adapting to win" when in reality we have tried several different tactics, none of which have been successful. Bush does not seem to understand that "freedom" and "liberty" are concepts that are incubated in a population who seek the benefits of elected governments which are more about unity than division, more about driving commerce and culture than it is about controlling society in almost every aspect.
Christians have a sense of "peace" based on the premise that God intends for us to live in a state where we are not threatened by others and that we will not threaten our neighbors in return. But even a casual study of the history of Iraq would tell you that their society holds no such moral value as sacred since peace has rarely been effect and even when your country wasn't attacking or being attacked by others then the government itself would more often than not be oppressive against groups out of favor. "Government" which we assume means something we have chosen based on the needs of the people has never meant that in Iraq.
When President Bush, then, tries to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq, there is no call from the Iraqis to come together to find common ground and thus form a basis for representation of all peoples. It is instead, the interim period between occupation by the foolish naïve Americans and the upcoming civil war where the surviving strongman will seize power. The only thing that the U.S. soldiers bring to the table, in their eyes, is target practice until they leave when the real struggle will begin. Our presence does not present opportunity for change and indeed change cannot even be considered because enough blood will not have flowed until every last soldier leaves.
This is the cornerstone of the problem that Iraq now has no way to benefit from our presence. Christians can't seem to accept this, because we, ourselves would not accept it. We as Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, progressives and reactionaries cannot conceive of why any society would prefer the "peace" of democracy over the struggle and violence of what the Middle East has traditionally had for government. That is what the 30% that supports what we are doing in Iraq doesn't "get." Bush wants with all his might and prayers that the Iraqis will choose to be like us because WE know that this is a good thing.
But THEY don't want what they don't know and what they do know is how to survive in oppressive societies that require living on the edge. They know you try to find a way to get in power and if you aren't, the answer isn't elections, it's revolution. Why do you think the religious sects in Iraq are so strong? They are the buffer between society and justice, much as the Supreme Court is in the United States.
Given the conflict between what we "want" and what Iraqis "know" there can be no happy ending for our troops. We cannot stay and the alternative, as distasteful as it may seem to us, is the only thing left to do.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
did you know that the administration is now talking to the insurgents through "backchannel" means? (backchannel means not publicized negotiations, closed door.) the insurgents want to establish the sunni territory but they want a division of the oil profits. an agreement here could stop all this.
the insurgents have found recent grave differences with the foreign terrorists, such as al qaeda, and have warned them that they will shoot to kill if al qaeda interferes with the insurgents' purposes. and of course, this is exactly what al qaeda wants to do, to bring about the civil war that they want. the insurgency is asking bin ladin to appoint someone else for iraq because the current leader is too violent. i predict this will get nowhere.
i have recently posted some articles on this. if you search for al qaeda, you might find them. (i have sometimes misspelled qaeda like quaeda, just a fast typing job because of the english qu.)
this stuff might soon be settled now. i am hopeful.
I think the only reason why the insurgents and al qaeda are in Iraq is to set up their own agenda within whatever government gets set up after the civil war is over, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The interesting part of the problem, but both groups are heavily outnumbered by the sectarian militias which, given their opportunity, will force them out.
What was the basic tenent of your religion? I suppose "Peace be unto you" is an insult?
What does peace mean to you, really?
I think you misunderstand my point. I am not saying that Christians live a faith based on the concept of "peace" but rather they are instructed to. Christ's classic statement on getting along included the classic "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek." I would agree with you that the Bush administration and neocons are anything but followers of that philosophy.
Regardless of your feelings about God and an afterlife (even if you are an atheist) it doesn't invalidate a philosophy of living in peace. What does invalidate it is the behavior exhibited by an administration that says it follows it but in no way does.
When you consider the neocons, what philosophy do they follow other than the worship of power and greed?
Revelations is the fevered dream of an old man who was actually trying to be encouraging to people in a prison colony. I invite you to look into commentaries on this because most people don't.
Christ, the person, was an often frustrated individual who tried to lead by example and the gospels reveal him to be devoted to his faith and through his faith, devoted to the service of mankind. This is the peace of Christ in the truest form. I wasn't trying to evangelize here, just show how American Christians think in terms of how Iraq has developed and why most Christian conservatives "just don't get it."
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to express how you feel. The hope I have is in knowling that earth life is supposed to be negative, or at least a crude, low-vibration, massive, material, primitive, flawed reflection of where we really came from or where we really live. My idea of God doesn't even have a gender, and I think Adam and Eve is a fairy tale. I mean, I expect earth life to be hopeless but it doesn't destroy my spirit because it isn't really where my spirit lives. Jesus himself delivered that message, in fact.