I thought the midterm elections had halted President Bush’s momentum toward expanding his imperial dreams but recent events, beginning with his much anticipated speech last week, have proven me wrong.
I said in my last post that we must pray for the President. By all means pray harder.
I said once in Caelum et Terra, the magazine, that America was like a big drunk lurching downhill. You might not be able to stop him, but at least you can get out of the way.
The image has changed. The big drunk has you in a headlock and all you can do is pray.
The columnist Georgie Ann Geyer sketches as precisely as I have seen the trouble we are in here.
–Daniel Nichols
Yes, pray for the President, pray for the entire country, pray for Iraq and Iran. Pray that the Holy Father may have courage and true wisdom to speak out.
Pray that the Holy Father will have the courage and wisdom to issue the “Motu Proprio” soon. Maybe some more traditonal Masses will help bring peace to the world… If not peace, then beauty.
I don’t believe that Bush’s recent speech necessarily exposed any imperialist dreams. It appears to me that he just wants to get out of Iraq with as good a conclusion as possible. It might be that just up and leaving might not be in the best interests of a lasting peace in Iraq … The pacifist answer is not always necessarily the Catholic answer. Pray for our goverment leaders and judges, especially on this day which has brought the US 45 million murders. Maybe the war in Iraq is a punishment upon the US for the seriously grave evil of abortion.
I’m as much in favor of a motu proprio on behalf of the traditional Roman rite as anyone, but I would remind everyone of some wonderful words of Pius XII: “This task [i.e. regarding social justice]of the Church is indeed arduous, but they are simply unwitting deserters or dupes who, in deference to a misguided supernaturalism, would confine the Church to the `strictly religious’ field, as they say, whereas by so doing they are but playing into the hands of their enemies.”
Address to members of Rinascita Cristiana,
January 22, 1947.
Which way to exit?
1/17/2007
Our Sunday Visitor
Surge, escalate, withdraw or run? There is nothing easy about the conflict in Iraq, nor in the many competing proposals, including that of President Bush, to bring an end to it.
Bishop William Skylstad, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, has attempted to at least clarify some of the moral issues involved in the current debate.
In a statement issued from Jerusalem on Jan. 12, Bishop Skylstad said that “a key moral question that ought to guide our nation’s actions in Iraq” is “how can the U.S. bring about a responsible transition” in that nation.
“Each course of action,” he said, “including current policies, ought to be evaluated in light of our nation’s moral responsibility to help Iraqis to live with security and dignity in the aftermath of U.S. military action.”
Alas, the most obvious moral responsibility may also be the most difficult. The United States entered the Iraqi conflict because our leaders were convinced that the country had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the region and to our nation. In retrospect, the intelligence was wrong, the understanding of the divisions within the country and within Islam itself was flawed and the estimation of our own abilities to impose democracy and quell conflicts that had lasted for centuries was at best naïve.
But as Gen. Colin Powell once put it, we broke it, and now we own it. Yet whether or not we are ever to achieve a face-saving way to exit from Iraq, we now must strive to protect ordinary Iraqis from the devastating effects of this war.
To surge or not to surge is not necessarily the critical question. But to reconstruct the infrastructure and help ordinary Iraqis believe that life can get better is critical. Americans – blue state or red, peacenik or interventionist – must recognize that this terrible conflict, wrought in our name, ordered by our leaders and fought by our sons and daughters, cannot simply be abandoned.
Such a withdrawal may become inevitable at some point, but right now we do not believe the United States is ready to simply abandon Iraq to civil war. So what can we as Catholics and as citizens do now?
First, we must pray as a church for our leaders. We must pray for our soldiers, for the Iraqi people themselves and people everywhere to assess plans based on human dignity. This should be a public and heartfelt prayer.
Second, we must recognize that our responsibility demands that we do not simply look for the exit that is least costly for us. We must make every effort to help improve the security of ordinary Iraqis.
Third, we must particularly help those Iraqis suffering persecution in their own land. The Christian community in Iraq is being wiped out by the war, and thousands have fled the country. Those who are fleeing the violence, particularly those who have sided with the United States, must be assured asylum in our country.
Finally, we must be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring this war to what the bishops call a “responsible transition.” This may mean giving up some cherished ideals, be it the refusal to talk to neighboring states or the reluctance to commit to a larger reconstruction effort.
Once unleashed, the dogs of war are not easily recalled, and Americans who only a few years ago cheered our apparently easy victory must now recognize that what determines the character of a nation is not how it welcomes success, but how it confronts the specter of defeat.
I didn’t know OSV had been taken over by the neo-cons. Two statements in this article strike me as incredible. No. 1: “The United States entered the Iraqi conflict because our leaders were convinced that the country had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the region and to our nation.” There is plenty of evidence (e.g., the Downing St. memo) to indicate that the administration either knew that Sadam had no weapons of mass destruction or didn’t care, and that other motives were behind this invasion.
No. 2: “But as Gen. Colin Powell once put it, we broke it, and now we own it.” Wow! If I smash up your house it now belongs to me, and I get to decide how long I’ll stay around to fix it on my own terms? I would remind people that in stores that have signs, “If you break it, you own it,” it’s the store owners that put up the signs. I’m not aware that the Iraqis ever told us that we now owned their country.
Overall, the OSV editorial seems pretty balanced, and I don’t see much than can be disagreed with as to its conclusions, although I can see how the authors of this blog may take issue with the premises.
Re No. 1: I understand that this is your position and position of many anti-Bushers, but I have not seen convincing evidence that Bush actually did not believe the reasons put forth for why the US entered the war, i.e., that Bush lied.
Re No. 2: are you being intentionally dense? It doesn’t seem that Powell thought that we actually “own” Iraq, but that we had some responsibility to help fix the problem that we created, i.e., we “own” the problem. That is all the OSV editorial is saying, I believe, that the US has a moral duty to the Iraqis after having, to some extent, created certain problems in Iraq, and that to drop everything and just leave Iraq now may be an immoral decision. A difficult prudential decision needs to be made, and it may be that no one, unless he is truly a prophet, knows what the right thing to do is. S.S.
On second thought, maybe you are right. SS
Ah yes, the American bishops, the beacons of light in our darkness.
I am of course being facetious here. The war is a failure and unwinnable. As Tom says, at the least the administration began with the preconceived conclusion and then sought intelligence to that end; plans to invade Iraq predate 9/11 and even the 2000 elections. It was a digression from the more narrowly focused “war on terror” and has backfired: Bush has been terrorism’s greatest recruiter.
Also, Bush has been the greatest supporter of abortion rights, judging by the last election.
Judging by the comments on this blog, I must conclude that most of the commenters were more likely to be at the highly reported anti-war rally in D.C this weekend, than they were likely to be at the highly under-reported pro-life rally in D.C on January 22.
I was at neither, would have liked to have been at both. We are attempting to be faithful Catholics, which leads to a consistent ethic of reverence for life, admittedly not seen often in American politics. Bombs kill babies, too, you know (which is the slogan for the sign I would have carried at the March for Life. On the other side it would have said “Yes to life; no to war and abortion.”)
Ah, the seamless garment … At any rate it is a shame that the March for Life which had about 20 times the attendance of the anti-war march was much more under-reported in the media, when many more babies have been killed in the US by the Supreme Court than have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the present conflict. By the way, bombs also kill terrorists.
The media have been mostly ignoring the March for Life for as long as they’ve been having it. I guess I’m kind of jaded about it now. Watching the press coverage of the pro-life movement over the past 25 years or so has certainly cured me of any illusions about journalistic fairness. Most of them mean to be fair, I think, but they’re incapable of seeing outside their box. Which is funny, because they think that’s the whole problem with pro-lifers–benighted, unthinking, etc.
Also, a, I think I need to make it clear: I’m personally acquainted with a number of the people who comment here, and I can tell you for certain that everyone of them is staunchly pro-life (and I don’t mean in any weasely being-for-universal-health-insurance-is-pro-life-too sense).
I would like to ask Mr. “a” a question: Why would you ever think that the March for Life and the anti-war march are an either/or situation? If a Catholic judges that the war is unjust, or even unwise, why would he not want to express opposition to it, also while he expresses opposition to the crime of abortion? Maclin’s remark about “thinking outside the box” was well taken: We should learn to think outside the tired and silly categories of liberal/conservative. These categories are designed to make everyone think along a “party line,” and inhibit us from thinking critically about things.
And factor in the growing awareness that the abortion “issue” is a political tool to dupe voters, used by men (mostly) who have no intention on doing anything to actually stop abortion.
Actually it is painful to attend the Right to Life March, which I have done many times, and to endure all the Republican speakers, some of whom have been fresh from fundraisers for prochoice Republicans (Kemp in the 80s, Santorum last time)…
Not to mention the narrowness of their definition of “prolife”. You speak scornfully of the “seamless garment”, a phrase unfortunately tainted by its association with the late Cardinal Bernadin, but the concept of a consistent ethic of life is thoroughly Catholic and a good description of papal outlook. Or do you forget that two Popes have declared the Iraq war unjust?
Actually, I do not recall that 2 popes have called the Iraq War unjust. If they did, such statements would not infallible, as much as one might like it to be. It is possible for a Pope to be incorrect in the application of the universal to the particular, and the Church has consistently taught that their can be just wars. In my particular opinion, I am uncertain as to the unjustness of the Iraq war, but I am certain, for instance, that more than 85,000 babies were murdered in New York City alone in 2005. It is easy to become jaded on the issue, but it doesn’t change the horror of it, and such a temptation should be fought. With our cavalier attitude towards the slaughter of millions of innocents in our own country, it is no wonder that we become might also become engaged in an unjust war. Of course, this is no comment on the staunchly pro-life attitude of contributors to this blog, but the proof, as is said, is in the pudding.
Of course we are not saying that papal infallibility, which is pretty narrow and limited, extends to judgements of a political nature. They do include morality, however, and merely humanly speaking a pope is likely to be able to make a judgement on a particular conflict with rather a clearer head than national leaders. He is- among other things- more disinterested than say, the Bush administration, which had an agenda which included invading Iraq long before they even came to power (see the archives from the Project for a New American Century).
And both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called the invasion of Iraq unjust. Indeed, JPII predicted that the first American attack on Iraq, in 1991, would have long-reaching bad effects on the region, which it has.
But the Catholic right, for lack of a better word, is just like the Catholic left when it comes to John Paul: a lot of enthusiasm for his persona, while any unpleasantness in his teaching can be easily dismissed with the old “Well that’s not infallible”.
None of which is to downplay the horrors of abortion. What you say about the hardening of hearts is true, but then so is the obverse: a nation which can dismiss the very visible massive civilian deaths from its bombing campaigns, which can justify Hiroshima, is not likely to care much about the very unseen slaughter in its midst.
Mr. Storck,
I am conflicted concerning how best to proceed in Iraq. I believe the war was clearly unjust, however, we did go to war and we are there. I do believe we have a responsibility to leave the country with some stability if possible. Many times when you sin, you are left with no good choices, and I am afraid that is where we are. If we could stabilize Iraq by putting 500,000 troops on the ground, I feel we would be morally obligated to do it. If the cost is high for America, maybe we will think about it before we decide to ignore everyone’s counsel and act unilaterally in a way which will only serve American interests. My problem with many of the cut and runners (Democrats) is that they seem to value the lives of American soldiers more than Iraqis. When you sin, you have to repair the damage you caused if possible. America must attempt to repair the damage.
On the other hand, if there is no way to for us to help by our presence. If our presence is only making things worse, we have to leave, but we are going to have to commit resources to Iraq (a Marshall Plan). I really do not know what is the best course, but I do know that whatever course is taken, the primary concern should be what is best for the Iraqi people, even if it might not be materially/politically what is best for the Republican or Democratic parties or even America. What do you think the chances are of that happening?!
Mr. Sarsfield,
I appreciate your truly Catholic response to the situation in Iraq and I agree with your moral analysis of it. My opinion is that our presence there is only making things worse, and moreover, it is probably morally impossible for us to remain there with a pure intention. That is, we will always be hoping to salvage something to benefit ourselves, e.g. oil, rather than the Iraqis. Moreover, by what right do we kill those who oppose the Iraqi government that we ourselves installed? If the Iraqis want and support that government, fine. But that is not apparent to me. Right now, at best, our soldiers are in the position of supporting one Iraqi faction against others, but I don’t see how we can distinguish which of those factions (including the “legal” government) is in fact the just possessor of authority there. But as for a Marshall Plan – yes, the U.S. is morally obliged to pay reparation for ruining that country.
And you are probably correct that many who support withdrawal do so for inadequate reasons. Part of that may be for domestic political consumption, because if an American politician seems more concerned about the lives of Iraqis than Americans, that is not likely to help him get reelected.
Mr. Storck, are not your opinions prejudiced by what you desire?
“our presence there is only making things worse”
I can easily imagine it getting much worse if we leave.
“it is probably morally impossible for us to remain there with a pure intention”
I could argue that it is morally impossible to leave (or make any change in the staus quo) with a pure intention. But something still has to be done, trying to be as pure in intention as possible. Our safety (the troops and America long-term) should be part of that pure intention along with the Iraqis’ peace and safety.
“by what right do we kill those who oppose the Iraqi government that we ourselves installed”
We facilitated, but the Iragis installed their own leaders in a national relatively free election. We are assisting the new Iraqi elected government.
“I don’t see how we can distinguish which of those factions (including the “legal” government) is in fact the just possessor of authority there”
It’s easy. The just possessor of authority there is the government elected by the people, who supports peace, law, and order, and general dignity of persons, regardless of gender or religious sect, not the hate-filled insurgents who twist their flawed religion to justify killing their brothers and sisters. We are trying to protect the Iraquis from their own misguided people until they can do it themselves. Or at least that’s the pure intention.
There is no punishment due to America because of her sins in Iraq, whereby the Iraqi people should prosper now at the expense and suffering of America. All souls, Catholic Americans, Muslim Americans, atheists, politicians and military leaders, Muslim extrmists, Innocent Iraqis, not-so-innocent Iraqis, and of course the hundreds of thousands of unborn children in our country, all have human dignity, no matter how hidden or soiled by sin, and the purest intention is to strive to protect, love, and serve them all, from this moment forward.
I have seen reports that a majority of Iraqis not only want us to leave but consider that attacks on our troops are justified. That sounds to me as if we are not welcome there. And moreover, ad hominem attacks are rarely in order, as it is so easy to retort and say Et tu? For are not we all in danger of prejudicing our judgments by our desires?