War in Iraq creates more terrorists????
Shocking, shocking news. The NYTimes has reported on a National Intelligence document that has suggested the war in Iraq is actually creating more terrorists instead of getting rid of terrorists. "WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."
Is it possible?? They continue, "The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe."
You mean we haven't done an appraisal of the state of global terrorism during the last 5 years while we've been at war with terrorism? Isn't that a little . . . well, like invading a country because they pose an enormous threat, without actually verifying the threat first? Or like trying to set up a democracy in a country before figuring out if anyone in the country wants a democracy, or before figuring out if the best way to set up a democracy is through forcing it on people at gunpoint or encouraging it through peaceful means? That's ridiculous. Surely we've appraised the state of global terrorism while trying to fight against it. How else would we know what we were at war with?
You know what, now that I think of it, the fact that the Iraq war is creating more terrorists isn't such a crazy idea. I remember sitting in an ethics class in the couple months after Sept. 11, 2001 and discussing how we as Christians should respond. You know what we decided? We decided that God would have us love our neighbors, and even our enemies. And in loving them, we would fight for peace. We could take actual steps to increase justice amongst the oppressed. We decided that instead of the US giving half of its foreign aid (3 billion at the time) to Israel so they could buy war planes and continue to oppress the Palestinians, we should instead give a good portion of that money to the Palestinians to help them build infrastructures in Palestine that allowed people to have normal jobs and support their families.
I wonder how Muslims around the world would have reacted to that? I'm not exactly sure, but I am guessing we wouldn't have been creating more terrorists.
What if instead of fighting a war on terror (which we didn't even take the time to try to understand) we instead fought a war on injustice. What if we'd spent our time stopping the genocides in Sudan and Darfur? What if we had toppelled Sadam's regime and then poured all the money we could possibly pool together into creating infrastructures and providing relief for the people of Iraq. If we hadn't been fighting a war against Islamic extremists, and we had given examples in Sudan and Palestine of our good intentions, I wonder how the Iraqi people, and the Islamic world would have responded to our ousting Saddam? What if instead of being focussed on protecting our own selves, the richest most powerful people in the world, what if we were interested in protecting the least of these, the broken and the hurt around the world?
I wonder how Muslims around the world would have reacted to that? I'm not exactly sure, but I am guessing we wouldn't have been creating more terrorists.
I remember sitting in my ethics class while the US began to bomb Afghanistan, and the report started coming in that because of the bombings the roads were being destroyed and thousands upon thousands of people were going to be trapped in the mountains having to try to make it through the quickly aproaching winter without any access to their normal ability to trade or to get to food. And some began to plead with the US government to stop bombing for a while, particularly because Ramadan was beginning, and allow these poeple to come down out of the mountains or at least to allow aid groups to get in there and give them food, or else thousands were going to die. And we reflected on what we as Christians should do in this situation. I decided that we should show solidarity with those who were dying, and that one way I could do that would be to participate in Ramadan. So I fasted and prayed during that month along with millions of Muslims around the world. And I wrote an article for our school newspaper about showing solidarity with Muslims during this time. We as a nation could have shown, perhaps even proven, our good will in respecting a holy holiday, but instead the bombs began to drop because we had to find Osama. And broken bridges during Ramadan fueled the suspicions of a war between civilizations rather than a civilized war.
I wonder how Muslims around the world would have reacted to our joining them in fasting and prayer during Ramadan? I'm not exactly sure, but I am guessing we wouldn't have been creating more terrorists.
The article concludes, "recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”"
10 comments:
Many, many comments come to mind, but the first one I'll toss out there comes from the fact that this National Intelligence Estimate has been out there since April, but fascinatingly, it only surfaced in the New York Times roughly 5 weeks before the mid term elections. Go figure.
Amen and amen.
Tim,
Remember my comments late last week on being frustrated with my peeps, Evangelicals, and feeling like sometimes I just want to give up on them? Well, I don't know if your treatise was in partial fulfillment of a PhD in "Help Matt's Discouragement" but it worked. Thanks.
Dennis, isn't a bit strange that your first response to Tim's post, a reflection on the ethics (Christian and not Christian) and discipleship, solicited a comment on presumed Democrat/Republican politics as the one that becomes worth mentioning? It strikes my (digital) ear as strange. Sometimes I wonder if its these type of responses that bring accusations that Evangelicals have divided allegiances (i.e.: "Republican" becomes something that requires time and energy of us drawn from devotion and identity). Just thinking "out loud."
Sorry. It has been confirmed that I write like a drunk.
The last part of my post, relatively unclear because of my choice of writing style, should be clarified.
What I mean to say is that those who are not Christians and not Republicans have a strong suspicion that Christianity is nothing more than American Republican politics, something that I assume all brothers and sisters in Christ, Republicans and Democrats alike, would deny vehemently if asked to our faces. I fear, however, that is just the type of response you have provided, Dennis, that gives fuel to that fire, to that image, to that witness.
Okie doke, Matt. Prepare for the "vehement" denial. Could it be that there was another reason that caused me to address the New York Times blatant bias first and foremost that was other than my rabid pro-conservatism? Or did I simply show my true colors and prove that I care more about the politics of American Christianity than the Christ of Christianity? I will proclaim my reasons and allow the viewing audience to make their decisions. This medium lends itself, like every other medium of communication this century, to brevity. For instance, I would guess that about half of our listening audience has tuned me out by now in this response. I also usually come to the computer with only a few fleeting minutes to spare, unlike this morning. Therefore, it was precisely because I had so many thoughts circulating in my head about the weightier issues raised by Tim and would not have even been able to begin to address them coherently that I went with the short, sweet and concise response that to you simply proved my one dimensional existence. Could it be that actually your misperception betrays your political fire being out of control internally and was therefore quite easy to fuel?
PS- for the record.... I actually agree with the basic belief that American Christians are often more passionate about defending, knowing, living, etc. their political beliefs than their spiritual ones and since most American Christians probably land on the conservative side of the fence, this is the side that it is most evident in.....also, Tim I would love to sit over a couple cups of coffee with you and discuss our differing views on some of the more fundamentals such as the ethics of violence/non-violence and perhaps discover the many areas that I am sure we are in agreement about
Sunshine and smooches, Dennis.
I'm sure Tim is flattered that you suggest there is something close to a "listening audience" on his blog. :)
Thanks for introducing the time pressures you faced in your response. That does help to give context to the discussion. And I am sure you would agree that our "sound-bite" culture has practically ruined sound, reasoned debate about nearly anything. Let's bemoan this together: surely it has cost us in our Christian unity because it is much easier to point out others' faults than consider what the other is actually saying.
Yet, given that brevity is the medium's requirement, I still don't understand why (assumed political) timing of the release of the NIE--which, I might add, was not "out there" because it was classified and classified material only gets to the public when it is released (which could have been done by the the powers that be immediately, in April--was your chosen response? Tim's post was reasoned in logic yet desperate in tone, substantive in content and specifics though making room for principaled reflection, not specifically partisan (no mention of "administration," "Republican" or anyone by name) and went beyond scapegoating to reflection on specific activities of our country and most of all: it attempted to be deeply Christian in its reflection.
Why the political introduction into Tim's post and into my response (which also called for focus on Christian witness and on Tim's concerns over Christian ethics)? Could you not have provided a "short, sweet and concise response" that dealt directly with these theological and ethical issues instead of one that attempted to defend a political position even if it was incomplete? It's an honest question. I would hope that by taking the path I am suggesting we could together improve our public witness (by disassociating ourselves with specifically partisan labels and keeping to only ONE label), increase our ability to reflect Christianly on our situation as a people, and preserve a unity that is increasingly interrupted by the limitations of our media. Brother, these are things I want to do well also but often don't, I surely admit.
I am going to try to address these ethical issues succinctly, but please allow me to restate my opinion that this medium is not the best avenue to have such discussions because of its nature. I have tried to discuss big topics like this in the past on my own blog, and it is certainly not without merit, but it will never take the place of two or more people simply sitting down and having conversations about huge issues such as these.
The fundamental difference here involves the role of the individual and the role of the government. I would agree that we as individuals in this country are far too self-centered, and we should be reaching out to those in the third world with the love of Christ. An example of what we should be doing comes to mind when I think of some friends of mine who are currently serving as missionaries in Ghana. Their primary reason for being there is to be witnesses for Christ, and one of the ways they are doing that is by being the first full time doctor in an area populated with about 30 rural villages. The average individual here in the U.S. cannot even tell you where Ghana is on a map. We are in a unique position in the world to be able to offer all manner of assistance and aid because of our amazing prosperity, but instead we are often too consumed with the latest building project for the “community center” for the church or the latest domestic political issue to consider that we don’t give any time or energy to the simplest and most obvious way that we can serve Christ by “serving the least of these.”
However, what I have just described is a failure of the individuals within this country and specifically the church. Is it possible that the government reflects some of these same attitudes in its policy? Of course, it is, but that is not a problem that you fix from the top down but from the bottom up. I believe that the Bible makes it clear that the government is ordained by God and is not given “the sword” in vain. (Romans 13, I think) Therefore, I believe that non violence is in regards to our lives as individual believers when we come into contact with the world representing Him. When we receive persecution or stiff resistance, we are not to respond with violence in an attempt to defend Him. However, I do not believe that non violence is taught to us in regards to self-defense or in a legitimate government role that is not acting immorally. I do not believe that violence in and of itself is inherently immoral for the believer. Obviously, it can be, but for example, I do not believe it is wrong for a believer to become a cop, FBI, Coast Guard, or any of the other forms of law enforcement even though they are jobs that innately carry the potential for violence on the part of the officer. I do not believe it is wrong for me as a father and husband to protect my family from an attacker with physical violence. I also do not believe that it is wrong for a Christian to be a soldier. I will acknowledge that this would be a particularly difficult position to be in because the nature of the job, more than any other, causes the person to have to constantly decide whether to take someone’s life or not which is a heavy burden to place on any man’s shoulders. My main point is that Tim’s comments would be best described as non-violent and violent ethics instead Christian and non-Christian ethics. To do otherwise is a slap in the faces of people who love Christ with all their hearts but are put into situations that require them to use their God ordained authority to protect others through violence. I realize that many will say that the Iraq conflict is an inherently immoral war and therefore does not qualify for such a distinction, but I disagree, in spite of acknowledging that the administration has committed many tactical blunders along the way.
PS--Timothy, can we still have the coffee together? ;)
Dennis,
I sure did resonate with your first two paragraphs. I believe that such action, as you described in your missionary friends, comes from a renewed heart (what we mean by "born again") that seeks to give ourselves to others as Christ gave himself for us. This is the height of Christian experience and witness. I think of the Amish community just this past week whose powerful witness for Christ is repeated over and over in pure form on our television networks. God is good!
Obviously, I differ on several points in your last paragraph. I would affirm everything that Tim has said in his response. Quickly (for the sake of your time, Dennis), I would add the following:
1. Non-violent and violent ethics vs. Christian and non-Christian ethics (are you sure you want to use this framing!?) was not my framing nor Tim's. Non-violence vs. violence wasn't even the topic of my reply! Tim's specific discussion and the ethics I named in it as Christian vs. non-Christian had to do with, as you call it, "tactical errors". Now, if I had made the initial post I would have identified in the administration non-Christian ethics such as duplicitousness, interpolation and nullifcation in public language concerning the war, suppression of dissent, fear-mongering, falsification of data for political advantage, political and financial favors given to campaign donors that number in the tens of billions, and the disgraceful use of Christian rhetoric to motivate religious support. These are easily documented, blatantly un-Christian, and I would not ever hesitate to name them as such. But it was Tim's post and I went with his framing. :)
2. I am surprised Tim did not mention it but not only at no point did he bring up non-violence but, knowing him as I do and reading into his initial post, he is an advocate of active peacemaking. It is not yet well known, but it involves taking an active biblical stance toward those behaviors--even up to the highest levels of a society--that promote peace in the way of Jesus. To provide some quick examples, on the communal level the Amish, as I have mentioned, were a perfect recent example. Clinton apologizing for American slavery was also an example. A Bush example was when he sent the military into Pakistan after that terrible earthquake to provide relief and supplies. Responding to that earthquake will change those villages opinions of our country forever, and best of all, it will promote peace! Active peacemaking is another option available through Jesus, the Prince of Peace (I would encourage you to dwell on that title for a few moments). Jesus also happened to be the perfect self-example of his Sermon on the Mount teachings as he was lead to death.
As for the reference to "sword" in Romans 13, Paul employs the term as it is commonly used to refer to "authority". The sword is the symbol of authority over people to promote order instead of chaos (a very Genesis concept). It does not represent defacto government bloodletting as it typically gets interpreted by individuals such as yourself. Police, for instance, would be the "sword" in our day and, in actuality, equivalent to the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem at the time of the early church. Given that interpretation government has additional functions beyond killing people.
If you are interested in active peacemaking I would encourage you to get Glen Stassen's Just Peacemaking. It would certainly give you and Tim some excellent conversation when you have that cup of coffee!
In Him,
Matt
Post a Comment