wfn.org | [UMNS-ALL-NEWS] UMNS# 685-Commentary: Bishops speak as concerned

[NewsDesk <NewsDesk@UMCOM.ORG>]

Commentary: Bishops speak as concerned Christians on Iraq

Dec. 8, 2005

NOTE: A photograph is available at http://umns.umc.org.

Editor's note: The United Methodist Council of Bishops adopted a
resolution in November expressing concern about the war in Iraq. That
was followed by a statement signed by nearly 100 individual bishops, "A
Call to Repentance and Peace with Justice." This commentary was written
in response to a newspaper article on the "Call to Repentance."

A UMNS Commentary
By Bishop Timothy W. Whitaker*

Should anyone be surprised when a group of Christian bishops criticize a
war? After all, war-making is not the business of a Christian church
since the church has no other task except obedience to its Lord who
said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of
God."

Christians confess that Jesus is Lord. When a nation goes to war, it
should be expected that Christians will be wary because Christians live
in obedience to Jesus Christ with a presumption for peace.

Christians understand that in a world still under the power of sin, war
may be necessary as the only way to restrain evil, enact justice and
establish the conditions that make for peace. The way any war is begun
and waged must be subject to critical scrutiny in order to judge whether
or not it is truly necessary and if it meets certain rational standards
of being a just endeavor. The moral tradition of "just war" was
developed to set forth these standards.

Before the war in Iraq began, some of us objected. We objected partly
because war should be a last resort. Can many truly believe that the war
in Iraq was a last resort? The coalition summoned by the United States
did not even wait until the inspectors assigned by the United Nations
finished their work. Since the primary rationale for the war was to
eradicate weapons of mass destruction, when the inspectors began to
discover that there was no evidence for the existence of WMD, then the
premise of an immediate invasion was contradicted.

We also objected to the lack of legitimate authority by the United
States and its coalition partners.

The legitimate authority for regime change resides in the United Nations
for two reasons. First, the charter of the United Nations provides for
the authority to enact regime change when a sovereign government
oppresses its own people. The United States and other nations have a
responsibility to abide by this authority, not because of some dreamy
notion of internationalism or because of the purity of the United
Nations, but because they had signed solemn treaties to endorse the
charter of the United Nations. In the case of the United States, its own
Constitution requires that the government adhere to its treaties.
Moreover, the United Nations is the legitimate authority for the
practical reason that a disordered state is a threat to the whole world,
and a war will have consequences that affect the whole world.

President George W. Bush demonstrated strong leadership when he appeared
at the U.N. General Assembly before the war and challenged it to hold
Saddam Hussein accountable for his refusal to abide by U.N. resolutions.
Once it had become clear there was no imminent threat from Iraq because
of WMD, the president would have been in a position to continue to exert
diplomatic pressure upon the United Nations to consider acting upon its
authority to remove Hussein from power because of his clear record of
cruelty and injustice toward his own people.

If Hussein did not agree to go into exile, the United Nations would have
had the option to authorize an invasion, occupation and reconstruction
of Iraq. If the United Nations refused to fulfill its responsibility,
the United States and other nations could have justly claimed a moral
legitimacy to take action on their own for the sake of the Iraqi people.

One should not underestimate the effect of diplomatic courage and
patience that could have been exercised by the president of the United
States and other leaders of great nations.

For weighty reasons such as these, some of us urged the president and
Congress not to rush into war. We were motivated by a moral sensibility
formed by the Christian tradition and also by concern for the honor of
our nation, the lives of the Iraqi people and the lives of our fellow
citizens who would be in combat.

The question now is not whether to begin a war but what should be done
at this point. It is not easy to judge what should be done now, since
such a judgment requires an assessment of the facts and a consideration
of all options, which involves possessing information and expertise not
possessed by ordinary citizens. Yet, citizens in a democratic republic
do have a right and a responsibility to present their own assessment
when their government seems unwilling to reflect critically on its own
strategy.

Some of us have gradually come to believe the American military cannot
prevail in what is essentially a civil war. There are not enough troops
to prevail; and because the war is essentially a civil war in Iraq, the
antagonists must be defeated by the military and internal diplomacy of
the Iraqi government.

Both the administration and its critics understand that eventually the
Iraqis must secure their own peace. The difference between the
administration and its critics is the critics judge that the American
military is not only a stabilizing force, but also a provocation. If one
perceives the military is a provocation, then it is clear there needs to
be a plan of exit for the armed forces of the United States as soon as
practical.

How that should be done must be determined by policy makers, but from
the perspective of those of us who are critics, a plan for the
redeployment of the American military is necessary, albeit risky, since
the alternative is weighted with its own dangers of providing a
provocation to the insurgents, perpetuating the conflict, spreading acts
of terror in the region, inhibiting the responsibility of the new Iraqi
government, prolonging the suffering of the Iraqi people, and causing
casualties among members of our own armed forces.

It is said that we must not allow the terrorists to win. No, it is not
conscionable to consider letting terrorists succeed in their
geopolitical aims that are a threat to all nations. But not letting the
terrorists prevail in their long-term aims in what will be an indefinite
conflict does not mean there should not be a change in strategy in the
particular contest being fought in Iraq.

Although ends do not justify the means, the U.S. military has
accomplished its optimal goals, which are the removal of Hussein's reign
and the establishment of a provisional government soon to hold its first
election under its new constitution. The United States will still have
to provide aid to the Iraqi government to enhance its stability. The
political assistance of other governments is also needed. Yet, the
sooner the present situation is changed, the sooner there will be a
realistic hope for a better future for the Iraqi people.

Some of us who are bishops in the United Methodist Church first spoke a
word of warning about this war because of our responsibility to
represent the Christian tradition and to apply its moral wisdom to the
consideration of waging war according to our limited but best judgment
as witnesses of Jesus Christ our Lord.

We speak now as concerned Christians whose silence would be inconsistent
with our original witness. While we are not experts in strategy, we are
obliged to offer our own little word in a time when there needs to be a
reassessment of a dangerous war that continues to bring misery and death
to many.

*Whitaker is bishop of the United Methodist Church's Florida Annual
Conference. This commentary originally appeared in longer form in the
conference's e-review. The full text can be read at www.flumc.org.

News media contact: Kathy L. Gilbert or Tim Tanton, Nashville, Tenn.,
(615) 742-5470 or newsdesk@umcom.org.

********************

United Methodist News Service
Photos and stories also available at:
http://umns.umc.org

----------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this group, go to UMCom.org, log in to your account,
click on the My Resources link and select the Leave option on the list(s)
from which you wish to unsubscribe. If you have problems or questions, please
write to websupport@umcom.org.

Powered by United Methodist Communications http://www.UMCom.org