I am most often asked in relation to this war, “What is the Lord saying about it?” It is always my primary goal to try to discern the mind of the Lord about a matter. I have inquired of Him repeatedly to speak to me about this war. To date all He has said is for me to observe and use my discernment. That means I cannot just look from the position of being an American, or from any other position that is based on human politics or interests. However, as much as I have tried to rise above the earthly, political perspective to answer the following questions in this bulletin, I do not presume to be completely free of such influences. So I would rather present these as simply my opinion that is based on my own observations on the issues.
Is the Coalition Doing the Right Thing by Attacking Iraq?
I am convinced that it is. As I have said, we do not live in a perfect world, and there are rarely perfect answers to any problems, much less those as complicated as the ones that gave birth to this conflict. Sometimes the right thing to do is only slightly better than the worst thing to do. Even so, in this situation the failure of the Iraqi regime to give up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), combined with the political situation at the U.N., made war inevitable. Why?
The WMD that Iraq admitted to having just a few years ago were enough to destroy all human life on earth many times over. Just a portion of them could be used to wipe out an entire section of the United States, all of Europe, or the Middle East. As some of the weapon inspectors have recently admitted, it was very improbable that they would have ever found these weapons without being in control of the entire country.
Why Couldn’t the Coalition Have Waited and Given Diplomacy a Little More Time?
With the coming of the summer heat, the window of opportunity was closing very fast for operations in the dessert, especially with the need to wear suits to protect against chemical weapons. The stalling tactics of Iraq and its allies at the U.N. were obviously intended to close that window, giving Saddam many more months to prepare for what was coming, and then most likely multiply the cost of the war in both lives and material. This would have also given them more time to prepare to hit the United States homeland with WMD.
As I said in the last bulletin, I do not believe all of the propaganda about Saddam Hussein, but he is getting a lot of cash from somewhere that is far beyond what Iraq is taking in under the food for oil program. The only other marketable commodity he has are these weapons. This was one of the most dangerous situations in the world and it had to be confronted. The hope for peace was that Saddam would give up these weapons, but that was obviously not going to happen any other way.
Won’t America’s Standing in the World Be Hurt by Going Against World Opinion to Attack Iraq?
First, it is better to lose some standing than to lose your existence. There is a very real possibility and maybe probability, that those WMD would ultimately be used against the United States and other nations.
Second, world opinion is rarely a good barometer of what is right morally or strategically, and no nation’s foreign policy should be dictated just by it. Many nations will be against America regardless of what we do.
Third, world opinion is not against America in this conflict. The coalition of nations that is with the United States this time is actually much larger than during the last Gulf War. Even the other Gulf nations that are complaining about this war are doing it so feebly that it is obviously designed to appease their own citizens, and they are probably very relieved that this problem is being taken care of.
The Real Cause of the War
It is likely that this war is going to create more problems in the future for the United States and its allies. However, the consequences for not taking action could result in many more problems that are much worse. “The Bush Doctrine” of taking pre-emptive action to deprive rogue states and terrorists of WMD will very likely end up saving millions of lives, and spare us far more chaos and destruction in the world.
One of the primary reasons for the attack on the World Trade Center was America’s retreat from Somalia after the battle that is depicted in the movie and book, Black Hawk Down. The perception to the enemies of the United States was all that needed to be done was to kill a few Americans and they would retreat. This seemed to have already been established when the United States fled Lebanon after the Marine barracks were bombed during the Reagan Administration. That this perception is a driving force behind the terrorists has come forth in many interviews with them.
This perception of weakness continues to worsen by much of the news coverage of the war that so over-focuses on the casualties, as amazingly few as they are. I thank God that I live in a country that so values life that we have gone to such extremes to even save the lives of our enemies, probably going too far to try to get them to surrender before attacking, but it is right to err on that side. Even so, to state this more succinctly:
Point 1: America is perceived by the Islamic extremists as not having a stomach for casualties, which is the reason why terrorists have a primary strategy of simply killing Americans to accomplish their goals. If this perception is changed by this war it will likely save many lives in the future. Therefore, as hard as it is to even consider, it might be good for the long term of the war in Iraq to be long and hard, with many casualties, and for the United States and its Allies to prove their resolve and determination to succeed and bring to justice anyone who attacks America or its Allies, regardless of the cost. Sooner or later this will have to happen to free the world of the tyranny of terrorism.
Point 2: America and its Allies will have to get much tougher if it is going to defeat terrorism. Iraq will be tougher than Afghanistan. The next phase will very likely be much tougher than Iraq. However, the consequences of not staying the course will be much more costly. We are at war, and we have no alternative but to win it. No one will want to live in the world that will result from the terrorists achieving their objectives with terrorism.
Point 3: Civilian casualties are likely to rise because of the Iraqi defense strategy, and the Coalition will have to accept this to win. Presently soldiers are risking their lives to save Iraqi civilians. We should be very thankful to live in countries that behave this way even in war. However, even though the Arab media seizes every opportunity to parade civilian casualties before the world, this is done because it is perceived the greatest weakness of the West. It is because of the Western aversion to casualties that terrorists target civilians, and Saddam is using human shields. This will continue to be their strategy until the West demonstrates a greater toughness here. This may seem cold, but it will save many more lives in the future. As a famous general once said, “War is hell.” And as Winston Churchill once said, “When you’re going through hell, keep going!”
Are President Bush and Tony Blair Warmongers?
One would have to be quite naive to believe that. No one on the planet had more to lose and less to gain from this war than President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Bush and Blair were both deeply impacted by the attacks on the World Trade Center, and they are both resolved to cut off terrorism at its roots. Their courage and steadfastness in the face of the political costs is more like the character found in great generals than politicians. We desperately need leaders like them in these times. Currently, a lack of decisive leadership could be our worst problem, and a lack of decisive action would be the most deadly course.
Is the War the Result of A Diplomatic Failure of the Bush and Blair Administrations?
War is always bad, and often is the result of diplomatic failures. It is also true throughout history that very few great leaders make very good diplomats. Leaders are used to accomplish their goals, and the seemingly endless quibbling of typical diplomacy is torture for the conventional leader. There are also times when diplomatic solutions are simply not possible in a situation. It is likely that these two could have done some things better diplomatically or done them differently, but no one in this imperfect world should be expected to do everything perfectly. Overall, the diplomatic successes of these administrations has been remarkable. It was relatively easy to rally nations for the first Gulf War since big and powerful Iraq had attacked tiny little Kuwait. For them to have established an even larger Coalition for this war is truly remarkable.
It would certainly have been much better for the short term if military pressure could have worked in place of military action. That was possible, but the actions or lack of them at the U.N. made that increasingly unlikely. The actions of France, Germany, and Russia could not help but to make Saddam even more intransigent. The only hope for a diplomatic solution was to win these countries over to the Coalition side, but that became increasingly unlikely at best.
To attribute the diplomatic failure to Bush or Blair is not fair. It seems that both of them went far beyond the “extra mile” to resolve this situation diplomatically. Has anyone considered that it was the fault of our supposed Allies who betrayed us that this was not solved diplomatically? Regardless, the wisdom and the righteousness of the course that ultimately had to be taken will be demonstrated to all but those who choose to be blind.
Have the United States Relations with France and Germany Been Permanently Damaged?
Since the French came to the aid of the United States in the Revolutionary War, Americans have kind of looked up to the French like a big brother. Brothers often fight but you’re still brothers. Almost nothing short of a betrayal can permanently damage the relationship between brothers. But this is what has happened, and it is likely that the kind of special relationship that the United States has had with France will never be the same again. It can be improved but it can also get much worse.
Our relationship to Germany has been different. Since WW II Germany has been one of our closest friends and allies. In many ways the culture of America is more German than English. English won over German as our national language by only one vote in the Continental Congress. Since WW II Americans have steadily grown in their love and respect for Germans, German culture, and especially German products. It does not seem that our riff with Germany is as great as it is with France, but in some ways there is an even darker side to it. Because Saddam is often compared to Hitler, the links between Iraq and Germany seem more sinister, with many feeling that Germans really do have a propensity to spread death throughout the world. If the WMD found in Iraq prove to have been of German manufacture or made with German technology, this would likely have devastating consequences for Germany.
The behavior of both of these countries to seemingly be better friends with Saddam Hussein than with the United States have led many to believe that they both must have something to hide in Iraq that they are desperate to not have uncovered. Let’s hope this is not the case. There has certainly been very serious damage done to both of these relationships, but let’s hope that these riffs are between governments more than between the people. If there is found to be collusion between these countries and Iraq’s manufacture of WMD or other banned weapons, and the people of those countries do not rise up and throw their present leaders out, then we have a much deeper problem.
Has This War Proven Who Are Our True Friends in the World?
When President Bush declared war against terrorism he said that it would prove who our true friends were. He seems to have been prophetic on that point. However, we should not expect every nation that is our friend to agree with us on everything. In fact, friends ought to be able to disagree and remain friends.
Even so, for France to be so blatantly trying to commandeer both the United Nations and the European Union is a truly remarkable development. For the French President to tell the smaller European nations to “shut up” and kowtow to the French position on Iraq if they ever hoped to get into the E.U., had to have been shocking even to the French. At the very least France can never again accuse the United States of bullying smaller countries without being seen as quite the hypocrite.
To even a casual observer it looks as if France is trying to become the leader of the anti-United States block of nations, and Germany is falling in behind France. This has to be deeply disturbing considering that we are in a time of war. At best, the economic consequences of this will likely be substantial. If you do much business with either of these nations this should be seriously considered. It is likely that there will be major problems for French and German products in the United States for a very long time.
This will provide opportunities for goods from other nations, and most likely benefit Pacific rim nations like Japan and China, but it is also a very good time to strengthen our ties and our trade relations with our closest neighbors such as Canada, Mexico, and Central and South American countries.
Russia and many of the former Soviet block countries can also still become some of our greatest friends in the world. We should understand that there are still many Cold War elements in places of influence, especially in Russia, which is probably the reason we will find some collusion between these countries and what we find in Iraq. However, these elements are fading in influence, and these nations really can become some of our best friends in the world.
Is the U.N. Finished as an International Body?
There is no question that the influence and future of the U.N. has been deeply injured by its failure over the Iraq issue. Now that the obstructionist position of France to veto any initiatives of the United States is clear, it probably has reduced the U.N. to being nothing but a glorified debating club, at best. Some have proposed that Bush pursued diplomacy through the U.N. in order to reveal the ineptitude of the U.N. I do not think that either Bush or Blair wanted to see the U.N. breakdown the way that it did, but it may turn out to be one of the best things that could have happened.
There have been some very significant accomplishments through the U.N., but there have been many failures for every success. Even so, this is true in almost all diplomacy. Just as President Clinton’s strategy for the Balkans proved to be brilliant and effective, which could not be accomplished through the U.N. but rather through NATO, there are many other more effective ways for foreign relations to be conducted. Foreign policy can almost always be conducted better on a nation-to-nation basis, or through regional organizations that are vitally affected by the issues, than through the U.N. The United Nations is simply a misnomer, but that does not mean it cannot be a useful organization. However, it may well be doomed completely if some radical changes are not made.
For example, if France or any country that is a permanent member of the Security Council can veto any resolution, means that a very small minority can rule the whole body. There are five permanent members of the Security Council, and over a dozen non-permanent members. This means that one country, representing maybe as little as 5 percent of the will of the whole Security Council, much less the whole body of members, can dominate its entire agenda.
Obviously there will have to be major changes made in the U.N. for it to ever again be anything but an international charity and aid association, which is probably what it is being reduced to. For the Bush and Blair Administrations to have accomplished as much as they did at the U.N. was remarkable. They both demonstrated an uncommon patience and willingness to work through the U.N., and its ultimate failure was not as much theirs as that of the U.N.’s basically flawed organizational structure.
What Is the Spirit Behind the Peace Demonstrators?
I talked to my sixteen-year-old daughter recently who is in another country and had been encountering many of the demonstrators. Though she has not expressed what she thinks about the war, she said that she thought “the peace demonstrators are the most unpeaceful people” she has ever seen. My experience has been the same in every case.
Many peace demonstrators do come across as being naive, but the basic beliefs of the anti-war groups are actually shared by everyone, including Bush, Blair, and the other leaders of the Coalition. Peace is always better—war is always bad. Another one of Churchill’s insightful sayings was, “If you are not a liberal when you are twenty you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are forty you have no mind.” When you mature you start to understand that the world is not as simple as we would like for it to be. As bad as war is, there are wars that have to be fought.
Whether this is one of those times will be proven either way soon enough. However, the question about “the spirit behind the peace demonstrations” is another matter. One thing basic to spiritual discernment is that openness is light and deception is darkness. When you see the often brazenly deceptive media coverage of the peace demonstrations, which they always try to make look much bigger than they really are by their camera angles, as well as showing them over and over as if they were everywhere, you cannot help but to conclude that the Deceiver is very intent on coloring this war a certain way.
On the other hand the Coalition seems to have gone to the other extreme in being open about their actions in this war. Certainly “Shock and Awe” would have done much more shocking and awing if it had not been told to the world so that the enemy had days to prepare for it. Putting five hundred imbedded reporters with the troops so that almost every unit has some with them is also extreme and unprecedented. However, it is extreme on the side of openness, and openness is light, and deception is darkness. It has to be obvious to anyone who does not actually want to be deceived that the light is on one side of this conflict, and darkness is on the other.
When you consider the remarkably bad behavior of some of the world leaders who are opposed to the war, and the outrageous things such as Amnesty International saying that they are going to investigate an accidental bombing of civilians in Baghdad while not saying a word about how some of our POW’s have been treated by Saddam’s forces, not to mention other blatant violations of the Geneva Convention, you have to be extremely dull not to see that darkness is abundant on one side of this war.
This is not meant to imply that everyone who demonstrates against the war is being controlled by the devil, but there is something very foul about the way many anti-war people and groups are behaving. It was the simple discernment of these things that convinced me that this must really be a righteous war.
What Do I Really Think of the Way the Media Is Covering This War?
Certainly there are many reporters doing a very good and honest job. I think it is more in the editing rooms that some very foul things are being done that are dishonest and deceptive. It is not always what you show, but how you show it, that will determine the impact.
It is likely that the media will be responsible for killing more people in this war than the soldiers. They are doing this by over-covering Coalition mistakes, and under-covering the remarkably righteous way that the Coalition is prosecuting the war and their remarkable achievements. This emboldens the enemy so that they will probably fight well past the time when they would have otherwise surrendered, and they will use tactics especially designed for the easily duped media that will cost the lives of many civilians.
One has to wonder why the Arab media is not more outraged by Saddam’s tactics than we are, but for the world media, and especially our own media, to slant this war the way they are doing is quite beyond comprehension. You expect this from your enemies, but not your neighbors.
I am very thankful to live in a country where there is free press, but I am very ashamed of its shameless bias and lack of honest reporting. I will also shamelessly say that I am thankful for Fox News, and am greatly encouraged that it is now the number one news network. This indicates to me that the American public is more discerning than the media in general gives it credit for. This is not to say that Fox News is perfect, and that it too is not sometimes biased, but it is by far the most fair and balanced news on the planet at this time.
Will the Coalition Win the War?
Yes. Even so, I think it will come at a much greater cost than expected. That does not mean it is not worth it. I also think that “administering the peace” in post war Iraq may prove to be much more difficult and costly than expected, but again, that does not mean it is not worth it. We really are into WW III and Iraq is just one more battle. It will not be the biggest or the most costly but it is a war that must be fought. The world is in more danger right now than at any time during the Cold War. Anything but strong, decisive, resolute action will lead to defeats that are far more costly, and that no one on earth will want to live with.
I am not ashamed to be thankful to live in a country with a people who are willing to fight such a war. We are not fighting just to save our own country from tyranny, but to save the civilized world from the most uncivilized enemy—terrorism. I am thankful for the strong, focused leadership that we have in these times that will stay the course with courage and endurance regardless of the political consequences. I am thankful that there are so many nations that are true friends, who are likewise willing to sacrifice and fight for a righteous cause. We really do not have anything to fear but fear itself, and we must keep in mind that this is in fact our enemy—fear, terror. This war is not only to preserve our freedom, but to set many others free from the bondage of this ultimate tyranny.
