Should the U.S. do nothing when the risks are too high?

Is it possible all of your rhetoric against the Iraq War could also have been used against the US in WWII? How many innocent civilians were killed by US bombs in Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? How many American youths enlisted because of their blind rage and lust for revenge against the Japan and Germany? Does this trump the subsequent good that resulted from our involvement? While I am amazed at your brilliance in describing the church and our culture, I am disappointed by the moral condescension that oozes from articles and speeches you have given on this polarizing subject. I would even agree with most of your assessment, but does that mean the US always does nothing because the risks are always too much?

You decry Abu Ghraib (rightly), but can you see the difference between abuse by individuals (who will be prosecuted and brought to justice), and abuse by governments (who are immune from any prosecution, save from the outside)? In the 20th century more people were killed by their own government than by all of the wars in the same century combined!! This does not give any nation carte blanche to right all wrongs, but what responsibility do we (in a position to make a difference) bear if we see a Rwanda, or a Sudan, where HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocents have died because we (and the UN) turned our backs and ignored them. If you want to argue that we should be there instead of Iraq, I would listen attentively.

Thanks for raising these questions. There are so many questions here that I can’t address them all, nor am I qualified to. I’m sure you realize that you’re exaggerating a number of things I’ve said – wondering where they might lead, and that is certainly a discussion worth having. Let me just focus on your last statement, which I actually would agree with. President Clinton said we were wrong to hold back from involvement in Rwanda, and I agree. President Bush, during the 2000 campaign, said President Clinton was wrong – that the U. S. military should not be seen as the world’s policemen or humanitarian force.

When he invaded Iraq, it was based on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, not on a desire to liberate Iraqis. When no WMD’s were found, the administration started talking about the liberation of Iraq. At that point, he sounded like Bill Clinton. Since I believe Clinton was right in this regard, I’m happy that our president has changed his mind and reversed his earlier rejection of intervention for humanitarian reasons. (I won’t say anything about flip-flopping, I promise!)

I oppose the Iraq invasion for many reasons, most notably, my belief that pre-emptive war is a dangerous, dangerous card to play, especially without exploring every possible option and doing due diligence to exhaust other avenues. How will we feel if other nations start playing that card? On what basis will we oppose them? As in so many things, facile either/or’s aren’t very helpful (although both political parties use plenty of them) – but I consider the Bush doctrine to be incredibly significant, and even if it turns out to be wise and justifiable, it deserves a lot more scrutiny than it has gotten.

So, if the administration uses humanitarian concerns to justify the invasion, then, I would hope that we will seek to be consistent and consider our obligation to Sudan, for example, or to Burundi, or other places where genocide simmers.