1. You say that Nazi Germany and South Africa repented of events “within their borders.” Are you saying that the need for national repentance depends on whether or not the moral evil is done inside or outside the country, or do you mean that if the “common citizenry” are not aware of the events, and that only certain leaders/individuals are aware of it, it does not require national repentance? When and how do we incur corporate guilt?

2. You observe that with their system of Apartheid South Africa deprived millions of blacks of their citizenship and other basic rights. Would this be comparable to slavery in the United States? If so, how?

3. You say that national repentance needs to take place “within a reasonable amount of time after the offense,” otherwise it loses its “power and weight.” How long is that? Since you cite Nazi Germany, I assume it is at least 63 years, but maybe it is longer (or shorter?). Does moral responsibility dissipate with time, or disappear with the deaths of those who suffered or with the fading of human memories?

4. You say, “While I can think of several events that are either ongoing or have occurred in recent history where a national repentence might be merited, I admit that I’m unable to come up with a single military and/or social event that the United States has perpetrated that would merit such action.” This statement seems to be a contradiction. On the one hand, you can think of several events that might merit national repentance, but, on the other hand, you are unable to think of any event that requires national repentance. What do you mean?

5. What is the difference between morally evil actions (that presumably require national repentance) and “mistakes,” “blunders,” and “ill-advised military actions” (that presumably do not require repentance)?

6. You indicate that the United States has not been guilty of “such human rights violations on the order of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or the Janjaweed in Darfur.” These are indeed extreme examples so they do not offer much help in defining what sorts of acts would require national repentance. Can you explain more clearly your criteria for acts that would require repentance?

7.Your reference to James 4:17 seems to indicate that it is applicable to nation-states in international affairs. You said in an earlier entry (2 June) that “moral and ethical Christian leadership” is “rarely consistently possible on an international level.” This is confusing. Is Christian leadership possible or not? Is the book of James applicable or not? For example is James 4:14, or 3:17-18 applicable to nation-states in their international affairs?

It is evident that I find Dave’s comments very confusing. I look forward to his responses.

Both of the instances you cite (Nazi Germany & South Africa) repented of events that occurred within their borders (even if, as in the case of Germany, those borders had been enlarged by force). The Nazis built concentration camps within their own country (Dachau, Mauthausen, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, to name but a few) and ruthlessly set out to exterminate all “untermensch” who were not part of their Master Race. The South Africans enforced their policy of apartheid against their fellow countrymen, depriving nearly 19 million blacks of their citizenship and other basic rights.

And, in each case the common citizenry shared the blame with the elected officials who passed the laws; this was not something happening outside their borders where they could either claim ignorance and/or helplessness.

Yet another common element of these two examples is that they both occurred within recent memory. Apartheid only ended in 1994, and there are still people alive today who can recall the horrors of the Holocaust. From this, I think it is safe to assume that any national repentance undertaken must be done so within a reasonable amount of time - otherwise, it loses its power and weight. After all, how much good does an apology do if there’s no one around who remembers the original offense?

While I can think of several events that are either ongoing or have occurred in recent history where a national repentence might be merited, I admit that I’m unable to come up with a single military and/or social event that the United States has perpetrated that would merit such action. Mistakes? Yes. Blunders? Of course. Ill-advised military actions? You betcha. But human rights violations on the order of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or the Janjaweed in Darfur? Thankfully, no.

On the other hand, maybe we should apologize for what we’ve *not* done. After the genocide in Rwanda that only recently ended, much of the world wrung its collective hands and declared, “Never again!” Yet here we are faced with a worsening situation in Sudan where brutalities and atrocities are being committed on a daily basis (for a tear-jerking account, go to http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article4362968.ece
- but be warned: it isn’t pretty).

“Anyone then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” -James 4:17.

“You cannot do simply good to simply Man; you must do this or that good to this or that man. And if you do this good, you can’t at the same time do that; and if you do it to these men, you can’t also do it to those. Hence from the outset the law of beneficence involves not doing some good to some men at some times…And sooner or later, it involves helping A by actually doing some degree of violence to B. But when B is up to mischief against A, you must either do nothing (which disobeys the intuition) or you must help one against the other. And certainly no one’s conscience tells him to help B, the guilty. It remains, therefore, to help A. So far, I suppose, we all agree. If the argument is not to end in an anti-Pacifist conclusion, one or other of two stopping places must be selected. You must either say that violence to B is lawful only if it stops short of killing, or else that killing of individuals is indeed lawful but the mass killing of a war is not.” - C.S. Lewis, “Why I Am Not A Pacifist” from The Weight of Glory

Thanks for the kind words - we are indeed brothers in Christ, and our service to and for His kingdom should supersede all other allegiances. That said, we do still live in this world, and we must work through the difficulties of relating in a Christ-like way to our neighbors, whether individually or on a global scale.

Awhile back, Thorsten Moritz said that “There does not seem to be ANYTHING in the NT to suggest that we either have the right or the need to defend anything, including ourselves.” While the pacifist theme may be laudable insofar as my personal defense is concerned, it is problematic at best when applied to others. If someone else is being attacked, do I have a right - or even an obligation - to protect and defend them, if such is within my means? Clearly, the command to “love my neighbor” must be weighed - but the fact remains that I cannot love everyone equally at all times; there are times when I must choose whom to love at a particular moment. For example, if my wife is being mugged do I show more love to my wife by rescuing her or to her attacker by choosing not to harm him?

True, Jesus did not advocate overthrowing the Roman Empire, but neither did he condemn its actions or the service of those who (like the centurions) were responsible for enforcing its imperialist intentions. Likewise, John the Baptist doesn’t tell the soldier to go AWOL from Caesar’s army, but instructs him not to extort money, falsely accuse others, and be content with his pay (Luke 3:14).

I watched a show on the Biography Channel last night about Saddam Hussein’s family - horrific stuff, to say the least. Laying aside the argument about WMDs for the moment, there is (I believe) sufficient grounds to justify our invasion of Iraq as a means of removing this brutal dictator (and his equally psychotic sons) from power. Were we acting purely out of self-interest, we would logically be more concerned with subsuming their oil reserves for our own exploitation and less about repairing/rebuilding their social/economic infrastructure.

We can debate until the cows come home about the various blunders and failings that have occurred since the opening salvos, but one thing is clear: a repressive and cruel regime has been deposed, and the Iraqi people are better off because of it. One can argue further about why we acted in Iraq, yet leave other dictators alone or fail to intervene in places like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, etc. While there are numerous answers to this, the gist of the questions leans us towards more action, not less. And all of it, as John Mustol points out, must be laid out for public scrutiny by our elected civilian officials before we go anywhere.

We are blessed to live in a democracy where political leaders are answerable to the people and where the military is subordinate to the civilian leadership. We witness, for example, General Petraeus explaining himself before a congressional committee. Such proceedings make me very proud. I recognize the resentment a military person (Dave) may experience when a nonmilitary person (me) criticizes our civilian leadership (President Bush) and alledges that this leadership has misused and abused him. Since I am not a military person, I can only imagine how difficult this must be. But that is democracy. God help us if this situation is ever reversed. If we lived in a dictatorship, the church (Dave, myself, and others who name Jesus as Lord) would, I hope, still speak out and stand for truth and righteousness. In a case where the government has acted wrongly, “higher moral principles” must control our words and actions.

As followers of Jesus, our primary citizenship is in the Kingdom of God. It is this “higher set of moral principles” of which Dave speaks, the “culture,” and the “patrimony” of the Kingdom of God, as revealed and inaugurated in the life and work of Jesus Christ, that supercedes all earthly kingdoms and allegiances. It is the Lord Christ whom we serve before all others. We seek to interpret and judge the behavior of earthly kingdoms, armies, generals, kings, and presidents in terms of the values and principles of the Kingdom of God. This is the basis for our words and actions, not only on issues of security, war and peace, but also on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and so on.

It is my fervent prayer that conditions in Iraq will continue to improve as it seems they are doing now, and that our troops will all be able to come home as soon as is reasonably possible. As Dave says, we have a moral responsibility to remain until the country is stable; or as Colin Powell put it to President Bush, “You break it; you own it.” And it is also my prayer that we learn from these events. And again, I pray, may God have mercy on us all.

For me, the issue poses a different set of problems. On the one hand, it’s hard for me to accept the fact that the government I’ve served for so long (not to be confused with a particular administration) would or could gamble my life in an unjust cause. On the other hand, it’s equally difficult for me to sit quietly and listen to civilians who have never served a day in uniform and don’t know the first thing about how to conduct military operations excoriate our commander-in-chief on his prosecution of the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq. And I’m not necessarily referring to anyone posting here - the media is full to overflowing with everyone from well-meaning but uninformed armchair quarterbacks to self-righteous windbags whose passionate hatred for Dubya indelibly stains any conversation about the war.

What I take away from this conversation and debate is a renewed commitment to a higher set of morals and principles. The U.S. government (nor any other) will never act in a perfect way - hence, no war will be waged in perfect accordance to Augustinian ideals. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try for it, or fail to hold our officials accountably when they fall short. But living in this imperfect environment means that we also need to salvage the good where we can find it - and for this war I think that means not abandoning a fledgling Iraqi government just when it needs us the most. It means continuing to refine and reshape our policies, even as we are still learning to understand the needs and goals of our erstwhile allies.

While I appreciate your comments as well as your high regard for the men and women who serve in our nation’s armed forces, there are a few issues I have with the xxx in your post.

You say, “With their minds fogged and their hearts wounded by the pain of 9/11 and haunted by fears of another attack on the US, both the President and “a majority” in Congress were not thinking clearly.” This is presumptious, at best, to describe our leadership as still being “foggy-minded” more than a year after the 9/11 tragedy. Had it been days or even weeks after the event, I might could agree with you. Yet even that would not have been without precedent; recall that President Roosevelt declared war on Japan the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked - was *he* not thinking clearly as well? In fact, 3 days after the Twin Towers fell, Congress unanimously passed S.J. Res. 23, a joint resolution “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” Was that a bad decision? But by applying your logic, it would be possible to describe *any* decisions/actions taken by the President, Congress, House of Representatives, etc. as an emotional response - so where do you draw the line?

Citing two of the most ardent democrats in Congress (Byrd & Kennedy) as evidence of opposition does little to bolster your claims. I could well cite the fact that there was only 1 republican Senator (Chafee) who voted against it, and argue that partisan politics had more to do with it than the true legitimacy of the cause. The fact that those two voted against it doesn’t surprise me - what does surprise me is that 29 other democrats (including all of the former presidential candidates) *did* vote for it.

As to the decision to invade Iraq being made in the summer of 2002, that’s hardly surprising to me: if the issue was to come up for vote before Congress in October, I would expect someone to do their homework ahead of time to be able to clearly delineate the issue. In the military, one plans operations months (or even years) ahead of time before presenting a brief to the decision-makers.

I agree with the gist of what you say about the subsequent planning & execution of the war. From a military standpoint, Rumsfeld bears the brunt of the blame for his refusal to tolerate opposing strategies and insisting on surrounding himself with “yes-men” who would do his bidding without question. But on the other hand, it will never be an easy matter to transition from “winning the war” to “winning the peace.” Much of that depends on the ability and willingness of the host country to shoulder their part of the responsibilities - much as Germany and Japan did post-WWII.

I realize I’m probably not going to change your mind re. the initial justification for the Iraq war. That’s ok. However, I will point out that one’s perception of the initial decision invariably affects all future decisions re. the issue. Kinda like using sour milk for your cereal - it doesn’t matter what kind or how good the actual cereal is - the fact that you start with sour milk means it’s not going to taste good (unless you’re into that sort of thing). If you didn’t agree with it in the first place, it’s unlikely that you are going to admit that things are going well and that there might be a lot of good to come out of this in the long run.

Regarding the question of pre-war justification for the invasion of Iraq, to argue that “there was sufficient evidence at the time to convince not only the President but a majority of Congress as well” does not hold. With their minds fogged and their hearts wounded by the pain of 9/11 and haunted by fears of another attack on the US, both the President and “a majority” in Congress were not thinking clearly. President Bush was under enormous pressure. There is ample evidence today that the administration (or at least certain members of the administration) had decided to invade Iraq by the summer of 2002, and that their conscious task after that was to control information to that end and sell it to the public (and to Congress). Despite this work of (what amounts to) deception, there were many who were not deceived. The Senate vote was 77 to 23; the House vote was 296 to 133. Senators Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy argued forcefully against it. A number of people around the country vigorously questioned the decision. For example Dr. Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, and a specialist in Shia Islam and Middle East History, was appalled by the plan and tried in every way he could to influence events. I heard Cole describe his efforts in a lecture he delivered at SDSU in 2004. He foresaw many of the problems that ensued during the occupation. There were many others who spoke out. (I personally wrote many letters to congress people and the President.) But it is clear that our top leaders made a mistake – a very serious mistake. It may be understandable, but it is not excusable.

Moreover, the planning for the occupation of Iraq was poor at best. We simply did not know what we were getting into. The history of our occupation until 2007 was one of trial-and-error, ad hoc patchwork operations, and ignorant bungling. People in charge of both military and civilian operations did not know what they were doing. Like a surgeon who performs major surgery without properly “working up” the patient first, we plunged into Iraq without proper research or planning. If the truth be told, there are probably a lot of mid- and low-level officers who managed to save many situations by smart and resourceful thinking under pressure. But the grinding injustice of it is that the blundering of our top leaders has been paid for by the blood of our fine troops. This is manifestly wrong.

In the last several months the situation in Iraq seems to have improved. We have all prayed for this, and we pray it continues to improve. I am not sure why this has happened. The “surge” has probably helped. General Petraeus’ new policies including “reconciliation” and payoffs with various tribes, factions, and groups that we had considered enemies, has probably helped. He has managed to cobble together various alliances and truces that have held so far. Moqtada al Sadr’s faction and other Shiite militias seem to be holding their cards (and weapons) for the moment. Perhaps the Iraqi people are tired of war. How long this will last and how it will pan out is anyone’s guess, but I pray to God that it will continue to improve so we can begin to bring our troops home.

I would like to insert a truth here that is vital if we are to act rightly in the world and avoid more mistakes like the invasion of Iraq. The fact is that the American public, and, more importantly, most military and civilian leaders do not understand Iraq or know what is going on “on the ground” there. Neither do we understand Afganistan, Iran, Pakistan, or other nations of the region. I spent 8 years in the Comoro Islands as a missionary. At the end of that eight years of living “on the ground,” with the people, I was only beginning to grasp the culture and worldview of the people and society I was working in. It takes a very long time. You have to live with the people, speak their language, listen to them, sweat with them, bleed with them, laugh and cry with them. Then if you are humble enough, if you pray enough, if you listen hard enough, if you bend your mind and heart enough, after a very long time, they will let you into their lives and you will begin to learn and understand. It is a transforming experience. Politicians who visit Iraq and spend a few days walking around with American troops and talking to officials learn very little by doing this. An American soldier who does not speak the local language, knows little of Islam, and has not studied the history and culture of the region and people groups; who lives in a compound; who walks the streets in body armor carrying a gun, who works through a translator, is not going to be admitted into Iraqi society and life and is not going to know “what is going on the ground” in the minds, hearts, families, clans, and inner circles of the people of that land. Likewise his commanders will not know either. But it is these very things that will determine what actually happens in Iraq. In the end, the fate of Iraq will be decided by the Iraqi people, not us. We are and will remain outsiders. Despite our hubristic belief in our own omni-intelligence and omnipotence, we are, in reality, the passive objects of forces and events beyond our control.

Finally, I would like to quote from a speech given by Spencer Tracey near the end of the movie, Judgment at Nuremburg, when he, as the judge, renders the verdict on four German defendants. For those who have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. Tracey is speaking as an American at a time when America and its allies, in the late 1940s, had just overcome Nazism and now were facing communist threats. I have edited it slightly to make it more understandable outside the context of the movie.

“There are those in our own country today who speak of protection of country, of survival. A decision must be made in the life of every nation. At the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat, when it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy – to rest survival on what is expedient – to look the other way. [But what sort of survival is this?] A country isn’t a rock. It’s the extension of oneself. It is what it stands for. It is what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult. Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.”

I love my country, and it grieves me to see it commit actions in which it sacrifices what it stands for in the name of self-protection. When we pervert justice to defend it, then justice, for us, no longer exists. When we deceive ourselves and others in order to defend the “truth,” then truth, for us, no longer exists. We may survive, but we no longer stand for anything. We will be alive, but our life will be hollow.

The tragedy of Iraq is all the worse because it is the United States that produced it – the nation which, I would have thought, stood for what is right, just and good – my country. If it had been some perverse dictator of some rogue nation who, on false pretenses, invaded a nation much weaker than itself and sought to impose massive social and political changes by force, it would have been what was expected. Perverse dictators do those kinds of things. But it was the United States of America, the country I love and honor, who did this. Many of our finest soldiers and many more Iraqis have paid with their blood. The wound is deep and very serious. It may never heal. But, as Glen has said, the only way to begin healing is confession and repentance. May God have mercy on us all.

As Austin Mansfield pointed out, the United States waited until “after the United Nations had already authorized military action against Iraq for Saddam’s continued violation of U. N. Security Council Resolutions 687, 1373, and 1441, before taking action.” In actuality, we had been waiting well over 14 months. The UN had imposed multiple sanctions upon Iraq, which Saddam flagrantly ignored. During Operations Vigilent Sentinel and Northern/Southern Watch, U.S. planes were routinely fired upon, yet rarely returned fire.

“The original justification for the invasion was morally insufficient in the first place. When the perceived threat to America was later discovered to be an imaginary one, the invasion became indefensible.”

Disagree. The majority of Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of invasion after 9/11, on the credible grounds that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and was intent on using them. I don’t think that a preemptive strike (also termed a “spoiling attack” in military parlance) is necessarily “morally insufficient.” If we had found stockpiles of chemical/nuclear weapons, Bush would have been pretty well vindicated by the same people/nations that are now taking him to task. The fact that WMDs have not been found doesn’t necessarily mean that the threat was an imaginary one, though that is one possibility. It also could mean that a) Saddam did not have WMDs, but acted as though he did, as a means of intimidation or b) that the WMDs were moved elsewhere - much as his fighter squadrons suddenly decided to visit Syria until Desert Storm was over.

Also, comparing the current war to the Holocaust, apartheid, and the Rape of Nanking is unfair. No, you’re not “equating America with the enormity of Nazi guilt,” but you are calling all of them evils that need to be repented of. I’m sure you could’ve found historical examples that more closely matched America’s response to Iraq, but that wouldn’t have the hard-hitting punch of evoking images of jackbooted Nazis or South African shantytowns now, would it? For all it’s many faults, I don’t think you’ll find a much more benevolent country than ours. That’s not nationalism speaking, it’s pretty much a fact. We spend more *privately* on international aid than any other country spends *nationally.* We offer assistance to friend and foe alike - even countries like Burma and China. Are we perfect? By no means! But I daresay that the way we’ve conducted ourselves internationally over the years would put most other countries to shame. Does the U.S. look out for her own national interest? Certainly, but so does everyone else. This is where Christian influence should come to bear - as John Mustol points out, “American behavior has been characterized by self-interest and realpolitik.” We need to do what we can to encourage moral and ethical Christian leadership, but that is rarely consistently possible on an international level, where compromise is a real and often necessary part of the game. On a micro-level, think of police arresting a known drug dealer. Should he go to jail? Certainly. But what if he can provide information that will lead to the takedown of an entire drug cartel? Should he be able to plea bargain and get a reduced sentence or even immunity? If so, has justice been done? Now bring this up to international levels and the concessions that are necessary in order to deal with varied and corrupt governments, and you might get some slight indication of the diplomatic minefields that are often tread.

John Mustol:
“There was no good evidence that he was a threat to the U.S. There were many other ways to deal with him besides waging war. ”

Again, there was sufficient evidence at the time to convince not only the President but a majority of Congress as well. Even if you don’t like Bush, consider that Colin Powell was convinced that Saddam had chemical stockpiles. The fact that the intelligence of the time hasn’t produced the intended results does not mean that it was not credible to begin with. As for “other ways” of dealing with Saddam, we’d been playing that card since 1991. Embargoes, sanctions, military enforcement of airspace/shipping lanes — nothing had worked. Don’t believe me? Read the evidence out there of Saddam’s actions between 1991-2002. I was there in the Persian Gulf when he kicked the UN inspectors out for the 2nd time in 1998, and remember the real-time military intel about what they had seen - we would’ve been justified to have gone in then, in my opinion.

“Today we are in a terrible predicament in Iraq. We don’t know what we should do to pacify the country and move toward extracting ourselves from it.”

Again, this is the opinion of someone who gets his information from some other source other than those who are actually working/fighting on the ground in Iraq. Casualties - for both Americans and Iraqis - are at the lowest levels ever. Progress is being made toward self-government and self-sufficiency. Petraeus, McMaster, and others have developed remarkably efficient Counter Insurgency (COIN) methods that have broken the backs of most organized Al-Qaeda in Iraq organizations. Stabilization/reconstruction is never easy - we were in Japan and Germany for years after WWII, and that was with their cooperation!

“Moreover, the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States represents a stupendous example of modern hubris, of so-called “nation-building.” It manifests the modern humanistic belief that humans can make of the world whatever they want.”

Yeah, and that hubris also re-built Germany & Japan into the modern powerhouses they are today, as well as playing a continuing part in the efforts to develop and support many African countries through small but well-organized military efforts. Also, I noticed you didn’t mention Afghanistan - is that also an example of our modern hubris, or did we get that one right?