Somebody's child is still fighting
Political Pulpit
November and December are supposed to be months for giving thanks and extolling
peace. Hopefully the War in Iraq will have ended by the time this column appears, and
these can be months of celebration. But regardless of the possibility of military successes
since the time I wrote this column and regardless of the outcome of the Congressional
elections, it is more than likely that we will be haunted by the legacy of the Bush War on
Terror for some time. And of course, that war is now only the tip of the iceberg of our
global tensions -- as crises over nuclear arms loom in Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea as
well as the exacerbated Israeli-Hezbollah conflicts in Lebanon and Northern Israel. Right
now, somebody's child is still fighting, while the rest of America plays, spends, consumes
more oil, and looks the other way.
Given the themes of Thanksgiving, Christmas, Advent, and the final Pentecost Sundays, these will be good months to examine the Iraq War, the new nuclear crises, and where we go from there. Among the best days for addressing these themes include November 5 (as the gospel teaches us to love one another), Thanksgiving Day (the second lesson from 1 Timothy urges prayer for our political leaders), December 24 (when the first lesson from Micah prophesies that shepherd king who will be one of peace), and Christmas Day (the gospel refers to the angels' proclamation of peace).
The Iraq War and the other international conflicts will not be popular topics at this time of year. It was never a popular war (at least since it became clear that it was not a war to rid Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction which our president and his intelligence agents said were aimed our way). In a recent Gallup Poll taken in mid-year, 54 percent of the American public wants us out of Iraq. (In my last column, I reported on another poll which found more than six in ten Americans against the war.) Only 34 percent still support the war. In a more recent poll, taken by Gallup, only 34 percent of the public believed that the president has a clear plan for the war.
In fact, this is a war that we would rather forget. Unless you have a family member or friend serving in the war our president says we have already "won," you would hardly realize America was in one. We just go on shopping for Christmas, socializing as usual, and complaining about the higher prices we have to pay to do it. The media even forgets the war when something more exciting comes along. On the big three networks' evening newscasts, the time devoted to Iraq fell sixty percent between 2003 and the spring of this year. Recall how during the late July -- early August Israeli invasion of Lebanon, nary a word of the war in Iraq was spoken, even though casualties in Iraq easily surpassed those in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
An untold story is that this war's inception was ultimately more about oil than the press and public have noted. In his recent best-seller, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, Republican pundit, Kevin Phillips, hardly a proponent of conspiracy theories, pointed out how the largest American oil companies (Exxon Mobil and Chevron) have been facing stiff competition since 1979 from various Asian government-owned companies. These companies could pump oil cheaper precisely because they were on the sites of rich oil deposits, no longer so readily available to these American firms. The demands for more oil were strongly felt by the industry as a whole, as it is projected that by 2015 the industry will need to add about 100 million barrels a day of new production, while at the same time crude oil production was declining five percent per year from present fields. The only solution -- new oil fields not controlled by Arab governmental entities. The plot thickens further when American national interests are considered: Projections indicate that America will need to import 75 percent of its oil by 2025.
The answer for the oil companies, according to Phillips, was to have a U.S. foreign policy dedicated to pressuring oil-producing nations to break up state-owned firms. Iraq has among the richest oil reserves left -- estimated as close to 400 billion barrels. Indeed, by 2000, if not before, "Iraq" had become shorthand for oil-company salvation, especially with the peaking of oil production in Saudi Arabia. Huge profits were at stake. Does the invasion of Iraq by the Texas oilman make better sense (especially in view of the fact that he received more money from the U.S. energy industry in his 2000 campaign than it had given to all previous contenders in 1992 and 1996)? In interests of promoting peace movements in America, let's get the word out about this data.
This information barely scratches the surface when it comes to facing the tragedies, mismanagement, and long-term problems associated with this war. By this column's deadline in early August, we had lost 2,812 coalition troops (2,585 Americans). Between 30,000 and 50,000 Iraqis have died, and all Don Rumsfeld, one of the premiere war strategists, could say in response is that "stuff happens" (in response to the looting of Baghdad). Tragically, the toll will likely be higher as you read this column.
The administration's insensitivity to the plight of other people's children (as their children are not fighting in this war) is matched by some suspicious management moves. In my January-February column, I reported to you how Dick Cheney's old company, Haliburton, got a $15 billion government contract without bidding for it. Now we hear that a state department agency, the United States Agency for International Development, has been found, according to a report of the Inspector General's Office, to have failed to give a proper account of the construction overruns in Iraq reconstruction, hiding them as administrative costs. For instance, the agency reported $50 million for rebuilding a Basra hospital when, in fact, the actual cost was $98 million.
We will be living for a long time with the fact that we have actually made things worse in the region as a whole with this war. The most dangerous figure in Iraq is the radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Though not an ally of Osama bin Laden or Saddam, he clearly supports Iran and has sworn solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas and commands thirty seats in the present government coalition. Not only have the Islamic militants in Iran had their internal influence strengthened by the Iraq War, it has also given them cover to continue their nuclear armaments mischief.
Speaking of problems in Iraq, Bush's efforts to establish democracy have led to a new government and constitution which gives the federal government (Shi'ite-dominated) control of oil, denying the oil-less Sunni desire to receive at least twenty percent of the nation's oil reserves. Without this agreement, the government tends to be perceived as pro-Shi'ite in Sunni circles, further encouraging their identification with the insurgency, some of whom have like Al-Qaeda called for global resistance to the West. These dynamics also provide Iran the opening to support the Shi'ites who are still largely in charge of the military, and often feel that they have scores to settle with the Sunnis who dominated the government during the colonial era. Civil war would give an opening to Iran to further exert more influence in Iraq, all to the detriment of global peace.
Appearing in early August before the Senate Armed Services Committee, top U.S. Commander in the Middle East, General John Abizaid, gave even more startling testimony. He questioned earlier predictions that U.S. troop levels could be drawn down during the reminder of the year. He also told the committee that Iraq was more likely headed to "low intensity civil war" and sectarian partition than to a stable democracy. In such a scenario, the new Shi'ite territory would become a virtual puppet of Iran.
As it has gained more influence in Iraq, Iran has been emboldened to make more trouble supporting other Shi'ite terrorist organizations elsewhere. Hezbollah immediately comes to mind. Unlike many other terror groups in the Middle East, it is a serious enemy, but it is a wholly owned puppet of Iran, which also controls Hamas in Palestine. These organizations are committed to subverting modernizing Western-oriented Arab governments, which explains why Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have not supported Hezbollah. Is this an opening for more Arab support in the War on Terror, or does it ensue that although we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons, for the sake of the stabilities of fragile democracies in the region, we dare not leave too soon? This tough question is another testimony to how much damage this war has done, how much it could cost us all, even though most Americans to date are still doing business as usual.
All the options left are bad, but that should not surprise us too much given our doctrine of sin (Romans 7:14-23), which reminds us that politics, like all human affairs, are messy. The best we can do is advocate policies that will achieve the closest proximity to justice for all that we can.
Do support our troops in your preaching and ministry. But put some of this data before your flock in your sermons on peace and justice (the latter theme could be considered in the sermons on the first lessons for November 29 and December 3). Do it along with healthy doses of the realism about politics taught by our Bible (the doctrine of sin) and our Constitution (consider the Separation of Powers and The Federalist Papers, Nos. 10, 51). Enough sermons like that might make a real contribution to building coalitions which can bring an honorable and peaceful end to this tragic conflict, without further contributing to the present chaos. Criticizing the Bush presidency on these matters of international policy is not unpatriotic. It is about loyalty to the Ten Commandments and the Prince of Peace in this season of goodwill and peace to all.
Mark Ellingsen is a tenured associate professor on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta and the author of hundreds of articles and thirteen books, including Blessed Are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place, The Integrity of Biblical Narrative: Story in Theology and Proclamation, and The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual & Pastoral Theology (Westminster/John Knox Press).
Given the themes of Thanksgiving, Christmas, Advent, and the final Pentecost Sundays, these will be good months to examine the Iraq War, the new nuclear crises, and where we go from there. Among the best days for addressing these themes include November 5 (as the gospel teaches us to love one another), Thanksgiving Day (the second lesson from 1 Timothy urges prayer for our political leaders), December 24 (when the first lesson from Micah prophesies that shepherd king who will be one of peace), and Christmas Day (the gospel refers to the angels' proclamation of peace).
The Iraq War and the other international conflicts will not be popular topics at this time of year. It was never a popular war (at least since it became clear that it was not a war to rid Iraq of alleged weapons of mass destruction which our president and his intelligence agents said were aimed our way). In a recent Gallup Poll taken in mid-year, 54 percent of the American public wants us out of Iraq. (In my last column, I reported on another poll which found more than six in ten Americans against the war.) Only 34 percent still support the war. In a more recent poll, taken by Gallup, only 34 percent of the public believed that the president has a clear plan for the war.
In fact, this is a war that we would rather forget. Unless you have a family member or friend serving in the war our president says we have already "won," you would hardly realize America was in one. We just go on shopping for Christmas, socializing as usual, and complaining about the higher prices we have to pay to do it. The media even forgets the war when something more exciting comes along. On the big three networks' evening newscasts, the time devoted to Iraq fell sixty percent between 2003 and the spring of this year. Recall how during the late July -- early August Israeli invasion of Lebanon, nary a word of the war in Iraq was spoken, even though casualties in Iraq easily surpassed those in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
An untold story is that this war's inception was ultimately more about oil than the press and public have noted. In his recent best-seller, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, Republican pundit, Kevin Phillips, hardly a proponent of conspiracy theories, pointed out how the largest American oil companies (Exxon Mobil and Chevron) have been facing stiff competition since 1979 from various Asian government-owned companies. These companies could pump oil cheaper precisely because they were on the sites of rich oil deposits, no longer so readily available to these American firms. The demands for more oil were strongly felt by the industry as a whole, as it is projected that by 2015 the industry will need to add about 100 million barrels a day of new production, while at the same time crude oil production was declining five percent per year from present fields. The only solution -- new oil fields not controlled by Arab governmental entities. The plot thickens further when American national interests are considered: Projections indicate that America will need to import 75 percent of its oil by 2025.
The answer for the oil companies, according to Phillips, was to have a U.S. foreign policy dedicated to pressuring oil-producing nations to break up state-owned firms. Iraq has among the richest oil reserves left -- estimated as close to 400 billion barrels. Indeed, by 2000, if not before, "Iraq" had become shorthand for oil-company salvation, especially with the peaking of oil production in Saudi Arabia. Huge profits were at stake. Does the invasion of Iraq by the Texas oilman make better sense (especially in view of the fact that he received more money from the U.S. energy industry in his 2000 campaign than it had given to all previous contenders in 1992 and 1996)? In interests of promoting peace movements in America, let's get the word out about this data.
This information barely scratches the surface when it comes to facing the tragedies, mismanagement, and long-term problems associated with this war. By this column's deadline in early August, we had lost 2,812 coalition troops (2,585 Americans). Between 30,000 and 50,000 Iraqis have died, and all Don Rumsfeld, one of the premiere war strategists, could say in response is that "stuff happens" (in response to the looting of Baghdad). Tragically, the toll will likely be higher as you read this column.
The administration's insensitivity to the plight of other people's children (as their children are not fighting in this war) is matched by some suspicious management moves. In my January-February column, I reported to you how Dick Cheney's old company, Haliburton, got a $15 billion government contract without bidding for it. Now we hear that a state department agency, the United States Agency for International Development, has been found, according to a report of the Inspector General's Office, to have failed to give a proper account of the construction overruns in Iraq reconstruction, hiding them as administrative costs. For instance, the agency reported $50 million for rebuilding a Basra hospital when, in fact, the actual cost was $98 million.
We will be living for a long time with the fact that we have actually made things worse in the region as a whole with this war. The most dangerous figure in Iraq is the radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Though not an ally of Osama bin Laden or Saddam, he clearly supports Iran and has sworn solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas and commands thirty seats in the present government coalition. Not only have the Islamic militants in Iran had their internal influence strengthened by the Iraq War, it has also given them cover to continue their nuclear armaments mischief.
Speaking of problems in Iraq, Bush's efforts to establish democracy have led to a new government and constitution which gives the federal government (Shi'ite-dominated) control of oil, denying the oil-less Sunni desire to receive at least twenty percent of the nation's oil reserves. Without this agreement, the government tends to be perceived as pro-Shi'ite in Sunni circles, further encouraging their identification with the insurgency, some of whom have like Al-Qaeda called for global resistance to the West. These dynamics also provide Iran the opening to support the Shi'ites who are still largely in charge of the military, and often feel that they have scores to settle with the Sunnis who dominated the government during the colonial era. Civil war would give an opening to Iran to further exert more influence in Iraq, all to the detriment of global peace.
Appearing in early August before the Senate Armed Services Committee, top U.S. Commander in the Middle East, General John Abizaid, gave even more startling testimony. He questioned earlier predictions that U.S. troop levels could be drawn down during the reminder of the year. He also told the committee that Iraq was more likely headed to "low intensity civil war" and sectarian partition than to a stable democracy. In such a scenario, the new Shi'ite territory would become a virtual puppet of Iran.
As it has gained more influence in Iraq, Iran has been emboldened to make more trouble supporting other Shi'ite terrorist organizations elsewhere. Hezbollah immediately comes to mind. Unlike many other terror groups in the Middle East, it is a serious enemy, but it is a wholly owned puppet of Iran, which also controls Hamas in Palestine. These organizations are committed to subverting modernizing Western-oriented Arab governments, which explains why Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have not supported Hezbollah. Is this an opening for more Arab support in the War on Terror, or does it ensue that although we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons, for the sake of the stabilities of fragile democracies in the region, we dare not leave too soon? This tough question is another testimony to how much damage this war has done, how much it could cost us all, even though most Americans to date are still doing business as usual.
All the options left are bad, but that should not surprise us too much given our doctrine of sin (Romans 7:14-23), which reminds us that politics, like all human affairs, are messy. The best we can do is advocate policies that will achieve the closest proximity to justice for all that we can.
Do support our troops in your preaching and ministry. But put some of this data before your flock in your sermons on peace and justice (the latter theme could be considered in the sermons on the first lessons for November 29 and December 3). Do it along with healthy doses of the realism about politics taught by our Bible (the doctrine of sin) and our Constitution (consider the Separation of Powers and The Federalist Papers, Nos. 10, 51). Enough sermons like that might make a real contribution to building coalitions which can bring an honorable and peaceful end to this tragic conflict, without further contributing to the present chaos. Criticizing the Bush presidency on these matters of international policy is not unpatriotic. It is about loyalty to the Ten Commandments and the Prince of Peace in this season of goodwill and peace to all.
Mark Ellingsen is a tenured associate professor on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta and the author of hundreds of articles and thirteen books, including Blessed Are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place, The Integrity of Biblical Narrative: Story in Theology and Proclamation, and The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual & Pastoral Theology (Westminster/John Knox Press).
