From: Joel Cannon (jcannon@washjeff.edu)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 18:30:53 EST
Responding to Glenn:
As always, I appreciate his statistics and his ability to access and
produce data quickly. It advances the discussion. I agree with a
number of things he says, but I think his criticisms involve some
questionable assumptions and they ignored some of the more important
points that I made. I will deal with those in my next post. But first
I would like to discuss a broader and more central issue which his
response introduced.
Glenn and others are correct in guessing that my discomfort as a
Christian with the invasion of Iraq is broader than the question of
whether oil is a (or the) principal motivating factor. I confined my
discussion to the relevance of oil and the Hubbert curve because that
(as a scientific issue that had previously been discussed here) was
the issue that was relevant to the list (Glenn provided insight
potentially relevant to the war). I did this in the context of just
war theory because no matter how questionable its application over the
years, this seems to be the most broadly accepted and
least restrictive Christian thinking with regard to pursuing violence
in defense of justice.
I think Glenn's response contradicts just war theory (at least all
Christian just war theory I have heard propounded) and invites the
question as to whether Jesus has any relevance to war. Central
features of just war theory as I understand it are: 1. that the ``just
cause'' involves a response to aggression (including imminent
aggression); and 2) all available alternatives have been exhausted.
Glenn's reasons for going to war are that he thinks ``it is about an
up and coming dictator who might get the bomb....If Saddam gets the
bomb, he wins the entire Middle East as a vassal state stretching from
Pakistan to the Strait of Gibralter, having the bomb and looking to
topple the West?''
Glenn acknowledges that invasion of Iraq has no significant connection
with the war on terrorism, nor with human rights violations. His
scenario goes far beyond the scariest scenario that I have heard from
Bush administration members, who are not known for rhetorical
caution. However, these questions pale before the question of what is
justifiable from the standpoint of being faithful to Jesus.
Glenn's reason is not that war is a response to aggression or imminent
aggression. It is not a pre-emptive strike but a preventative war
based on conjecture. Simply stated, Glenn seems to believe the
U.S. is justified in going to war on the basis of what another country
might (the word Glenn used) possibly be able to do at some future
date. Isn't it ironic that the countries we would be altruistically
helping in this scenario, such as Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Jordon,
Turkey, and Egypt are more worried about us helping them and are
opposed to the war?
While I respect Glenn's abilities, and have benefited from his
insights, I do have to wonder what allows him to predict with such
precision the psychology and the political and military capabilities
of Saddam Hussein and why he is willing to act on this psychoanalysis
when acting has such deadly consequences. Is such speculation
sufficient warrant for the many civilian casualties that will result
from a war on Iraq within any moral framework? I think not.
*****************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 18:39:53 EST