(no subject)
elynross has posted the text of an ecumenical letter calling for a change of direction in Iraq in her journal here. It's an interesting document and its intentions deserve praise, but a few problems strike me.
The first is the specific proposal they make: Specifically, we are calling upon our country to turn over the transition of authority and post-war reconstruction to the United Nations - and to recognize U.S. responsibility to contribute to this effort generously through security, economic, and humanitarian support - not only to bring international legitimacy to the effort, but also to foster any chance for lasting peace.
My understanding is that the UN is not entirely certain that they want the job of rebuilding Iraq. It seems unlikely, on past events, that the UN would be less appealing a target in Iraq, as well; it is not clear to me that a handover of power to the UN would be likely to lead to a cessation of violence. Nor is it clear to me how this handover would interact with the supposed handover of power to an Iraqi government this summer.
The second is more of a philosophical point: This is why the World Council of Churches has asserted that "war is contrary to the will of God" - because it destroys that which God has made sacred.
This is a lovely sentiment, but it isn't what my Bible says. In fact, I'm fairly sure that in my Bible God advocates war on more than one occasion, and takes a hand in the slaughter from time to time. This isn't to say that war always God's first choice, or that it should be our first choice--but to say that "War is contrary to the will of God all the time, in every circumstance" seems to fly in the face of the textual evidence.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
ETA: I've fixed the bad html, and removed a passage I felt particularly obnoxious, on a second rereading. Apologies for the clutter and the offense.
The first is the specific proposal they make: Specifically, we are calling upon our country to turn over the transition of authority and post-war reconstruction to the United Nations - and to recognize U.S. responsibility to contribute to this effort generously through security, economic, and humanitarian support - not only to bring international legitimacy to the effort, but also to foster any chance for lasting peace.
My understanding is that the UN is not entirely certain that they want the job of rebuilding Iraq. It seems unlikely, on past events, that the UN would be less appealing a target in Iraq, as well; it is not clear to me that a handover of power to the UN would be likely to lead to a cessation of violence. Nor is it clear to me how this handover would interact with the supposed handover of power to an Iraqi government this summer.
The second is more of a philosophical point: This is why the World Council of Churches has asserted that "war is contrary to the will of God" - because it destroys that which God has made sacred.
This is a lovely sentiment, but it isn't what my Bible says. In fact, I'm fairly sure that in my Bible God advocates war on more than one occasion, and takes a hand in the slaughter from time to time. This isn't to say that war always God's first choice, or that it should be our first choice--but to say that "War is contrary to the will of God all the time, in every circumstance" seems to fly in the face of the textual evidence.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
ETA: I've fixed the bad html, and removed a passage I felt particularly obnoxious, on a second rereading. Apologies for the clutter and the offense.