Here is a piece I wrote for Traditional Catholic Reflections in 2006. Some of the contents may be somewhat dated but on the whole it is still relevant. It reflects what I believe about the current Iraq conflict. Some of the writing needs editing and I cringe at it. But I don't have a rough draft so I can't edit it. I hope the reader will bear with me.

Reflecting on the Iraq War and Christian Principles

By Frank J. Capone

"However rooted in history she [the Church] may be, she is not the slave of any epoch or indeed of anything whatsoever which is temporal. The message she is bound to pass on and the life which she is bound to propagate are never integral parts of either a political regime or a social polity or a particular form of civilization, and she must forcefully remind people of the fact, in opposition to the illusive evidence to the contrary which derives simply from the bonds of habit."---Henri de Lubac (1)

It has been over three years since the United States invaded and occupied Iraq. The initial reasons given for going to war, the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the connection to Al Qaeda, have since been shown to be false or worse. This, combined with the violence occuring daily in Iraq have combined to seriously erode support for the war domestically and have caused President Bush's approval rating to plummet dramatically. Many who initially supported the war have since changed their minds and are speaking and writing against it. Yet in spite of these facts there are many who still support this war. Granted, there are some who may admit that the invasion was wrong but feel that to just up and pull out now would unleash terrible consequences on Iraq. They believe that we have to at least stay and clean up the mess we made. One can understand that viewpoint but there are others who believe that this was a just cause even if it was undertaken under false pretenses. Why? One wonders how anybody can still hold this military adventure to be a Just War after the sham has been exposed!

Perhaps there are a combination of reasons for this, such as an antipathy towards Left wing ideology, fear of a resurgent Islam, and a desire to stay loyal to one's country, right or wrong. Also, let's not forget September 11 2001. It did happen and thousands of innocent people were murdered. Such a heinous act is bound to have a tremendous psychological impact on many. Whatever real or imagined grievances Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists have against the U.S. in no way justifies such a malicious crime! Having said that, does it therefore follow that criticism of American policy is tantamount to a lack of patriotism or siding with leftist ideologues or downplaying the threat of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists?

My Own Experience

Perhaps thinking back on my own experience could offer some perspective on this. When this war first started I was initially supportive of it. I believed Colin Powell when he went before the U. N. and presented his evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction waiting to be used against us. I believed also that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein and that both intended to perpetuate more attacks on American soil. After all, I thought, why would they lie about such things when such lies would be exposed after the war? (I guess that is now the 200 billion dollar question). I supported this action not from any nationalistic sense of mission but merely because I felt that the U.S. needed to defend its citizens from possible terrorist attacks. I took leave of my critical faculties, unfortunately. However, once it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, opposition to the war became for me a no-brainer. But I will not let myself of the hook that easily. Why didn't I see through the rhetoric? Why did I let fear distract me from sober analysis?

The Reflexive Left

Part of the reason was that my judgment was clouded both by my anger towards terrorism and by my ideological opposition to the Left wing world view that I believed was the foundation of much of the opposition to the war. It appeared to me that they criticised the invasion simply because they were leftists and that criticizing anything the U. S. does is their raison d'etre. Therefore it was easy for me to dismiss their arguments. To be sure, much of what many on the Left says makes it easy to disregard them, like the college professor who wished for "1000 Mogadishus," or those who believe that the U.S. started this war simply to get the oil. Many on the Left do appear to have moral blinders in that they will denounce any wrongs committed by the U.S. but appear to downplay the wrongs committed by other countries or organizations as if the wrongs commited by America are always worse. It seems they do not hold others to the same moral standards they would hold the U.S to. They probably don't intend this, but that is sometimes the impression nonetheless. Therefore it was a small step from dismissing the Left to dismissing the antiwar movement that in the minds of many is associated with it.

But in so doing one can be acting like the proverbial drunken man on a horse! In trying to keep from leaning too far on one side of the horse the rider will wind up leaning too far on the other side. An aversion to the leftist weltanschauung can in its turn lead to support of anything America does simply to oppose critics of the U.S. The war in Iraq has been presented in terms of giving the Iraqi people a better way of life and defeating terrorism. Supporters speak of the war in terms of "defeating Islamic terrorism by draining the swamps of dictatorship and fanaticism in which it breeds..."(2) But does it therefore follow that anything the U.S. does should be supported simply because of any real or imagined political and moral superiority? This was the thinking of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. They believed they represented the superior civilization, therefore they were justified in using military force to promote it. We in the 21st century are supposed to be beyond that sort of thinking.

Western cultures in general and ours in particular, though now secular, still retain much of their Christian foundations. But Our Lord was the very opposite of an Alexander or Caesar. He left the world His Church, and through the Church, the Divine principles of love and brotherhood and nonviolence. The earliest Church grew through reflecting divine love and forbearence, not through force of arms (that disastrous turn came later with Constantine's conversion). We should never regress to the mindset of the pagan Romans. If America is to be the champion of democracy and human rights it must do so through the power of example, not Smart Bombs.

The Rise of Radical Islam

Another factor could be the fear of a rising Islamic civilization and the perception that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas are representative of most of Islamic culture. It is believed by many that there is a movement to "Islamify" the West and that terrorism is a part of that. It is not the scope of this essay to analyse this fear but even assuming that there is some truth to it among the radicals does not therefore justify naked aggression. St Paul writes; "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12;21).

Pope Benedict XVI said last Palm Sunday at Mass:

"Whenever we think of Jesus we must remember injustice must not be solved with more injustice, niether violence with more violence. We must remember that bad can only be overcome by good...This cross must be an instrument of Peace and reconciliation between men and nations." (3)

As Catholics we must hold to higher priorities than a commitment to a nation or a particular ideology. We are to be instruments through which the light of Christ shines to all the world and not be so provincial as to presumptuously identify that Light with our national policy. While loyalty to country is fine so long as such loyalty is in harmony with God's will, there are times when we must take a stand against it. We as Catholics have a Just War paradigm based on 2000 years of Christian contemplation. We cannot put the policies of a given nation above this. Raymond G. Helmick of Boston College writes:

"When the war begins, every government appeals at once to the church to get up the cheering section and proclaim that 'God is on our side.' We never belong there. Our role as proclaimers of shalom demands that we be searching actively for alternatives to violence. But we have all seen churches fall right into the trap and preach national exclusivism and God's wrath, as if they were qualified to declare it, upon the enemy."(4)

This does not mean we are being unpatriotic. In Western democracies in general and American democracy in particular it is believed that dissent is very healthy for society. W.E.B. Duboise writes:

" ...the hushing of the criticism of honest opponents is a dangerous thing. It leads to some of the best of the critics to unfortunate silence and paralysis of effort, and others to burst into speech so passionately and intemperately as to lose listeners. Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched -criticism of writers by readers, of government by those who are governed, of leaders by those who are lead, this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society.'(5)

Critical Judgement of Both Left and Right

I made the mistake of letting my opposition against certain world views cloud my critical judgement somewhat. It was a humbling lesson to learn. More sober reflection has brought home the fact that opposition to a policy of my country does not mean that I am sympathizing with the radical Left or downplaying the crimes of Saddam Hussein and it certainly does not mean I am soft towards terrorism.

Diplomacy

But it does not follow that the moral bankruptcy of the terrorists, or that of Saddam Hussien for that matter, means that any pre-emptive war of aggression taken against them is therefore to be considered right simply because it is taken against those percieved as enemies. The real or imagined moral superiority of the U.S. does not mean that any means it employs are justified by any good ends it may wish to bring about. The Gospel invites diplomacy not war.

This means that any opposition to American policies is not anti-American and certainly not anti-Christian. After all, what can be more American than to exercise the right of citizens to criticise the actions of our government, especially when it gets to the heart of what this country should be? What can be more Christian than to try to reflect the Light of Christ and to hold our nation to the high Christian principles on which Western civilization was built?
_____________

End Notes

1. De Lubac, Henri. The Slendor of Church, Canterbury Books, Sheed and Ward. N.Y 1956. p. 54 2. Jacoby, Jeff. Boston Globe, August 25, 2005 3. Pope Benedict XVI. Quoted from Dominican Today, http://www.domincantoday.com/app/article.aspx?=12256 4.Helmick, Raymond J. Forgiveness and Reconciliation Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press, Philedelphia 7 London-Copywrite 2001. p. 87 5. Duboise, W.E.B. The Soul of Black Folk. Barnes & Noble Classics, New York 2003 First Edition 1903 p. 38