Just War? -- The Catholic Church and the War in Iraq

Solidarity with Christians in Iraq

2010-11-21T10:30:00.001-08:00

“This gives us more strength,” said Sama Wadie, 32, a teacher, his hand wrapped in a bandage. “We’re not afraid of death because Jesus died for us. Of course we cry, but they’re tears of happiness, because we die for God.”
One week ago Our Lady of Salvation, a Syrian Catholic church, was the scene of the worst attack on Iraqi Christians since the American-led invasion in 2003. Gunmen in explosive suicide vests jumped the church’s security wall and took more than 100 worshipers hostage, identifying themselves as members of the Islamic State of Iraq, a Qaeda-linked terrorist group. It began a night of bloodshed in which 51 worshipers and two priests were killed. The terrorist group promised more attacks, declaring Christians everywhere “legitimate targets.”

On Sunday the congregation filed into a sanctuary riddled with bullet holes, with bloodstains on the 30-foot-high ceiling from the blast of a suicide vest that left six ornate crystal chandeliers eerily undamaged. In place of the scarred pews was a giant cross on the floor outlined in candles and filled with 51 sheets of paper, each bearing the name of one of the dead.

Source: John Leland @ New York Times | Via The Joyful Papist.

* * *

Allison @ Why I Am Catholic writes:

This morning, Maria Teresa Landi, friend of a friend, came up with an extraordinary idea: send letters of encouragement to the Christians of Baghdad, who are suffering horrible persecution and killings. They are the Church's modern-day martyrs.
By day's end, the Nuncio at the United Nations was offering his diplomatic pouch (direct mail). He proposed to have all letters and messages sent to him by Tuesday night in a package and he will send the package to the Nunciature in Iraq on Wednesday morning.
Please address your emails to the families to His Beatitude Emmanuel Delli, Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Baghdad at tonuncio@gmail.com. He will print out the emails and put them in the pouch.

Related

Regular news on the plight of Christians in Iraq, see Baghdadhope [Translated from Italian]
Echoes From Crucified Iraq: Voices of Hope, Voice of Faith, Voices of Love, by Robert Cheaib. Zenit. November 15, 2010.
Iraqi Christians Victims of "Unprecedented Ferocity": Bishop Laments Western Misunderstanding; Urges Courage, by Tony Assaf. Zenit. November 12, 2010.
We Are the Christians of Iraq: Letter of an Iraqi Priest to His Wounded Country by Father Albert Hisham Naoum. November 11, 2010.

Iraqi Election may provide encouragement for Christians' return home

2009-02-13T22:36:00.000-08:00

Results of the recent local Iraqi elections include the defeat of extremist religious groups, and the possible return home of Christian exiles, said an auxiliary bishop of Baghdad Zenit News. February 10, 2009:

Bishop Andraos Abouna affirmed that the results of the recent election could help the country to bring the country "back on track."
The Jan. 31 elections in 10 of the 14 provinces in the country signal hope for the Christian community in Iraq, he suggested. The Christians, now numbering under 300,000 people, had a population of 1.4 million only two decades ago.
The count on Feb. 5, with 90% of votes weighed in, showed that the Islamic religious parties had suffered losses. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's party, on the other hand, won a significant part of the vote. Official results are expected at the end of the month.
Bishop Abouna reported to Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) that this news "delighted" the Christians who were forced to emigrate due to sectarianism and the violence of the post-Saddam stage.
In an interview with ACN on Monday in Baghdad, the prelate said: "It is a very good result, especially at this stage in the country's development. It will help put Iraq back on track."
Underlining the peaceful environment during and after the elections, he affirmed, "This will make [Christians] think differently and may encourage them to start returning."

Heart of U.S. Occupation Reverts to Iraqi Control

2009-01-02T22:42:00.000-08:00

The Green Zone, for nearly six years the headquarters of the American occupation of Iraq, passed from American to Iraqi control on Thursday. The New York Times reports:

... The Iraqi flag was raised during a small ceremony at what had been the Republican Palace of Saddam Hussein attended by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
In a speech broadcast on state television, Mr. Maliki said that the handover had a special meaning for Iraqis. “It means we have gotten rid of the most dangerous remains of the policies that the former regime adopted,” he said.
Later, on a street elsewhere in the 5.6-square-mile Green Zone, a second ceremony was attended by senior Iraqi security officials, including the defense minister, and senior American Army officers, including Lt. Gen, Lloyd J. Austin III, the second-highest ranking United States commander in Iraq.
At that ceremony, there were speeches about Iraq’s readiness to take over responsibility of the Green Zone, children sang songs and a poem was read about Iraqi unity. An Iraqi marching band — with bagpipes — played the country’s national anthem.

Christmas in Iraq

2008-12-27T08:53:00.000-08:00

Baghdad celebrates first public Christmas amid hope, memories CNN:
Welcome to the first-ever public Christmas celebration in Baghdad, held Saturday and sponsored by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Once thought to be infiltrated by death squads, the Ministry now is trying to root out sectarian violence -- as well as improve its P.R. image. ... Many of the people attending the Christmas celebration appear to be Muslims, with women wearing head scarves. Suad Mahmoud, holding her 16-month-old daughter, Sara, tells me she is indeed Muslim, but she's very happy to be here. "My mother's birthday also is this month, so we celebrate all occasions," she says, "especially in this lovely month of Christmas and New Year."
Father Saad Sirop Hanna, a Chaldean Christian priest, is here too. He was kidnapped by militants in 2006 and held for 28 days. He knows firsthand how difficult the lot of Christians in Iraq is but, he tells me, "We are just attesting that things are changing in Baghdad, slowly, but we hope that this change actually is real. We will wait for the future to tell us the truth about this."
He just returned from Rome. "I came back to Iraq because I believe that we can live here," he says. "I have so many [Muslim] friends and we are so happy they started to think about things from another point of view and we want to help them."
(Via GatewayPundit, with a roundup).
Christmas Hope Dawns in Iraq Zenit News Service. December 24, 2008. Iraqi bishops are welcoming signs of friendship extended to Christians of their country this Christmas.
Christmas in Kirkuk AsiaNews.it. December 23, 2008. The most frequently recurring desire for Iraqi families is "to participate in midnight Mass." Problems connected to security do not permit this, but hope remains for the future. Prayers, the exchange of greetings with "Muslim brethren," and the sharing of food for the celebration are the sign of a shared objective: the return to normalcy.
AsiaNews.it. December 22, 2008. Iraqi bishops tell AsiaNews about the climate in the country, on the eve of the holiday. Compared to the era of Saddam Hussein, there is greater freedom, but the danger of violence remains. The prelates emphasize the positive elements on the path of dialogue, and are asking the government for concrete steps in the protection of rights.

What can we be thankful for in Iraq?

2008-11-27T13:18:00.000-08:00

In a survey of "random politically-incorrect reasons to be optimistic on Thanksgiving day," Victor Davis Hanson asks "What happened in Iraq?":

Lost? Quagmire? Out by March 2008 which was the promise Obama gave when he announced his run in February 2007? General Betray Us? Somehow between Gen. Petraeus’s 2007 congressional testimony (Cf. Hillary’s “suspension of disbelief” slur) and the present calm, the US military essentially won the war. All the front-page stories in our papers that Americans in Iraq were incompetent, barbaric, mercenary, and Hitlerian suddenly ceased, and in their absence there was—nothing? About five times as many Chicagoans died violently in October than did US soldiers in combat in Iraq. Just as the hysteria peaked as gas was supposedly fated to hit $5 a gallon, but silence followed when it descended below $2, and just as we were warned that spiraling home prices had ensured an entire new generation of Americans were shut out of the American dream, and then even greater furor followed when prices fell suddenly and Americans were robbed of their equity, so too with Iraq, which we were to assume, would always be lost, but apparently never won. Like it or not, Gen. Petraeus will compare favorably with generals like Sherman, LeMay, and Ridgway who likewise somehow found victory when failure seemed certain. For all the tragedy and mayhem, the thought that Saddam Hussein is gone and just five years later there is a stable and successful constitutional government in the heart of the ancient caliphate seems as surreal as it is encouraging.

On the one hand, it is indeed good news that the month of October 2008 saw the lowest death rate of U.S. troops in Iraq for any month since the war began; that in face the murder rate in Chicago exceeds the death toll of U.S. soldiers in the entire country of Iraq by 141.

On the other hand, factoring in the deaths of civilians in violent incidents in Iraq, it is evident how much more must be accomplished.

Still, all things considered, civilian casualties in Iraq have greatly diminished from the high point in August 2007, in large part as a consequence of the "Troop Surge". And the Iraqi government appears to be confident in maintaining security to the extent that it has approved a landmark agreement that will see all US troops withdraw by the end of 2011.

What follows is a brief November roundup of additional Iraq-related news we can be thankful for:

Wurwood Kindergarten School officially reopened its doors Nov. 21 in the Rasheed neighborhood of Salman Pak, neighborhood families feeling safe enough to send their children. The U.S. army worked with local contractors and sheiks to improve security and ensure the success of the school.
The people of Al Tanoma, a city east of the Shatt Al Arab River, will soon open a new courthouse in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region Division, one of more than 65 courthouse projects throughout Iraq providing a foundation for a strong judicial system; 55 are already complete.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has likewise overseen the renovation or new construction of nearly 1,100 schools throughout Iraq, with another 38 projects ongoing. Typical schools contain 12 classrooms, an administration section, a workshop, and bathroom facilities in a 3,500 square meter walled compound.
More than 1,000 former Sons of Iraq (SoI) recently completed their first phase of training at the al Furat Iraqi Police (IP) Training Center in Baghdad
The SoI program was organized by Coalition forces in recent years, but the Iraqi government assumed responsibility over the program Oct. 1, in order to integrate the SoIs into the Iraqi Security Forces.
The SoI program has been very successful. SoI members paid a heavy price as they assisted Coalition forces in defeating the terrorists. The integration of the SoI into the Iraqi Police force demonstrates a positive commitment of reconciliation to the SOI by the Iraqi government.
186 U. S. servicemembers from across Iraq became U.S. citizens during a naturalization ceremony on Election day, while Nearly 300 servicemembers stationed across Iraq gathered at Holt Stadium to re-enlist on Veteran's Day, the largest mass re-enlistment in Joint Base-Balad's history.
An abandoned amusement park, its carnival rides were unusable and the land was overgrown with weeds, was refurbished by 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division and turned over to the Qahira neighborhood of the Adhamiyah District of Baghdad.
In Baghdad, Iraqi Police are transitioning to become the primary Iraq Security Force, responding to incidents on their own with minimal support from U.S. Coalition forces.

Regular updates can be found at the website for Multi-National Force Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Bridging the divide between Sunni & Shia

2008-11-11T20:14:00.000-08:00

Sunnis and Shi'ites made an emotional reach across the sectarian divide on Tuesday, reopening a Baghdad bridge between the two neighborhoods of Adhamiya and Kadhimiya -- closed since a 2005 (Reuters):

[O]n Tuesday Sunni children from Adhamiya raced to see their Shi'ite friends in Kadhimiya. Women from the two communities met up on the bridge, kissing and hugging each other with joy.
"When the faces met, the lips smiled, hands shook, bodies hugged, the tears flowed out of joy. This is the Iraqi citizen," said Sheikh Ahmed al-Samaraie, head of Iraq's Sunni Endowment, which runs Sunni religious offices and mosques in Iraq. ...
"This day is a remarkable day, a day of a great Iraq. The day of meeting, love, brotherhood, affinity ... The day we proved to the whole world that we are one nation," Sayyid Salih al-Haidari, Samaraie's Shi'ite counterpart said in a speech. Delegations accompanying the two officials then went to pray together at a nearby mosque.

Christian, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders join in a prayer for peace

2008-08-19T23:24:00.000-07:00

In Iraqi Kurdistan Christian, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders pray together in the Sunni al-Rashid Mosque, calling for an “end to violence" - AsiaNews.it reports:

Kirkuk (AsiaNews) – In the last two days attacks by suicide bombers and car bombs have sown death and destruction among the civilian population and targeted government and other political leaders. But there are also signs of hope, people who do not want to give in to the logic of violence perpetrated by terrorists.
Today at noon in the Sunni al-Rashid Mosque in Domez, Iraqi Kurdistan, more than 250 religious leaders, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurdish and Turkmen, as well as a ten-member Christian delegation led Mgr Louis Sako, archbishop of Kirkuk, held a joint prayer “to promote peace and end the violence” in the country.
The initiative came from Imam Ali Iman, head of the local Sunni community, who called upon the leaders of the various faiths and ethnic groups in the region “to pray for peace and stability’ in Kirkuk and across Iraq.
During the ceremony the spiritual leaders of the various communities prayed for the victims of last month’s attacks.
This is a strong signal that reiterates a desire to work together for “the good” of the country and “isolate the terrorist cells that want to sow death and destruction.”

Christians and Muslims show solidarity for victims of Kirkuk attack

2008-08-03T12:33:00.000-07:00

The latest Iraqi suicide bombing has resulted in a show of solidarity between Christian and Sunni-Shiite Iraqi citizens - AsiaNews.it reports::

Kirkuk (AsiaNews) – Kirkuk’s top religious and political authorities visited survivors who were injured in the 28 July suicide bomb attack in which scores of others were killed. Kirkuk’s archbishop, Mgr Louis Sako, along with Muslim religious leaders, both Sunni and Shia, as well as Arab, Kurdish and Turkmen tribal leaders, went to the city’s hospital to visit the wounded and offer them some comfort.
The gesture was significant because it saw the city’s political and religious leaders show “solidarity towards the victims of the massacre,” irrespective of creed or ethnicity, and reaffirm their “condemnation of every form of violence’, whatever its source. ...
At the end of the hospital visit, the delegation met the leaders of the most important Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), as well as their Turkmen counterpart, urging all of them to work together to bring calm back to the region.
“I call on political leaders to think about the common good of the population and fight the aberrant logic of violence,” Monsignor Sako said.
The prelate also said that he hoped that all political parties “will sit together around the table to talk and discuss,” putting aside threats and extremisms because “with violence nothing is obtained,” whilst with mutual “forgiveness” it will be possible to rebuilt unity and peaceful coexistence for all.
This morning’s initiative, which the Catholic Church strongly backed, was unanimously welcomed by both Muslim religious leaders and all political parties. All local media covered it.

Iraqi Christians Rebuild Churches

2008-07-29T23:39:00.000-07:00

VATICAN CITY, JULY 29, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The Christian communities of southern Iraq launched a campaign for the restoration of churches that have been damaged due to negligence and the war, reports Zenit News:

The news, published by the "BaghdadHope" Web site, was given by Father Imad Aziz Al Banna, of the Archdiocese of Basra of the Chaldeans. He explained that the local Christian community requested that the government finance the project. The community is working in cooperation with the office in charge of non-Muslim groups, and other government ministries.
The priest mentioned the recent reopening of the church of Um Al Azhan in Al-Amarah, and expressed his confidence in the preservation of the Christian religious heritage. He affirmed his hope that the present security situation will encourage this initiative, which he said is urgent since some Christian families who fled southern Iraq are now returning.
The church, built in 1880, was restored. A Mass and baptism were held there, celebrated by Father Al Banna at the end of June.

Associated Press: ""US now winning Iraq war" + Iraqi News Roundup

2008-07-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

In a press conference, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said that the the surge in Iraq has been a success by any measure:

“By every metric that we measure violence in Iraq, there has been a dramatic improvement from where things were before the surge,” Morrell said. “I’ll just point to one, and that is [that] in July of last year, we had 79 U.S. [servicemembers killed in action] in Iraq. We have four thus far this month.”
The dramatic security gains have provided room for political and economic successes. “You name it, it is happening in Iraq,” Morrell said. “Do you want to talk about political gains? We’ve had basically all the major benchmark legislation passed.”
The Sunni bloc has returned to the government, 10 of 18 Iraqi provinces are under local control, and Najaf International Airport has reopened. “You see a $300 million luxury hotel opening up in the Green Zone [and] $50 million in refurbishment of the airport road,” Morrell said. “There’s economic investment, and there’s political progress. There’s increased security. All those things are undeniable, and they are attributable to the fact that we plussed up forces in there.”
There were, of course, other factors at work in the security improvement, Morrell said, but the surge and the change in U.S. counterinsurgency strategy made all else possible. The “Anbar Awakening” that allied formerly insurgent Sunni Muslims with the coalition and influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s cease-fire were other factors, he said, but he noted they didn’t happen independently of other events.

(See also: "US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost" Associated Press. July 26, 2008).

It's a testament to the improving situation in Iraq that so many of our armed forces are now -- rather than being involved in armed combat -- are participating in what is more properly termed humanitarian services:

Navy surgeons and corpsmen with 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 5 and 3rd Marine Air Wing (Forward) worked with Iraqi doctors to provide medical services in Akashat, Iraq, treating more than 200 patients in house calls.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is hard at work, assisting in the construction of a Children's Hospital and a water treatment plant -- brings fresh drinking water for the first time ever to some 20,000 of its residents -- both in Basrah. A primary health care facility was also constructed in An Najaf - The new facility is expected to serve 200 patients a day and, at 2,200 square meters, is the largest PHC being built in Iraq. It offers basic health care, dental exam, x-ray room, laboratory for blood work, pharmacy, treatment rooms, emergency trauma services, inpatient and maternity care (pre-natal and birthing).
Capt. Shaun Wheelwright of the Company A, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment “Wolfhounds" played an instrumental role in bringing school supplies and $260,000 in reconstruction funding to 600 students at the Al Abbas primary school in Northwest Baghdad. Three schools in the area were destroyed by terrorists, making it the only school in the area.
A Navy chaplain with 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 5, and Marines with Security Platoon, 2nd LAR packed up and delivered food and supplies to widows in Rutbah - meeting with the Muslim community leader to continue further visits in the future.

Relationships between the Iraqi government and former insurgents have improved, with reportedly more than 1,100 former fighters having reconciled with Iraqi Security and Coalition forces in the Salah ad Din province since May -- reestablishing their ties to the communities, rejoining their families in their homes and becoming active participants in Iraq’s future.

Security patrols continue, together with the confiscation of weapons caches -- During their month-long presence in al-Amarah, battalions from the 10th IA Div. have not seen a single gunfight, not one improvised explosive device attack, nor received any indirect fire:

Operations in al-Amarah began June 19. In a matter of days, IA and Iraqi Police detained approximately 200 criminals and collected more than 220 weapon caches. ISF found the caches in homes, businesses and public areas throughout the city of Amarah, containing 2,262 mortar rounds, 1,034 mines, 971 artillery rounds, 749 rocket-propelled grenades, 598 rockets, 259 missile launchers, 176 improvised explosive devices, 259 grenades, 43 DSHKA barrels, 141 explosively formed penetrators and 22 missiles.
All of this without a single shot fired.

Iraqis are also learning to fend for themselves -- a local Baghdad construction company rebuilt both lanes of a bridge damaged by a VIED in 2007; In July, the governor of Qadasiyah province assumed security responsibility from coalition forces, making it the 10th of Iraq’s 18 provinces to transfer security responsibility to the local government.

Further updates can be obtained courtesty of a blog entitled: Iraq's Inconvenient Truth.

Pope Benedict XVI meets with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki

2008-07-25T11:42:00.000-07:00

On July 25, 2008 Pope Benedict XVI received Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamel Al-Maliki at Castel Gandolfo:

A Vatican communiqué stated that the talks were "cordial," and that they "provided an opportunity to examine a number of fundamental aspects of the situation in Iraq, also taking into account the regional situation."
"Particular attention was given to the question of the many Iraqi refugees," added the statement, "both inside and outside the country, who are in need of assistance, also with a view to their hoped-for return."
The text continued: "Renewed condemnation was expressed for the violence that continues to hit various parts of the country almost daily, not sparing the Christian communities which strongly feel the need for greater security.
"The hope was expressed that Iraq may definitively discover the road to peace and development through dialogue and cooperation among all ethnic and religious groups, including minorities, which, while respecting their respective identities and in a spirit of reconciliation and of searching for the common good, together undertake the moral and civil reconstruction of the country.
"In this context, the importance of interreligious dialogue was reiterated, as a way to religious understanding and civil coexistence."

Anbar Awaking Leader questions Obama's Plan of Withdrawal

2008-07-22T12:49:00.000-07:00

During his tour of Iraq, Obama met with leaders of the awakening councils and tribal leaders in Al-Anbar province. According to Al-Arabiya TV, Dubai, during the meeting: Ahmad Abu-Rishah, head of the Iraqi Awakening Council, called on the Democratic candidate, Obama, to avoid talking about a near withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, ... saying the US withdrawal should take place after building up the Iraqi forces is completed in order to be ready to defend the sovereignty and the homeland, away from partisan, tribal, and sectarian affiliations."

At 1510 gmt, Al-Arabiya anchorwoman Maysun Azzam carries a three- minute live telephone interview with Ahmad Abu-Rishah, from Al- Ramadi. Following from BBC News is the full translation of the interview:

[Azzam] Does not this demand contradict the support that Obama received through statements by Iraqi political leaders on the importance to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops?
[Abu-Rishah] We stressed the need to support the Iraqi forces and security agencies in order to be able to protect the country after the US forces leave. We also stressed the need to provide economic and scientific support so as to rebuild infrastructure, which has been damaged because of wars. Thirdly, we stressed the importance of preserving the unity of the Iraqi people and land and denounce any plan to partition Iraq.
[Azzam] Excuse me, but cannot these requirements be met within a specific timetable for the withdrawal of US troops? Many countries depend on US military training and financial and economic support while US troops are not actually present on the ground.
[Abu-Rishah] As I told you, we stressed the need to support the Iraqi forces to be able to protect the country after the withdrawal of US troops. We also said it is necessary to implement the agreement between us and President George Bush on reinstating the former Iraqi Army on national and professional bases.
[Azzam] You say that the withdrawal should not take place unless the Iraqi forces are capable of taking control of the situation on the ground, while Obama speaks of withdrawal after two years. Does this mean you are pessimistic about the chances of the Iraqi forces taking control of the situation on the ground?
[Abu-Rishah] If things go seriously, the Iraqi forces can be built within a year. In the Iraqi war [word indistinct]. We used to form brigades in the army within months. Should things go seriously, the Iraqi Army would be built in a year. In the present, we do not have an army that can protect the country after the US forces leave. This army is not capable enough. We need to support this army by providing it with weapons and supplies. The Iraqi defence minister complains about the rise in the prices of weapons. Sometimes he takes weapons from Al-Ramadi. We want weapons from one country and the entire Iraqi Army should be trained on these weapon. It is not right to have part of the army trained on weapons from Al-Ramadi while the other part trained on Italian weapons, for example. We want weapons from the US Army that can be effectively used to protect the country, and the Iraqi Army should be fully trained on these weapons."

Originally published by Al-Arabiya TV, Dubai, in Arabic 1504 22 Jul 08.

Iraqi Military express reservations about Obama's plan of withdrawal

2008-07-17T12:52:00.000-07:00

Iraqis like Obama more than his strategy by SABRINA TAVERNISE and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. The New York Times July 17, 2008:

BAGHDAD — A tough Iraqi general melted into smiles when asked about Sen. Barack Obama.
"Everyone in Iraq likes him," said the general, Nassir al-Hiti. "I like him. He's young. Very active. We would be very happy if he was elected president."
But mention Obama's plan for withdrawing American soldiers, and the general stiffens.
"Very difficult," he said, shaking his head. "Any army would love to work without any help, but let me be honest: For now, we don't have that ability."
Thus in a few brisk sentences, the general summed up the conflicting emotions about Obama in Iraq, the place outside America with perhaps the most riding on its relationship with him.
There was, as Obama prepared to visit here, excitement over a man who is the anti-Bush in almost every way: a Democrat who opposed a war that many Iraqis feel devastated their nation. And many in the political elite recognize that Obama shares their hope for a more rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
But his support for troop withdrawal cuts both ways, reflecting a deep internal quandary in Iraq: For many middle-class Iraqis, affection for Obama is tempered by worry that his proposal could lead to chaos in a nation already devastated by war. Many Iraqis also acknowledge that security gains in recent months were achieved partly by the buildup of American troops, which Obama opposed and his likely Republican opponent, John McCain, supported.
"In no way do I favor the occupation of my country," said Abu Ibrahim, a Western-educated businessman in Baghdad, "but there is a moral obligation on the Americans at this point."

Good News from Iraq (Roundup)

2008-06-22T23:11:00.001-07:00

Some news and stories from Iraq you may not have picked up from your daily news ...

One hundred insurgents detained in Baghdad during past week, by Bill Murray. The Long War Journal:
BAGHDAD, IRAQ: Iraqi and Coalition forces in and around Baghdad captured more than 100 insurgents and defused 147 improved explosive devices during the past week as part of continued security operations, according to Iraqi and Coalition spokesmen. One insurgent was killed, six kidnap victims liberated and about 700 kilograms of TNT discovered during security sweeps in the past seven days, said Iraqi Army spokesman Major General Qassim Atta during a press conference in Baghdad today.
The current security plan, called Fardh al-Qanoon, or `Enforcing the Law,’ has been in place since early 2007, when U.S. planners began implementing a U.S. troop surge and divided Baghdad into separate security districts. Iraq forces now lead operations in all three of Iraq’s major cities, Baghdad, Basrah and Mosul and are operating in Amarah, where the Iraqi Army is currently battle elements of the Mahdi Army, said U.S. Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll at the same press conference.
"So far in Amarah, there has been little resistance to the extension of the rule of law," Driscoll said. "There are still foreign terrorists who want to reconstitute their forces. Elements of Al-Qaeda and Iranian-supported Special Groups are still in Baghdad, but they are under pressure" ...
Ramadi Citizens Continue to Sign Up to Defend Their City, by Lance Cpl. Casey Jones. Iraq's Inconvenient Truth June 22, 2008:
Over the last two years, Ramadi has seen a dramatic in the number of policemen as the city progressively moves toward the final steps in becoming fully independent.
In 2006, there were very few police in Ramadi when violence engulfed the city, the citizens lived in fear, and al-Qaida had a firm grip on the region.
In the first two weeks of 2007, the city experienced an unexpected surge of applicants seeking to join the force. During that two-week span, more than 1,000 applicants sought law enforcement jobs in Ramadi, according to Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division. The turning point for the boost in applicants was the murder of a well-known sheik in August 2006. The murderers hid his body for 3 days denying his family the right to bury him in accordance with Islamic tradition. After the killing, tribal leaders could not tolerate al Qaeda’s lawlessness and violence throughout their land and formed an alliance against the terrorist network called, Sahawa al-Anbar, or the “Awakening Council.”
Marines Turn Over Outpost to Iraqi Army May 31, 2008:
It’s a trend seen more and more frequently around al-Anbar province; Marines packing up their gear and returning their positions to the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) so they can continue providing protection and security to the Iraqi citizens....
Improved Iraqi Forces Contribute to Four-Year Violence Low May 30, 2008:
BAGHDAD — Last week, Iraq experienced the lowest level of “security incidents” since March 2004, a reduction that military officials attribute in part to improvements in Iraqi security forces.
“The collective efforts … to increase the capacity of the Iraqi security forces is a key part of the reason why we saw last week the lowest level of security incidents in Iraq the past four years,” Army Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, said May 28 during a news conference in Baghdad.
“It is also why we are seeing Iraqi citizens increasingly supporting their security forces by calling in tips on criminal activity and illegal weapons,” Bergner continued. “And it is why we are seeing the Iraqi security forces conducting effective operations in Basra, Mosul and Baghdad to enforce the rule of law.”
Democracy Takes Root in Arab Jabour , by y Sgt. David Turner. May 18, 2008 (Multi National Force Iraq):
FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU — “Democracy is a new thing in Iraq,” said Sadi Kalif, the newly elected chairman of the South Rasheed Community Council. “When Saddam was in power, there were no elections. They just pointed to a person and said ‘You are in charge’.”
After years of war and terrorist activity from insurgents and al-Qaeda in Iraq, the citizens of this area south of Baghdad are learning to trust the path of democracy. They are also discovering the process begins not at the top, but in their own neighborhoods.
Members of the South Rasheed Community Council met in Bejiya May 14, where they elected their new chairman and met with Coalition and Iraqi forces. Soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, responsible for the area for the past year, introduced the council to the incoming Iraqi Army commander.
Leaders on all sides acknowledged that progress in the area is only possible while strong security forces are in place.
“Al-Qaeda occupied this area for three years,” Kalif said. “It was like the Dark Ages … We had two previous elections, but nobody showed up because of al-Qaeda. If someone participated in the elections, they might get killed.”

Bishop Hollis: "Light of faith is alive in Iraq, despite persecution by Muslim extremists"

2008-06-19T21:12:00.000-07:00

Despite tribulations, the light of faith is alive in Iraqi Christians, British bishop says Catholic News Agency. June 19, 2008:

London, Jun 19, 2008 / 06:26 pm (CNA).- In a Mass celebrated on June 16 at the Cathedral of Westminster, the president of the Committee on External Affairs of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, Bishop Roger Francis Hollis, said that despite the violence and persecution of Muslim extremists, “the light of the faith is alive” in Iraqi Christians.
According to L’Osservatore Romano, Bishop Hollis recently visited the Iraqi towns of Erbil, Kirkuk and Sulemanyiah. His visit came just days after the kidnapping and killing of the Archbishop of Mosul, Paulos Faraj Rahho.
During his homily at the Mass celebrated in London by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Bishop Hollis denounced the violence in Iraq and “the killing of laypeople and priests by Muslim extremists has been systematically and deliberately carried out.”
Addressing the hundreds of Iraqi Christians present at the Cathedral of Westminster, the bishop explained that his trip to Iraq allowed him “to share the faith with your bishops, priests and fellow citizens. I felt very encouraged and strengthened by their courage and fidelity.”

Iraqi Museum "Looted"? - Behind the Myth

2008-06-16T17:53:00.000-07:00

Donny George, director of the Iraq National Museum, was asked earlier this year if the Pentagon had apologized to him for failing to guard his museum in April 2003, as Baghdad fell.
George sidestepped the question, telling the National Arts Club in New York that he was “satisfied” with the financial and technical help the United States has given the museum in the last two years.
“I will take that as an apology,” he said coyly.
But George expects no apology, and it’s not because the Americans are making amends for some terrible wrong. He expects no apology because he knows that he, not the Americans, should be apologizing.
He knows that the world’s ungrateful archaeologists, not Iraq’s liberators, should be apologizing.

The Single Backpack Theory: Proof archaeologists owe the U.S. an apology for their accusations on Iraq National Museum looting July 3, 2005.

Sheikh Amed goes to Washington

2008-06-09T07:50:00.000-07:00

Iraqi Sheik Offers To Take Fight to Bin Laden: Hero of Anbar Would Stir a Revolt in Afghanistan, by Eli Lake. New York Sun June 9, 2008:

WASHINGTON — The leader of the tribal confederation that has fought to expel Al Qaeda from most of Iraq's Anbar province is offering his men to help gin up a rebellion against Osama bin Laden's organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
In an interview, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said, "I have no problem with this, if they ask me, I will do it."
The success of the Anbaritribal rebellion known as the awakening spurred Multinational Forces Iraq to try to emulate the model throughout Iraq, including with the predominately Shiite tribes in the south of the country. Today, the tribal-based militias formed to protect Anbaris from Al Qaeda are forming a political alliance poised to unseat the confessional Sunni parties currently in parliament in the provincial elections scheduled for the fall and the federal ones scheduled for 2009.
During his nomination hearing for taking over the regional military post known as Central Command, General David Petraeus said one of the first things he would do would be to travel to Pakistan to discuss the current strategy of the government in dealing with Al Qaeda's safe haven in the Pashtun border provinces. A possible strategy for defeating Al Qaeda would be an effort there along the lines of the Anbar awakening to win over the tribes that offer Osama bin Laden's group protection and safe haven.
"Al Qaeda is an ideology," Sheik Ahmad said. "We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country." The tribal leader arrived in Washington last week. All of his meetings, including an audience with President Bush, have been closed to the public, in part because the Anbari sheiks, while likely to win future electoral contests, are not themselves part of Iraq's elected government.
Of his meeting with Mr. Bush, Sheik Ahmad said he was impressed. "He is a brave man. He is also a wise man. He is taking care of the country's future, the United States' future. He is also taking care of the Iraqi people, the ordinary people in Iraq. He wants to accomplish success in Iraq ..."
Read more of the New York Sun's interview with Sheikh Ahmed al-Rishawi

Sheik Ahmad has also expressed his cooperation with the Vatican in Muslim-Christian dialogue and expressed his concern over Al Qaeda's persecution of Chaldean Catholics in Iraq. In March 2008, Sheik Ahmad received a letter of commendation by the Vatican for "efforts to promote harmony and reconciliation throughout [the] region." See The Vatican, The Anbar Awakening and the "Protector of the Chaldean Catholics" May 1, 2008.

Peace in Iraq

2008-06-08T11:00:00.000-07:00

An Iraqi girl holds up the peace sign as Cpl. Paul Roderick talks to a group a Iraqi children while on a dismounted patrol through the Ayasha village, northwest of Baghdad, May 29, 2008. Photo by 2nd Stryker Brigade 25th Infantry Division. (Via Iraq's Inconvenient Truth).

America Magazine: "The Jesuits of Baghdad"

2008-05-31T18:21:00.000-07:00

The Jesuits of Baghdad: 1932-69 - In the June 9-16 issue of America, J. Kevin Appleby and Pierre de Charentenay consider the current humanitarian crisis in Iraq, in particular the persecution and displacement of Iraqi Christians. Back in 2003, Fr. Joseph MacDonnell remembered his years at Baghdad College, a secondary school run by the Jesuits and staffed in part by priests from the New England province. The Jesuits were expelled from Iraq in 1969 by Saddam Hussein.

A "Salute" to Archbishop Timothy Paul Broglio

2008-05-07T22:19:00.000-07:00

By way of some grumbling from Commonweal magazine about the "military-ecclesiastical complex" we get a link to Salute: The magazine for the Archdiocese of the Military Services, USA [PDF format].

The current issue features special Coverage of the Installation of Archbishop Broglio -- interviews with the Archbishop, his family and friends; the Archbishop’s homily for the Mass of Installation.

The interview with Archbishop Broglio is particularly fascinating, as he tells of his background as Secretary of the Apostolic Nunciatures in Côte d’Ivoire (West Africa, 1983-87) and in Paraguay (1987-90), followed by an eleven year stint with Cardinal Angelo Sodano in the Vatican ("he confirmed for me that authentic ministry in the Church is not about honors or positions, but service"):

AMS: You certainly have had extensive experience in dealing with all kinds of people and all kinds of situations, hard ones too, around the world, from the highest level of the Church, to some of the poorest parishes of the Church. How has this prepared you for this new assignment? The Military Archdiocese, after all, is a perfect example of the “global Church.” What are your goals?
AB: The Holy See has decided to give me another challenge. When I was first approached with the proposal of being named Archbishop for the Military Services in the United States, I was overwhelmed. I really am not sure exactly how I responded, but knew that, if asked, I would accept.
That afternoon, Divine Providence arranged that I accompany two young Puerto Rican priests to the Rooms of St. Ignatius in Rome. Privately, while there, I repeated Ignatius’ prayer “Take, Lord, my liberty, my understanding, my entire will. Give me only your grace which will be enough for me.” Once again, I placed my ministry in the hands of Almighty God.
As I learn more about the AMS, I am convinced that I can offer my talents and make a contribution. While the situation and the characteristics change for military personnel and their families, our ministry is still basically pastoral. I bring thirty-two years of ordained ministry to these new responsibilities, but more importantly the conviction that Jesus Christ established His Church as the instrument for the salvation of humanity. “Woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel,” St. Paul tells us. My first goal is to facilitate the ministry of our chaplains and thereby minister to the military and their families. ...

Also of note is an article entitled "Christ in the Combat Zone" -- a Chaplain reporting on his second tour to Iraq.

The Vatican, The Anbar Awakening and the "Protector of the Chaldean Catholics"

2008-05-01T15:46:00.001-07:00

A quick recap: In September 2006, Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha formed the Sunni Anbar Awakening, an alliance of tribes in the Anbar province, to counter -- with training by and cooperation with U.S. military -- the presence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. “I swear to God, if we have good weapons, if we have good vehicles, if we have good support, I can fight Al Qaeda all the way to Afghanistan,” he was reported to have said ("An Iraqi Tribal Chief Opposes the Jihadists, and Prays" March 3, 2007).

As Steve Schippert noted at the time, most Americans were oblivious to Sattar's contributions to the counter-terrorist effort ("This Is Counterterrorism, Senator" National Review April 25, 2007):

The most significant local ally of Coalition and Iraqi government in Anbar province — and surely in all of Iraq — is Sheikh Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, or, more properly, Sheikh Abd al-Sattar, where “Abd” translates into “slave” or “totally subordinated” (to God, of course). Sheikh Abdul Sattar is instrumental in fighting and defeating al Qaeda; the incredibly influential Ramadi man sees al Qaeda as terrorists who seek to destroy his country and who are exploiting and murdering his people, Sunni and Shia alike. Al Qaeda wants him dead more than any other man in Iraq, and they have tried numerous times to kill him.
Sattar said recently, “The time for dictatorship is gone, and we are welcoming the new dawn of democracy and freedom here.” He is a powerful Sunni from Anbar province, and, on Iraqi national television, he has pledged his allegiance to Prime Minister al-Maliki — a Shia — and to the democratically elected Iraqi government. In an overt (and televised) gesture of his determination and solidarity with the Iraqi government, Sheikh Abdul Sattar sliced the palm of his hand with a knife and proceeded to pound the blade into the table before him.
The perceived civil war in Iraq is in many ways more a product of foreign Iranian and al Qaeda instigation than internal Iraqi hatred. Had al Qaeda not bombed the Shia al-Askari Mosque and had Iran not provided arms and funds to both sides of the ensuing sectarian killings, there is no telling where Iraq would be right now. It certainly was not in civil war then. Both Iran and al Qaeda require chaos and instability in order to achieve their aims in Iraq. Sattar’s mission is to foil their plans.

Part and parcel of the Anbar Awakening's success was the tribal alliance's ability to work cooperatively with Americans -- according to Col. Sean B. MacFarland of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division:

“If you talk to these sheiks, they’ll tell you that they’re in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar."
“One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together,” MacFarland said. “The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they’re still living in poverty.”

In fact, over the course of 9 months, the Sahwah Al Anbar, or "Anbar Salvation Council", was able to expel Al Qaeda from Ramadi (once an insurgent stronghold and the capital of Al Qaeda operations) and the Anbar province in general -- a victory which he dedicated to the victims of 9/11:

"In the month when the terrorists attacked the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, we dedicate the victory of Anbar Province to the families of the victims who suffered that criminal act," the letter said, which was addressed directly to Bush.
"With the help of the president of the United States, we pledge to continue to cooperate and communicate with you to continue to get good results," the letter said.

On September 13, 2007, al-Rishawi was killed along with two of his bodyguards by a roadside bomb near his home in Ramadi, Anbar, Iraq -- 10 days after meeting President George W. Bush at a U.S. base in Anbar. Sheikh Ahmed was selected by his fellow Sheikhs of Anbar province to lead the Sahawa Al Anbar and carry on his brother's legacy ("Iraqis vow to fight al Qaeda after sheikh death" Reuters Sept. 14, 2007).

* * *

This week, a friend forwarded me the following news story from the Arab press: A letter from Pope Benedict XVI to Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha (SahwataliIraq.com).

The article is in Arabic, but the gist of it is that on April 28, 2008, Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha, President of the revival in Iraq in his official headquarters in the city of Ramadi, met Sheikh Iyad George Aziz, a major leader within the Chaldean Catholic community.

The article references a letter from the Vatican to Sheik Ahmed (delivered to him by Sheikh Iyad), responding to his Christmas and New Year's greetings and expressing the positive desire to join the Muslim-Christian dialogue. The full text of the Vatican's letter:

From the Vatican March 4, 2008
Dear Sheikh Ahmed Basi' Abu Risha,
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI was pleased to receive the Christmas and New Year's message which you sent to him, and has asked me to thank you. He appreciates the sentiment which has prompted you to write him.
In his message for the 2008 World Day of Peace, His Holiness extended an invitation "for every man and woman to have a more lively sense of belonging to the one human family, and to strive to make human coexistence increasingly reflect this conviction, which is essential for the establishment of true and lasting peace." With these sentiments, His Holiness encourages you and all men and women of goodwill in your efforts to promote harmony and reconciliation throughout your region.
With assurance of my prayers and good wishes, I am yours sincerely,
Archbishop Fernando Filoni

* * * As readers are no doubt aware, by virtue of their Christian faith, the Chaldeans have been subject to horrible persecution, the imposition of jaziyah, kidnappings and even targeted assassinations by Al Qaeda in Iraq.

As my source reports, Sheikh Iyad has apparently agreed to join the Sahawa [Awakening], allowing Sheikh Ahmad to add "Protector of the Chaldean Catholics" to his list of formal titles in a public ceremony covered by Arab media:

After hearing Sheikh Iyad's account of the suffering that the Chaldean Catholics have endured in Iraq, Sheikh Ahmad publicly declared that from this time forward they would be under his protection, that anyone who killed a Chaldean will be regarded as one who has killed in a member of his tribe (under the medieval Islamic concept of qisas this is a capital offense), and money will be provided from the Sahawa al-Iraq treasury to rebuild the churches and cemeteries that al-Qaeda destroyed. He justified this by quoting from the Qu'ran and stating that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion because truth stands free from error.

Consequently, in a moment of Muslim-Christian solidarity, it would appear that the Chaldeans have a new and very significant protector from persecution at the hands of Al Qaeda.

Related Reading

"Ramadi from the Caliphate to Capitalism", by Andrew Lubin. Proceedings Magazine Issue: April 2008 Vol. 134/4/1,262 provides an detailed look at how Sheikh Sattar Abdul Abu Risha and his Sons of Anbar, together with the assistance of the U.S. Army's 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) and the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, turned around a city once regarded as "a lost cause" and proclaimed by Al Qaeda as the capital of their new caliphate.
Hope for Iraq’s Meanest City How the surge brought order to Fallujah, by Michael Totten City Journal Vol. 18, No. 2 Spring 2008:
The results of the Anbar Awakening and the surge are plain to see. Since the Fifth Marine Regiment’s Third Battalion rotated into Fallujah in September 2007, not a single American has been wounded there, let alone killed. ...
“The al-Qaida leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province,” says Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman, who oversees an area just north of Ramadi. “They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”
(Michael Totten blogs regularly at Michael Totten's Middle East Journal).
Sons of Iraq Screened for ISF, by Spc. Amanda McBride. Multi-National Force Iraq Sunday, 13 April 2008. The "Sons of Iraq" (two thirds of them Sunni, one-third Shia -- formerly "Concerned Citizens Groups") are being transitioned to formal membership in the Iraqi Security Forces:
“There is a phenomenal interest in the ISF,” said Getchell, a native of Bridgewater, Mass. “Those who have been in the Sons of Iraq program are our priority over those who are not part of the Sons of Iraq program. They stepped forward to defend and protect their areas, so they’ve already shown the propensity to be part of the security process.”
In March, Soldiers of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division and Sons of Iraq conducted a combined medical engagement in Arab Jabour, treating residents for minor injuries, such as scrapes, sprains and allergies.

Pope Mourns Death of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho

2008-03-15T19:12:00.000-07:00

Pope Mourns Death of Kidnapped Iraqi Prelate, Prays for Mercy for "Martyred Land" Zenit News Service. March 13, 2008:

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 13, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI sent a telegram of condolence to the leader of the Church in Iraq, expressing his condolences at the death of the archbishop of Mosul, who was kidnapped Feb. 29.
In the telegram to Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, the Pope expressed his closeness "to the Chaldean Church and to the entire Christian community," reaffirming his "condemnation for an act of inhuman violence which offends the dignity of human beings and seriously damages the cause of the fraternal coexistence of the beloved Iraqi people."
Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho of Mosul was kidnapped just after he had finished leading the Way of the Cross. The three men who accompanied the archbishop, including his driver, were killed.
The Holy Father's telegram gave assurances of his prayers for the 65-year-old archbishop and invoked the Lord's mercy "that this tragic event may serve to build a future of peace in the martyred land of Iraq."
The kidnappers revealed in a phone call Wednesday where the body of the prelate could be found. AsiaNews obtained reports that the archbishop had been dead for a few days when his body was recovered. The cause of death has still not been reported.
According to AsiaNews, Archbishop Rahho suffered poor health and needed daily medication, following a heart attack some years ago.

Father Raymond J. de Souza: The death of Paulus Faraj Rahho and how Islamist elements are driving Christians from Iraq, by Marni Soupcoff. Canadian National Post March 14, 2008.
Slain Iraqi Catholic Archbishop Buried in Mosul, by Daniel Schearf. VOANews.com. March 14, 2008.
Death Comes for the Archbishop: Paulos Faraj Rahho, R.I.P., by Nina Shea. National Review March 14, 2008.

Iraq News Update

2008-03-15T18:12:00.000-07:00

Updates from Multi-National Force Iraq on what our troops are doing to assist the Iraqi people

Salman Pak market opens for business, by Sgt. Natalie Rostek. March 13, 2008:
COMBAT OUTPOST CARVER — A new market opened in Salman Pak March 11 with a ribbon-cutting ceremony attended by leaders of the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, local citizens and council leaders.
The market consists of seven stores including two restaurants, a supermarket, an electronics shop, a photo shop, a sweets store and a cell phone store.
Capt. Mathew Givens, projects planner for the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, said planning for the market began last December when 1-15th Inf. Regt. Soldiers in the area saw run-down shops where the new market now stands. ...
“We chose the area because there is so much going on and it is at the beginning of the main part of town,” Givens said. “The JSS (joint security station), the government building and the Salman Pak Fire Station are right across the street. It’s in a central location.”
Leaders of the 1-15 Inf. Regt. provided store owners with microgrants enabling them to refurbish their stores.
Hawr Rajab Sees Significant Economic, Quality of Life Improvements March 10, 2008:
FOB KALSU — With security improving in Hawr Rajab, stores and schools are reopening and a number of programs are revitalizing a community once on the brink of chaos.
In November 2007, al-Qaeda launched their last well-coordinated offensives into Hawr Rajab, killing a total of 12 members of the Sons of Iraq (SoI) and wounding eight. In the same firefight, two Iraqi Army (IA) Soldiers were killed and another nine wounded; four U.S. Soldiers were injured in the attacks.
When the insurgents attacked, the SoI program in the region was still in its infancy, but the members were not deterred. With the assistance of Coalition forces and IA Soldiers, residents began to reclaim their community and insurgents not killed or captured were forced to flee.
As rebuilding of the rural farming area began, community leaders ramped up efforts to re-establish ties with the government of Iraq (GoI).
Sheik Ali Majeed Mushir Al-Dulaymi, leader of the SoI in Hawr Rajab, began meeting with Yousif Yaqoub Bekhaty, Rashid District Council chairman, and other council officials to request government assistance with reconstruction efforts. . . .
The combined efforts of the groups, assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, mean residents of Hawr Rajab have access to resources for rebuilding their town.
Life is returning to normal with the improvements, made possible by partnership between Coalition forces, SoI, officials from the GoI and Iraqi security forces. Hawr Rajab is becoming a beacon of change and potential for sustainable economic improvements.
The Thunder Rolls: Taji Rail Lines Open for First Time Since 2003 March 6, 2008:
The railroad lines of the Taji Qada, north of Baghdad, have laid dormant since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, but as a result of the efforts of Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldiers, the first train let loose a thunderous blast of its horn March. 5, as it slowly rolled through the gates of Camp Taji.
"This particular train … is part of a proof of principle,” said Cpt. James Kerns, a Harrison County, Ky., native, who serves as the assistant operations officer for the Base Defense Operations Command (BDOC), Multi-National Division – Baghdad. "(This mission was executed) to facilitate the Iraqi railroad infrastructure improvement so they can, in the future, utilize the train and rail system to carry goods."
With a functioning rail system, the Iraqi Security Forces can benefit from the results as well as the people of Iraq.
"It's an enduring mission. The Iraqi railroads are being put back in, and it's going to change the face of Taji," said Maj. Henry McNealy, a Dewey Beach, Del., native, who serves as the operations officer for the BDOC. "It'll become a consistent train; hopefully, over time, the infrastructure of Iraq will be rebuilt."
The train is a big piece of getting Iraq back on line, McNealy added.

Additional News

Back in Baghdad, looking for the normal, by Caesar Ahmed, Los Angeles Times. March 13, 2008 - A physician-journalist who fled Iraq with his wife and young daughters goes home after hearing that things have improved
I watched Iraqi television channels and noticed footage of new cars in Baghdad and municipal workers planting flowers in public parks. I talked to relatives and friends. "Come back," they said. "Baghdad is better now; Karada is like heaven."
When my old company said it would rehire me, I bought a plane ticket.
My mother and brother have returned to Baghdad, but I've seen them only once because they live across the city. On the phone, my mother begs me not to go out.
The hardest part has been being away from my wife and girls. I had promised we would never be apart, but I have been away now for more than two months.
Sadly, I'd rather they stay far away. In Egypt, they can lead a normal life, with security, electricity and hot water. In Iraq, they might see what I saw a few days ago: blood staining the ground after a bombing.
But as I spend more time here, I realize many Iraqis are like me. They are sick of sectarian killings. A year ago, we just wished to stay alive. Now we dream about a normal life. We want to live in our homes and take our children to school.
Some Iraqis are hoping again, even me.
The US has captured a senior al Qaeda leader with close links to Osama bin Laden and has transferred him to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Muhammad Rahim al Afghani, a senior aide to bin Laden, was captured in August 2007.
Rahim was described as a “high-value” individual by Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman in a press briefing today that announced Rahim’s transfer to the military detention facility. “Prior to his arrival in Guantanamo, he has been held in CIA custody,” Whitman said, indicating he has been interrogated by the CIA for eight months.
Whitman described Rahim as “one of (Osama bin Laden’s) most trusted facilitators and procurement specialists.” Rahim is from Nangahar province, Afghanistan, and joined al Qaeda in the mid-1990s. He served as a procurement agent, and then later as a courier for bin Laden. Rahim also helped facilitate bin Laden’s escape during the 2002 battle in Tora Bora in Nangahar province.
Just prior to his capture, Rahim was providing aid to Taliban, al Qaeda, and allied extremist groups operating in Afghanistan.
Coalition targets al Qaeda's network in the Iraqi North March 5, 2008. As al Qaeda in Iraq is targeted in the northern city of Mosul, pressure continues to be applied to the terror network nationwide. US and Iraqi security forces have killed or captured 26 senior leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq's terror network over the past several weeks, Major General Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq said in a briefing in Baghdad on March 5. Many of those killed or captured have come from the northern regions, where al Qaeda is struggling to re-establish its network during a joint US and Iraqi military onslaught.
"Inside Iraqi Politics" is a special series dedicated to examining political progress in Iraq, with a focus on issues that affect the country's stability and the reconciliation between ethnic and religious sects. The product of more than a dozen interviews with American and Iraqi officials and months of research, the series presents a more comprehensive view of factors that slow progress beyond sectarian interest, including the rapid growth of the government, administrative inexperience, corruption, and the structure of the executive and legislative branches outlined in the Iraqi Constitution.

2008-02-20T20:21:00.001-08:00

Remember Those Benchmarks? - Unheralded political advances in Iraq, by Fred Barnes. Weekly Standard 02/25/2008, Volume 013, Issue 23

InsideCatholic.com: Bring The Troops Home?

2008-01-09T19:12:00.000-08:00

Bring The Troops Home, by Christopher Manion. January 9, 2008.
Holding The Wolf by the Ears: Why We Must Stay in Iraq, by Robert A. Sharp. January 9, 2008.

National Journal vs. The Lancet

2008-01-04T19:00:00.000-08:00

In its latest issue the National Journal sets its sights on the problematic matter of wartime statistics, chief in point the oft-quoted study by the Lancet ("Data Bomb", by Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon):

Over the past several months, National Journal has examined the 2006 Lancet article, and another [PDF] that some of the same authors published in 2004; probed the problems of estimating wartime mortality rates; and interviewed the authors and their critics. NJ has identified potential problems with the research that fall under three broad headings: 1) possible flaws in the design and execution of the study; 2) a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud; and 3) political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute. . . .

Apprently even the anti-war Iraq Body Count disputes the findings:

Officials at Iraq Body Count strongly opposed the Iraq war yet issued a detailed critique of the Lancet II study. Researchers wading into a field that is this fraught with danger have a responsibility not to be reckless with statistics, the group said. The numbers claimed by the Lancet study would, under the normal ratios of warfare, result in more than a million Iraqis wounded seriously enough to require medical treatment, according to this critique. Yet official sources in Iraq have not reported any such phenomenon. An Iraq Body Count analysis showed that the Lancet II numbers would have meant that 1,000 Iraqis were dying every day during the first half of 2006, "with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms." The February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque is widely credited with plunging Iraq into civil war, yet the Lancet II report posits the equivalent of five to 10 bombings of this magnitude in Iraq every day for three years.
"In the light of such extreme and improbable implications," the Iraq Body Count report stated, "a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data."

On a Related Note:

Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study Sunday Times January 13, 2008:
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Fr. Richard Neuhaus on "The Warrior Class"

2007-12-16T12:52:00.001-08:00

... Of course there are Christians who don’t think Christians have any business being in the military to begin with. The thinking of two generations of Protestant clergy was formed by Roland Bainton’s 1979 book, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace. Bainton didn’t convert all of them to pacifism. Not by a long shot. But he entrenched the feeling that there is something deeply dubious about the morality of Christians in military service.
Bainton’s history has been sharply challenged. Of particular interest is Louis Swift’s The Early Fathers on War and Military Service. Oliver and Joan O’Donovan’s From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Source Book in Christian Political Thought also has instructive material. There is no doubt that in the first century, Christians were ambivalent, to say the least, about serving in the Roman military and, for that matter, about the empire itself. Whether this had to do primarily with the morality of warfare or with idolatry is much disputed. Soldiers were required to take an oath to the gods of the empire and to the emperor, and such oaths were forbidden for Christians. All that changed dramatically by the fourth century and the dawn of what came to be called Christendom. The argument over whether Christendom represented a triumph of the gospel or the fall of the Church continues to this day, and probably will continue until Our Lord returns in glory. Refracted through the twists and turns of history, it has everything to do with today’s debates over religion and the political order in our society.
The undeniable fact is that today hundreds of thousands of devout Christians serve in America’s armed forces. If, as some contend, pacifism is a mark of the Church, they are all guilty of mortal sin and are beyond the pale. With relatively few exceptions, and for good reasons both humanly natural and theological, Christians in America don’t believe that. This is not the place to engage all the arguments involved between pacifism and just-war doctrine. It is the place to note that what Kaplan and others call the “warrior class” is increasingly divorced not only from civilian society but from the society that ought to matter most, the Church.

Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus, The Warrior Class First Things "On the Square" Dec. 14, 2007

Benedict Appoints Archbishop Timothy Paul Broglio to Head of Archdiocese for the Military Services

2007-12-02T21:51:00.001-08:00

Michael Iafrate (Vox Nova) expresses his disappointment in the appointment of the military's new "warrior shepherd":

When the news broke that Archbishop Edwin O’Brien was being moved from his position as head of the Archdiocese of United States Military Services to serve the Archdiocese of Baltimore, I was secretly hoping that the Church would use the opportunity to quietly get itself out of the business of serving as chaplain to the American war machine.
No such luck. Meet the new warrior shepherd, Archbishop Timothy Paul Broglio.

More on the newly-appointed head Archdiocese for the Military Services, courtesy of the Boston Pilot:

“I am indeed privileged to take the reins from Archbishop O’Brien,” said Archbishop Broglio at a Nov. 19 news conference at the military archdiocese’s headquarters in Washington.
The new archbishop, who has never been in the armed forces, said he has encountered members of the military in countries where he served in the diplomatic corps. He said his primary goal will be to find more chaplains. Currently there are about 300 Catholic military chaplains serving U.S. troops.
“The greatest resource of our [archdiocese] is our priests,” Archbishop Broglio said. “Chaplains are committed to letting the light of Christ shine.”
In the new post, he will be in charge of the spiritual, pastoral and sacramental care of the 375,000 Catholic active-duty U.S. military personnel and their 800,000 family members; 200,000 Catholics in the Reserves and National Guard; 30,000 Catholic patients in 172 Veterans Affairs hospitals; and 66,000 Catholics in government service overseas in 134 countries.
As the statistics indicate the overwhelming responsibility of the archdiocese is for the personnel of the military services, both at home and around the world. As well as those who are in the care of the Veterans Affairs medical facilities. Equally though the archbishop has the pastoral care of some 66,000 Catholics in United States’ government services across the globe, many of them in diplomatic postings for the United States.
Archbishop Broglio is to be installed as head of the military archdiocese Jan. 25, the feast of the Conversion of Paul, at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Quite a job -- let's keep Archbishop Broglio in our prayers, that he will fulfill his duties to the best of his abilities.

2007-11-30T09:58:00.000-08:00

Elevation of Chaldean patriarch highlights plight of Iraqi Christians Catholic News Service. Nov. 24, 2007:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- When Pope Benedict XVI placed a red hat on Cardinal Emmanuel-Karim Delly of Baghdad during a Nov. 24 consistory in St. Peter's Basilica, he was honoring not just the patriarch of the Chaldean church, but was elevating the plight of Iraqi Christians to the world's attention.
The pope "told me 'I hope this gesture will be a sign of reconciliation not only among the people, but especially among Sunnis, Shiites and Christians, because Iraq is a country dear to me,'" the patriarch told reporters during a Nov. 23 press conference after a meeting of cardinals and cardinals-designate with the pope.
During the Nov. 24 consistory, Pope Benedict said in his homily that elevating the Chaldean leader was a way of "concretely expressing my spiritual closeness and my affection" for Iraq's Christian minorities.
"They are experiencing in their own flesh the dramatic consequences of an enduring conflict and now live in a fragile and delicate political situation," the pope said.

2007-11-23T12:38:00.000-08:00

Something To Be Really Thankful For, Max Boot @ Commentary:

On Thanksgiving 2006 there were 126 enemy attacks across Iraq and 26 of them were “effective,” meaning they caused injuries or damaged buildings, vehicles, or other infrastructure. Six months later, attack levels were virtually unchanged: May 22 saw 122 attacks, 35 of them effective. And then came the big turn: On Thursday, there were 53 attacks and only 18 of them were effective—drops from a year ago of 58 percent and 31 perecent respectively.
Baghdad, which had been the primary center of violence on November 22, 2006, and May 22, 2007, no longer had that distinction on Thursday: It saw only 10 attacks (half of them effective), compared with 37 in northern Iraq (less than a third of them effective). It’s still cause for concern that the violence level remains so high in the north, but it is cause for celebration that Baghdad is becoming so peaceful. Given that it is the capital of the country, improvements are more significant politically if they occur there than in the provinces.
Perhaps the most jaw-dropping result was the change that occurred not in Baghdad, however, but in Anbar Province, which saw 28 attacks (seven of them effective) a year ago and none—repeat none—yesterday.
Those are the kinds of results that should make us grateful to the hard work of the soldiers in Iraq, not only Americans but Iraqis and other coalition partners, and to their commanders in Baghdad and Washington who had the wisdom to implement a new strategy after it became apparent that the old one was failing.

Bill Roggio: Sunni clerics turn on Association of Muslim Scholars

2007-11-18T13:37:00.000-08:00

Sunni clerics turn on Association of Muslim Scholars, by Bill Roggio. The Long War Journal November 17, 2007:

Wednesday's closure of the headquarters of the Association of Muslim Scholars at the Umm al Quraa mosque marks a dramatic shift in the Sunni religious establishment. Prominent Sunni clerics, who once supported, justified, or remained silent about al Qaeda's terror tactics, have now turned on the leading Sunni religious establishment that supports al Qaeda in Iraq.
On November 14, Iraqi soldiers surrounded the headquarters of the Association of Muslim Scholars after Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al Samarrai, the leader of the Sunni Religious Endowments, or Waqf, ordered the mosque's closure. "The association has always justified killing and assassinations carried out by al Qaeda," Samarrai said the day the troops shut down the Umm al Quraa mosque.
Samarrai's criticism of the Association of Muslim Scholars was pointed. He accused the Association of collusion with al Qaeda in Iraq and held the group responsible for the murder of Iraqi Sunni and Shia alike. . . .

U.S. Catholic Bishops call for bipartisan cooperation and responsible transition in Iraq

2007-11-13T22:24:00.000-08:00

Bishops call for bipartisan cooperation and responsible transition in Iraq USCCB Office of Media Relations
Bishops finalize Iraq statement, urge new directions in war, policy, by Patricia Zapor. Catholic News Service.

2007-11-04T11:44:00.001-08:00

Iraqi Islamic Party: “Al Qaeda is Defeated” Michael Yon. November 1, 2007:
“Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated,” according to Sheik Omar Jabouri, spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party and a member of the widespread and influential Jabouri Tribe. Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been “defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically,” referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group’s tactics have backfired. Operatives who could once disappear back into the crowd after committing an increasingly atrocious attack no longer find safe haven among the Iraqis who live in the southern part of Baghdad. They are being hunted down and killed. Or, if they are lucky, captured by Americans.
Colonel Ricky Gibbs, the American brigade commander with responsibility for the Rashid District in south Baghdad today told me, “So goes South Baghdad goes Baghdad.” General Petraeus had told me similar things about the importance of South Baghdad. In fact, Rashid is quickly developing into what might be one of the final serious battlegrounds of the war.
During the meeting, another member of the Iraqi Islamic Party said that al Qaeda has changed its strategy now that fomenting civil war between Sunni and Shia has backfired. Al Qaeda has shifted targets, now trying to generate friction between tribes. This time, however, the tribes are onto the game early, and they are not playing.
Concerned Citizens fend off attack, Iraqi Army Mechanized Company Slams the Door MultiNationalForce-Iraq:
Coalition forces saw a possible glimpse of the future in Hawr Rajab recently, when they observed Concerned Local Citizens (CLC) at a checkpoint come under attack from insurgents, defend themselves, and then receive reinforcements from Iraqi Army troops, Oct. 31.
The Real Iraqi Miracle: Opting for tolerance, by Dean Barnett. Weekly Standard October 31, 2007:
... the greatest progress hasn't been on the military front, impressive as those strides have been. The real breakthrough has been with the Iraqi people. Throughout Iraq, Iraqi citizens have decided that the fighting must end. They have tired of the sectarian strife that made swaths of their country a killing field. Having sampled something that could be called a civil war, they have collectively decided that they would rather live in a peaceful society. This means that each sect will have to tolerate the other sects' presence.
Throughout Iraq, ordinary citizens have tipped off American troops to the presence of not only al Qaeda forces but members of their own sect bent on violence. They have also tipped off American troops to the presence of hundreds of IEDs, saving countless American lives. And they have done all of this knowing that they were risking death by doing so.
Although grassroots politics in America is of a less perilous sort, this too is a form of grassroots politics. Ordinary people have involved themselves with the fate of their nation, and made an enormous difference. While the Iraqi government remains mostly dysfunctional and enmeshed in squabbling, the Iraqi people have chosen the course their country will take.
Inconvenient Civilians IraqPundit. Nov. 4, 2007:
Recently, I've been puzzled by the reactions of friends or colleagues who ask after my family in Baghdad. When I reply that the relatives say things are getting better, I hear: "Better than what?" I also get strange looks and laughter. So, I remain quiet.
In a way, I can't blame them. Most friends and colleagues get their information from rented experts (whether American or Arab) who know nothing about Iraq. And stories such as this get little play in the media.
The Associated Press reports: "In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped, the government said Saturday." . . .

2007-10-26T10:02:00.001-07:00

The Surge is Only the First Step, by Jeff Emanuel. American Thinker October 22, 2007.
Sharp Drop Seen in US Deaths in Iraq Associated Press. October 23, 2007:
BAGHDAD (AP) — October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch points to what the military calls "Concerned Citizens" — both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he's signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.
"I've never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we've made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We've said that all along. And now they're coming forward in masses."
Resistance is futile: You will be (mis)informed, by Michael Yon. October 22, 2007:
I was at home in the United States just one day before the magnitude hit me like vertigo: America seems to be under a glass dome which allows few hard facts from the field to filter in unless they are attached to a string of false assumptions. Considering that my trip home coincided with General Petraeus’ testimony before the US Congress, when media interest in the war was (I’m told) unusually concentrated, it’s a wonder my eardrums didn’t burst on the trip back to Iraq. In places like Singapore, Indonesia, and Britain people hardly seemed to notice that success is being achieved in Iraq, while in the United States, Britney was competing for airtime with O.J. in one of the saddest sideshows on Earth.
No thinking person would look at last year’s weather reports to judge whether it will rain today, yet we do something similar with Iraq news. The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery...

2007-10-03T21:32:00.000-07:00

An Oil for Food Exposé, by Claudia Rossett. Wall Street Journal October 3, 2007:

Messrs. Khudair and Yacoub described a system corrupt to the core. Their duties inside Saddam Hussein's bureaucracy consisted largely, and officially, of handling and keeping track of kickbacks. That included who had paid and how much, and via which front companies. When Saddam's regime systematized its Oil for Food kickback demands across the board in 2000, keeping track of the graft flowing into Saddam's secret coffers became a job so extensive that the marketing arm of Iraq's Ministry of Oil, known as SOMO (State Oil Marketing Organization) developed an electronic database to track the flow of the "surcharges," as they were called. . . .

Bloggers Meet President Bush in White House

2007-09-16T18:51:00.000-07:00

Mudville Gazette on the Milblogger's Sit-down with the Commander in Chief.

Tribute: Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha and Army Capt. Travis Patriquin

2007-09-16T17:46:00.000-07:00

Obituary: Abdul Sattar Abu Risha Sept. 13, 2007:
Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was a key Sunni Arab ally of the US and Iraqi governments in Iraq's western Anbar province.
The 37-year-old leader of the Al Bu Risha tribe was killed in a bomb attack near his home in the provincial capital, Ramadi, on Thursday.
He was reportedly a top target for assassination by al-Qaeda in Iraq, whom he is widely credited with having defeated in much of western Iraq.
Abu Risha, who also ran a construction and import-export business with offices in Jordan and Dubai, was among a group of tribal leaders who met President George W Bush during his visit to Iraq last week.
Abu Risha was part of a group of young tribal sheikhs whose power grew after more senior leaders fled Anbar or were killed in the insurgency that gripped the province.
In September 2006, angered by the killings of both his father and two brothers by al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Risha approached the US military about forming an alliance to fight the Sunni extremist group. . . .
Sunni Tribal Chiefs vow revenge against al-Qaeda Asianews.it Sept. 15, 2007:
Baghdad (AsiaNews/Agencies) – The funeral of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, leader of an Iraqi Sunni alliance against Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organisation was transformed into an anti al Qaeda protest. The leader had been collaborating with US forces against the terror group, when a car bomb in Ramadi, chief town in Anbar province, killed him. Today in an internet message al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
More than 1,500 mourners attended the funeral in Ramadi. Iraq's national security adviser, interior minister and defence minister all attended the funeral under heavy security, along with the second-in-command of US forces in Iraq, Lt-Gen Raymond Odierno. Mourners chanted "We will take our revenge" and "There is no God but Allah and al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah" as the procession continued to the family cemetery.
Sheikh Rashid Majid, a leader of the al-Bufahad tribe in Ramadi, said: "The killing will give us more energy... to continue confronting al-Qaeda members and to dispose of them”.
With U.S. backing, abu Risha rose from young clan leader to head of Sunni fight against al-Qaida International Herald-Tribune Sept. 13, 2007:
Smoking profusely, Abu Risha — sporting a pistol at his waist — took endless calls on his cell phone.
"We fought with our own weapons. I myself fought al-Qaida with my own funds," Abu Risha, who runs a construction and import-export family business with offices in Jordan and Dubai, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying this week.
He was usually mobbed by crowds and greeted with chants of support every time he shows up on the streets of Ramadi, the war-ravaged provincial capital 115 kilometers (70 miles) west of Baghdad.
"We owe Abu Risha and his people for giving us back our lives," said Saad Ibrahim, who runs a falafel eatery in the Malaab district of Ramadi where he says bands of al-Qaida fighters ruled supreme until driven out by fighters of Abu Risha's Anbar Awakening Council.
Iraqis name police station for slain soldier, by Brian Gartlan. Daily Southtown Sept. 17, 2007:
During his time in Ramadi, Army Capt. Travis Patriquin grew close to the Iraqis.
He spoke their language. He understood their culture.
Now some there have honored the slain officer by naming their new police station after him.
Patriquin, 32, formerly of Lockport, was killed by a roadside bomb in December.
Before he died, Patriquin built a relationship with Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha . . .
The police station in Tameen, a district in Ramadi, was dedicated in Patriquin's name last month.
"I consider it an honor," said his father, Gary Patriquin. "(Sattar) thought highly enough of my son to make him a part of his tribe."
Captain Travis Patriquin - "An American Martyr" BlackFive.net Sept. 6, 2007.

Petraeus Report

2007-09-13T10:50:00.000-07:00

Gen. Petraeus reports to Congress, by Bill Roggio. The Long War Journal Sept. 10, 2007:
Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of Multinational Forces Iraq, has released the much anticipated report to Congress. . . . Petraeus stated the military aspect of the surge has succeeded in reducing violence and has "generated momentum," the Iraqi Security Forces are growing while taking on a greater role in securing the country, and political progress at the local level will allow US forces to draw down the surge brigades. He predicted the force levels can be drawn down from 20 to 15 combat brigades starting in December and ending by July 2008, given that progress in the security situation continues. Ultimately, Petraeus advised against drawing down forces to conduct a strictly counterinsurgency and support role.
Petraeus also focused a significant amount of time to Iran's involvement with the Special Groups and the rogue Mahdi Army. The threat of Iran's involvement was not fully understood until just this year. "None of us earlier this year appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern," said Petraeus.
Listening to Petraeus: The president had the courage to change course on Iraq. Does Congress?, by John McCain and Joe Leiberman. Wall Street Journal Sept. 10, 2007.
Trashing Petraeus: Moveon.org and the new standards of Democratic debate Wall Street Journal September 11, 2007:
Important as was yesterday's appearance before Congress by General David Petraeus, the events leading up to his testimony may have been more significant. Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don't move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for.
Petraeus’s Success, by Charles Krauthammer. National Review Sept. 14, 2007.

Is The "Surge" Working?

2007-09-01T19:36:00.000-07:00

How life returned to the streets in a showpiece city that drove out al-Qaeda - An American ‘martyr’ is being hailed in the Sunni Triangle for restoring peace to a town where soldiers now fight only water leaks. Times Online August 31, 2007:
Captain Patriquin may have offered more than mere words. His main interlocutor, Sheikh Abdul Sittar Bezea al-Rishawi, told The Times that he gave them guns and ammunition too. The sheikhs did rise up. They formed a movement called the Anbar Awakening, led by Sheikh Sittar. They persuaded thousands of their tribesmen to join the Iraqi police, which was practically defunct thanks to al-Qaeda death threats, and to work with the reviled US troops. The US military built a string of combat outposts (COPs) throughout a city that had previously been a no-go area, and through a combination of Iraqi local knowledge and American firepower they gradually regained control of Ramadi, district by district, until the last al-Qaeda fighters were expelled in three pitched battles in March. What happened in Ramadi was later replicated throughout much of Anbar province.
Ramadi’s transformation is breathtaking. Shortly before I arrived last November masked al-Qaeda fighters had brazenly marched through the city centre, pronouncing it the capital of a new Islamic caliphate. The US military was still having to fight its way into the city through a gauntlet of snipers, rocket-propelled grenades, suicide car bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Fifty US soldiers had been killed in the previous five months alone. I spent 24 hours huddled inside Eagles Nest, a tiny COP overlooking the derelict football stadium, listening to gunfire, explosions and the thump of mortars. The city was a ruin, with no water, electricity or functioning government. Those of its 400,000 terrified inhabitants who had not fled cowered indoors as fighting raged around them.
Today Ramadi is scarcely recognisable. Scores of shattered buildings testify to the fury of past battles, but those who fled the violence are now returning. Pedestrians, cars and motorbike rickshaws throng the streets. More than 700 shops and businesses have reopened. Restaurants stay open late into the evening. People sit outside smoking hookahs, listening to music, wearing shorts – practices that al-Qaeda banned. Women walk around with uncovered faces. Children wave at US Humvees. Eagles’ Nest, a heavily fortified warren of commandeered houses, is abandoned and the stadium hosts football matches.
“Al-Qaeda is gone. Everybody is happy,” said Mohammed Ramadan, 38, a stallholder in the souk who witnessed four executions. “It was fear, pure fear. Nobody wanted to help them but you had to do what they told you.”
Back from Hell: Baghdad's Haifa Street Story, by Ralph Peters. New York Post August 31, 2007:
IF you saw any news clips of intense combat last January, you were probably watching the fighting unfolding on Baghdad's Haifa Street: 10 days of grim sectarian violence. Until we put a stop to it.
Surge Working": Top US General, by Dennis Shanahan. The Australian August 31, 2007:
David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said the build-up of American forces in Baghdad since late January had produced positive outcomes. These included the killing or capture of al-Qa'ida fighters, causing the terrorist group to lose influence with local Sunnis.
The strategic gains against insurgents would lead to a changed and possibly longer-term role for Australian troops, shifting from security operations to a focus on training Iraqi soldiers and police.
General Petraeus told The Australian during a face-to-face interview at his Baghdad headquarters there had been a 75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year, a doubling in the seizure of insurgents' weapons caches between January and August, a rise in the number of al-Qa'ida "kills and captures" and a fall in the number of coalition deaths from roadside bombings.
Behind the Numbers In from the Cold August 31, 2007:
Ahead of General Petraeus's report on the troop surge (due in a couple of weeks), the monthly casualty stories provide an opportunity for the MSM to prepare their "backdrop" for his assessment. It's a safe bet the press reporting will highlight the "failures" of Iraq's government, despite significant progress by coalition security forces. In a similar vein, the most casualty totals can be used to paint the "high cost" at which that progress was achieved.
With the end of the month just a few hours away in Baghdad, the U.S. fatality total for August stands at 79--the same number recorded last month. That will likely generate such headlines as "American deaths hold steady in August," or "Combat deaths inch upward," (assuming that there are additional fatalities that have not yet been reported by DoD). In either case, the implication is the same: We're still losing 80 soldiers a month, so our "progress" is clearly limited.
But that analysis is wrong on multiple levels. . . .

2007-08-22T22:12:00.000-07:00

The pope next takes up pacifism, which can have its witnesses, but which can also be a mask for not doing what is necessary to protect freedom and justice. Here, he remarks, we have demonstrated "on the basis of a historical event that absolute pacifism is unsustainable." Notice the careful use of these words. The grounds for war are to be demonstrated by what is actually going on in this or that country, in this or that time. It is not an abstraction but a concrete realization of the power and nature of a regime that seems to extend its force and limits. This is why the pope says, as I cited above, "there is no such thing as an a-historical State based on abstract reasoning."
The pope is careful to retain the "just war" context of these considerations. The just war theory was developed in Christian and classical thought precisely to explain why honorable regimes must at times defend themselves or others in the very name of justice. We still must ask if "just war" is possible and a duty in every occasion where use of force arises. The answer cannot ever be an "unequivocal" never. It depends on judgment and prudence. This is how the pope defines a just war: "a military intervention conducted in the interests of peace and according to moral criteria against unjust regimes." This means that "peace and law" and "peace and justice" are connected. "When law is trampled on and injustice comes to power, peace is always threatened and is already to some extent broken. In this sense a commitment to peace is above all a commitment to a form of law that guarantees justice for the individual and for the entire community." Clearly this means that a military and police component to the very possibility of law and justice is presupposed. The allowing of law to be "trampled" on and of "injustice" to come to power is clearly a sign of civic blindness and moral irresponsibility. This position was also the gist of C. S. Lewis' famous essay "Why I Am Not a Pacifist," found in his Weight of Glory.
. . . Referring back to the logic of the cold war, the pope granted that it still retained some intelligible rationale. "As long as this potential for destruction (nuclear and biological weapons) remained exclusively in the hands of the major powers, one could always hope that reason and the awareness of the dangers weighing upon the people and the State could rule out the use of the type of weaponry. Indeed, despite all the tensions between East and West, we were spared a full-scale war, thanks be to God." This passage, I would say, is a belated acknowledgement (though John Paul II said the same thing) that deterrence did work and the fact that increased accuracy of technology and weaponry finally convinced the Soviets that they could not keep up achieved its purpose.
However, the terrorist situation is different. "We can no longer count on such reasoning (mutual deterrence and rational comprehension), because the readiness to engage in self-destruction is one of the basic components of terrorism—a kind of self-destruction that is exalted as martyrdom and transformed into a promise" (91). Presumably, the pope does not equate Muslim terrorists with organized crime in this sense. The gangster or dope runner is not seeking martyrdom whereas the Muslim terrorist, in his own rationale, is. The gangster is in it for power and money, not for religion.
The pope still thinks that this terrorism itself can be met but by careful means. "One cannot put an end to terrorism—a force that is opposed to the law and cut off from morality—solely by means of force. It is certain that, in defending the law against a force that aims to destroy law, one can and in certain circumstances must make use of proportionate force in order to protect it." This is clearly the reasonable, common-sense position. Again the pope adds, "An absolute pacifism that denies the law any and all coercive measures would be capitulation to injustice, would sanction its seizure of power, and would abandon the world to the dictates of violence." Again, these are memorable words much in need of recollection and emphasis.

"No Weighing, No Disputing, No Such Thing": Ratzinger and Europe , by Fr. James V. Schall. Ignatius Insight (Review of Europe: Today and Tomorrow by Benedict XVI. (Ignatius Press, March 2007).

2007-05-30T09:13:00.000-07:00

U.S. must honestly assess what is achievable in Iraq, says archbishop, by Julie Asher. Catholic News Service. May 30, 2007

BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CNS) -- At this stage in the Iraq War, the United States "must honestly assess what is achievable in Iraq using the traditional just-war principle of 'probability of success,' including the probability of contributing to a responsible transition," said Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien.
The U.S. and its allies "also have a grave responsibility, even at a high cost, to help Iraqis secure and rebuild their nation," unless the conclusion is reached that "a responsible transition is not achievable," he said.
The archbishop, who heads the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services, made the comments in a Memorial Day pastoral message to Catholic men and women in the U.S. armed forces. He delivered the same message at a packed session May 25 during the 2007 Catholic Media Convention in Brooklyn. [...]
Unfortunately, what many Catholic leaders and others predicted would happen in Iraq -- the chaos and the difficulties of consolidating peace -- has come true, he said.
What was missing at the outset of the war was a comprehensive blueprint to administer and restore Iraq after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was deposed, Archbishop O'Brien said. "There was not sufficient foresight about what we might do after our seeming victory."
The archbishop argued against pulling out of Iraq now, and said the U.S. must look at what is achievable. He added that military personnel feel that Americans at the grass-roots level still support them.
He thinks there is still a chance to have a free Iraq and see democracy spread through the region.
Archbishop O'Brien compared the Iraq situation to the Vietnam War. He was an Army chaplain in the early 1970s and served a year in Vietnam. The U.S. was gaining the upper hand there, he said, until the Tet offensive conducted by the North Vietnamese. Technically, it was a failed military action but it was a turning point in the war.
Political sentiment turned against U.S. involvement and the U.S. pulled out, but the archbishop said he thinks the U.S. still could have gotten the upper hand had it stayed.
During a question-and-answer session after the archbishop's address, one member of the audience argued that the American people were conned into getting into the war. Another said many opponents of the war feel the decision to invade Iraq was advanced by a small group of neoconservatives who wanted to get their hands on Iraq's vast oil supplies.
Archbishop O'Brien disagreed with both notions.
He said that "reasonable people can disagree" about the war. He said he could see why some might feel the nation was conned because there is a great deal of skepticism about the war, but added, "I don't think there was bad will on the part of the government" in deciding to go to war.
He also said, "I don't agree this was the invention of a small group that wanted oil."

Encouraging News from the Front

2007-05-27T21:39:00.001-07:00

From Bill Roggio's Iraq Report: Attacking Mahdi, al Qaeda prison camp in Diyala May 27, 2007:
This morning, U.S. and Iraq forces struck yet again against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. The joint force captured yet another member of a network "known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training." This is the third such raid in Sadr City in 48 hours. Seventeen members of this network have been killed and 32 captured during numerous raids over the past three weeks. . . .
In Diyala province, where al Qaeda has established a stronghold, Iraqi and U.S. security forces have broke up an al Qaeda "prison camp" and captured 7 al Qaeda during two separate raids. Today, a joint U.S. and Iraqi Army raid rescued 41 Iraqi civilians "showing signs of having been tortured or mistreated" from an al Qaeda run prison camp just south of the city of Baqubah. "Many of them showing signs of mistreatment ranging from broken bones and bruises to heat injuries caused by being held with insufficient water," AFP noted.
Memorial Day Message from Michael Yon, milblogger and combat photographer Michael Yon has good news from Mosul:
Long-time readers know that I deliver bad news with the good. I was first to write that parts of Iraq were in civil war back in February 2005, well over a year before mainstream outlets started reporting the same. I was also the first to report, back in 2005, that Mosul was making a turn for the better. Mainstream outlets hardly picked up on that story, however, although the turn was easy to see for anyone who was there. When I returned from Afghanistan in the spring of 2006, after writing about the growing threat of a resurgent Taliban, bankrolled with profits from the heroin trade, I wrote that parts of our own military were censoring media in Iraq. The recent skirmishing over blogging from Iraq supports that contention. These reminders are for new readers who do not believe that a province that most media outlets had put at the top of the “hopelessly lost” column is actually turning a corner for the better. . . .
Although there is sharp fighting in Diyala Province, and Baghdad remains a battleground, and the enemy is trying to undermine security in areas they’d lost interest in, the fact is that the security plan, or so-called “surge,” is showing clear signs of progress.
Note If I had to recommend two blogs for daily reporting on Iraq and the WOT, it would be Michael Yon and Bill Roggio.

2007-05-04T19:07:00.000-07:00

Vatican signals support for international meeting on Iraq, by Cindy Wooden. Catholic News Service. May 4, 2007:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican signaled its support for the international meeting on Iraq that took place in Egypt in early May, and Iraq's Chaldean bishops asked participating countries to do more to end violence and protect Christians in the country.
After former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami met Pope Benedict XVI May 4, the Vatican published a statement saying the two leaders reaffirmed "the need for strong initiatives by the international community, like that occurring in these days at the meeting in Sharm el Sheikh," Egypt, to bring peace to the Middle East.
More than 50 nations sent representatives to the May 3-4 meeting in Egypt to discuss debt relief, aid and security in Iraq. The participants included the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council, the world's richest countries and nations bordering Iraq, including Iran.

WMD's.

2007-04-20T18:23:00.000-07:00

WMD's and the Iraq War, by Deal Hudson. April 17, 2007:
During the period leading up to the Iraq War, I was in regular conversation with the White House as part of what is called the Catholic Working Group. Karl Rove asked me to create this group after the 2000 election.
We had many discussions with White House and Defense Department personnel about just war theory and the proposed invasion of Iraq. They were all well-versed in the basic principles.
Our central concern . . . was not the issue of whether all other means had been exhausted -- we thought they had -- but whether there was a an immediate danger to the United States.
That's where WMDs came in.
On one call with the White House we were all assured by a senior administration official that he had "absolute and certain proof" of WMDs. I asked if he could share the evidence with us. He said "no" but that we should "trust" him.
Since this was someone I had known for a number of years in other circumstances, I had no reason not to believe him. (He, perhaps, had no reason not to believe the person who told him he had "absolute and certain proof" and so on.)
We believed him.
‘I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’, by Melanie Phillips. The Spectator (UK) No. 21 April 2007:
It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.

Reactions to the Iraq Study Group Report

2006-12-08T04:21:00.000-08:00

Iraq Study Group: Change Iraq strategy now CNN.com. Dec. 6, 2006:

In a highly anticipated report being released Wednesday, the Iraq Study Group will call for a dramatic shift in war policy by urging the Bush administration to set a target of moving most U.S. troops out of their combat roles by early 2008, according to two sources who have seen the executive summary of the report.
The bipartisan panel, however, will stop short of a specific timetable for withdrawal.
"The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve into one of supporting the Iraqi Army," says the report.
It adds: "It's clear the Iraqi government will need U.S. assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities. Yet the U.S. must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq."
Sources familiar with the report, which will be presented to President Bush at the White House early Wednesday morning, said it also prods the administration to launch a new diplomatic initiative to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The report contends the United States "cannot achieve its goals in the Mideast" unless it embarks on a "renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive peace plan on all fronts," according to the sources who have seen the report.
As part of this initiative, the panel calls for direct talks between the United States and Iran, as well as Syria, a move the Bush administration has repeatedly resisted.

The Iraq Study group report will be downloadable at the following websites:

United States Institute of Peace (www.usip.org)
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy (www.bakerinstitute.org)
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org)

Reactions

The Iraq Study Group's self-contradiction, by Donald Sensing. Winds of Change Dec. 7, 2006:
. . . on the one hand, the ISG says the US is facing a real crisis in Iraq and that time is short to change direction. Then, on the other, the ISG offers recommendations that even it (unanimously) says is "not likely to happen quickly." The ISG wants to start withdrawing US combat units from Iraq by 2008, but did it stop to think that it's highly unlikely for any of its regional initiatives and conferences even to be scheduled by then? The wheels of the gods and diplomats grind exceedingly slow, something James Baker should have remembered. Syria and Iraq have no obvious incentive to engage with us at all, a fact that Messrs. Baker and Hamilton tacitly admitted. To imagine that Assad and Ahmandinejad will jump at the chance to assist the US in achieving its goals in Iraq is the triumph of hope over experience. If anything, they'll see the report as a sign of the slackening of American will and pretend to engage while making sure that the "peace process" drags on interminably. (We do, after all, have a track record of being victiom of that tactic, just recall the Paris peace talks with Hanoi, in which the North Vietnamese delegation spent most of a year doing nothing but arguing about the shape and height of the negotiation table.)
Assessment of the Iraq Study Group Report, by Marc Schulman on Lebanon. American Future Dec. 6, 2006.
We've Been Talking: It's a myth that the U.S. hasn't already engaged Syria and Iran, by Joel Himelfarb. The Wall Street Journal Dec. 6, 2006:
Based on the historical record, the advocates of U.S. engagement with these regimes are delusional. The record, from Carter to Bush II, strongly suggests that neither regime has any interest in cooperating with us in Iraq, and are more likely than not to view the Carter-Brzezinski-Hagel approach as a demonstration of American weakness.
Will Iraq Study Group’s Plan Work on the Battlefield?, by Michael R. Gordon. New York Times Dec. 7, 2008.

Gold Star Families Travel to Iraq

2006-12-05T16:20:00.000-08:00

The Gold Star Families Iraq Survey Group has released a new report, "A Brighter Future for Iraq," to help enhance the debate and discussions concerning the United States’ commitment to achieve success with the mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The authors of this report have all traveled to Iraq since the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Seven of the individuals are known as “Gold Star Families” as they have lost a son in the war effort. Two of the individuals, Gold Star Father Joe Johnson and Marine Reservist John Ubaldi, served in Operation Iraqi Freedom themselves. Additionally, group member Melanie Morgan led a delegation to Iraq in 2005 where she had the opportunity to speak with both U.S. and Iraqi military leaders.
It is not by accident that the majority of this group is comprised of men and women who lost their child in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They are presenting their findings and recommendations to ensure that the United States adopts a policy in Iraq that will enhance American security that their children fought to preserve. Their children believed in the importance of the mission in Iraq, and so too do these parents.

-- Source: Move America Forward MoveAmericaForward.org carries the report of the "Gold Star Families"

Bill Roggio on "The Military and the Media"

2006-12-05T16:03:00.000-08:00

In nearly every conversation, the soldiers, Marines and contractors expressed they were upset with the coverage of the war in Iraq in general, and the public perception of the daily situation on the ground. The felt the media was there to sensationalize the news, and several stated some reporters were only interested in “blood and guts.” They freely admitted the obstacles in front of them in Iraq. Most recognized that while we are winning the war on the battlefield, albeit with difficulties in some areas, we are losing the information war. They felt the media had abandoned them.
During each conversation, I was left in the awkward situation of having to explain that while, yes, I am wearing a press badge, I'm not 'one of them.' I used descriptions like 'independent journalist' or 'blogger' in an attempt to separate myself from the pack.
What a terrible situation to be in, having to defend yourself because of your profession. I've always said that the hardest thing about embedding (besides leaving my family) is wearing the badge that says 'PRESS.' That hasn't changed. I hide the badge whenever I can get away with it.

-- "The Military and the Media"

I support the U.S. Bishops on Iraq

2006-11-19T15:06:00.000-08:00

The nation's Catholic bishops on Monday (Nov. 13) called for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq "at the earliest opportunity":

"Our nation's military forces should remain in Iraq only so long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition," the statement reads. "Our nation should look for effective ways to end their deployment at the earliest opportunity consistent with this goal."

Got to hand it to the Bishops -- they've managed to come up with a position that President Bush, Congressman Murtha, and Noam Chomsky could agree on. Hat tip: Domenico Bettinelli.

The Militant Ideology Atlas

2006-11-18T09:48:00.000-08:00

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has announced the release of The Militant Ideology Atlas [online in its entirety, .pdf format], an in-depth study of the Jihadi Movement's top thinkers and their most popular writings. According to the CTC, this is the first systematic mapping of the ideology inspiring al-Qaeda.

The CTC’s researchers spent one year mining the most popular books and articles in al-Qaeda’s online library, profiling hundreds of figures in the Jihadi Movement, and cataloging over 11,000 citations. The empirically supported findings of the project are surprising:

The most influential Jihadi intellectuals are clerics from Jordan and Saudi Arabia, two of the US’s closest allies in the Middle East.
Among them, the Jordanian cleric Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi has had the most impact on other Jihadi thinkers and has been the most consequential in shaping the worldview of the Jihadi Movement.
In contrast, the study finds that Usama Bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri have had little influence on other Jihadi theorists and strategists.
The Executive Report summarizes the main conclusions of this comprehensive effort and provides policy-relevant recommendations informed by these findings. The Research Compendium contains summaries of all the texts used in the study as well as biographies of the texts' authors and the figures they cite most. A link to the entire database will be available soon.

2006-11-18T07:53:00.000-08:00

"So I Guess The FMSO Documents Are Legit", muses Captain's Quarters:

Over the past year or so, I have provided CQ readers with a number of translations from key Iraqi Intelligence Service documents that have been translated by either the FMSO or by Joseph Shahda of the Free Republic website. I even engaged two interpreters to verify one particularly explosive memo last April, after Shahda published his own translation. That memo dealt with IIS plans to get volunteers for suicide missions to 'strike American interests".
One particular criticism that appeared with each new translation was that the documents were never proven genuine, although no one could explain the logic behind the US government hiding these documents in Iraqi Arabic among an avalanche of mundanity, only to shove it onto a shelf for years until Congress authorized their release to the Internet. Now we find another verification of their authenticity, this time from the New York Times, which reports today that the documents constitute a national-security threat . . .

DNI Disclosed Saddam's Nuclear Secrets - Is the Saddam-Terrorism Debate Reopened?, by Andrew Cochran. CounterTerrorism Blog. Nov. 3, 2006.

Captain's Quarters has put a lion's share of effort into bringing the various translated documents from the Iraqi Intelligence Service to the attention of its readers. Among them are the following revelations:

Palestinian Jihad Part Of Iraq Insurgency - A new document translated by Joseph Shahda indicates that the Saddam Hussein regime agreed to allow the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to stage suicide operations within Iraq in the opening days of the American invasion. [posted Captain's Quarters October 26, 2006].
Post-Invasion Intel Showed WMD Went To Syria - Among the captured documents of the Iraqi Intelligence Services is a memo written in Arabic that describes pre-war intel from an Iraqi source working in Syria. Dated July 13, the memo itself was written after the invasion, but it describes the movement of trucks from Iraq into Syria just before the American invasions. [posted Captain's Quarters July 28, 2006].
Iraqi Intel Memo Describes Osama Connection A memo from the Afghan section of the Directorate of Counterintelligence (M5) to the head of M5 dated September 15th, 2001 relays information from an Afghani source that Taliban consul discussed the relationship between Osama, Iraq, and the Taliban. [posted Captain's Quarters July 24, 2006].
Foreign Intel Had Identified WMD Sites - an undated memorandum from the director of the IIS to the Military Industrialization Commission (MIC) discusses counterintelligence information regarding an informant with knowledge of the locations for Iraqi WMD programs. Document ISGZ-2004-007589-HT-DHM2A directs the MIC to change the locations of their assets. [posted Captain's Quarters October 17, 2006].
Operation Blessed July - Uday Hussein, in 1999, ordered a series of bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and in the autonomous areas of Iraq. Document ISGZ-2004-018948 shows a response from a Saddam Fedayeen operative to Uday himself outlining the plan, known as Operation Blessed July.
Loose Lips Generate Paperwork, And Reveal Iraqi Malfeasance - Shortly before Saddam Hussein suspended all cooperation with the UNSCOM inspectors, in 1998 a surprise inspection at the Air Operations Directorate turned up a number of documents relating to "special" weapons -- the designation for WMD used by Iraqi forces. This caused the UN to declare a violation on the Iraqis, and touched off a massive internal investigation in Saddam's armed forces to find out who forgot to cleanse the files. The series of memos and statements in document IZSP-2003-00300856 shows that the Iraqis not only intended on making an example of the men who did such a poor job of purging the files, but that they actively hid materials that implicated Iraq in the hoarding of WMD.
The Saddam-Osama Connection (1994-1997) - One of the documents released by the FMSO project contains the records of the Iraqi regime's early connections to Osama bin Laden, starting in 1994 and continuing at least through 1997. [posted Captain's Quarters July 15, 2006].
Saddam's Subsidies To Terrorists - "Saddam's subsidy to suicide bombings has been reported in detail, and the fact that this went through his press secretary shows that he wanted to get the word out. Saddam wanted to provide incentives for terrorist recruitment in the Palestinian areas, [offering families of suicide bombers] the equivalent of ten years' revenue for a family of four. The money for this enterprise came from the West, in the helpful Oil-For-Food program that put billions of dollars in hard currency into the pockets of Saddam Hussein and his sons." [posted Captain's Quarters July 15, 2006].
Iraqi Documents: UNMOVIC Knew Of Renewed WMD Efforts to Make Ricin - In a summary of a larger document, translators found that Iraq had restarted its processing of castor-bean extraction, from which ricin can be developed -- and that UNMOVIC discovered it in December 2002. Hans Blix never mentioned ricin or castor beans in his UN presentation on March 7, 2003. [posted Captain's Quarters July 7, 2006].
Dr. Germ Analyzes Aircraft BW Attack Requirements In 2002 - Document CMPC-2003-004346 reveals that Dr. Rehab Rasheed Taha, otherwise known as Dr. Germ, prepared an analysis in 2002 of how to spread biological weapons material using an aircraft as the medium, and how far they had advanced on the application. [posted Captain's Quarters July 7, 2006].
Iraqi Documents: Kuwaiti POWs Used As Human Shields - captured IIS documents contains the actual orders from Qusai Hussein directing the Republican Guard to take Kuwaiti prisoners illegally held for twelve years and use them as human shields at strategic locations. [posted Captain's Quarters July 7, 2006].
Iraqi Documents: Our Friends, the Russians - According to document CMPC-2003-000878, the Russians gave more active support to Saddam prior to the March 2003 invasion than previously known -- and they used Syria as a conduit for their material. [posted Captain's Quarters July 7, 2006].
Saddam And Anthrax Operations - In document BIAP-2003-004552.pdf, we have a short memorandum announcing a transfer to a biological weapons program. "El-Salem wrote this memo in October 2002, so this is not a case of pre-Gulf War mischief. Abas got assigned to anthrax operations while Congress debated whether to authorize military force." [posted Captain's Quarters July 6, 2006].

War "no good to anyone" - The words of a Pacifist Pope?

2006-08-19T12:35:00.000-07:00

On August 13, 2006 Pope Benedict gave a first-of-its-kind television interview with German televisions ARD-Bayerischer Rundfunk, ZDF (complete transcript available on the Vatican website). We'll get the to the content and commentary of the interview in our upcoming Pope Benedict roundup, but this past week there has been much discussion on a particular segment:

Question: Holy Father, a question about the situation regarding foreign politics. Hopes for peace in the Middle East have been dwindling over the past weeks: What do you see as the Holy See’s role in relationship to the present situation? What positive influences can you have on the situation, on developments in the Middle East?
Pope Benedict XVI: Of course we have no political influence and we don’t want any political power. But we do want to appeal to all Christians and to all those who feel touched by the words of the Holy See, to help mobilize all the forces that recognize how war is the worst solution for all sides. It brings no good to anyone, not even to the apparent victors. We understand this very well in Europe, after the two world wars. Everyone needs peace. There’s a strong Christian community in Lebanon, there are Christians among the Arabs, there are Christians in Israel. Christians throughout the world are committed to helping these countries that are dear to all of us. There are moral forces at work that are ready to help people understand how the only solution is for all of us to live together. These are the forces we want to mobilize: it’s up to politicians to find a way to let this happen as soon as possible and, especially, to make it last.

That war is, indeed, "no good for anyone" prompted the following protest from First Things' blogger Robert Miller:

I find it difficult to understand how the pope says this. Along with many others, I often invoke the Second World War as the paradigm example of a just war, of a case where morality not only permitted but required the use of armed force in order to combat evil. But here Benedict, expressly mentioning the world wars, says that they brought no good to anyone. No good to Elie Wiesel, and all the other prisoners liberated from Buchenwald? No good to the peoples of France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and others saved from Nazi domination? No good to the Poles and other Slavs, destined to slavery to support the Third Reich? No good to the young Joseph Ratzinger, who, freed from service in the Wehrmacht, was able to enter seminary, study theology, become a priest and a professor, and live to become pope?
As it stands, this statement from Benedict is unsupportable. All serious people know that war is a terrible reality to be avoided whenever possible, and Benedict should certainly say this. But he is also a great theologian, well able to make moral distinctions. He ought not make statements that can so easily be understood as endorsing a dangerously naive pacifism that is incompatible with the Catholic moral tradition.

Needless to say, Miller's challenge caused quite a stir.

Mark Shea says "I basically agree with Miller", howbeit issuing a plea for context:
On the whole, though I disagree with the Pope's remarks as they stand (since I believe in Just War teaching), I find myself thinking that I'd rather live in a world of people who err as the Pope does than in a world of War Zealots and Master Planners with big ideas for a New American Century based on "creative destruction" and other Machiavellian schemes. In short, I don't have much in the way of solutions, but I have a clearer and clearer idea of who I trust as I try to think things through.

CAEI reader M.W. Forrest also speculates:
For perspective, I think we should take into consideration that he was speaking to German reporters. What grievances did WWI and WWII solve for the Germans? WWI brought them the lost of some of their most productive land in the west and economic collapse. WWII gave them 1/4 of their country put in communist oppression.
Amy Welborn blogged the piece, with a not-entirely-unexpected 120 comment reaction and some good exchanges on pacifism and the just war tradition ("No Good War?" August 16, 2006).

Looking at Pope Benedict's remark in and of itself, Robert Miller's reaction is understandable. But this is not the first time that papal statements on war have resulted in a plethora of conflicting interpretations. Back in May, this blog took a stab at assessing various positions and papal pronouncements on the war in Iraq and the legitimate use of force (Toward a Proper Understanding of the Catholic Just War Tradition Against The Grain May 18, 2006).

In response to that particular post, "rcesq", a member and contributor to the RatzingerFanClub's EzBoard forum, pointed out to me that, in Cardinal Ratzinger's address in Normandy on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of D-Day (reprinted as Chapter 6 of Values in a Time of Upheaval, first published April 2005, new edition by Ignatius Press 2006) -- we have good reason not to hasten to the conclusion from such papal comments as "war is the worst solution for all sides" and "today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war"" -- that we are in the presence of a pacifist-pope.

What follows are my friend rcesq's observations, quoted in full (with permission) for your consideration:

* * *

[In his Normandy address], the Cardinal describes how the Nazis had seized power and caused

justice and injustice, law and crime [to become] entangled by carrying out both the legislative and administrative functions of the state. It was therefore in one sense entitled to demand that the citizens obey the law and respect the authority of the state (Rom 13:1ff!), while at the same time this government also employed the judicial organs as instruments in pursuit of its own criminal goals. The legal order itself continued to function in its usual forms in everyday lives, at least in part; at the same time, it had become a power that was used to undermine law.

According to the Cardinal,

[t]he only way to shatter this cycle of crime and reestablish the rule of law was an intervention by the whole world. . . . Here it is clear that the intervention of the Allies was a bellum iustum, a "just war" . . . perhaps the clearest example in all history of a just war.

Calling WWII a "just war" is pretty obvious and most commentators would place that conflict squarely in the just war tradition as you have explained. What's interesting, though, is that the Cardinal does not justify the war on the ground of self-defense. After all, each of the Allied powers had been attacked first by the Nazis.

Instead, Ratzinger considers the war justified because it liberated the German people from their criminal government, gave them freedom and restored the rule of law. He describes it as an "intervention" -- which sounds like the language used in AA programs when family and friends gather together to "stage an intervention" for the benefit of letting a drug or alcohol addicted friend or family member know that help for self-destructive behavior is available and required. Such a "therapeutic" approach to justifying war is not something I saw [in my prior blog-discussion of just war].

The Cardinal goes on to declare that this "real event in history shows that an absolute pacifism is untenable." Even though it appears that some just war moralists are heading in the direction of pacifism by setting the bar for justifying war impossibly high, one would expect this far more rational conclusion from someone as grounded in reality as Joseph Ratzinger, who knows well that man is fallen and sinful and will fall and sin over and over again.

It seems unusual and is, to me, unexpected, that the Cardinal would open the door to justifying military intervention "against unjust systems of government," when the intervention "serves to promote peace and accepts the moral criteria for peace." Does this allow a "pre-emptive war" against a criminal regime that flouts resolutions of the United Nations to disarm, terrorizes and kills thousands of its own people, repeatedly attacks it neighbors without provocation, and credibly boasts of having weapons of mass destruction? One could argue that it does. After all, one can look at such a regime as suffering from an addiction that requires intervention. Unfortunately, the address just offers this tantalizing thought and then moves on.

Farther on in the address, the Cardinal turns to the phenomenon of "terror, which has become a new kind of world war." He contrasts the destructive powers that lay in the hands of recognized superpowers -- who one hoped would be susceptible to reason -- with those potentially in the hands of terrorists, who cannot be counted on to be rational because self-destruction is a basic element in terrorism's power. He identifies as a "basic truth" that it is impossible to overcome terrorism by force alone, but notes that:

the defense of the rule of law against those who seek to destroy it must sometimes employ violence. This element of force must be precisely calculated, and its goal must always be the protection of the law. An absolute pacifism that refused to grant the law any effective means for its enforcement would be a capitulation to injustice. It would sanction the seizure of power by this injustice and would surrender the world to the dictatorship of force. . . .

Again, the Cardinal's thoughts suggest that it could be entirely legitimate for a country like Israel to use force against terrorists who try to undermine it; provided that the force is "precisely calculated." Naturally you have to ask how you calculate force precisely, even with so-called smart bombs: human error will occur and you can end up with horrible misfires. But I think that the Cardinal's reasoning does contradict those pundits who claim that American and Israeli soldiers are somehow acting immorally because their cause is unjustifiable.

The Cardinal posits another limit to the justifiable use of force against terror: "strict criteria that are recognizable by all," and cautions against one power's going it alone to enforce the rule of law (not stated but obvious: unilateral U.S. action). He also calls for an investigation into and addressing of the causes of terrorism that "often has its source in injustices against which no effective action is taken." This formula for dealing with terror strikes me as a fair balance of realism and idealism, practicality and morality. It's certainly not woolly headed or starry eyed -- which is how some of the bishops' pronouncements sometimes sound to me.

Ultimately, however, Cardinal Ratzinger advocates the way of Christ. Forgiveness is necessary to break the cycle of violence.

Gestures of humanity that break through [the cycle] by seeking the human person in one's foe and appealing to his humanity are necessary, even where they seem at first glance a waste of time.

These thoughts may be useful tools to assess what is happening now with Israel. I think it's possible to see their influence in Benedict XVI's endorsement of the G-8 position while he is pleading for an end to the violence and prays so fervently for peace. [The Ratzinger Forum; edited by: rcesq at: 8/2/06 5:32 pm]

* * *

"As is usual with Cardinal Ratzinger's writings, he sketches ideas, asks provocative questions, but offers no definitive answers," concludes "rcesq". At the end of my own post, I closed with the pressing need for some kind of authoritative clarification on the status of the "just war tradition", together with the proper interpretation of papal pronouncements on the war in an informal context.

Ratzinger's own thoughts on the use of force, as published in Chapter 6 of Values in a time of Upheaval will hopefully alleviate somewhat Robert Miller's concerns of a "dangerously naive pacifism."

Reading the diverse reactions on Open Book, I found Tom Haessler's comment on the different papal "styles" especially helpful:

Benedict XVI's theological and homiletic rhetoric is more kerygma (proclamation) than didache (teaching). John Paul the Great was immersed in Aquinas and modern phenomenology. Benedict XVI is immersed in the Fathers, especially in Augustine. The parsing of various aspects of just war theory is quite foreign to his approach. He's trying to call all to their senses, to awaken new communities of conscience, to help us discover new zones of sensitivity and awareness not previously attended to; he's NOT playing Jesuit anagrams with just war theory. Far from believing that military force is always wrong, he's supported the Afghanistan and Kosovo interventions. But he'd be the last one to insist that his own prudential judgments trump every careful scrutiny of all pertinent aspects of an enormously complex problematic. He's asking that he be heard, not that he be obeyed. . . . we're all orthodox Catholics here, trying to discover God's will in fidelity to all the values and norms we've learned through our membership in the Body of Christ. We all have something to teach (through our own experience), and we all have something to learn.

2006-08-13T13:10:00.000-07:00

"The New Testament does not order soldiers to surrender their arms but rather commends them for their righteousness and virtue. The injunction to requite evil with good concerns not so much external actions as the inward disposition with which these actions are to be performed. It seeks to insure that war, if it must be waged, will be carried out with a benevolent design and without undue harsheness."
Most importantly of all, however, we must remember that "The wicked wage war on the just because they want to, and the just wage war on the wicked because they have to...The best that can be hoped for in practice is that the just cause will trimph over the unjust one; for nothing is more injurious to everyone, including evildoers themselves, than that the latter should prosper and use their prosperity to oppress the good."

Fr. Ernest Fortin

Israel - Hezbollah - Lebanon, "Proportionality" and Just War Theory

2006-07-22T13:12:00.000-07:00

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the loss of civilian life and the targeting of "civilian infrastructure" compromised by Hezbollah has provoked a discussion of proportionality and just war criteria -- for the benefit of our readers, this post will compile the key articles and contributions on this subject.

Just War for the Sake of Argument, by Stephen Bainbridge. TCS Daily July 18, 2006.
Proportionality in War Rob Driscoll. The Remedy July 18, 2006.
Bainbridge’s “Just War for the Sake of Argument” Democracy Project July 18, 2006.
How Just Must a Just War Be?, by Jordan Baillor. Acton Institute PowerBlog July 20, 2006 at 09:08am.
A Question About Just War Theory July 20, 2006. Prof. Bainbridge.
When is a War Just? by Anthony Clark. Georgetown.edu: "Exploring International Law" July 20, 2006 (6:03pm).
Proportionality in jus in bello by Kenneth Anderson (Law of War and Just War Theory Blog). July 21, 2006.
Answers to Just War Questions, by Jordan Ballor. Acton Institute Powerblog Friday, July 21, 2006 at 08:10am.
More on Proportionality and Just War, by Anthony Clark. Georgetown.edu: "Exploring International Law" Jul-22-06 02:07 pm.
War Fair: The Ethics of Battle, by Michael Walzer. The New Republic:
Israel is now at war with an enemy whose hostility is extreme, explicit, unrestrained, and driven by an ideology of religious hatred. But this is an enemy that does not field an army; that has no institutional structure and no visible chain of command; that does not recognize the legal and moral principle of noncombatant immunity; and that does not, indeed, acknowledge any rules of engagement. How do you--how does anyone--fight an enemy like that? I cannot deal with the strategy and tactics of such a fight. How to strike effectively, how to avoid a dangerous escalation--those are important topics, but not mine. The question I want to address is about morality and politics.
The easy part of the answer is to say what cannot rightly be done. . . .
An examination of the situation by the author of Just And Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (Basic Books, 2006).
Quick note on proportionality jus ad bellum and the law of belligerent reprisal, by Kenneth Anderson. Law of War and Just War Theory Blog July 26, 2006.
Who Owns the Rules of War?, by Kenneth Anderson. New York Times Magazine April 24, 2003. [Repost]
On the differences between Catholic just war theory and Michael Walzer's just war theory: the criterion of likelihood of success, by Kenneth Anderson. Law of War and Just War Theory Blog July 28, 2006:
a discussion in moral theory of the just war, from two years ago, of differences between Catholic just war theory and other versions of the theory, notably that of Michael Walzer in his celebrated Just and Unjust Wars. I have been thinking about these differences in reading the commentary on the Lebanon conflict, particularly that of the Catholic law professor Stephen Bainbridge . . .

Bush goes Jogging with Iraqi Amputee (Not the First Time)

2006-06-27T21:50:00.000-07:00

Bush jogs with wounded soldier, by Jenniver Loven (Associated Press) June 27, 2006:

WASHINGTON - President Bush took a jog Tuesday with a soldier who lost part of both legs in Iraq, following through on a bedside promise even the president had doubts about at the time.
Despite a slight drizzle, Bush and Staff Sgt. Christian Bagge took a slow jog around a spongy track that circles the White House's South Lawn. About halfway through their approximately half-mile run, Bush and Bagge paused briefly for reporters.
"He ran the president into the ground, I might add," Bush said, as the two gripped hands in an emotional, lengthy shake. "But I'm proud of you. I'm proud of your strength, proud of your character."

What is interesting is that this is not the first time our President has heeded such an offer. In April 2004, he followed up on a similar promise to U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Michael McNaughton, who lost a leg in Afghanistan:

In the months since his wounding, Sgt. McNaughton has undergone at least 11 separate operations as a result of his injuries and has been fitted with a thin, robotic prosthetic shaft to replace his right leg. While recuperating at Walter Reed, Sgt. McNaughton was honored to receive a visit from President Bush. One of the subjects of common interest they discussed was running, and the President extended an invitation to Sgt. McNaughton to come running with him once he was up and about.
The President's invitation posed something of a dilemma for Sgt. McNaughton: "He said give him a call and we'll go running. How are you supposed to just call the president?" Fortunately, Sgt. McNaughton's doctor at Walter Reed was also a doctor for the President, and the two men were able to keep in touch through her.
In April 2004, Sgt. McNaughton and his family made the trip to Washington, and — true to his word — the President went for a run with him.

("Born to Run" Snopes.com).

Iraq and The War and Terror - A Roundup

2006-06-22T21:17:00.000-07:00

The New Band of Brothers With the 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division in Ramadi, by Michael Fumento. The Weekly Standard, June 19, 2006
Marine Sniper takes out Insurgent Sniper - Part I | Part II. On June 21st, 2004, a four man sniper team was over-run and killed on a rooftop in Ramadi. It was a very tough loss. One of the snipers' rifles was taken. On June 16, 2006, Sgt. Kevin Homestead, a 26-year-old squad leader for K Company, dispatched an insurgent sniper and recovered the rifle. Blackfive has the two-part story.
Michael Fey: "My Truth" - Moved by the kidnapping, torture and murder of two American servicemen, combat artist Michael Fey (Fire & Ice) -- " someone who formerly identified himself strongly as a left leaning progressive" -- examines where he stands in relation to Iraq, the WOT, and the Democratic Party.
"I Met The President!" - "I can personally verify that the President of the United States is in Baghdad, Iraq! Shortly after finishing the speach that FoxNews is broadcasting, he made the rounds shaking hands and I managed to work my way to the front and shake his hand." A U.S. soldier stationed in Iraq witnessed the President's suprise visit.
Revisionist History: Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked, by Peter Wehner. Wall Street Journal May 23, 2006:
Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn: . . .
Apologizing for Iraq. National Review columnist John Derbyshire says "Allow me to eat crow." Rod Dreher agrees -- sounding a note of disagreement in "a response to Messrs. Buckley, Will and Fukuyama", The Wrong Time to Lose Our Nerve. Wall Street Journal April 4, 2006. See also An Iraqi Optimist's Tale: From horror under Saddam to uncertainty today, by Brett Stephens. Wall Street Journal May 28, 2006.
The "Bad Body Armor" Lie - Howdy's blog. Sept. 29, 2005. A U.S. soldier refutes a liberal slander.
Myths of Iraq, by Ralph Peters. Real Clear Politics March 14, 2006:
During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines.
No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress. . . .
In a guest editorial on Winds of Change, Thomas Holsinger makes The Case for Invading Iran January 19, 2006.
Sectarianism, Violence, and the Future of Iraq - Threatswatch. Daniel Darling asks, "Does sectarian violence constitute civil war in Iraq?"
"8,000 desert during the Iraqi War" screams the headline of the USA Today article (and will likely be trumpeted by anti-war websites around the world). Buried in the story, however, is the news that Desertion numbers have dropped since 9/11:
Opposition to the war prompts a small fraction of desertions, says Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins. "People always desert, and most do it because they don't adapt well to the military," she says. The vast majority of desertions happen inside the USA, Robbins says. There is only one known case of desertion in Iraq.
Foiled Attacks Can Lull Public -- "In looking at the linked articles," says Michael B. Kraft at The Counterterrorism Blog, I was struck by the number of attempted major terrorist attacks in different parts of the world that were foiled and thus unlikely to register in the public consciousness.
Back to Iraq Part IV - From Zakho to Dohok, by Michael Totten. April 13, 2006 (This is the fourth installment in a Back to Iraq series which is basically a single long essay. Don’t miss Part One, Part Two, and Part Three).
April 9, 2003 was Iraqi Liberation Day. Judith Weiss of Keshertalk revisits the day Saddam Toppled.
A New Abu Ghraib? - Photos of American "Water Torture" at the hands of a U.S. Marine and Iraqi Babies Abused by U.S. Soldiers, courtesy of milblogger Blackfive.
"I have seen the enemy . . .", by Franklin Raff. Worldnet Daily April 14, 2006:
Non-English speaking Iraqis are distressed and disheartened by American media bias. Many feel personally offended by what they read in translation and hear of in the foreign press. I am not talking about press information and public affairs officers. I am not talking about coalition soldiers (though every one I spoke with on the subject was equally frustrated.) I am talking about Arabic-speaking Iraqis. They see a difference between what we're seeing and what we're saying. What does that tell you about the extent of our problem?
(A post from last year, dated but worth reading, demonstrating the character of our troops):Little Girl, by Michael Yon. May 14th, 2005:
Major Mark Bieger found this little girl after the car bomb that attacked our guys while kids were crowding around. The soldiers here have been angry and sad for two days. They are angry because the terrorists could just as easily have waited a block or two and attacked the patrol away from the kids. Instead, the suicide bomber drove his car and hit the Stryker when about twenty children were jumping up and down and waving at the soldiers. . . .

Stories of American Heroes

NoEndButVictory.com interviews SSG David Bellavia, Iraqi war veteran and veteran's rights advocate. Februrary 6, 2006.
A letter from the Mayor of Tall 'Afar, Iraq to the men and women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and their families. February 16, 2006. (Members of the Regiment are now returning home to Ft Carson, Colorado).
In Iraq, brave troops and a noble cause Major Kevin Kelly, F-16 pilot with the New Jersey Air National Guard, is currently deloyed in Iraq. He describes his experiences as "incredible" in an editorial for the Philadelphia Enquirer. (Via MarineCorpsMoms).
Captain Furat: "One More Reason For Hope", by Michael Yon. "An Iraqi Warrior is fighting for new life in America after an assassination ambush by insurgents riddled his body with a dozen bullets but failed to extinguish this soldier’s force of life. . . ."
Common Name, Uncommon Valor: The Story of Paul Smith, the Iraq War's only Medal of Honor recipient so far. Ralph Kinney Bennet profiles the American hero for the Wall Street Journal March 29, 2006.
Soldier With A Pen, by David Paulin.
Steven Vincent, a freelance journalist who brought elegant writing and passionate moral clarity to his magazine articles, was kidnapped and murdered in Basra, Iraq, eight months ago. Like Jill Carroll, Vincent freelanced for several publications - including The Christian Science Monitor. Unlike Carroll and most journalists in Iraq, Vincent broke out of mainstream journalistic formulas and biases that have provided a distorted picture of this war. On the third anniversary of Iraq’s April 7th liberation, Vincent’s legacy is worth remembering as questions about the war’s progress inevitably provoke questions about the fairness of the media’s war reporting.

Steven Vincent’s book: In the Red Zone: A Journey Into the Soul of Iraq is available from Spence Publishing for $10 - an online special more than one half off the regular retail price. It is well worth reading.
The Steven Vincent Foundation: Established by Steven’s widow, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent, the foundation provides financial aid to families of murdered freelance journalists, photographers, translators and other media workers. Funds also are provided to improve the conditions of women in the Islamic world, an issue that was close to Steven’s heart. As of April, 2006, the foundation had distributed several thousand dollars to people in Iraq, Iran, and Bangladesh. Checks should be made out to “The Steven Vincent Foundation” and mailed to: The Steven Vincent Foundation, 534 East 11th Street, Suite 17-18, New York, NY, 10009. Donations via Paypal (www.paypal.com) should be e-mailed to: stevenvincentfoundation@yahoo.com. On April 30, 2006, Lisa Ramaci-Vincent spoke about the Stephen Vincent Foundation.

A Touch of Humor . . .

U.S. Troops Mishandled Al Zarqawi's Quran, by Liberal Larry. BlameBush June 12, 2006.

9/11 Revisited

Germany says 9/11 hijackers called Syria, Saudi Arabia - according to the Chicago Tribune: "The Sept. 11 hijackers made dozens of telephone calls to Saudi Arabia and Syria in the months before the attacks."
On tape, Hussein talks of WMDs CNN February 19, 2006: "Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein told his Cabinet in the mid-1990s that the U.S. would fall victim to terrorists possessing weapons of mass destruction but that Iraq would not be involved."

The Case for War Revisited

Foreign Military Studies Office Joint Reserve Intelligence Center: Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents - At the request of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office has created this portal to provide the general public with access to unclassified documents and media captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom. (Thomas Joscelyn provides some noteworthy write-ups of the new Iraqi intelligence documents just released March 17, 2006).
Documenting Saddam's Link to Terror "Was Saddam Hussein a security threat to the United States? Did the Iraqi dictator have connections to Al Qaeda or other terrorist ties? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction everyone believed were in his possession? Did Saddam move them? Did they ever exist?" -- Ray Robison, a former member of the CIA-directed Iraq Survey Group (ISG), examines the evidence. (See also Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection, June 16, 2006).
Saddam Produced Nerve Gas Detectors In 2000 - another translated captured Iraqi document reveals that Saddam Hussein's government produced banned nerve gas detectors in 2000. (Via Captains Quarters May 1, 2006).
Saddam and Osama: The New Revelations - Jamie Glazov interviews terrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn. FrontPageMagazine.com | April 18, 2006.
Saddam Targeted American Assets For Terrorism April 6, 2006. - A new document from the captured Iraqi files in Baghdad now appears to show that Saddam Hussein's regime not only had ties to al-Qaeda and financed terrorist efforts but also explicitly attempted to recruit people to attack American interests. Captains Quarters has the story.
Andrew Cochran asks Did Saddam Hussein Assist Palestinian Terrorist Groups More Than Previously Thought? (The Counterterrorist Blog March 31, 2006).
Daniel McGivern thinks that There is an effort afoot to discredit any material that may undermine the narrative that "Bush lied us into war" and that Saddam's connection to al Qaeda was tenuous at best. ("The Document Refusenicks" The Daily Standard March 28, 2006).
Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection And other revelations from the Iraqi regime files, by Stephen Hayes. The Weekly Standard March 27, 2006. According to documents captured in postwar Iraq, Saddam Hussein provided financial support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq.
Who'll Let the Docs Out?, by Stephen Hayes. Weekly Standard March 20, 2006. Bush wants to release the Saddam files but his intelligence chief stalls. "There are 3,000 hours of Saddam tapes and millions of pages of other documents that we captured after the war. When will the American public get to see this information?"
What Saddam Thought, by Marc Schulman. American Future March 14, 2006:
In a preview of its May/June issue, Foreign Affairs has published a lengthy article entitled "Saddam's Delusions: The view from the Inside" by Kevin Woods (a Washington-based defense analyst), James Lacey (a military analyst for the U.S. Joint Forces Command), and Williamson Murray (a Professor of History at the U.S. Naval Academy). The article is a summary of a two-year study based on captured documents and interrogations of the regime's leading figures conducted by the U.S. Joint Forces Command. It was partially declassified last month.
In my view, the information upon which this article is based exonerates both the President and the CIA. It lends credence to the widely-held belief that economic self-interest was the motivation behind France's and Russia's opposition to U.S. policies. It also reveals that Saddam had faith in the power of multilateralism—as embodied in the UN Security Council—to restrain the U.S.
Michael Barone wants to know Why Do Democrats Fear the Al-Qaida/Saddam Relationship? (Rear Clear Politics March 6, 2006).
Tapes Show Son-In-Law Admitted WMD Deception ABC News / Nightline. Feb. 15, 2006:
[In] a translation of portions of one pivotal tape-recorded meeting that took place in late April or May of 1995 . . . Saddam Hussein and his senior aides discuss the fact that United Nations inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program — a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied. At one point, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.
See also The Connection between the Spring 1995 Saddam Tape and the March 2003 Invasion, by Daniel McKivergan. The Daily Standard February 16, 2006.

Abu Ghraib Revisited

The Abu Ghraib files - Salon.com. "279 photographs and 19 videos from the Army's internal investigation record a harrowing three months of detainee abuse inside the notorious prison -- and make clear that many of those responsible have yet to be held accountable."
Haditha, the Marines, & the Obligations of Citizenship, by Joe Katzman. Winds of Change June 12, 2006. (For an extensive roundup of links and commentary on Haditha, see Haditha: Rush to Judgement?, Just War[?] June 16, 2005.

Toward a Proper Understanding of the Just War Tradition

2006-06-17T09:30:00.000-07:00

An Assessment of the Catholic application of just war theory to the U.S. Iraqi Conflict

"Can We Agree to Disagree?"
A Matter of Prudential Judgement?
The Popes and the War
Dale Vree vs. "Cafetaria Catholicism" of Pro-War Catholics
Shades of Bishop Botean?
Examining Vree in light of Cardinal Ratzinger
James Turner Johnson's Case for Pre-emptive War
The Conspicuous Absence of "Humanitarian Intervention"
Conflicting Readings of the Just War Tradition
Whither 'Just War'? -- Two Questions

"Can We Agree to Disagree?"

As readers may recall, the issue of proper discernment in areas of prudential judgement has been the subject of discussion on this blog, especially concerning the application of Catholic social doctrine in economic matters, or statements on the use of military force (as in the debate over the U.S.-Iraqi conflict).

This subject was visited in March of last year by Jimmy Akin in the excellent article "War and Capital Punishment: Can We Agree to Disagree?", This Rock Vol. 16, No. 3 (March 2005).

. . . there are situations where war and the death penalty are moral (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309, 2267). It is left to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for such matters to determine whether the conditions in a particular case warrant their use. Consequently, to disagree with the Pope on these issues is to disagree with his prudential judgment, not with Church doctrine.
Even though in his position the pope is not charged with decisions about waging war or executing criminals, deference is certainly due to his prudential judgment. But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case does not amount to dissent from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.

Jimmy begins his article with a citation from Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles, the June 2004 communique by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), initially a confidential memo to Cardinal McCarrick and later leaked to the press (its authenticity confirmed by the Holy See).

The purpose of the memo was to address the response of Catholic leaders to "pro-choice Catholic" legislators, whose obstinate public refusal to submit to Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia and human cloning was a source of persistent scandal. In the course of doing so, Ratzinger briefly addressed what might be called the "seamless garment" approach, and the common rejoinder that Communion should be withheld not only from politicians who dissent from the Church on abortion, but also those who dissent on matters of capital punishment and the war. On the contrary, said Ratzinger:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

How far does this "legitimate diversity of opinion" go? -- According to Jimmy, Ratzinger's recognition of such is predicated on the Church's assertion that the prudential judgment of those responsible for the decision to use military force rests with the leaders of state, rather than the Church. "Though the pontiff can counsel political leaders on such decisions," says Jimmy, "it is beyond his mandate to make such decisions, and his opinions in this area do not decisively govern the state’s actions."

At the same time, disagreement between Catholics (and with the Pope) on matters of war is not to be construed as "anything goes," but is itself constrained to the criteria of the Catholic Just War Tradition. While there has been no definitive formulation of this criteria, according to Jimmy, it has been conveyed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [Sections 2309-2314], howbeit in a format that some have judged to be less than adequate:

The Catechism [is not] an exhaustive, technical survey of Catholic teaching. In keeping with the nature of a catechism, it teaches in summary fashion and leaves things out. Some have noted that the Catechism’s formulation of the just-war conditions does not include all of the considerations that the Church has brought to bear on this question.
Nevertheless, the conditions enumerated in the Catechism represent an important formulation of the Church’s just-war doctrine, which is theologically certain, though not definitively phrased. As a result, a fundamental disagreement with these criteria would amount to dissent from Catholic doctrine.
"A politician might quibble with the Catechism’s phrasing of the circumstances or urge something from historical Catholic just-war teaching that the Catechism omits," says Akin, "to go beyond this and to disagree fundamentally with the criteria would be to go beyond legitimate diversity of opinion and into dissent."

The points that Jimmy raises in this article are important ones, and worth considering. To this day, it remains a hotly debated issue whether Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus, Michael Novak, George Weigel, Deal Hudson, and others who supported the Bush administration in the U.S.-Iraqi conflict were themselves simply disagreeing over the application of Catholic Just War doctrine, or "disagreeing fundamentally with the criteria" and, in so doing, "going beyond legitimate diversity of opinion into dissent."

A Matter of Prudential Judgement?

For example, the Catholic writer Russell Shaw -- himself a vocal critic against the Bush administration, rose to the defense of Hudson, Novak, and Weigel in an editorial Iraq, Weigel and the Pope (CatholicExchange.com March 31, 2003). "Although I disagreed with them — indeed, perhaps because I disagreed," said Shaw, "I feel obliged to say that dissenters they most emphatically are not."

Given the limits of human knowledge, even prudential judgments by prudent people can be mistaken. In the present instance, the pope and Catholics who differed with him — conscientious and informed people like Novak, Weigel and Hudson — based their stands on an assessment of likely consequences of different courses of action. Since the assessments of what was more or less likely to happen in the future were different, so were the conclusions about what course of action to take.
To disagree with the pope in this manner is not dissent. It's not as if Pope John Paul II had taught a definitive moral principle (e.g., direct attacks on noncombatants are ruled out) which the disagreeing Catholics rejected. They agreed with the principle. They disagreed about something contingent and by no means certain: what the future outcome of complex, competing scenarios was likely to be.

The editors of This Rock (Karl Keating's monthly apologetics periodical) took a similar defence of Weigel, Novak and company:

First the death penalty. Now just war theory. The Pope and bishops offer a prudential judgment about the justice of war with Iraq and some prominent Catholics—Fr. James Schall and George Weigel, for instance—respectfully disagree. Immediately the cries of "cafeteria Catholicism" go up; liberal dissenters from the Church’s teaching on issues like homosexual practice and abortion say, "See! So-called ‘orthodox’ Catholics dissent from the Church’s teaching just as much as we do"—as though in Catholic teaching all that is not forbidden is compulsory.
Uh, not quite. Here’s what the American bishop said about their attempt to read the current world situation in light of just war theory:
"We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments. People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear."
The bishops make it clear that they are not binding the conscience of anybody believer to their opinion, precisely because the possession of specialized knowledge (such as classified intelligence) makes all the difference in the world in assessing the situation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that, among other things, "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good" (CCC 2309). That means Caesar in the first place, not the bishops, since it is Caesar who is in charge of the public good.
This does not mean, of course, that Caesar is not to abide by just war teaching. Nor does it mean that he has no obligation to pay attention to the input of the bishops in forming his response to military threats. But it is to say that Catholics who are forming their consciences on the matter of war with Iraq are not bound to march in lockstep with the bishops in their opinions. There is no dogma being promulgated here, only a prudential judgment.

(As Though All That Is Not Forbidden Is Compulsory This Rock Vol. 14, No. 5. May-June 2003).

Other authors have disagreed. Mark and Louise Zwick (Houston Catholic Worker) presume Weigel and Neuhaus to be, in the words of the Zwicks, "attempting to develop a new philosophy of just war which would include preemptive strikes against other nations, what might be called a 'preventive war.'" ("Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected" Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XXIII, No. 4, July-August 2003).

In At Odds with the Pope: Legitimate Authority and Just Wars Commonweal May 23, 2003), William Cavanaugh questions whether the moral authority to go to war properly belongs to the State, asking: "Has the church really handed over its moral decision making on war to the leaders of the secular nation-state?" For Cavanaugh,

The passage in question from the Catechism lays an obligation on civil authorities to consider moral truth, and not merely reasons of state, in deciding issues of lethal force. It nowhere limits the church's own competence in these matters. The Code of Canon Law (747,2) makes this plain: "The church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgments about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls" . . . For the church to defer to the nation-state in making moral judgments on war would be to court disaster.

Lately, another Catholic voice and periodical has gone much, much further in its rebuke of Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel and company; but before we turn to him, I would like to examine these papal pronouncements (by John Paul II and Benedict XVI) on this issue and their differing interpretations.

The Popes and the War

As one might expect, the various sayings of John Paul II and our present Pope are frequently appealed to by both sides in this debate. Just as those supportive of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq appeal to Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 recognition of "a diversity of opinion" in matters of war, anti-war Catholics have laid claim to numerous statements by the present Pope and his predecessor. Regarding war itself, perhaps no phrase is more cited by John Paul II than his January 2000 World Day of Peace address:

The twentieth century bequeaths to us above all else a warning: wars are often the cause of further wars because they fuel deep hatreds, create situations of injustice and trample upon people's dignity and rights…. War is a defeat for humanity. Only in peace and through peace can respect for human dignity and its inalienable rights be guaranteed.

Upon close examination, many of Pope Benedict XVI's statements on war (whether on the Iraqi conflict or war in general) appear to take their cue directly from the witness and thought of his predecessor.

On one hand, Cardinal Martino's March 2003 proclamation that "there is no such thing as just war" in the National Catholic Register ("I think with modern weaponry, there is no proportionality between the offense and the reply. . . . War is so destructive now. It is not just a fight between one person and another") provoked a furious rebuttal from George Weigel ("No Just War Possible?" The Catholic Difference April 2, 2003). Yet, less then a decade earlier William L. Portier drew similar conclusions upon evaluating the response of John Paul II to the 1991 Gulf war ("Are we really serious when we ask God to deliver us from war? The Catechism and the challenge of Pope John Paul II" (Communio Spring 1996):

Before and during the 1991 Gulf War, much to the consternation of policy makers and moral theologians on both the right and left in the U.S., Pope John Paul II was resolute in his refusal to be drawn into the widespread discussion of the just cause and conduct of what he referred to as the "so-called 'Gulf War."' Amid debate about whether the U.N. resort to arms in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait met the conditions for a just war, the pope, a near-solitary voice on the international scene, focused instead on the futility of such calculations in the face of modern weapons and the human suffering they cause.

Portier goes on to note the pope's "striking refusal to discuss international conflict in a framework that distinguishes, as a matter of course, between total war and limited war" and a marked distancing from the just war tradition as normally construed:

The pope seems clearly, in the words of Bryan Hehir, to be tightening "the moral barriers against the use of force." If he has not abandoned "just-war" theory (as the editorial of 6 July 1991 urged), he has made the evaluation of its conditions sufficiently rigorous to move the use of military force close to the periphery of moral discussion. The consternation of both pacifists and proponents of just-war theory at the pope's recent statements might be a sign that he has begun to think with the "entirely new mind" urged in Gaudium et Spes (n. 80). Indeed, we could interpret recent papal pronouncements on international conflict as an ongoing attempt to carry forward the project outlined in Chapter V of Gaudium et Spes. While leaving the door open a crack for the serious possibility of "humanitarian intervention," the pope seems possessed at the same time of a profound evangelical skepticism about using military force as a means of securing justice. . . .
On the one hand, because of his insistence on the legitimacy of self-defense, the pope cannot be called a pacifist. (It might be difficult to construe every "legitimate defense by military force" as the kind of "police" action some pacifists would support.) On the other hand, he has drawn the restrictions on the use of military force with sufficient rigor that proponents of just-war theory, if they wish to take him seriously, must reexamine their assumptions and reorient their discussion about war.

Second to JPII's blanket condemnation of war, the two most popular citations from the "peace" movement appear to be a line from Cardinal Ratzinger, circa September 22, 2002: "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church" (Cardinal Ratzinger Says Unilateral Attack on Iraq Not Justified Zenit News Service), and, in a May 2, 2003 interview with Zenit News, the rather pointed dismissal of the Catholic Just War tradition, which as we can see follows the precedent of John Paul II:

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

Both quotations by Benedict XVI are cited in Benedict XVI: A New Peace Pope by Michael Griffin of the Catholic Peace Fellowship. May 2003.

It is worth noting that Cardinal Ratzinger's comment on preventive war in the September 22, 2002 was in fact preceded by his acknowledgement that "political questions are not within his competence" -- it is interesting that this acknowledgement is usually left out of citations by the anti-war movement, and we will be discussing this further later on.

The statements from Martino and John Paul II prompted Michael McGurn of the Wall Street Journal to lament:

What we have lost here is a tremendous teaching opportunity. And if the Vatican's problem is, as Archbishop Martino suggests and the pope's own words at times imply, not simply Iraq but a larger discomfort with just war in a modern world, it raises even more questions. Namely, how President Bush can be held in breach of moral criteria that (a) are in the process of being radically revised and (b) really can't be met anyhow.

(War No More? How much of a pacifist is the pope? Wall Street Journal March 2003).

In Whither the ‘Just War’? (America Vol. 188 No. 10. March 24, 2003), Drew Christiansen, S.J. pondered the serious implications of the idea that the just war had "gone the way of the death penalty":

Just war would be admitted in principle, but hardly ever in practice. Absent the institution of effective alternative conflict-resolution mechanisms and a standby U.N. force, official Catholic teaching would have become functionally pacifist, just as critics like George Weigel have argued for some time. If this were true, much would change for Catholics, from military service to conscientious objection and military chaplaincy. The salience of the church’s use of just-war criteria to prevent and limit war would also be greatly reduced, as would its ability to provide moral commentary on the formation of military policy and the actual conduct of war.

While we can't go into a greater discussion of the issue at this time, I will add that the appeal to the indiscriminate destructiveness of modern military technology as a rationale for the illegitimacy of just war criteria has been questioned by just war scholar James Turner Johnson and discussed in two posts: "Shock & Awe, Civilian Casualties and Questionable Statistics" Just War? June 17, 2005, and "Pope Benedict, Modern Weaponry and Civilian Casualties" June 18, 2005).

Suffice to say Pope Benedict's statements on the war will likely cause as much "consternation of policy makers and moral theologians" as those of his predecessor.

Dale Vree vs. "Cafeteria Catholicism" of Pro-War Catholics

In the latest issue of The New Oxford Review ("Another Outbreak of Mater, Si; Magistra, No " May 2006), editor Dale Vree appears to have thrown down the gauntlet and gone a step further, equating those who disagree with the Pope on the war with "pick-and-choose" Catholics. While he does not mention Neuhaus, Novak or Weigel by name, given the frequent criticisms of Catholic "neoconservatives" by the NOR, one can venture a guess as to who Vree is referring to.

The pronouncements of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, says Vree, are not merely "prudential" judgements, but "have to do with doctrine and morals. War is precisely about morals." (Strange, as if to suggest that Catholics had up to this point excluded doctrine and morals from the debate over the war?)

Vree proceeds to make his case that the invasion of Iraq was a preventive war, not a pre-emptive war ("an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent," according to the Department of Defense's Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms).

In the invasion of Iraq, there was no "incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack [was] imminent." A preventive war is an attack initiated on the basis of the possibility of an attack by a potential foe sometime in the future. Since there is no incontrovertible or certain evidence that an imminent attack is planned by the adversary, it is not self-defense. All just wars must be for self-defense, or as the Catechism says, "legitimate defense" (#2309). One of the criteria of a just war is that "the damage inflicted . . . must be lasting, grave, and certain" (Catechism, #2309; italics added). Another criterion of a just war is that it be a last resort: "all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective" (#2309). Both criteria rule out preventive wars. (And all criteria of a just war must be met; if not, it's an unjust war.)

According to Vree, Catholics should judge that the war in Iraq was not a morally legitimate one. Even if it was not formally condemned in an encyclical ("we're not aware of any encyclical that said a particular war was unjust, and there wouldn't have been time to write an encyclical anyway"), by virtue of the fact that the Holy See applied Just War Doctrine to this particular war and deemed it unsatisfactory, condemnation of the war stands as "a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium" to which all Catholics should render "loyal submission of the will and intellect" (Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, #25).

As if this were not enough, Vree goes on to suggest -- "in a roundabout way" -- how the condemnation of the invasion of Iraq is infallible [even though it isn't]. In much the same manner as the Church has infallibly condemned the direct and volunary killing of a human being by abortion and euthanasia, so does Vree assert that our soldiers stand condemned according to their participation in an unjust war:

So, what about unjust wars? In a just war, killing soldiers and killing civilians who get in the way of military targets (collateral damage) is not murder, whereas killing civilians on purpose is murder. But in an unjust war, killing soldiers, killing civilians who get in the way of military targets, and killing civilians on purpose are all murder. An unjust war is the "direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being," and is in the higher category of infallible teaching. So, yes, the prohibition against unjust wars is infallible. An unjust war is murder, just as abortion is murder.

Shades of Bishop Botean?

In their March 19, 2003 Statement on War with Iraq, USCCB President Bishop Wilton D. Gregory expressed his serious reservations about the decision of the Bush administration and allied nations to go to war, expressing the fear that "The decisions being made about Iraq and the war on terrorism could have historic implications for the use of force, the legitimacy of international institutions, and the role of the United States in the world." At the same time, he also acknowledged the role of conscience and the responsibility of President Bush:

People of good will may and do disagree on how to interpret just war teaching and how to apply just war norms to the controverted facts of this case. We understand and respect the difficult moral choices that must be made by our President and others who bear the responsibility of making these grave decisions involving our nation's and the world's security (Catechism #2309).
"[t]hose who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace" (#2310). . . .

Earlier that month, Bishop John Michael Botean of the Romanian Catholic Diocese of Saint George in Canton, OH, issued a rather more provocative and far-reaching statement against participation in the war with Iraq. In a Lenten message to his flock, he declared:

. . . for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Botean's statement in turn prompted a number of responses, including that of Mark Brumley (Brumley Responds to Botean, Envoy Encore March 21, 2003) and canon lawyer Edward N. Peters (Bishop Boteans' Lenten Message In the Light of the Law March 18, 2003):

"The eparch's statement is unprecedented for its clarity and starkness; it simply must be read to appreciate this point, though fair-minded readers can admit that it is not a peacenik, blame-America-first harangue, but is instead a reasoned (though, I think, wrongly) exercise of conscience. It cannot be issued, however, and then forgotten. If Bishop Botean is correct, his argumentation would seem to apply to all Catholics, and only an inexcusable lack of pastoral solicitude on the part of other Eastern and Latin bishops could account for them not following suit immediately. If, on the other hand, Bishop Botean is wrong, then he has placed his faithful in a profound and direct conflict of conscience between their ecclesiastical and civil leaders, which, I suggest only an inexcusable lack of pastoral solicitude would suffer them to remain in.

If we overlook the dripping sarcasm that has become the distinctive trademark of the New Oxford Review, we can see that Vree and Botean are of like mind, striking the same notes, arriving at the same conclusions. And so we are left with the question: how should one understand disagreement with the Pope on the matter of war -- and not just any war, but this war?

Examining Vree in light of Cardinal Ratzinger

Now, there are several points made by Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI which seem to me to call into question Vree's interpretation:

First, while expressing his opinion on the war in September 2002, and his preference that "the United Nations . . . should make the final decision," the Cardinal nevertheless acknowledged, as reported by Zenit, "that political questions are not within his competence." In so doing, Ratzinger expresses both his personal judgement and -- in his characteristically careful manner -- reinforces the understanding that the judgement to use military force necessarily rests upon those leaders entrusted with the responsibility and temporal authority to do so.

Likewise, in a subsequent interview with Zenit News in May 2, 2003, articulating the position of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger again stated [italics mine]:

"Of course, [The Pope] did not impose this position as a doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith. The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq."

Again, it would appear that Pope John Paul II's statements on the war reflect his prudential judgement -- while they invite our consideration as faithful Catholics, they should not be construed as a "non-negotiable" mandate requiring obedience.

It would seem that Dale Vree's criticism of Catholics who supported the war in Iraq would apply just as readily to Catholics who differed with the prudential judgement of the Pope on the application of the death penalty. On this point, it is worth noting that canon lawyer R. Michael Dunnigan, Avery Cardinal Dulles, and Fr. George Rutler have all arrived at similar conclusions with respect to papal statements on the death penalty and how they are to be properly interpreted.

Karl Keating addressed this very issue in his monthly e-letter Must Catholics Oppose Capital Punishment? March 2, 2004. After presenting the views of Dunnigan, Dulles and Rutler, he argues that the Church "does not mandate opposition to the death penalty, nor does she mandate support for it:

Must Catholics adopt a particular view regarding the use (or non-use) or capital punishment? In short: no.
They are free to endorse, as a political policy, the complete abolition of capital punishment, and they are free to endorse the use of capital punishment, even beyond the very narrow limits given in the prudential judgment in section 2267. Contrary to what some people claim, there has been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter.

Cardinal Ratzinger made this same point in Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, cited by Jimmy Akin, and which recognizes

"[I]f a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war," says Ratzinger, "he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace. . . it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

The expected rejoinder is that here, Ratzinger is only granting permissibility to take up arms "to repel an aggressor" and speaking within the context of the just war tradition. But the question of who constituted the aggressor in the U.S. Iraq conflict is one of the many questions that are undoubtedly open to debate, the answer to which is by no means certain ("War of Aggression"? Just War? October 12, 2005).

For these reasons, it would appear that Vree's conclusion concerning the implications of JPII's pronouncements is contradicted by none other than Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

James Turner Johnson's Case for Pre-emptive War

Dale Vree's criticism of Catholics supportive of the overthrow of the Baathist regime -- or, in his words, those who "can only think in nationalistic terms", "consider it patriotic to support whatever wars their nation fights" and are no better than "cafeteria-Catholics" -- is largely contingent on the notion that the just war tradition excludes any form of pre-emptive action. While this is ideally a subject for further discussion and may exceed the central topic of this post, I would like to note that James Turner Johnson (a historian and one of the foremost authorities of the just war tradition, religious or secular) has made a good case to the contrary. In The War to Oust Saddam Hussein: The Context, The Debate, The War and the Future, he points out that "the idea that preemption is sometimes justified is far from new," citing as an example Hugo Grotius: "if my assailant siezes a weapon with an obvious intent on killing me." A later version of this test would be the amassment of an army on one's borders, or mobilization of an enemy's forces. And, "while the Israeli air strike against Egyptian/Syrian air power in the 1967 Middle East war was roundly criticized . . . in the aftermath a consensus seems to have formed that preparation for invasion can be signaled . . . by the clear preparation for an air strike, with obvious intent to attack." [p. 52]

Regarding the arguments put forth by the Bush administration -- that, coupled with evidence of intent, the possession of WMD's by an enemy serves to justify preemptive use of force, Johnson concludes:

Had their in fact been such weapons, I believe this would have become a new standard test of when preemption is justified. That Iraq did not in fact have these weapons does not dispose of the argument: Is the concrete effort to obtain such weapons itself evidence of malicious intent that justifies the use of force to cancel out that effort?

As Johnson notes, this is an especially pertinent question in the case of North Korea or Iran, the latter involved in a furious drive to attain nuclear power under the guise of legitimacy while vowing the wholesale eradication of the nation of Israel.

According to Johnson, "A moralist working within the just war tradition may make clear that there must be justification, but is going beyond this role to pass judgement on the facts of the case so that premption is presented as morally impossible." Furthermore:

Moral discussion of the question of preemption is complicated -- distorted -- by the assumptions of the Westphalian system of international order as incorporated into positive international law, where there is a tendency to regard first use of force across an international border as always wrong and second use as always justified. This version of the aggressor-defender distinction does not well fit the case of threats [WMD's] that, if carried through, have the capacity to annihilate a significant part of the population of the state or even, in the case of a relatively small state, to wipe it out entirely. . . .
For my part, I have gradually moved to the position that there is a serious case for preemption when an avowed enemy has WMD, and all other means of dealing with this threat offer no hope of removing it. . . . [however], given the lack of agreement on clear guidelines for thinking about preemption, it is wrong to focus so exclusively on preemption when thinking about the justification of using armed force against Saddam Hussein.

The Conspicuous Absence of "Humanitarian Intervention"

Contrary historical revisionism of Barbara Boxer, the threat of WMD's were not the only reason many Christians were in conscience compelled to support the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. Professor Johnson has also observed that the issue of humanitarian intervention is conspicuously absent from much of the 2002-2003 anti-war debate, including that of the USCCB:

In 1993 the USCCB declared humanitarian intervention a duty in cases of gross human rights violations [The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace NCCB, Nov. 7, 1993], and observed that claims of sovereignty by those engaged in such violations have no absolute status in Catholic teaching, and accepted use of force as a form that intervention might take. Such voices were not heard in the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein

Dr Johnson inquires:

Were the rights of Iraqis less important than those of Bosnians, Kosovars, and Rwandans? Or did the fact that the U.S. had national interest reasons for moving against Hussein mean that any use of force in this case was immoral? -- the moral debate in 2002-2003 failed to address this missing dimension in the just war debate.

In his excellent examination of various approaches to war within Christianity (War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning, Aquinas-Luther Conference October 24-26, 2002), Dr. Philip Blosser discussed the use of moral reasoning and the recognition that the duty of "love to neighbor" might very well compel one nation to rise to the defense of another -- as in repelling Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in the first Iraq war, and in responding to Saddam's persistent aggression against his own people:

Among the other things Christians concluded, over the years, was that they had to ask what Jesus required of them when turning the other cheek would mean failing to defend one's neighbor or capitulating to the "evil peace" of a repressive aggressor. This was the beginning of the tradition of moral reasoning that began the arduous work of formulating the conditions under which war came to be regarded as sometimes justifiable, sometimes even a duty of love to neighbor and God, as a means of defending or restoring the just peace of a rightly ordered political community. The task of establishing and preserving such a peace was understood, not as a sinful undertaking to sully one's hands, but as a vocation eminently worthy of the Christian in the interim between Christ's Resurrection and Second Advent.

(For further discussion of this aspect of the debate, see The Little-Discussed Question of Humanitarian Intervention Just War January 9, 2004).

Conflicting Readings of the Just War Tradition

In The War to Oust Saddam Hussein: The Context, The Debate, The War and the Future, Johnson addresses the "uses and misuses of just war thinking in recent American debate." According to Johnson, "the recent recovery of the idea of just war and its use in debate . . . has produced an even greater variety of versions of the just war idea. Claims made on behalf of appeals to the idea of just war vary accordingly."

A target of Johnson's severe criticism and close scrutiny is Bishop Wilton Gregory's letter to President Bush (and the subsequent position of the US Catholic Bishops), reliant as they are upon "a moral presumption against the use of armed force" -- "an idea that is unique to them and never appeared in Catholic doctrine -- or the broader just war tradition -- prior to the American bishops' 1983 pastoral letter Challenge of Peace." The prevalent interpretation of the just war tradition by the U.S. Bishops, and by many of those who oppose the war, is at variance with what is classically conceived as the just war tradition:

The U.S. Catholic Bishops described just war tradition as beginning with a 'presumption against war' and represented the jus ad bellum criteria as guidance for determining whether this presumption should be overruled in particular cases or not. The classical just war tradition, by contrast, had thought of the use of force as morally neutral, good where a war was determined to be just justum bellum, a use of force by the sovereign authority of a political community for a just cause, rather narrowly defined, and with a right intention, defined negatively as the avoidance of a number of wrong motives, including self-aggrandizement, theft, bullying, and action out of hatred of the other simply for being the other, and defined positively as intended to establish and restore peace. To cast the idea of just war as beginning with a general presumption against war was to make it into something different than what the classical idea had been. . . . [p. 26-27]
As the bishops have developed and applied a 'presumption against war' in various contexts since 1983, they have transformed the traditional just war categories from moral concerns to guide the practice of statecraft into a series of moral obstacles that, as described and interpreted, are arguments against the use of moral force's ever being justifiable. The regular advancing of worst-case scenarios as unbiased moral advice underscores the opposition to uses of armed force as such and distorts the application of just war reasoning. The result is functional pacifism, despite the claim that this is what the just war idea requires. [p. 49]

As James Turner Johnson demonstrates in The War to Oust Saddam Hussein, the very application of "just war" criteria varies considerably depending on the party doing so, with the USCCB and some within the Vatican employing a hermeneutic (legitimizing a strictly defensive war to the exclusion of any other) that is clearly at odds with classical just war theory. Dr. Edward Feser (contributor to the blog Right Reason) demonstrated this as well in a three-part presentation, appealing to pre-Vatican II manuals on ethics and moral theology "to show that the war in Iraq is, to repeat, at the very least defensible from the point of view of traditional just war theory, and thus on the basis of premises that paleoconservatives themselves must regard as reasonable." ("Paleoconservatism and the war in Iraq" Right Reason Part I | Part II | Part III March 2006).

Those who are familiar with George Weigel's many editorials on this subject will certainly recognize the influence of Professor Johnson. I think it is unfortunate that Professor Johnson's numerous writings on this subject have rarely played a part in the discussions of the Iraq war I have witnessed between Catholics, the notable exception being the correspondence section of First Things magazine.

If a critical engagement of Prof. Johnson's book is too much to hope for by Vree or the Zwicks, a condensed version of his position can be found in Just War, As It Was and Is (First Things 149. January 2005: 14-24).

Whither 'Just War'? -- Two Questions

In conclusion, there are two important questions that remain and will persist in the debate over the Iraqi war and its aftermath:

George Weigel and James Turner Johnson, in their evaluation of both the American Catholic Church's response to the war (as well as numerous voices from the Vatican), have criticised such contemporary Catholic approaches as "functionally pacifist." Now that Benedict XVI himself has appeared to echo Cardinal Martino's assertion that "there is no such thing as just war," should we in fact discard this tradition as an inapplicable theory?
Or, rather, does the contemporary reality of terrorism (as in September 11, 2001) and the support of terrorism by "rogue states" (such as Iraq and others) call for a necessary evaluation and revision of this tradition? As one reader noted in a response to Drew Christiansen's "Whither the Just War":
"The just war criteria “imminent threat,” the closest relevant moral concept, does not help us respond to an attack like that of September 11, 2001 (or the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962). But just war theory cannot be abandoned because of this temporary conceptual defect. Serious moral reflection will generate over time a reasoned Christian response to this latest necessity."
As Christiansen himself concluded: "One thing is clear: The tradition has evolved to the point where authoritative clarification is in order."
Are papal pronouncements on the war to be considered "prudential judgements," about which Catholics can disagree and remain in good standing (much like they do with respect to the application of the death penalty or economic matters?)
Or do they in fact demand "loyal submission of the will and intellect," as Dale Vree of the New Oxford Review asserts, such that those who disagree could be deemed no better than "cafeteria Catholics" who willfully and publicly dissent on contraception, abortion, gay marriage? Is Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus' support of the war, for example, to be regarded as equivalent to the "pro-choice" posturing of Senator John Kerry?
Vree's rejection of prudential judgement in "Another Outbreak of Mater, Si; Magistra, No " (New Oxford Review May 2006) and suggestion that Catholic disagreement with the pope on the Iraq war is tantamount to heresy places him at odds not only with Karl Keating and Jimmy Akin, but even fellow anti-war Catholics like Russel Shaw, who recognized:
"To say that people who concluded that the preponderance of evidence pointed to the rightness of the war were dissenting from papal teaching was absurd. Pope John Paul also was expressing a prudential judgment in condemning the war, and, although he expressed it passionately and frequently, nothing he said suggested anything to the contrary.
In my opinion, the present position of Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review is symptomatic of just how confused this debate can become, absent any kind of authoritative clarification or correction.
To put it in the words of Jimmy Akin, "Can We Agree to Disagree?"

Related Articles & Links

The Catholic Just War Tradition and the Iraq War - Since the beginning of the deliberations over the use of armed force against Saddam Hussein, I have attempted to compile various articles and essays from both sides (predominantly Catholic) on the question of the application of the Catholic Just War tradition.
Iraq and the Moral Judgement, by Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 156 (October 2005). "Herewith an interview I did with ZENIT, the Rome-based news service, on March 10, 2003, shortly before the invasion of Iraq. Following the interview, I offer reflections on how the situation appears two and a half years later."
A Spectrum of Opinion: Catholics and the War in Iraq, by Russell Shaw. Our Sunday Visitor February 1, 2004. Shaw is a superb model of those who have criticized the war and its supporters while recognizing the prudential nature of the discussion, and striving to keep his own essays free of the "ad hominem sniping, the anti-Americanism, and the other bits of nastiness that often colored the debate."
Preemptive War: What would Aquinas say?, Gregory M. Reichberg. Commonweal January 30, 2004 / Volume CXXXI, Number 2. A fair assessment of both sides of the debate, remarkably free of the usual polemics from the Catholic left.
Tranquillitas Ordinis: The Present Failure and Future Promise of American Catholic Thought on War and Peace, by George Weigel (Oxford University Press, 1987). This work is hands-down is the best I have read on American Catholic thought on just war reasoning and its present defects. (Here is a review from the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly newsletter). It was written in the 80's, so it ends with an evaluation of the Bishops 1983 pastoral "The Challenge of Peace". In my opinion it should be republished -- revised and updated with an evaluation of Catholic thought during Gulf wars I and II.

Related Articles on Dale Vree / New Oxford Review, by I. Shawn McElhinney (Rerum Novarum)

An Analysis of Dale Vree's review of Neo-Conned ("From the Mailbag" Dept.) Rerum-Novarum April 8, 2006.
Vreebird Dept., by I. Shawn McElhinney. Rerum-Novarum March 6, 2006. (An analysis of "What Is a Neoconservative? -- & Does It Matter?" by Dale Vree (New Oxford Review December 2005).
On Zeal, Nature and Ecclesiology, Dale Vree and New Oxford Review, Etc., Rerum-Novarum February 23, 2006.
"Blosser vs. Blosser" Dept.. Rerum-Novarum February 12, 2006. (Responding to an exchange btw/ Dr. Philip Blosser and myself over the New Oxford Review).

Haditha - A Rush to Judgement?

2006-06-16T15:21:00.000-07:00

“I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my government and the United States of America.” - 6th Article of the US Military Code of Conduct
* * *

“…the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt.” -- Uniform Code of Military Justice, USC Title 10, Chapter 47, Subchapter VII, Article 51(c)(1)

Commentary and Reaction

"The indictment of U.S. troops in inevitable," says Daniel Henninger on Haditha (Wall Street Journal June 2, 2006):
. . . the news is preoccupied with stories of the Marine squad that allegedly killed civilians at Haditha, a town in Iraq. The narrative of this story has pretty much set in already: It's another My Lai, we all know they did it, the brass covered it up, and prison sentences for homicide are merely a formality.
Haditha is indeed the new Abu Ghraib. What this most importantly means is that any U.S. military action overseas now, no matter its level of justification, can be taken down by the significance assigned to events by the modern machinery of publicity.
Neo-Neocon observes, "Whether or not Haditha ends up proving to be in the mold of My Lai, My Lai remains the template, the frame for all subsequent events that might fall into the category of possible American war crimes" -- directing us to an earlier discussion of Mai Lai and a case study of the Mai Lai massacre. (Indeed, on June 3rd, 2006 the Associated Press ran a photo of Mai Lai as an entry for Haditha Via Sweetness and Light).
Neo-neocon then raises the question of whether "a new set of rules is emerging under which modern warfare must be waged by the West," and the reality of the new criteria:
Here are those rules, as best I can determine them (with only a little bit of exaggeration):
(1) Wars cannot last more than a few weeks.
(2) In the "hot" stage of the war, no civilians can die.
(3) In the aftermath of a war, no civilians can die.
(4) All military investigations of possible war crimes and atrocities must be treated by the press as though they are already coverups. The accused are guilty until proven innocent. And, of course, since the military always lies and covers up, the accused can never really be proven innocent by a military court.
What would these rules do? They would set up war as an impossible to execute but morally black and white situation in which we keep our hands impeccably clean (see here for my previous essay on that subject.)
Yes indeed, the goal is to be perfect--to never commit a war crime, to never have an innocent civilian die. But realistically, that goal will never be reached. The best we--or any nation--can do is to train our troops as well as possible in order to reduce the number of such incidents to almost nothing, and to ruthlessly investigate and prosecute them whenever they do occur.
Because the truth is that in wars innocent civilians will always be killed, and always tragically--whether it be in targeted and precision bombing raids gone awry in the "hot" segment of the war, or even in true war crimes during the later "assymetrical guerilla and/or terrorist warfare" stage.
Mark Gordon (Suicide of the West May 31st, 2006):
As a former Army officer, let me stipulate a couple of things. First, incidents like this - if it really did happen - are a direct result of command failure. The troops who reacted with homicidal rage to the death of their comrade cannot escape condemnation and harsh judgement. But neither can the non-commissioned and commissioned offers above them. It is their responsibility to so train and lead their men that the most rigorous discipline becomes an individual and collective habit, especially in the chaos and confusion of battle. In the most dire moments, discipline should overwhelm fear, rage, revulsion and sorrow. That’s the point of military training and discipline: to get men to do what they would otherwise never even contemplate doing.
Wallowing in Haditha: Getting at the truth. National Review's Rich Lowry on the media's attempt to use Haditha to "drive a stake into the heart of the Iraq war" and its wholesale indictment of the U.S. Armed Forces:
The old story line on Iraq was that the Bush administration didn’t send enough troops. The new story line is that it sent too many troops who don’t realize it’s wrong to shoot girls in the head. Unfortunately, Gen. Pete Chiarelli’s decision to give all troops in Iraq “values training” plays into the notion that U.S. personnel are blissfully unaware of the prohibition against murder. This training is redundant and insulting. What’s next? Forums reminding troops not to pillage and wantonly burn and destroy?
A combat environment presents stresses unimaginable to the civilian, and perhaps no combat is more difficult than fighting an urban insurgency. But tens of thousands of American troops have faced it without going door to door killing people in cold blood. Pointing to Haditha and saying that it means we have to leave Iraq would be a little like pointing to the New York City police officer who sodomized a suspect with a broomstick and saying that the NYC Police Department should exit New York because the stresses on its officers are too great.
If Marines in Haditha did what they are accused of, it’s a terrible crime unrepresentative of the American military. Period.
Reflections on Haditha, CounterTerrorism Blog. June 13, 2006. Bill Roggio, a popular war-blogger who at the beginning of December 2005 was imbedded with Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, testifies that "In every interaction with the Marines of the 3/1, I saw them serve with distinction, as a proud and professional combat unit."
The Marines based in the Triad, as elsewhere along the Euphrates River Valley, were fighting a tough counterinsurgency against a ruthless and often unseen enemy. al-Qaeda and the insurgency routinely used women as human shields, attacked from the middle of crowded locations, homes, schools and mosques, and showed a reckless disregard for civilian casualties. Assassinations of local tribal leaders cooperating with the Iraqi government was the norm, as were mortar, grenade, RPG and roadside bombing attacks. al-Qaeda formed military hit squads designed to provoke the Marines into violent reactions and cause civilian casualties. The al-Qaeda teams were well armed, possessed new weapons, wore body armor and were well financed.
The strict rules of engagement (ROE) the Marines had to adhere to was of great of interest to me. The rules of engagement defined the operating procedures for the Marines when patrolling, setting up checkpoints, searching homes, taking hostile fire, and reacting to ambushes or roadside bombs. When coming under fire, the Marines had to follow a predefined set of rules on the escalation of force, to ensure an inordinate amount of force was used, which can potentially alienate the population.
I was curious about how the Marines felt about operating in a difficult combat environment. And I didn't ask the officers about the Rules of Engagement, I asked the privates and lance corporals and sergeants - the Marines who walked the streets each and every day and put their our lives on the line. To a man, the Marines I spoke to in the 3/1 stated that while the strict rules of engagement often put them at greater risk of death or injury, they understood the need follow these rules. They understood the war had switched from kinetic war fighting to standard counterinsurgency operations, where the support of the civilian population is paramount to the success of the mission. I watched these young men in operation, and am proud of their professionalism. . . .
The charges leveled against the Marines of Kilo Company are serious and deserve to be investigated. The Marines deserve to have judgment withheld until the investigation is completed and the results released. Prejudging these Marines, as has been done in numerous media outlets and by a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is irresponsible. No matter what the results of the investigation, anything but a charge of murder will now be viewed as whitewash. Our Marines deserve far better than this.
If you happened to follow Bill Roggio's blog and from-the-field reporting, you would encounter numerous tales of heroism and personal sacrifice, of attacks by insurgents on the people of Iraq; of countless efforts by marines to protect and save the victims of such attacks. "These stories don't fit the preconceived story line of a military victimized, worn down and driven to depths of depravity due to a failed enterprise in Iraq," says Bill, "and so therefore they are not told."
Don't Run with War Rumors, by Christopher Price. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Two Presbyterian ministers, serving as embedded reporters for a radio station out of Sacramento, CA, recall their visitation with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines in January 2006. Comparing their experiences with the presentations of the press and the accusations of Senator John Murtha, compelled to offer the stern advice:
No one condones the shooting of innocent people, and if, I repeat if, that is what happened, the Marine Corps should take whatever methods are deemed proper to punish the guilty and protect the Marine Corps' integrity.
But it is a concern when some politicians and journalists seem to have already judged and condemned these young men before the investigation is complete. . . .
Articles and newscasts on the Haditha incident --- and Murtha's comments --- tend to paint a picture of trigger-happy Marines on a tirade, worn down by responsibility, angry and contemptuous of the local population. That image couldn't be more different from what we saw while in Haditha.
These were young men living in primitive conditions, but alive to the changes they hoped to bring to Iraq. More than once when we asked them about their mission there, we heard the phrase in one form or another, "I want to be a part of something good. I want to help these people toward freedom." If it sounds corny here, in Haditha it made your heart glow.
Before anyone rushes to judgment --- especially politicians --- condemning them or any military people for crimes against humanity, let's allow the investigators to have their time. Then, whatever their report, let's remember that only a few were involved in whatever happened Nov. 19, 2005.

Distortions of the Press

U.K. Times Smears our Marines - Distortions and wrongful portrayals of the incident run amock. Perusing the headlines of the London Times on June 3rd, Michelle Malkin noticed this picture of bound and blindfolded 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen executed by Iraqi insurgents wrongfully attributed to the U.S.
The Times issued a public apology and correction for their alleged "mistake," but not before the same graphic association was repeated by Chicago Sun-Times' cartoonist Jack Higgins on June 6th; and AlJazeera.com (a Dubai company separate from the TV station). Suffice to say we can expect further appearances of the photo in media outlets around the world.
As Michelle noted in her response to the Sun-Times:
"some smears aren't so easy to take back--especially when the image is as searing and damning as the bloody image the Times wrongly attributed to our Marines. Despite the correction, the image has been burned into the public memory."
Jack Higgins is not the only political cartoonist to slander the U.S. military -- left-wing Arizona Republic cartoonist Steve Benson has taken a swipe at the entire U.S. Marine Corps, suggesting the acronym stands for "United States Massacre Cover-up."

What really happened?

Numerous bloggers have been drawing attention to the discrepencies of Reuters' and Time magazine's coverage of the Haditha incident (Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha? March 19, 2006) -- particularly the sources of the story and the manner in which it was relayed to the press. Many of the questions are being raised by blogger Sweetness & Light:

The Questionable Sources For Time’s Haditha Scoop June 4, 2006
Why Did “Rights Group” Sit On Its Haditha Story? June 7, 2006
Haditha Reporter’s Thanksgiving With The Taliban June 2, 2006
The Haditha Our Media Won’t Tell You About June 2, 2006

If you don't have time to read it all, Clarice Feldman of American Thinker has compiled much of the reports in narrative form, including articles which cast substantial doubt on the charge of a massacre of civilians at Haditha. Indeed, Time has already issued some retractions of earlier mistakes in reporting on Haditha.

The military blog Mudville Gazette has been clearing away some of the chaff as well -- Haditha: Signal to Noise: Part I June 10, 2006; Part II June 11, 2006):

given the number of media "investigations" into the story and the number of words on the topic they've delivered to the public over the past few weeks, it could be that there are reporters who actually have difficulty understanding what's taking so long with the official inquiry. But as we'll demonstrate, an actual criminal investigation - with the purpose of uncovering evidence of guilt or innocence (and perhaps ultimately determining punishment of any guilty parties) is a bit more painstaking a process than is the typing of a news report, with the purpose of selling papers.
In this discussion I'd like to cut through that abundant noise, and discover if any faint signal may be currently available. But at this point in time, it seems the best we can do is identify at least some of what is clearly noise. . . .

See also The Unraveling of Haditha-Part I and Part II; and Haditha: Reasonable Doubt, by Andrew Walden. Hawaii Free Press June 5, 2006.

In the News

Marine Says Rules Were Followed: Sergeant Describes Hunt for Insurgents in Haditha, Denies Coverup, by Josh White. Washington Post June 11, 2006.
Senator Murtha's charge that U.S. marines killed Iraqi citizens "in cold blood" may have to answer for his comments. According to the Washington Times:
A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.
Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.
Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps’ top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.
(Marine may call Murtha as witness, by Rowan Scarborough. The Washington Times June 15, 2006).
Emphasizing the need to restrain a rush-to-judgement, a Marine unjustly charged with two counts of premeditated murder protests the behavior of Senator Murtha in a letter to the Washingtpon Post:
A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005].
So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report. . . .

Dr. Edward Peters clarifies contribution to Neo-Conned, IHS Press

2006-05-17T16:57:00.000-07:00

A note on my Neo-Conned! essay, by Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD.

Dr. Peters, a canon lawyer who maintains the blog In the Light of the Law, and whose essay was included in the two-volume series by IHS Press, Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: a Condemnation of the War in Iraq (HIS Press, 2005), has written a post in which he relates how his essay on Bishop John Botean's condemmnation of Catholic participation in the war on Iraq came to be included in the anthology:

Some time later [after blogging about Bishop Botean], John Sharpe began assembling an impressive array of thinkers opposed to the Iraq War and, for obvious reasons, included Bp. Botean's letter in his collection. Despite my clear reservations about Bp. Botean's comments, Sharpe contacted me and asked permission to include my critique of Bp. Botean's comments in the book he edited . . . Happy to cooperate with those trying to make a serious contribution to public discourse, notwithstanding my disagreement with some of their positions, I gave that permission.

Dr. Peters also clarifies his own stance on the war in Iraq -- which, it appears, is at variance with the indicement of his fellow contributors to Neo-Conned:

for what it might be worth, on the Iraq War I fall, if anywhere, in a very narrow no-man's-land. I say "if anywhere" because I have not really "taken a position" (whatever that exactly means) on the war for the simple reason that ordinary citizens (and I am unusually ordinary) generally do not have the information necessary to form persuasive opinions on such matters. Specifically, I think that Just War principles are primarily intended to inform governmental leaders in their decision-making (CCC 2309); the criteria by which we citizens relate to the government are distinguishable in a number of respects.
In any case, here in no-man's-land, we happy few think that a plausible case can be made for the United States to have invaded Iraq to rid that people of their mass-murdering, war-mongering, terrorist-abetting, eco-terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein, but that our staying there to try to establish a parliamentary democracy in a land with no 'democratic infra-structure' is, well, less plausible. I admit to being surprised that this reasoning finds so little resonance with others; it makes me wonder whether I/we have missed something important, but, there it is.
In any case, my comments about Bp. Botean, on my blog and in Neo-Conned, are only about the eparch's canonical and moral reasoning, on which topics I have some special qualifications to speak, and not about US participation in the Iraq War, on which matter I have no special qualifications with which to opine.

To revisit Dr. Peters' evaluation of Bishop Botean: (Bishop Boteans' Lenten Message In the Light of the Law March 18, 2003):

"The eparch's statement is unprecedented for its clarity and starkness; it simply must be read to appreciate this point, though fair-minded readers can admit that it is not a peacenik, blame-America-first harangue, but is instead a reasoned (though, I think, wrongly) exercise of conscience. It cannot be issued, however, and then forgotten. If Bishop Botean is correct, his argumentation would seem to apply to all Catholics, and only an inexcusable lack of pastoral solicitude on the part of other Eastern and Latin bishops could account for them not following suit immediately. If, on the other hand, Bishop Botean is wrong, then he has placed his faithful in a profound and direct conflict of conscience between their ecclesiastical and civil leaders, which, I suggest only an inexcusable lack of pastoral solicitude would suffer them to remain in.

As Dr. Peters adds, Mark Brumely (Ignatius Press) also responded at the time:

Apparently, Bishop Botean thinks that war with Iraq is a similar situation. He seems to regard the circumstances that others--Catholic and non-Catholic--point to as justifying war with Iraq as so manifestly incompatible with Catholic just war teaching that no prudent person could reasonably judge otherwise, based on Catholic principles. In taking that stand, Bishop Botean has gone far beyond what the U.S. bishops and representatives of the Holy See have said, both groups of which have opposed war with Iraq. In effect, he claims that the facts are so obviously contrary to how many faithful, informed Catholics and others see them that traditional Catholic teaching about the right and duty of civil authority to make the determination of whether war is justified can be set aside (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2309) and that he, as bishop, can bind his people to follow his personal assessment of the geopolitical situation.
What is worse, Bishop Botean presents no arguments or evidence that Catholic just war teaching is not applicable to U.S. led attack on Iraq; he simply declares that it is not and expects those for whom he exercises pastoral responsibility to comply, as if no supporting assessment of the facts is necessary or contrary assessment possible.

(Brumley Responds to Botean, Envoy Encore March 21, 2003).

Front Line Faith

2006-02-05T20:56:00.000-08:00

Front Line Faith, by Mark Stricherz (Knights of Columbus): "Knights in Iraq and Afghanistan faced challenges to their Catholicism, but a new program funded by the Order is helping U.S. troops stay close to the Church. . . ."

The Liberation of Iraq & The War on Terror - A Roundup

2006-02-04T20:41:00.000-08:00

Iraq - Quit or Stay?", by Orson Scott Card. The Ornery American January 15, 2006:
I keep wondering why I'm getting flashbacks to the 1960s. I never took any hallucinogenic drugs. And yet I keep hearing people on TV saying we need to bring the troops home now.
Of course, back in the 60s, the people saying that were all wearing long hair and, if they were of the guy persuasion, beards; now it's people in suits. . . .
Media “Mistranslates” Bin Laden Tape, by Cinnamon Stillwell. NewsBusters.org. January 22, 2006. Did Bin Laden offer a "truce" to America or didn't he?
Jimmy Carter's "So-Called Terrorists" - In a interview with CNN, former President Jimmy Carter claimed "that although Hamas were "so-called terrorists," so far "there have been no complaints of corruption against [their] elected officials." [Jerusalem Post, Jan. 20, 2006]. The Weekly Standard's Daniel McKivergan corrects the record.
A Holiday in Wartime, by Greg Jaffe, Michael M. Phillips, and Yochi Dreazen. Wall Street Journal Dec. 23, 2005: "For soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dec. 25 will mostly be just another workday, full of patrols, guard duty, raids and the distribution of aid to the local population. . . ."
George Mason Law Professor Ronald Rotunda recently served a year as special council to the Defense Department. On January 2, 2006, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung published an edited version of Professor Rotunda's column on the American detention facility in Guantanamo; Prof. Ronald Rotunda has provided the full version of the article -- "Guantanamo, another story" -- to Powerline:
there is another side of the story -- what the United States is doing in its prison in Guantanamo Bay. I visited several times and was given complete access to all parts of the base I cared to see. I visited the prisoners’ cells, where they were interrogated, where they played volleyball, and where they ate.
It was not what I had expected. . . .
Sgt. Mark Seavey confronted Democrat Reps. Jim Moran and John Murtha at a town hall meeting in Arlington, Va., on the latter's claim that the troops were "demoralized." Michelle Malkin has the video. The look on Sen. Moran -- rendered speechless -- is priceless.
"On October 26, 2005, Mike Lukovich "did an illustration depicting the word 'why' using the names of the 2,000 troops who had, at that time, died in Iraq. Here on this blog, the feedback from readers, both pro and con was enormous. In response, a young woman, an 11th grader, has created a response.
Smoking in the Background, by Deroy Murdock. NRO Dec. 21, 2005:
On two key fronts — Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass death and his generous support for Islamofascist terrorists — the Bush administration maddeningly conceals evidence that justifies the president’s decision to topple Hussein. This information should be rolled out to counteract the destructive arguments of Democratic chief Howard Dean, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, and other Bushophobes who relentlessly carpet-bomb American efforts in Iraq.
Michelle Malkin compiles more links and information on Saddam's Terror Training Camps.
Saddam's Chemical Supplier Gets 15 Years For WMD, as reported by Captains Quarters, Dec. 24, 2005:
For those who keep insisting that Saddam had no WMD and no way of producing them, The Hague has some embarrassing news. It convicted Saddam's supplier, Dutch businessman Frans van Anraat, to 15 years for selling Saddam the chemicals used to kill at least 5,000 Kurds in Halabja, among others . . .
An American in Baghdad. National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews Ambassador L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, former presidential envoy to Iraq. Bremer recently published My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope Simon & Schuster (January 1, 2006).
General Abizaid spoke recently to the Naval War College regarding the current status of the war on terror, and that speech was summarized by an unidentified student. The file was briefly available at C-Span, but no longer. Patrick, at Liberating Iraq, translated the PDF file into plain text. MarineCorpsMoms provides some "talking points."
Airmen and Soldiers take a moment to pray for each other's safety before heading out for another day of convoy duty in Iraq. The Airmen run the convoys into Iraq and the Soldiers, in their armored trucks, escort them. (Thanks to Officer's Club's "Photo of the Day").
Appearing on CBS' Face The Nation, Senator John Kerry appeared to be in fine form, proclaiming the Democratic Party's opposition to "young American soldiers terrorizing kids and children":
Schieffer: Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis' freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?
Kerry: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, 'Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis.
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not--
Schieffer: Yeah.
Lance Frizzell (Lance in Iraq) provides evidence of just such an occasion, with graphic footage of US soldiers terrorizing Iraqis in their homes. (Here is another one, courtesy of blogress Sondra K.). And U.S. Soldiers Terrorize Iraq Family! - Strategypage.com gets it on film in time for the eleven o'clock news!
LTC Eric Wesley of the 1st Battalion of the 13th Armored Regiment assesses the loss of a soldier to a roadside bomb and a suicide bombing of a girl's school and asks Is the War Progressing? The American Enterprise Jan/Feb 2006.
The Healers . Charles Kuralt once said "The everyday kindness of the back roads more than makes up for the acts of greed in the headlines." Reporting from the front in Iraq, Danjel Bout (365 And A Wakeup) tells a simple story of medics SPC Hart and SPC Night answering the call of duty.
The Panic Over Iraq, by Norman Podhoretz. The Wall Street Journal Dec. 12, 2005. Drawing from an observation of Thomas Pain about the consequences of national panic in time of war, Norman Podhoretz takes a look at the "sunshine patriots and summer soldiers" and makes a case for a rather provocative diagnosis:
Yet in spite of these similarities, there is also a very curious difference between the American panic of 1776-77 and the American panic of 2005-06. To put it in the simplest and starkest terms: In that early stage of the Revolutionary War, there was sound reason to fear that the British would succeed in routing Washington's forces. In Iraq today, however, and in the Middle East as a whole, a successful outcome is staring us in the face. Clearly, then, the panic over Iraq--which expresses itself in increasingly frenzied calls for the withdrawal of our forces--cannot have been caused by the prospect of defeat. On the contrary, my twofold guess is that the real fear behind it is not that we are losing but that we are winning, and that what has catalyzed this fear into a genuine panic is the realization that the chances of pulling off the proverbial feat of snatching an American defeat from the jaws of victory are rapidly running out.

Michael Yon on 'Operation Iraqi Children'

2006-01-22T09:18:00.000-08:00

Operation Iraqi Children -- Michael Yon blogs about one of the latest grassroots efforts of the American people to aid the nation of Iraq:

I’ve seen the U.S. Army hold medical screenings, build schools and playgrounds, deliver sporting gear, and so on, but much of the help for Iraqi kids is coming from Joe Citizen, who has never been to Iraq, through a program started when one not-so-ordinary citizen traveled there and saw the immediate need.
While on a USO tour of Iraq in 2003, Gary Sinise recognized the potential as well as the plight of these children. Once back in the United States, he joined forces with a couple of smart and good-hearted people, Laura Hillenbrand and Mary Eisenhower, and took action to address the educational needs of Iraqi kids. In what he describes as “a few breathtaking and exhausting weeks,” these three dynamos organized Operation Iraqi Children (OIC). . . .

A must-read post and a project worth supporting by preparing and sending your own School Supply Kit.

2006-01-07T19:16:00.000-08:00

I could make an historical argument, I think, to the effect that failure to fight wars in time or appropriately has caused as much chaos, degradation of the human spirit, and slaughter as wars that were in fact fought. Wars are a question of justice. When justice is an obvious and paramount question, it is not a virtue to avoid them. It is the mistake of always framing the issue in terms of peace and not in terms of justice. Logically, the former cannot be had without the latter. Peace without justice is the definition of extreme tyranny. And it is not just a question of justice, but of generosity and self-sacrifice. If there are no causes worth fighting and dying for, we might as well give up pretending that we are civilized.

Fr. James V. Schall, Fr. James V. Schall on Reason and Faith (Interview with Ken Masugi) Nov/Dec 2005.

Spero News: The Year in Military Heroism

2006-01-03T08:52:00.000-08:00

The Year in Military Heroism, by Dan from Riehl World View. Jan. 2, 2006:

Between seeing this post of Sondrak's on Medal of Honor recipient Sgt. 1st Class Paul Smith and all the brouhaha over various nonsensical year end lists, I decided to do a tribute post to America's War Heroes of 2005. In my view, they cannot get and certainly haven't gotten enough attention via the MSM [Main Stream Media] . . .

Michael Novak - background to the speech "'Asymmetrical Warfare' & Just War"

2006-01-01T22:27:00.000-08:00

In a guest-post for First Things' On The Square, Michael Novak provides the background details on his speech “Asymmetrical Warfare” & Just War, delivered to a public audience in Vatican City on February 10, 2003, and later published in the National Review:

Nearly three years ago, Ambassador James Nicholson invited me to give a lecture on February 10, 2003, at the Vatican on the just war criteria regarding Iraq, after 15 or more resolutions by the UN concerning violations of the Truce of 1991. I was to speak for myself, not for the U.S. Government, in the same vein as I had spoken on previous occasions at the invitation of the Embassy to the Vatican. Not being privy to government briefings or intelligence findings, I had to rely solely on the public record. I paid special attention to statements by Mr. Hans Blix, the leader of the UN group of inspectors in Iraq, who said on two different occasions that in December and January that some 5,000 (or slightly more) liters of mustard gas and a similar amount of anthrax were missing and unaccounted for. The inspectors had catalogued these materials earlier, but could no longer find them. It had been the freely undertaken obligation of Saddam Hussein’s Government both to destroy those weapons and to prove that they had destroyed them. Since barely a teaspoon of anthrax had killed and hospitalized people in Washington, D.C., and closed a Senate Office Building for a month, those missing liters seemed to me worrisome. I had no idea what others might mean by “weapons of mass destruction,” but these missing liters were what the term meant to me. My authority was Mr. Blix. . . .
I believed at the time, and I believe still, that Pope John Paul II would want lay persons in my position to do as I then did, make my argument in keeping with Catholic traditions of reasoning in the public arena, in the important work of clarifying issues important to conscience. Some of these issues are prudential and contingent, and lie within the special responsibility of lay inquiry. I had, and was known to have, a personal friendship with the Pope, and felt keenly the responsibility of being open to every nuance in his own public statements, and of representing them fairly. He did not take a pacifist position, not at all, but a prudential position appropriate to the leader of the worldwide Catholic church, with acute responsibility to the Catholic people in the Middle East, and with a worldwide responsibility–even a world-historical responsibility, whose effects might linger for centuries. My own role was far humbler and far more limited. It was not one I had sought, but, when invited, agreed was too important not to take on. What the United States does is important to the Catholic people worldwide and to the Vatican. To be well-informed about how the Vatican’s American friends are thinking, and to learn the basis of their practical judgments, is highly useful, even necessary.
These remarks ended up being delivered to a huge overflow audience, with representatives of at least seventy media outlets present–but not until after I had delivered them to two smaller but significant Vatican audiences in private. I do not think many I spoke to at the Vatican agreed with me; many were in fact Europeans and had views closer to those of the elites of their nations of origin, as some said outright. But they were quite interested in the way I argued and were quite respectful of what I had to say. It felt to me as if they now knew that there was a new argument on the block, which they had not heretofore exactly calibrated.
Two days later, I gave another public lecture in Rome, with further clarification about what was to be expected in Iraq, as I then saw it. It was also published online (in article form), on February 18, 2003.
In view of the controversies swirling in the air today about who said what in the period just before the war, it seemed useful to revisit these texts now, with their errors and faults, as well as reasonably accurate expectations, plainly revealed.

Dispelling the Myths about Iraq: Juan Cole and James Phillips

2005-12-31T08:54:00.000-08:00

David Jones recommends the article Top Ten Myths about Iraq in 2005, by Juan Cole, University of Michigan history professor and soon-to-be president of the Middle East Studies Association, which he describes as -- contra FoxNews -- "fair and balanced."

We all have our ideologically-fueled predispositions. Just as David Jones tends to approach anything authored by NWN (Neuhaus, Novak, Weigel) with extreme prejudice given their "neocon" affiliations, I would personally do the same with Juan Cole, background information on whom can be obtained from the following:

Old Juan Cole: A Very Sad Soul, by Steven Plaut FrontPageMagazine.com | March 23, 2005. Steven provides a roundup of Cole's views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Juan Cole and the Decline of the Middle Eastern Studies, by Alexander H. Joffe. MEforum.org | December 26, 2005.

Meanwhile, James Phillips, another researcher in Middle Eastern Studies, posts his own article Dispelling myths about Iraq at SperoNews, "refuting of some of the major myths that have distorted the pub lic's understanding of U.S. policy regarding Iraq."

Given as Phillips is part of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies (run by the notoriously (gasp!) conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation), his assessment of Iraq reads somewhat at odds than that of Dr. Cole. As I've linked to both articles in question, I trust our readers will make their own judgements as to their merit.

I think when it comes to learning about Iraq we need to take information from multiple perspectives (politically-aligned) and sift the wheat from the chaff. Anybody who has followed Arthur Chrenkoff's "Good News from Iraq / Afghanistan" round-ups during 2004-2005 realized that the usually-negative commentary of the Mainstream Media provided only a small glimpse of what was actually happening.

When it comes to understanding "the situation in Iraq", I've benefited greatly from reading the blogs of U.S. military currently serving in Iraq, journalists like Michael Yon and Bill Roggio (thanks to Chris Burgwald for recommending the latter) "reporting from the field", as well as the frontline accounts of Iraqi bloggers who are exercising their freedom of speech post-liberation (or occupation, depending on your POV). One of my personal favorites is Iraq the Model; Hassan from Iraqi Blog Count provides a history of Iraqi blogs.

"The Jews of Europe are now the Kurds of Iraq"

2005-12-16T22:47:00.000-08:00

The Jews of Europe are now the Kurds of Iraq, and the Shiites, and the Marsh Arabs. The point of war is not only to defend one’s own country from attack but also to free from the jaws of death millions of innocent human beings who lack the military means to secure their own freedom. This may not be a universally supported political or military view of war, but it is a religious view of war, and it is my view of this and other wars.
I do not know a single Kurd or a single Marsh Arab or a single Iraqi Shiite, but I do know that they have been slaughtered by the thousands, and because of this war they are now free. The Iraqi killing machine has been destroyed. I also know, and every person of even moderate intelligence also knows, that if our troops withdraw now, before victory has been fully achieved they will be slaughtered again. When I say never again in memory of the Holocaust, I don’t mean “never again Jews,” I mean “never again anyone.”
It matters not one wit to me that they are not Jewish nor even that they may not be grateful to America. All that matters to me is that they are made in God’s image and their lives are no longer held tight in the bloody maw of a genocidal dictator. The Jews of Europe and the Kurds of Iraq may both have been outside the strictly delimited aims of the war in Europe or the war in Iraq, but their cries must reach some listening ears and sensitive souls. It is deeply disappointing to me to know that people in my movement of Judaism with whom I share a belief that my daughter deserves the same spiritual horizons as my son cannot feel the need for freedom of those victims of genocide whose cries reach God even if they often do not reach the front pages of the morning papers.

Rabbi Marc Gellman, Historical Blindness Newsweek Dec. 16, 2005

The Iraqi Elections - A Roundup

2005-12-15T23:58:00.000-08:00

"We got our purple fingers updated!" - a roundup of election news and on-the-spot reports from Omar @ Iraq The Model Dec. 16, 2005.
Elections - Now and Then, by Greyhak. Mudville Gazette: "If it bleeds it leads, they say. And today it did not. So it's what that story doesn't say that tells you everything you need to know about today. . . ."
When the sense of history overwhelms, by Jeff Harrell (The Shape of Days):
My roommate said to me last night, “I’m surprised you didn’t write more about the Iraqi election.” I tried to explain. My excuse is as simple as it is embarrassing: I’m overwhelmed.
How many different ways are there to say “historic moment?” How many different ways can you say that a nation was born yesterday? If I were writing a speech, I’d have all the high-minded rhetoric and soaring oratory you could ask for. But to try to write about it casually, in my own voice . . .
It’s Electric! "U.S. troops describe a festive atmosphere across Iraq," says W. Thomas Smith Jr. NRO National Review Online December 15, 2005:
"On this side of the world, saying something and coming through and doing it means a great deal," U.S. Marine Maj. Neil F. Murphy Jr., spokesman for Multi-National Force West at Camp Fallujah, tells National Review Online. "Iraqis know that we mean what we say by staying and helping them get on their feet."
Consequently, he adds, "The Iraqi people are looking at this [election day] like an actual holiday." Not in the sense that it need not be taken seriously, but in the sense of what one Iraqi army soldier said: "This is the first time in my whole life I got to choose the government of my country!"
What? The elections held by Saddam Hussein with a nearly 100% vote of support didn't count?
Highlights: Iraqi journalists & bloggers on the ground for Iraqi elections Compiled in Los Angeles from reporters and bloggers for Pajamas Media including: I.S. in Karbala; W.Z. in Erbil; A.S. in Najaf; N.R. in Mosul; A.D. in Basra; A.T. in Babil; W.A., Omar and Mohammed in Baghdad. Pajamasmedia.com Dec. 15, 2005.
Congressman Jack Kingston relays a note from a U.S. military official with his observations and experience of the elections.
Hassan Kharrufa has photos of his family, including one of this proud Iraqi:
Even my 85 year old grandfather, who had much trouble walking, came with us to cast his vote. Although the walk was very hard on him, but he pulled himself together and managed to reach the poll centre. . . . He was treated like a king there. He sat in a chair, and they brought the pen and ballot paper to him. He chose his list, gave it to them, they folded it, and put it in the box. Then they brought him the ink pot.
"The Truth on the Ground", by Major Ben Connable. U.S. Marine Corps. Washington Post Dec. 14, 2005:
When I told people that I was getting ready to head back to Iraq for my third tour, the usual response was a frown, a somber head shake and even the occasional "I'm sorry." When I told them that I was glad to be going back, the response was awkward disbelief, a fake smile and a change of subject. The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.
How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?"
“’The Wrong Shall Fail’” - text of President George W. Bush's address to the nation on Sunday, December 18, 2005, as released by the White House. Dec. 18, 2005.
"Happy Days!" - Robert Kagan and William Kristol The Weekly Standard Dec. 26, 2005:
Has this one election settled everything, or even anything? Is Iraq now safely on the path to a durable democracy? Of course not. One voter told a New York Times reporter, "Iraqis aren't used to democracy, we have to learn it." True enough. They will have to learn it, and this learning process will take time and be attended by many backward steps, many errors, and many crises. But now, at least, they have a chance.
Iraqis would not have had that chance had the United States chosen to leave Saddam Hussein in power. They would not have had that chance if American troops had been withdrawn or reduced from the already inadequate levels established after the invasion in 2003. And they will lose that chance if the United States now begins a hasty reduction of forces. Burns reports that even Sunnis unhappy with the American presence favor only a "gradual drawdown," and only if Iraq has achieved a sufficient level of security and stability. "Let's have stability, and then the Americans can go home," one Iraqi store owner told Burns. Informed that President Bush was saying exactly the same thing, this man replied: "Then Bush has said it correctly".
And in the words of one Iraqi Betty Dawisha:
Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”

Maintaining my Status as a Warblogger: The Mother of All Roundups

2005-12-03T00:31:00.000-08:00

Various critics (friend and foe alike) have referred to me as a "warblogger" -- a label I find rather curious, since my actual blogging on the war is rather minimal compared to my other interests, and when I do blog, my meager efforts in this regard pale in comparison to the likes of, say, Little Green Footballs or Winds of Change.

When I think of "war blogs," I think of the reporting of combat journalist Michal Yon or blogger Bill Roggio, currently touring Anbar Province, Iraq by invitation of the 2nd Marine Division, or the real 'milbloggers' posting from the trenches.

However, Wikipedia defines a "warblog" as

"A warblog is a weblog devoted mostly or wholly to covering news events concerning an ongoing war. Sometimes the use of the term "warblog" implies that the blog concerned has a pro-war slant."

So on that note perhaps I'd qualify.

It has been quite a while since I did any significant posting on this subject . . . so in the interest of bolstering my reputation, here's a roundup of recommended links on the subject culled from the past few months.

From Bill Roggio's The Fourth Rail, An Interview with Colonel Davis Oct. 30, 2005, "Commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team - 2, who is responsible for fighting in western Anbar province, also known as AO Denver" -- who, among other things, summarizes his regiment's mission in Iraq:
. . . I don't like to talk in terms of winning and losing when it comes to the issues in the Middle East. Americans have a very Western way of thinking: you identify the problem; you analyze the problem and then fix it and move onto the next problem. Out here you need to be vigilant and do a lot of continuous maintenance work, which pays off over time.
Saddam never controlled this region of Iraq. It is very tribal and fiercely independent. He sent in the army to kill and intimidate the population. He established two tribes in the region: the Salmanis and the Karabilah tribes, to further his goals and counter balance existing dominating tribes. The Iraqis out west, particularly in Haditha are well educated and are able to provide for their own needs. They have operated this way for centuries and can do so again with the proper security environment. We have a simple equation we use out here:
Presence = Security = Stability = the environment for self governance.
Our goal is to enfranchise the Iraqi security forces and allow them to provide for the security in the region and improve the lives of the Iraqi people. We will continue to conduct civil/military affairs operations to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. In Haditha, we are rebuilding the hospital the jihadis attacked with a car bomb and then used as a base of operation. We are working to enhance schools and other services vital to the people. We will continue to maintain a presence until the Iraqi Army is capable of standing on its own.
Thanks to Chris Burgwald, who introduced me to the blog. See also this piece on Iran's sponsorship of international terrorism including Al Qaeda.
Update: The Fourth Rail is now closed, as Bill Roggio is currently blogging from Iraq (Anbar Province) by special invitation from senior Marine officers with the Regimental Combat Team - 2, 2nd Marine Division. You can now read him at ThreatsWatch.org.
Purple-Ink & Other Underreported Successes, by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. National Review Oct. 31, 2005:
Lance Corporal Tara Pryor has been in Iraq for only three weeks. Already, she has learned that what readers glean from newspapers and television broadcasts back home are not as things really are.
“I am surprised,” says the 21-year-old Strongsville, Ohio, native who currently serves with the Marine’s 6th Civil Affairs Group in Fallujah. “The majority of the [Iraqi] people appreciate what we are trying to do.”
Pryor’s revelation is no surprise to those who have been there. Back home, military servicemen and women contend the daily fare from the various media ranges from disturbing to false to downright manipulative. . . .
A War to be Proud Of, by Christopher Hitchens. The Weekly Standard 09/05/2005, Volume 010, Issue 47. The former Nation journalist turned neocon poses some difficult questions that beg for answers:
The balance sheet of the Iraq war, if it is to be seriously drawn up, must also involve a confrontation with at least this much of recent history. Was the Bush administration right to leave--actually to confirm--Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Was James Baker correct to say, in his delightfully folksy manner, that the United States did not "have a dog in the fight" that involved ethnic cleansing for the mad dream of a Greater Serbia? Was the Clinton administration prudent in its retreat from Somalia, or wise in its opposition to the U.N. resolution that called for a preemptive strengthening of the U.N. forces in Rwanda?
Our Troops Must Stay: "America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists", by Senator Joe Lieberman. Wall Street Journal Nov. 29, 2005. In case you missed it, a gutsy article from the Democratic senator from Connecticut, who returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months, and has good things to report.
Over at Mudville Gazette, Greyhawk questions John P Murtha's citation that "Over 15,500 have been seriously injured" in Iraq:
There have indeed been over 15,500 wounded. But of those, 8375 returned to duty within 72 hours - so although those wounds weren't funny perhaps those wounds weren't quite serious either. Still, 7347 troops have been wounded severely enough to require over 72 hours recuperation. Furthermore, 2,791 Soldiers were wounded seriously enough to require evacuation to Stateside Army Medical facilities. And 280 amputees have been treated in Army facilities as a result of the war. A lot of unscrupulous types who just want to pretend to "support the troops" ignore these facts in favor of the less correct (and more impressive) claim that 15,500 troops have been seriously wounded, or maimed, or mutilated. The real numbers are big enough - I just can't understand why some feel the need to pad them
Here's yet another reason to love Hollywood action-hero Bruce Willis (besides Die Hard):
Unlike many Hollywood stars Willis supports the war and recently offered a $1m (about £583,000) bounty for the capture of any of Al-Qaeda’s most wanted leaders such as Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri or Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, its commander in Iraq. Willis visited the war zone with his rock and blues band, the Accelerators, in 2003.
“I am baffled to understand why the things I saw happening in Iraq are not being reported,” he told MSNBC, the American news channel.
Source: Sunday Times Nov. 27, 2005. Willis is planning on making a film on Deuce Four, the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry, "which has spent the past year battling insurgents in the northern Iraqi town of Mosul."
The film will be based on the reporting of blogger Michael Yon, "a former special forces green beret who was embedded with Deuce Four and sent regular dispatches about their heroics." (P.S. Due recognition to Charlie Daniels as well, who raised thousands of dollars in donated musical instruments for troops in Iraq.)
Rerum-Novarum: Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing Nov. 19, 2005. In case you haven't had enough, another roundup with commentary from I. Shawn McElhinney, with notes on Able Danger, the question of missing WMD's and . . . Kurt Vonnegut.

History Lesson(s)

A Brief History of a Long War (1990-2003), by Greyhawk (Mudville Gazette), providing a necessary corrective to those who quickly forget the history of this conflict:
. . . One of the most blatant - and most effective - examples [of revisionism] has been the highly successful propagation of the idea that the war in Iraq began as a misguided result of the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11th 2001. To achieve this feat of near-universal denial requires the dismissing of over a decade of real history - years in which a handful of Americans drew a line in the sand on distant shores - a line crossed repeatedly and re-drawn too frequently by too many hands to be forgotten so swiftly.
And it's nearly forgotten they are, those warriors of just a few short years ago. But not just yet, at least not completely. This work in progress is dedicated to my fellow members of the US military, those who stand the "line in the sand" now and those have done so for so many years past.
Look, here is what happened. Listen, here's what they said when it did. . . .
The New York Times and Iraq: 1993-2005. The blogger at American Future embarks on an ambitious project to "employ the New York Times’ editorials to trace and analyze the evolution of the newspaper’s stance on Iraq":
A war can be lost because public opinion turns against its continued prosecution. The New York Times – the self-described “newspaper of record” – is among the world’s most influential opinion leaders. As shown by the cited quotations, the newspaper’s stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003. While its editors never lost their fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their prescription for countering the threat posed by the weapons was altered beyond recognition. In 1993, by arguing that cease-fire violations nullified U.N. protection, the Times affirmed the right of a victorious party to resume hostilities at its sole discretion if the party it defeated did not abide by the terms of the agreement to which it affixed its signature. Ten years later, the Times reversed its stance, asserting that the United States should not go to war without the approval of the United Nations. In so doing, the Times implicitly argued that going to war with the approval of a multilateral institution took precedence over the use of military force to expeditiously eliminate the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.
The New York Times and Iraq (1993-2005): Part I covers the eight years of the Clinton administration, is the first of three that employ the Times’ editorials to trace and analyze the evolution of the newspaper’s position on Iraq. Part II covers the Bush administration until the invasion of Iraq. Part III covers the Invasion of Iraq to Abu Ghraib (March 2003 - April 2004).
Where the WMDs Went, by Jamie Glazov. FrontPageMagazine.com | November 16, 2005. Interview with Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer and Arabic speaker "who worked at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and as a counter-infiltration operator in Baghdad in 2004. He was also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of WMD's and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq."

Torture

Junkyard blogger B. Preston "would love it if Mark Shea simply defined torture -- What it is and what it isn’t. He's right, in that this post is a typically brilliant snark-fest but never actually addresses what the McCain Amendment will and will not do. . . . It’s seriously snarky and seriously angry, but doesn’t approach the issue with any genuine seriousness. In the end, it’s lazy." Much as I enjoy Mark's blog, I do think his snarkiness sometimes gets the better of him, together with his practice of labeling the opposition. Then again, perhaps that's part of his appeal. On his behalf, he did author the rather more serious appraisal of the issue in: Toying with Evil: May a Catholic Advocate Torture? Crisis March 9, 2005.
Military historian Victor Davis Hanson, meanwhile, joins others in backing the McCain amendment: On torture, U.S. must take the high road Chicago Tribune Dec. 2, 2005:
So we might as well admit that by foreswearing the use of torture, we will probably be at a disadvantage in obtaining key information and perhaps endanger American lives here at home. (And, ironically, those who now allege that we are too rough will no doubt decry "faulty intelligence" and "incompetence" should there be another terrorist attack on an American city.) Our restraint will not ensure any better treatment for our own captured soldiers. Nor will our allies or the UN appreciate American forbearance. The terrorists themselves will probably treat our magnanimity with disdain, as if we were weak rather than good.
But all that is precisely the risk we must take in supporting the McCain amendment--because it is a public reaffirmation of our country's ideals. The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.

Iraq & Al Qaeda

Night of the Living "Known Fact", by Leon H @ RedState.Org July 10, 2005:
One of the most persistent Known Facts in the lexicon of Known Fact users is the Known Fact that Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda. None whatsoever. This, of course, was the justification the New York Times (one of the great all-time users of Known Facts) used for their shrieking denunciation of Bush's June 28th speech. How could he even mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same speech? Doesn't he know that it's a Known Fact that there was no relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?
Much of the evidence behind this Known Fact lies behind the findings of the 9/11 commission, which stated that it could find "no evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." This, to the liberal mindset, was the same as saying, "We have proved conclusively that no such evidence exists, nor ever will exist, so let this henceforth be known as a Known Fact." The reality is that the commission said something very different, and the emergence of actual facts in the year since then has repeatedly put this Known Fact to death, only to see it rise up from the grave, more horrible and foul-smelling than ever before.
Case Not Dismissed: Ahmed Hikmat Shakir & the 9/11 Commission, by Andrew C. McCarthy. National Review Online. July 1, 2005.
Body of Evidence, by Stephen F. Hayes. Weekly Standard June 30, 2005:
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda."
So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.
Hayes politely challenged her claim. "Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don't."
CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. "And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."
The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air correction.
If you want to investigate the alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, there's no better place to start than Stephen Hayes' The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, which provides a good compilation of his investigation into this issue as it appeared in The Weekly Standard.
It's ALL about Al Qaeda, by Andrew McCarthy. National Review Online. June 29, 2005.
That was then, this is now, by John @ Powerline July 15, 2005:
This ABC News video from five years ago, courtesy of Media Research Center, is a classic. Before Democrats had a partisan motive to claim, contrary to all the evidence, that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda, their close and dangerous relationship was common knowledge. That common knowledge is reflected in this ABC news report, as it was in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in 1998 for, among other things, collaborating with Saddam on weapons of mass destruction.
It really is a fascinating question: in this era of digital media, can the news media and the Democrats get away with trying to flush what they said as recently as 1998 and 2000 down the memory hole?

Supporting Our Troops" - Images of the Opposition

From the Rhode Island blog Anchor Rising ("The Right Side of Hope in Rhode Island") comes a substantial roundup of informative commentary on Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen soldier turned icon of the pacifist opposition to the "Iraqi occupation."
The Peace Movement's Moderate Face, by Amy Widenour (National Center, Nov. 27, 2005):
As Cindy Sheehan is once again protesting in Crawford, Texas, I thought it a good time to share some pictures that show -- as the mainstream media often does not -- the message of the anti-war protesters. These photos, of another anti-war rally in which Cindy Sheehan participated, were taken by Joe Roche. . . ."
"Supporting Our Troops" @ AmericanFuture.Net: "Chad Drake, a resident of Garland, Texas, was somehow identified as the 1,000th victim of the Iraq war. The Drake family attended a vigil at the Dallas City Hall, having been assured by a member of the Dallas Peace Center that the event would be non-political. . . ."
Sox or Soldiers? Which photos are White Sox World Series celebrations, and which ones are solemn memorials for 2000 dead soldiers and certainly not parties? (Pop quiz at Everlasting Phelps).
Academic freedom has its limits. When John Daly, adjunct English professor at Warren County Community College advocated the murder of American military officers, the public outcry (largely instigated by the Young America Foundation and the patriotic blogging community) forced him to resign. I say good riddance.
Anti-war protestors recently expressed their "support for the troops" by throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers, attempting to set fire to buildings, "fighting capitalism" and equating Hurricane Katrina with "genocide." Michelle Malkin has the roundup.
(Note: Don't get me wrong. I understand one can make a principled case against the war. But if this is the public face of the anti-war movement, as it seems to be, it's high time y'all hired a new public relations department).

George Weigel's Tranquillitas Ordinis

2005-11-26T14:42:00.000-08:00

When I was first exploring the topic of the Catholic Church's just war tradition, I asked my father -- bright college-educated Catholic doctor of philosophy that he is -- if he had anything to recommend, especially as he had recently delivered an address on the subject War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning Tenth Annual Aquinas/Luther Conference. Lenoir-Rhyne College. October 24-26, 2002).

His response to me was Weigel's Tranquillitas Ordinis: The Present Failure and Future Promise of American Catholic Thought on War and Peace (Oxford University Press, 1987).

Following is a review that I stumbled across today in the process of research on the web. It should give readers some sense as to what the book is about and Weigel's thesis:

This is a remarkable book not only for the breadth of its coverage on a complicated politico-moral question, but because it is literary. George Weigel not only knows what his subject matter is, but he writes in declarative sentences which are readily understood. He also eschews the nuances used by many modern scholars to insinuate points of view without arguing them openly. Although pundits will do their best to label this book to prejudice potential readers from following it with an open mind, it is too packed with facts and principles to be categorized easily. Although more empirical, Tranquillitas Ordinis deserves to be on the same shelf as John Courtney Murray's We Hold These Truths.
We tend to forget in this age of slogans and shibboleths that the Catholic Church has had long and continuous experience with questions of war and peace and with a variety of political environments. Force, aggression, deterrence, hostages, burnt-out cities are old stuff to Catholic divines. Who better than St. Augustine knew the capacity of ancient armies to bury so great a city as Carthage and its 300,000 inhabitants. St. Ambrose, the optimist of his day, was confident that Roman Emperors with their new Christian piety could guarantee world peace. Then came the sack of Italy by Alaric the Hun and Ambrose's optimism faded. It was his convert Augustine who faced up to the reality of world politics, comprised of kingdoms organized to pursue their own selfish ends. There can never be a perfect Christian state, Augustine argued, so he advised against moralizing simplistically about the use of force on earth, only about its unreasonable and excessive use. Thus, the "just war theory" came into existence; defining the limits of justifiable defense. The Founding Father of the United States set similar limits in the preamble of our Constitution.
In thirteen chapters George Weigel does more than trace Catholic thought from Augustine through Aquinas, John Courtney Murray, Vatican II and its aftermath. He digs deep into the practical implications of the principle that a rightly-ordered political community, using moderate force, is necessary to maintain Tranquillitas Ordinis. Father Murray is Weigel's hero for unfolding the Catholic principles which underlay "the American experiment"-"a nation under God," ruled by consent of the governed, who have rights antecedent to the state, who are expected to exercise those rights individually and collectively within a framework of civic virtue. In adjudicating issues of war and peace, Murray called for "discriminating moral judgment," not simple appeals to biblical texts. Because military decisions are a species of political decisions, the Jesuit ground-breaker called for political. choices to be made within a moral framework of one kind or another. Murray spent the last years of his life developing such a framework and the moral reasoning which underpinned it. Although he never came to grips with the significance of pacifism or the United Nations' potential, his legacy is clear enough.
The remaining chapters take up the abandonment of this Augustinian heritage by modern Catholic elites. As George Weigel sees it, "they have become softly neo-isolationist, anti-anti-communist, and highly skeptical of the moral worthiness of the American Experiment." They see conflict as primarily psychological, whose alleviation is to be found in understanding and better communication. If enough people have the right intentions and are willing to act on them peace can be achieved, the new Pelagians aver. Contrariwise, Weigel argues that conflicts between states are political in origin and must be dealt with through an orderly political process which accentuates reason, not by imperatives or wishful thinking. At present America is caught up in a dilemma: Do we preserve peace by limiting our concern for our own independence and the freedom of friends beyond our shores? Or do we defend freedom and human rights even at the price of armament races, even of war?
Tranquillitas Ordinis takes the reader through the U.S. bishops' effort to resolve the dilemma with their 1983 pastoral "The Challenge of Peace." He calls it a brave effort, although he faults the staff for its presumptive "nuclear pacifism," for its other idological assumptions, and for its control of the framework under which the bishops functioned. The last seventy pages are devoted to developing a proper response to the realities of international politics within the framework of the Catholic tradition. He places his confidence in politics and is quite good in answering his own questions about the use of force and the role of America.

-- Review by Charles J. Leonard. Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly Newsletter Vol. 10, No. 4. Sept. 1987.

2005-11-18T19:49:00.000-08:00

NoEndButVictory.com. "First Peace, Then Withdrawal."

Iraqi Special Tribunal

2005-10-22T20:17:00.000-07:00

We are indeed in the internet age. Here is the link to the Iraqi Special Tribunal (IST) which will try former genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein, hopefully, in the very near future. The link includes a photo gallery of mass graves. So the inevitable question comes to critics of the Iraq War: was the war worth it?

Thanks to Catholic Analysis.

Whose Al Qaeda Problem?

2005-10-18T09:21:00.000-07:00

"British journalists Robert Fisk, John Pilger, and Tariq Ali, along with British MP George Galloway, and, on the other side of the Atlantic, commentators such as Naomi Klein have all essentially blamed Britain and the United States for bringing the attacks upon themselves. While being careful to denounce the bombers and their agenda, these advocates uttered variations on the same theme: get out of Iraq, bring home the troops from all points east, curtail support for Israel, develop a more sensible, non-oil-based energy policy, and our troubles would dissipate in the wind. . . .
. . . theirs is also a truncated analysis. They assume that groups like al-Qaida are almost entirely reactive, responding to western policies and actions, rather than being pro-active creatures with a virulent homegrown agenda, one not just of defence but of conquest, destruction of rivals, and, ultimately and at its most megalomaniacal, absolute subjugation.
It misses the central point: that, unlike traditional “third-world” liberation movements looking for a bit of peace and quiet in which to nurture embryonic states, al-Qaida is classically imperialist, looking to subvert established social orders and to replace the cultural and institutional infrastructure of its enemies with a (divinely inspired) hierarchical autocracy of its own, looking to craft the next chapter of human history in its own image.
Simply blaming the never quite defined, yet implicitly all-powerful “west” for the ills of the world doesn’t explain why al-Qaida slaughtered thousands of Americans eighteen months before Saddam was overthrown. Nor does it explain the psychopathic joy this death cult takes in mass killings and in ritualistic, snuff-movie-style beheadings. The term “collateral damage” may be inept, but it at least suggests that the killing of civilians in pursuit of a state’s war aims is unintentional, regrettable; there is nothing unintentional, there is no regret, in the targeting of civilians by al-Qaida’s bombers. . . .

"Whose al-Qaida problem?", by Sasha Abrahmsky. OpemDemocracy.org. October 4, 2005.

"War of Aggression"?

2005-10-12T01:36:00.000-07:00

This post is meant to address some aspects of criticism of U.S. foreign policy as alluded to in Stephen Hand's "claim to victory" posted Sept. 10, 2005 to his blog, TCRMusings: We Are Satisfied That We Have Made a Decisive Case Against Neoconservative Politics, Foreign Policy and War:

...thus we think we can rest our case, having done the work, engaged the great crisis of our time to the best of our ability. The reason we at TCR have spent so much time doing our part, is that a war is on, the horrors of which human beings on all sides are daily reaping with no end in sight, dying to this day, and we are convinced this war of aggression has reinforced much of the Islamic world against us, threatening to proliferate retaliatory war against the US and the UK and its bribed "coalition" for a very long time to come. Many experts fear these hostilities could eventually lead to a third World War, which God forbid.
Catholics have a moral obligation to seek to avoid war, and, short of succeeding at that, when hostilities have already unwisely begun, to work for peace, seeking peaceful solutions to end them. Having lauched a war of aggression / invasion against a sovereign country despite the testimony of the IAEA that WMD's were not found, or even expected to be found, it is time for change, metanoia. It is time to withdraw American troops not only from Iraq asap, but also Saudi Arabia and to seek justice for both Israel and the Palestinian people, even as we seek alterantive [sic] sources of energy, making this nation less dependent on foreign oil. Human lives into the future, and the stability of the world, has been our most grave concern. We think we have made our case. We will, of course, continue to report on what others are doing as developments unfold. ---10/9/05

Who is the Aggressor?

I disagree with the characterization of our present conflict as a "war of aggression" -- either against the "sovereign nation" of Iraq, or militant Islamic terrorist organizations in general.

In the case of Iraq, one has only to mention Saddam Hussein's acts of aggression against his own people, as well as his provision of financial and material support to terrorists who have already declared jihad against the West.

As presented by Deroy Murdock ("Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror September 22, 2004 Hoover Institution), Iraq's support ranged from the provision of "bonuses" to the families of Palestinian suicide-bombers (from a personal fund of Hussein himself) to the provision of training, funding, diplomatic help, safe haven and medical care to well-known international terrorists.

Saddam Hussein paid bonuses up to $25,000 to Palestinian suicide bombers. On March 11, 2002, Iraq former deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz -- the same Aziz who on Feb. 14, 2003 met with and personally assurred Pope John Paul II of "the wish of the Iraqi government to co-operate with the international community, notably on disarmament" -- announced Saddam's "decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000." [1].

According to Mr. Murdock: "Hussein's patronage of Palestinian terror proved fatally fruitful. Between the March 11, 2002, increase in cash incentives to $25,000 and the March 20, 2003, launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including 12 Americans." [2]

According to Patterns of Global Terrorism [U.S. State Dept., May 21, 2002], the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization, and the Palestine Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Iraq. Saddam Hussein's hospitality toward these organizations occurred in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, prohibiting the safe harbor and state-sponsorship of terrorism.

Among those granted safe haven by Saddam Hussein and living in Baghdad until the time of the U.S. "war of aggression":

Abu Abbas / Muhammad Zaidan - founder of the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLO splinter group); notorious in the West for the hijacking of Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in October 1985. After segregating the Jewish passengers, an elderly Jewish-American named Leon Klinghoffer was shot dead and thrown overboard. According to Murdock,
The hijackers surrendered to Egyptian authorities in exchange for safe passage to Tunisia. Abu Abbas then joined them on a flight to freedom aboard an Egypt Air jet. However, four U.S. fighter planes forced the airliner to land at a NATO base in Sicily. Italian officials took the hijackers into custody. But Abbas possessed the ultimate get-out-of-jail card: An Iraqi diplomatic passport
Abbas fled to Baghdad, where he lived under the protection of Saddam and the Baathist regime. In the Autumn of 2001 he appeared on Iraqi state television to praise Saddam for inciting Arab opposition to Israel's policy against the Palestinians. [3] According to Fox News / Associated Press: "The PLF faction under Abbas was a conduit for Saddam's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Israel's Shin Bet intelligence service reported earlier this year that Israel captured several Palestinians who trained at a PLF camp in Iraq and were told by Abbas to attack an Israeli airport and other targets." [4]
Abu Nidal, born Sabri al-Banna, was a close aid of Yasser Arafat. He fell out with Arafat in the 70's (accusing him of being "soft") and went on to establish Fatah - the Revolutionary Council, also known as the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO). Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 more. Among the atrocities commited by the ANO: the Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks on December 27, 1985; the Sept. 1986 gun attack in the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul during Sabbath services and hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73, and according to the confession of a former colleague, the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 [5]. Nidal's terrorist activities subsided in the 90's due to internal dissension when, in a fit of paranoid self-destruction, he "turned his terror campaign inward." 6] He took shelter in Iraq from at least 1999 (stories conflict as to whether he entered into Iraq secretly or "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities" [7], as the ANO Beirut office claims. In any case, by 2001 he was living openly, in defiance of the Jordanian government (who sentenced him in absentia in 2001 to death for his role in the 1994 assassination of a Jordanian diplomat). He died of multiple gunshot wounds in late August 2002, presumably at the hands of Iraqi Intelligence].
Abdul Rahman Yasin, wanted by the FBI for his role in making the bombs for the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York. Questioned and the mistakenly released by the FBI, Yasin fled to Baghdad, Iraq, where he was spotted in 1994 and reported to be operating freely ("A neighbor told the reporter that Yasin was working for the Iraqi government. Documents recovered from postwar Iraq indicate that Yasin received not only safe haven in Iraq, but also funding from the former Iraqi regime"). [8]
Abu Musab al Zarqawi - Zarqawi is a Jordanian and veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war. In the late 1990's he founded the organization Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad [Monotheism and Holy War], originally with the intent of overthrowing the Jordanian government. Zarqawi operated a training camp near Herat, Afghanistan, fleeing to -- where else? -- Baghdad after the U.S. led overthrow of the Taliban, where he received treatment for an injured leg. He developed ties to Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Islamist militant group. He presently heads the insurgency against the new Iraqi government, self-dubbed "Al Qaeda in Iraq" -- responsible for the kidnapping/beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg, South Korean Kim Sun-il, Bulgerian truck-drivers Georgi Lazov and Ivaylo Kepov; Americans Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong and Briton Kenneth Bigley and Japanese citizen Shosei Koda. Zarqawi's network is also responsible for countless suicide and car bombings and the indiscriminate slaughter of Iraqi citizens and U.S./Coalition soldiers.

For information on Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda, see Daniel Darling's post on the imminent threat Iraq posed in light of its collaborations with Ansar al-Islam; as well as Stephen Haye's investigative articles in the Weekly Standard and his book: The Connection (Harper Collins, June 2004).

In light of Iraq's past history as a "safe haven" for terrorists -- against other nations as well as the oppression of its own citizens, it seems that the perpetrators of aggression at this moment in time are chiefly those involved in acts of terrorism against the newly-established government in Iraq, Iraqi citizens, and Coalition forces.

Iraq -- "Sovereign Nation"?

Regarding the defense of Iraq as a "sovereign nation" in protest of the unjustifiable "aggression" of the United States, I am sympathetic to George Weigel's observation [Idealism Without Illusions: U.S. Foreign Policy in the 1990's Eerdmans, 1994]:

State sovereignty, and the consequent immunity of states from interference in their "internal affairs" is not an exceptionless norm. By agreeing to certain international human rights agreements, for example, states have voluntarily limited their sovereign claims to non-interference in their internal practices. The nature of international public life today has also "internationalized" questions that would, in an earlier era, have been regarded as a state's domestic affairs. When innocent citizens of European and North American states are put at risk in European airports because of disputes over "self-determination" in the Middle East, those disputes (and the involvement of other states and terrorist organizations in them) cannot be considered the "internal affiars" of the states (and the organizations) involved.
Moral reasoning, too, leads us to conclude that the principle of state sovereignty must not be considered exceptionless. Suppose that Nazi Germany had forsworn aggression after recovering the Rhineland and the Sudentenland, and had proceeded to implement the "Final Solution" to the Judenfrage within its own internationally recognized borders. Would the principle of state sovereignty have meant that other states were forbidden to interfere in this German "internal affair"? [. . .]
Put that way, the question seems to answer itself: whatever else it might mean, the principle of state sovereignty cannot mean that states are free to engage in the indiscriminate slaughter of religious, racial, or ethnic minorities within their borders. When that is taking place, othes have a right -- perhaps even a duty -- to intervene to stop the killing.

Although written in 1994, Weigel's observation could be brought to bear on the status of Iraq and other "rogue nations" with histories of fostering terrorism.

James Turner Johnson drew attention to the question of sovereignty, humanitarian intervention and the necessity of regime change in "Using Military Force Against the Saddam Hussein Regime: the Moral Issues" December 4, 2002. Noting that the U.S. Bishops in 1993 issued a statement The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace (USCCB Nov. 17, 1993) "declaring humanitarian intervention a duty in cases of gross human rights violations, observing that claims of sovereignty by those engaged in such violations have no absolute status in Catholic teaching, and accepting the use of force as a form of intervention," Johnson wondered "Where are these voices now? Are the rights of Iraqis less important than those of Bosnians, Kosovars, and Rwandans?" He went on to compare two distinct and conflicting notions of national sovereignty:

The Catholic bishops' position on the rights of sovereignty is rich in its implications. Catholic teaching on this reflects the idea of sovereignty found in Western political philosophy as late as the American and French revolutions, but replaced more recently by the idea of sovereignty in the Westphalian system. Under the older idea, sovereignty is an essentially moral construct; persons in sovereign authority are responsible for the good of their political community, for the "common weal." This implied establishing an order that served justice and achieved peace, along with an obligation to other political communities to support order, justice, and peace in and among them. Failure to discharge these obligations removes the rights of sovereignty. This line of reasoning is found, in different ways, in both the Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
In contrast to this moral conception of sovereignty is that regularly associated with the Peace of Westphalia, by which sovereignty is defined by a particular territory and by recognized governmental control over it and its inhabitants. This conception may be read to grant any government immunity from interference in the way it handles its internal affairs and treats its people. Thus Slobodan Milosevic, on his first appearance before the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, denied the Court's authority to indict and try him, claiming sovereign immunity. Similarly, Saddam Hussein has insisted that weapons inspectors-and UN resolutions of any kind-not infringe on Iraq's sovereignty. On the older, moral understanding of sovereignty, though, he has forfeited the right to sovereign immunity by his tyrannical exercise of government. We already see the resurgence of this idea in the indictments handed down by the international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Indeed, though the idea of war crimes tribunals for deposed tyrants and their regimes is relatively new, that of removing and replacing an evil regime is not at all new: consider Tanzania's deposition of Idi Amin in Uganda, Vietnam's deposition of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and the United States' removal of Manuel Noriega in Panama. Regime change is not an innovation cooked up in the mind of Paul Wolfowitz; it is a feature of the international order. Not only is there no duty not to seek to effect regime change, there may in fact be a duty to seek to do so, both on behalf of the immediate victims of their cruelty and on behalf of the international order itself.

WMD's and Lack Thereof

Finally, there is something to be said on the inordinate emphasis and basis for the removal of Saddam on the possession of WMD's alone. Unfortunately enough, this emphasis has been the focus not only by various members of the Bush Administration leading up to the war, but also by anti-war protestors in their case against the war -- the reasoning being that the failure to discover WMD's in post-war Iraq points to the collective failure of U.S. intelligence, thereby "retroactively" rendering U.S. intervention in Iraq "unjust" on grounds that WMD's never existed.

This was the argument of Senator Barbara Boxer during the confirmation hearings of Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice:

Rice: It wasn't just weapons of mass destruction. He was also a place -- his territory was a place where terrorists were welcomed, where he paid suicide bombers to bomb Israel, where he had used Scuds against Israel in the past.
And so we knew what his intentions were in the region; where he had attacked his neighbors before and, in fact, tried to annex Kuwait; where we had gone to war against him twice in the past. It was the total picture, Senator, not just weapons of mass destruction, that caused us to decide that, post-September 11th, it was finally time to deal with Saddam Hussein.
Boxer: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

As a friend pointed out, Boxer's feeble attempt at historical revision is easily dispatched by a check of the Congressional record itself. The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 includes, in addition to the "development of weapons of mass destruction" in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, charges of "brutal repression of [Iraq's own] civilian population"; refusal to "release, repatriate or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained"; "continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States" -- including the attempted assassination of President Bush, Sr. and attacks on U.S. and Coalition forces enforcing the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council; the aid and harbor of international terrorist organizations, including members of Al Qaeda . . . et al. (Weapons of Mass Distraction MysteryAchievement, January 19, 2005).

In any case, repeated violations of the U.N. Security Council resolutions are not to be taken lightly. As I. Shawn McElhinnney (rightly) insists: ("Why Those Who Hold Out For Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Wrong" Rerum-Novarum Feb. 9, 2003):

My arguments are that [Iraq] is in material breach, has been for over twelve years (of UN resolutions: if we count international accords then we could go back to at least 1979 if not earlier), and we cannot continue to make a mockery of the notion of "keeping the peace" if all we issue to this guy is papers saying 'this is your last warning'."

George Weigel expressed similar frustration in The Just War Case for the War (America March 31, 2003):

In the case of Iraq, the debate . . . came down to one question: how many more "final" Security Council resolutions were required to satisfy the war-decision criterion of competent authority? When Resolution 1441 was meticulously negotiated last November, everyone understood that the "serious consequences" to follow Iraqís material breach of the demand for its disarmament and its active cooperation in that disarmament meant intervention through armed force to enforce disarmament. Is it obtuse to suggest that the unanimous acceptance of 1441, by a Security Council which obviously understood what "serious consequences" meant, satisfies the criterion of "competent authority" - and precisely on the grounds advocated by those who argue for the superior competence of the U.N.? No. Absent another "final" Security Council resolution, would the use of armed force to compel Iraqi disarmament mean that brute force had displaced the rule of law in world affairs? No. It would mean that a coalition of states had decided, on just war grounds, that they had a moral obligation to take measures that the U.N., as presently configured, found it impossible to take - even though those measures advance the U.N.'s goals.

* * *

A common failure by some activists to recognize and address Iraq's long history of support for terrorism and the multiple reasons behind U.S. intervention have, regretablly, led some critics to indulge in questionable allegations at a marked variance with reality, as in the proclamation that:

"[The Iraq War] was about "vital interests" ---- to wit: oil and making Iraq free for US / UK army bases to watch over those fields, for globalist business ventures galore: Haliburton, McDonalds, Penthouse & beer (discreetly under wraps), and Islamic Disney parks, and so on" (TCRMusings, circa. Sept. 2005)

and morally-outrageous conclusions as:

The Irony of the Iraq War . . . is that according to the old Just War criteria, which, with Benedict XVI, we consider obsolete in a nuclear world, the insugency [sic] in Iraq (consistings [sic] of all factions) has strict justice on its side (though we do not approve of war in any case) since they are defending their homeland against a foreign aggressor and a puppet government. (TCRMusings, Sept. 22, 2005)

The Just War scholar James Turner Johnson has written a book examining these issues in The War To Oust Saddam Hussein: Just War and the New Face of Conflict Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2005. Being one of the foremost American scholars of the just war tradition, Johnson's book will address such questions as:

"What should be the standard for pre-emptive uses of military force?
What of the other arguments the Bush Administration offered for the need to remove Saddam Hussein and restructure Iraq?
What is to be said for the future about the possibilities of fruitful relations between the cultures of the West and of Islam?"

If this post fails in its intent, perhaps Johnson's contributions in this area will bring some clarity to this discussion.

Reuters, "Hussein vows cash for martyrs." March 12, 2002. Published in The Australian, March 13, 2002, page 9.
Facts of Israel.com, "Chronology of Palestinian Homicide Bombings."
The Road to Hell Is Paved with Acts of Terror, by Deroy Murdock. National Review March 10, 2004.
Palestinian Terrorist Abu Abbas Arrested April 16, 2003.
Aide says Nidal confessed to Lockerbie bombing Nicholas Pyke. The Guardian Friday August 23, 2002.
Dead Terrorist in Baghdad by Michael Ledeen. National Review Online August 20, 2002.
Sameer N. Yacoub, "Iraq claims terrorist leader committed suicide". August 21, 2002 Associated Press dispatch published in Portsmouth Herald, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 22, 2002.
Yasin, Abdul Rahman [Profile] MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base.

2005-10-08T14:39:00.001-07:00

One Code to Rule Them All: "Congress owes it to America, our allies, and our soldiers to set clear standards for the treatment of detainees," by Tom Donnelly & Vance Serchuk. Weekly Standard October 4, 2005.
Detainee Abuse Redux, by Dan Darling. Winds of Change. October 6, 2005 08:40 AM.
"Thou Shalt Not . . .", by the Mudville Gazzette: "Much will be written about the Senate's passage of a measure codifying standards for the treatment of detainees by the US military. (For a news report on the topic, see the Washington Post story here. For blog coverage see Instapundit here)
Before this story becomes inevitably convoluted (or "FUBAR", as we say in the military) I thought I'd present a few facts, sans opinion on the issue. As I've noted before on other topics, public discourse should start with an informed public. . . ."
From earlier this year . . . Against Rendition: "Why the CIA shouldn't outsource interrogations to countries that torture", by Reuel Marc Gerecht. Weekly Standard May 16, 2005.

James Turner Johnson: the War to Oust Saddam Hussein

2005-10-07T00:46:00.000-07:00

The War To Oust Saddam Hussein: Just War and the New Face of Conflict Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2005. [Currently only available from the publisher's website]

From the publishers: As a leading authority on the development and application of moral traditions related to war, Johnson's analysis relates the conflict in Iraq to the broader context of the ongoing war between the West and radical Islam, the United States' "war on terrorism," and the emerging principles of preemptive military actions. After setting the context by comparing the principles of Just War to those of Jihad, Johnson provides a thorough and accessible moral analysis of the debate leading up to the war in Iraq, the implementation of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the lessons to be learned from the conflict.

The War To Oust Saddam Hussein: Just War and the New Face of Conflict addresses the key questions most people are asking today: What should be the standard for pre-emptive uses of military force? What of the other arguments the Bush Administration offered for the need to remove Saddam Hussein and restructure Iraq? What is to be said for the future about the possibilities of fruitful relations between the cultures of the West and of Islam?

About The Author

James Turner Johnson is a professor in the Department of Religion at Rutgers University. He has a Ph.D. in religion from Princeton University. A recipient of a National Endowment for the Humanities and Guggenheim Fellowships, he lives in Frenchtown, New Jersey, in Hunterdon County, near Philadelphia.

Contents

Setting the Context: Are We Involved in a Clash of Civilizations?
- Jihad and Just War: Ethical Perspectives on the New Face of Conflict
- Disciplining Just War Thinking: Uses and Misuses of the Just War Idea in Recent American Debate
The War To Oust Saddam Hussein: Before
- The Debate Over Using Force Against the Saddam Hussein Regime: Was the Use of Force Justified?
The War To Oust Saddam Hussein: During
- Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Moralist's Notebook
The War To Oust Saddam Hussein: After
- Looking Back as a Way of Looking Ahead

Iraq and Just War Revisited

2005-10-06T21:02:00.000-07:00

Chris Burgwald (Veritas) has written an excellent post "Iraq: A Just War?", continuing a dialogue initiated on David Jones' blog (here) with Dr. J.P. Hubert, Jr., MD FACS, on whether the Iraq war meets just war criteria.

In response to the oft-repeated statements by Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Chris noted:

. . . I fully agree that the notion of disagreement with the CDF Prefect (let alone the Holy Father himself) requires careful thought and discernment. But it can be licit. It's well-known that Ratzinger looked askance at the Assissi meetings, even thought they were a "pet" of JPII's. I am not saying that my wisdom and intellect match Ratzinger's, but I do think that there are problems with the position he articulated.
For instance, in the same statement you are referring to, he doubted that just war was even possible today. In and of itself (i.e. prescinding from context which was perhaps not revealed), that is a difficult statement to make sense of. The Vatican itself publicly agreed that the US's actions against the Taliban were licit. (In fact, come to think of it, one might argue that the same arguments being employed against the justice of the Iraq War also obtain with regard to Afghanistan, in that that nation did not initiate hostilities against the US.) [This strikes me as an important point.] Furthermore, with the development of technologies that greatly reduce the danger to innocents, it seems that it's easier to be in accord with the tenets of that doctrine.

On the question of whether modern technology necessarily renders the tradition of 'just war' invalid was addressed by James Turner Johnson, a scholar well-versed in the just war tradition and the ethics of warfare (Pope Benedict, Modern Weaponry and Civilian Casualties (Just War? June 18, 2005).

Likewise, a case study of this issue would be the U.S. "Shock & Awe" bombing campaign which, despite the misleading title, demonstrated the U.S. military's specific desire to minimize civilian casualties through the use of guided weaponry ("Shock & Awe, Civilian Casualties and Questionable Statistics" Just War? June 17, 2005).

Fr. Schall on "The One War, The Real War"

2005-07-09T10:42:00.000-07:00

Just at a moment when many liberal western media and political sources insisted that this war was "caused" by overreaction on the part of President Bush to 9/11, the Islamic militants oblige us with another graphic incident. They will not go away until actually defeated. They do not negotiate or give advanced warnings. They kill the innocent, in cold blood, precisely because they are innocent and unprepared to defend themselves. They see and justify this arbitrary killing as a legitimate means to their religious and political end, the conquest of the world for Islam. . . .

. . . There are not "two" wars -- one in Iraq and one against the terrorists. There is but one war, wherever it is fought, including in London or Baghdad. The terrorists are fully capable of being everywhere. They are invariably Muslim radicals intent on a world mission at least claiming a religious duty. They are not primarily "caused" by poverty or any of the usual ideological reasons given to justify terror. . . .

The main battlefield of the war is not Iraq or even London tubes. It is in the media and public opinion in the United States and Europe about whether the will to do what is necessary to prevent these attacks is firm enough over a long period of time. Civilian and suicide bombings have a political purpose and a religious purpose.

The political purpose is a calculated risk that continued bombings would show that Western powers cannot defend their own populations. Consequently, they should cease trying. They should rather, in return for "peace," submit to Islamic neutralization of their territories, a kind of compromised second-class citizenship. Likewise, they should withdraw from any effort to prevent such attacks in Muslim lands themselves.

The religious purpose of this war, in the minds of its advocates, is to succeed in subjecting the world to Allah. This purpose, no doubt, sounds preposterous. But I think that we misunderstand the problem if we do not disassociate what these terrorists themselves say from our theories of "terrorism." The problem is not caused by fanaticism or some political, sociological, or psychological derangement. . . .

. . . Al-Qaeda forces may have seen their reputation so questioned by the effects of the Afghanistan and Iraq phases of the war that they felt it absolutely necessary to show some flashy sign of strength. If so, this too is in effect a sign of their weakness. They revealed themselves for what they are once more. It has been taken as a truism that it is better to fight these forces on their own grounds and not in London or New York or Madrid. The war overseas does not prove that it is not effective, but that it is. But the latter three cities, however orchestrated, are part of the same war.

In this sense, we can be grateful that the Islamic terrorists in London again called our flagging attention to the real war, the one against those who first declared war against us in the name of their religious and political mission. The first effort has been and still is to undermine any effective opposition. Whether this purpose can be achieved by terrorism and its effect on public opinion remains to be seen.

Excerpts from "The One War, The Real War", by Fr. James Schall. Ignatius Insight July 8, 2005.

2005-06-25T07:03:00.000-07:00

On Lawful Plunder and Possible Remedies, I. Shawn McElhinney on the logical and practical consequences of those seeking an "abolition of war" in a fallen world.

Pope Benedict, Modern Weaponry and Civilian Casualties

2005-06-18T19:41:00.000-07:00

With respect to the war in Iraq, it must be recognized that Pope Benedict has offered a somewhat stronger, more explicit opinion on the war in Iraq, as documented by Michael Griffin of the Catholic Peace Fellowshiop ("A New Peace Pope"). In a May 2, 2003 interview, then Cardinal Ratzinger reiterated the Pope's appeal to conscience and Martino's question of the applicability of the Just War criteria:

Q: Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?

Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.

The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

About this we can note several things. First, as with the American bishops, Ratzinger's predication of the judgement that modern warfare is "inherently unjust" on the destructive capacity of modern weaponry is not immune from criticism. Just war scholar James Turner Johnson addresses this very criticism in "Just War, As It Was and Is First Things 149 (January 2005):

The problem with this conception of gross destructiveness as inherent in modern warfare, though, is that it is a contingent judgment being made to do service as a permanent truth. By contrast to the model of the two World Wars, as well as to imagined models of global nuclear holocaust, the actual face of warfare since 1945 has been that of civil wars and regional armed conflicts. Such armed conflict has indeed been bloody, sometimes genocidal, sometimes terroristic, always characterized by violence directed toward noncombatants; yet there has been no "World War III" -- or rather, given the ubiquity of this kind of conflict, this is in fact the face of "World War III." The destructiveness of these recent wars has everything to do with the choices made by those who fight them and nothing to do with any alleged inherent destructiveness of modern weaponry. In other words, the modern-war pacifists get it wrong: their contingent judgment does not describe a permanent truth about warfare in the modern age. The morality of modern war, as of all war, depends on the moral choices of those who fight it. It is not the choice to fight that is inherently wrong, as the "presumption against war" argument has it; it is the choice to fight for immoral reasons and/or by immoral means.

As Johnson says, the actual villians here "are not states as such but regional warlards, rulers who oppress their people to maintain or expand their power, and individuals and groups who use religious or ethnic difference as a justification for oppression, torture, and genocide." Civilian casualties occur not due to indiscriminate bombing so much as the fact that they are made the direct targets "the direct targets of weapons ranging from knives to automatic rifles to suicide bombs." A case in point would be the current state of Iraq, where Islamic fundamentalists are waging a campaign of terrorism and mass-murder against the civilians of Iraq who are in a process of building their own country and democratic government. On a similar note, says Johnson:

As progressively shown in the Gulf War of 1990-91, the bombing of Serbia over the oppression of the Albanian Kosovars, the campaign in Afghanistan aimed at al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and most recently (and most fully) in the recent use of armed force to remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, the United States, and to an important degree also the British, have channeled high technology in ways that allow war to be fought according to the actual principles of the just war jus in bello: this includes avoidance of direct, intended harm to noncombatants and avoidance of disproportionate harm in the use of otherwise justified means of war. The results, for those who care to look at them, are simply astonishing, especially by contrast to the level of destruction and the harm to noncombatant lives and property found, say, in carpet-bombing. This, too, is the face of modern war.

Today we see a new kind of confrontation. On the one hand, we see non-state actors, as well as warlords and heads of state who use relatively unsophisticated means to gain their ends by targeting, terrorizing, and killing noncombatants and, as in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers or the bombing of the Madrid trains, intentionally causing lasting property damage, civilian deaths, and widespread fear. On the other hand, we find a state that has used its intellectual and economic capital to develop weapons, tactics, strategies, and training directed toward maximizing discrimination and proportionality in the use of armed force. Both of these developments in the actual face of war need to be taken seriously and integrated into a contemporary moral assessment of war based on a recovery of the classic meaning of the just war tradition.

Just War? -- The Catholic Church and the War in Iraq

Solidarity with Christians in Iraq

Iraqi Election may provide encouragement for Christians' return home

Heart of U.S. Occupation Reverts to Iraqi Control

Christmas in Iraq

What can we be thankful for in Iraq?

Bridging the divide between Sunni & Shia

Christian, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders join in a prayer for peace

Christians and Muslims show solidarity for victims of Kirkuk attack

Iraqi Christians Rebuild Churches

Associated Press: ""US now winning Iraq war" + Iraqi News Roundup

Pope Benedict XVI meets with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki

Anbar Awaking Leader questions Obama's Plan of Withdrawal

Iraqi Military express reservations about Obama's plan of withdrawal

Good News from Iraq (Roundup)

Bishop Hollis: "Light of faith is alive in Iraq, despite persecution by Muslim extremists"

Iraqi Museum "Looted"? - Behind the Myth

Sheikh Amed goes to Washington

Peace in Iraq

America Magazine: "The Jesuits of Baghdad"

A "Salute" to Archbishop Timothy Paul Broglio

The Vatican, The Anbar Awakening and the "Protector of the Chaldean Catholics"

Pope Mourns Death of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho

Iraq News Update

InsideCatholic.com: Bring The Troops Home?

National Journal vs. The Lancet

Fr. Richard Neuhaus on "The Warrior Class"

Benedict Appoints Archbishop Timothy Paul Broglio to Head of Archdiocese for the Military Services

Bill Roggio: Sunni clerics turn on Association of Muslim Scholars

U.S. Catholic Bishops call for bipartisan cooperation and responsible transition in Iraq

Bloggers Meet President Bush in White House

Tribute: Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha and Army Capt. Travis Patriquin

Petraeus Report

Is The "Surge" Working?

Encouraging News from the Front

WMD's.

Recommended Reading

Reactions to the Iraq Study Group Report

Gold Star Families Travel to Iraq

Bill Roggio on "The Military and the Media"

I support the U.S. Bishops on Iraq

The Militant Ideology Atlas

War "no good to anyone" - The words of a Pacifist Pope?

Israel - Hezbollah - Lebanon, "Proportionality" and Just War Theory

Bush goes Jogging with Iraqi Amputee (Not the First Time)

Iraq and The War and Terror - A Roundup

Toward a Proper Understanding of the Just War Tradition

Haditha - A Rush to Judgement?

Dr. Edward Peters clarifies contribution to Neo-Conned, IHS Press

Front Line Faith

The Liberation of Iraq & The War on Terror - A Roundup

Michael Yon on 'Operation Iraqi Children'

Spero News: The Year in Military Heroism

Michael Novak - background to the speech "'Asymmetrical Warfare' & Just War"

Dispelling the Myths about Iraq: Juan Cole and James Phillips

"The Jews of Europe are now the Kurds of Iraq"

The Iraqi Elections - A Roundup

Maintaining my Status as a Warblogger: The Mother of All Roundups

George Weigel's Tranquillitas Ordinis

Iraqi Special Tribunal

Whose Al Qaeda Problem?

"War of Aggression"?

James Turner Johnson: the War to Oust Saddam Hussein

Iraq and Just War Revisited

Fr. Schall on "The One War, The Real War"

Pope Benedict, Modern Weaponry and Civilian Casualties