Iraqi Elections - Ongoing Roundup of Blogs & Commentary

Iraqi Election Watch provides inside information from Iraq on the historic Jan. 30 elections compiled by FDD staff and fellows. Iraqi Media Excerpts from Iraqi news sources on developments related to the election. Iraqi Blogs - Highlights from Arabic and English-language blogs that provide new or interesting information on what's actually happening inside Iraq. Democracy Activists - Reports from Iraqi democracy activists on the ground. FDD Analysis - Commentary and analysis on the campaign, voting, and final results. From the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

• From Oswald Sobrino (Catholic Analysis):
  The AP photo by Adam Butler records an 83-year-old Iraqi preparing to vote in London. The AP reports that "[t]his is the first time she has participated in an Iraqi election" (see other AP report). The faces and smiles tell the story of freedom. All eyes are on the Iraqi elections this weekend. We pray that God will protect the brave who dare to go and vote for a decent and dignified future for themselves and their families (see London Timesonline report, "Voting fever takes hold of a people finally free to choose"). Thanks to President Bush and our military for making this future possible. Since the picture speaks for itself, no further commentary is needed today.

• John Schultz (Catholic Light) passes along an email from Battalion Chaplain Lyle Shackelford delivering the voting machines and the ballots to villages and cities throughout Iraq, who asks for prayers on behalf of all who read:
  . . . There is unlimited potential for God's presence in this process but if we do not pray, then our enemy will prevail (See Ephesians 6:10-17). A prayer vigil prior to the end of the month may be an innovative opportunity for those within your sphere of influence to pray. This is a political battle that needs spiritual intervention. A powerful story about God's intervention in the lives of David's mighty men is recorded in 2 Samuel 23:8-33. David and his warriors were victorious because of God's intervention. We want to overcome those who would stand in the way of freedom. David's mighty men triumphed over incredible odds and stood their ground and were victorious over the enemies of Israel. (Iraqi insurgents' vs God's praying people). They don't stand a chance.

  I will pray with my soldiers before they leave on their convoys and move outside our installation gates here at Tallil. My soldiers are at the nerve center of the logistic operation to deliver the voting machines and election ballots. They will be driving to and entering the arena of the enemy.

  This is not a game for them. It is an historic mission that is extremely dangerous. No voting machines or ballots, No elections. Your prayer support and God's intervention are needed to give democracy a chance in this war torn country. Thank you for your prayer support for me and my family. Stand firm in your battles.

• Lane Core Jr. (Blog from the Core explains why our future hangs in the balance on January 30-31, 2005:
  If we do not succesfully plant the seeds of democratic government in the Middle East — beginning with Iraq, and expanding thence over the years & decades & generations -- our children and grandchildren will be condemned to live in a world where freedom of religion and conscience -- where the rule of law and respect for individual dignity -- won't even be memories because they will have been obliterated.

  The power of the United States of America — military, financial, diplomatic, and cultural — to project its force around the world, to remove despotic regimes and enforce the beginnings of freedom amongst peoples who have never known it, or have no living memory of it, is what stands between us and the Dark Ages of the Future.

  That, and the courage of Iraqi citizens — those who stand for office, and those who vote. Please keep them, and our soldiers in Iraq, in your prayers these days.

• Senator "No Blood for Oil" Kennedy took the opportunity to raise the spectre of Vietnam, calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops following the election. Belmont Club responds, marshalling the witness of Chaldean Bishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk.

• The Daily Demarche has a special request
  For all the Bush haters out there, for all the pundits who think it is clever to spell Republican with a triple "k", I have a challenge for all of you. For one day, less probably by the time you hear of this, devote some of that energy to wishing success to the people of Iraq in this election. Forget for one day your raging anger and calls for us to abandon Iraq. It’s not going to happen, and for this single day we could use your support. You can resume your attacks on the Administration on Monday - because you live in a free land.

• Ali -- an Iraqi blogger in Baghdad:

  All my life like all Iraqis, I was not in control of my life. I started looking to myself as a humanist many years ago. Maybe it's because I lost belief in my government and even sometimes in my country and my people. My country was just a stupid large piece of dirt that meant nothing and offered nothing to me but suffering and humiliation. . . .

  Now, and thanks to other humans, not from my area, religion and who don't even speak my language, I and all Iraqis have the real chance to make the change. Now I OWN my home and I can decide who's going to run things in it and how and I won't waste that chance. Tomorrow as I cast my vote, I'll regain my home. I'll regain my humanity and my dignity, as I stand and fulfill part of my responsibilities to this part of the large brotherhood of humanity. Tomorrow I'll say I'M IRAQI AND I'M PROUD, as being Iraqi this time bears a different meaning in my mind. It's being an active and good part of humanity. Tomorrow I and the Iraqis that are going to vote will rule, not the politicians we're going to vote for, as it's our decision and they'll work for us this time and if we don't like them we'll kick them out! Tomorrow my heart will race my hand to the box. Tomorrow I'll race even the sun to the voting centre, my Ka'aba and my Mecca. I'm so excited and so happy that I can't even feel the fear I though I would have at this time. I can't wait until tomorrow.

Joyful Iraqi Exiles Vote in Landmark Election by Suleiman al-Khalidi. Reuters. Jan. 28, 2005. Man drives to Calgary to vote in Iraqi election (14 hours!) - CBC News. Jan. 28, 2005. Iraqis in Australia cast first votes in election, by Michael Perry. Reuters. Jan. 28, 2005.

• Jeff Jarvis (BuzzMachine has a roundup of quotes from Iraqi bloggers' as they anticipate the vote. "They all should be an inspiration -- and perhaps a shame -- to those of us who have become blase about democracy and freedom, who growl over our choices and don't even bother showing up at the polls. Democracy is fragile and precious; we forget that. These people don't." Here's a Iraqi bloggers covering the election, also courtesy of Jeff.
• FriendsofDemocracy.Org, another organization bringing you "ground-level election news from the Iraqi people."

• Radioblogger has a photo-blog of proud Iraqis voting in El Toro, California. Lots of smiling faces and an interesting story -- two Iraqis men "came to vote today, with their families, and recognized each other. They started talking and realized that they hadn't seen each other in fifty years. They were about ten years old in Iraq the last time they saw each other." What a reunion!

• How do you begin to contain the emotion of contributing to freedom for the very first time in over 50 years. And for many - the first time ever in their life?" -- Kevin McCullough captures the emotions of many Iraqis with another series of photos.

• Michelle Malkin shares a relevant question from a reader: "Why don't we see the human shields at the polls in Iraq? They were willing to protect Iraq from bombs before the war started. Why aren't they protecting Iraq now?"

• From BlogsofWar:

  Atheer Almudhafer, from Falls Church, Va., gives the Iraqi sign of victory after casting his absentee ballot at the New Carrollton, Md., voting station, Jan. 28, 2005. His finger is marked with indelible blue ink, intended to prevent double voting. "I give the sign of peace and voting. Together it is victory." [Defense LINK]
  

• A history lesson from Arthur Herman ("Sic Temper Tyrannis: 1649 and now" NRO, January 28, 2004):
  This election, which many hope will spark a democratic revolution for the Middle East, falls on the same day -- January 30 -- as the event which set in motion the modern West's first democratic revolution more than 365 years ago. It was on that day in 1649 that King Charles I of England was beheaded after his formal trial for treason and tyranny, an epoch-shattering event that destroyed the notion of divine right of kings forever, and gave birth to the principle that reverberates down to today, from President Bush's inaugural address last week to the Iraqi election this Sunday: that all political authority requires the consent of the people. Although few like to admit it now, it was Charles's execution, along with the civil war that preceded it and the political turmoil that followed, that established our modern notions of democracy, liberty, and freedom of speech. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he was thinking primarily of the legacy of the English civil war.

• Captain's Quarters relays this report from FoxNews
  Thousands of people are now walking a 13-mile stretch between Abu Ghraib and Gazaliyah to cast votes in the elections, military sources tell Fox News. The mass march has been caught by unmanned drones, and Fox says they will soon have pictures of the subtle demonstration of the Iraqi desire for liberty.

  More as it develops. Fox also reports long lines in most polling stations, with some even calling for more ballot materials as they run out of ballots faster than they anticipated.

• Arthur Chrenkoff has more reactions of Iraqi voters (E-Day & E-Day, Part II, including this from sometime Chrenkof correspondent:
  Haider Ajina: "I just called my father in Baghdad to see if he and the rest of my Iraqi family over there have voted yet. He said we were all just heading out the door, but we will wait and talk to you (chuckling). I heard a strength and joy in his voice and could hear the rest of my relatives in the back ground. It sounded like a family reunion. My 84 year old Iraqi Grandmother will be voting for the first time in her life. My father (a naturalized U.S. Citizen) said we are all getting ready to go vote in a school near by. This school was just being built when I left Iraq in the late 70's. I know where it is and I can picture my father, uncles aunties and cousins along with the rest of the family walking through my old neighborhood to that school and vote. My father said 'For the first time in my life I voted in the U.S. and now I can vote in Iraq. We want our voices to count, we want to decide our future and we want the world to know we have a voice in our future and in our government, this will give the Iraqi government true legitimacy, just like in America'.

  "I can now dream of the day when I can take my family to meet my extended family and the places were I played and grew up. They will also see what our men and women in our military fought for.

  "To all the men and women who have served and serving in Iraq, to all the families of those who have paid the ultimate price to all those who have suffered during their service in Iraq, my family’s and my deepest thanks, gratitude and pride both from the U.S. and Iraq for all the sacrifices, endurance and service for our great country and Iraq and the Iraqis. God bless all of you and keep you safe."

• Voices from the Revolution - Friends of Democracy interviews with citizens from the Zy Qar province and reports that the Election Goes Smoothly in Kirkuk ("During the elections the kids have nothing to do as everyone is busy voting").

• More photoblogging the election from Ryan in Baghdad ("Farmer by genetics, Lawyer by training, currently "vacationing" in Iraq and advising the Iraqi government on border security issue"). Ryan cites a pertinent quote from Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror:
  Any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police."

BREAKING NEWS! - Iraqi Voting Disrupts News Reports of Bombings, by Scott Ott [Scrappleface.com] (2005-01-30) -- News reports of terrorist bombings in Iraq were marred Sunday by shocking graphic images of Iraqi "insurgents" voting by the millions in their first free democratic election. Despite reporters' hopes that a well-orchestrated barrage of mortar attacks and suicide bombings would put down the so-called 'freedom insurgency', hastily-formed battalions of rebels swarmed polling places to cast their ballots -- shattering the status quo and striking fear into the hearts of the leaders of the existing terror regime. Hopes for a return to the stability of tyranny waned as rank upon rank of Iraqi men and women filed out of precinct stations, each armed with the distinctive mark of the new freedom guerrillas -- an ink-stained index finger, which one former Ba'athist called "the evidence of their betrayal of 50 years of Iraqi tradition." Journalists struggled to put a positive spin on the day's events, but the video images of tyranny's traitors choosing a future of freedom overwhelmed the official story of bloodshed and mayhem.

• Belmont Club asks: "Did we win?", comparing a number of MSM (mainstream media) reports on Iraqi voter turnout. Speaking to Reuters, University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole called the elections "a joke," and reinforces his prediction in a gloomy post to his own blog; however, eyewitness reports of an incredible voter turnout from BBC News Reporter's Log beg to differ.

• Jeff Jarvis (Buzzmachine) believes this is "Not an election, a revolution" and provides an additional roundup of news headlines. Jeff asks a question which every American should think about:
  This morning, I asked myself whether I would go to vote if I thought I could be bombed at the polling place or shot because of my blue finger. I don't think I'd have that courage. Most Americans would not (hell, most of us don't vote even in the lap of safety). Remember that every single Iraqi who came to vote today is a victory for democracy.

• Another roundup of Iraqi bloggers, also courtesy of Jeff.

• Captain's Quarters is reporting impressive turnout numbers by region; a change of heart at Reuters, and a welcome suprise from the Queen of Pessimistic Journalism: The New York Times acknowledges victory!

• More analysis of the MSM's change in temperament from Instapundit, along with a great picture of Iraqis displaying "the ink-stained finger of democracy."

Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets, by Dexter Filkins. New York Times January 30, 2005. Iraqis Express Pride, Hope at Election, by Ellen Knickmeyer. Associated Press. January 30, 2005. Iraq election declared 'success' BBC News. January 30, 2005.

• Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar @ Iraq The Model conclude: "The People have won"
  The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:< p>"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".

  This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street. The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer! . . .

  I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.

  I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

• Iraqis fight a lonely battle for democracy, The Guardian January 30, 2005. Michael Ignatieff explains why "whatever your view of the war, you should embrace today's election":
  Just as depressing as the violence in Iraq is the indifference to it abroad. Americans and Europeans who have never lifted a finger to defend their own right to vote seem not to care that Iraqis are dying for the right to choose their own leaders. . . .

  The Bush administration has managed the nearly impossible: to turn democracy into a disreputable slogan.

  Liberals can't bring themselves to support freedom in Iraq lest they seem to collude with neo-conservative bombast. Anti-war ideologues can't support the Iraqis because that would require admitting that positive outcomes can result from bad policies. And then there are the ideological fools in the Arab world, and even a few in the West, who think the 'insurgents' are fighting a just war against US imperialism. This makes you wonder when the left forgot the proper name for people who bomb polling stations, kill election workers and assassinate candidates - fascists.

• Liberty Marches Forward - Citizen Smash, aka. "Indepundit", has a another roundup of photos and stirring quotes:
  We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of Liberty." -- John F. Kennedy

  "The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." – George W. Bush

• Via Little Green Footballs, an email from Mike, a major stationed in the Sunni Triangle:
  The polls closed at 1700 (5PM) our time and 8AM CST but the initial reports are that 72% of the Iraqis voted. Folks we should be ashamed. We can’t get that many people to vote in the US and no one is trying to kill us.

• Via Michelle Malkin, a child's display of solidarity with Iraqi voters:
  10-year-old Billings girl, Shelby Dangerfield won't be going to the polls. But she will be will be showing her support by wearing ink on her finger - just like those Iraqis who have voted.

  "It will symbolize our support if we wear ink on our fingers," Shelby said. "We're not forcing them to vote, but they have a chance to do it and they should take that chance."

  "10-year-old supports vote of Iraqi people" Billings Gazette January 30, 2005 .

• President Congratulates Iraqis on Election The White House. January 30, 2005.

* * *

So that's the roundup for the weekend . . . stay tuned to the various blogs mentioned above for the results and the aftermath, and please keep the people of Iraq, together with our troops, in your prayers.

"Anti-anti-neoconservatism"

Recommended reading: Anti-anti-neoconservatism Claremont Review of Books Winter, 2004.

Gerard Alexander reviews two books that will most likely find appeal with Bush-haters and critics of the war in Iraq: America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order by Stephen Halper & Jonathan Clarke, and Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana by Gary J. Dorrien -- both of which, according to Alexander, demonstrate a blatant flaw critics of the Bush administration:

Bashing George W. Bush has been the thinking person's sport for four years now. Foreign policy intellectuals play their own version of the game: bashing neoconservatives. This is Bush-bashing with a Ph.D. It has proven surprisingly popular, attracting onto the field not only liberals but also some traditional conservatives and many conspiracy theorists, for whom the neocons are the new Trilateral Commission. Sadly, a lot of this commentary is plagued by the same vices as Bush-bashing in general: chronic exaggeration, fast-and-loose connection-drawing, and over-the-top hyperbole. Reading it is enough to turn you into a fervent anti-anti-neoconservative.

This is a pity, because with Bush's re-election "the neoconservative question" is ripe for debate, and this high-stakes debate should be as well-informed as possible.

Alexander criticizes those who attempt to trace the intellectual roots of today's neocons to the original neocons of the 1960's (by and large the staff of The Public Interest and Commentary), problematic because

"the first group called "neocon" wasn't especially homogeneous; the second group isn't much more so; and the two put together aren't at all . . . the neocons disagreed with each other almost as much as they agreed. They had in common a repulsion for the New Left. But to treat them as a tightly-knit "ism" is like treating "Protestants" that way just because they all left Catholicism for vaguely related reasons").

Even worse than the homogenizing of the first neocons, says Alexander, "is the joint homogenizing of both groups called neocon" into one ambiguous mass due to their support of the war in Iraq and the establishment of democracy in the Middle East. Readers of various political blogs (and Catholic bloggers on just war theory) will readily identify this "over-identification of doctrinal similarities":

Just quote someone labeled a neocon as saying something, then designate that something as part of neocon ideology, and finally suggest that all neocons, including those in office, devote themselves to advocating that something. The result is not just homogenization but hyperbole.

Gerard Alexander goes on to demonstrate the messy and misleading consequences of such thinking in recent discussion of "the neocons" and U.S. foreign policy. Of course, he is not without his own reservations about certain proposals of the neoconservatives, but as he says, "Americans need to decide what to make of neoconservative ideas. It might be possible to make a case effectively demolishing them. So far, that case hasn't been made."

Well worth reading.

Relevant articles:

• The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is, by Irving Kristol. Weekly Standard 08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47.
• Neocons: Some Memories, by Michael Novak. National Review May 20, 2003.
• The End of Neoconservatism and This Time: Neoconservatism Redux, by James Neuchterlin. First Things 63 (May 1996) and 66 (October 1996), respectively.
• Defining Neoconservate, by Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 140 (February 2004): 58-77.

Discussions on Iraq and Just War

• Just War as Love for Neighbor, by Rob Vischer. Mirror of Justice. 1/27/05
• No WMD's: No Just War? - More discussion at Amy Welborn's Open Book. 1/27/05.
• Is the Iraq War a "just" war? Steve (aka "Feddie"), Southern Appeal. 1/28/05.
• "Just War as Principled Imperialism", Rob Vischer, Mirror of Justice. 1/28/05.
• Just The War Facts, Ma'am Leo. (Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture). 1/28/05.
• Iraq and Just War Theory, Bradley Lewis (Notre Dame Center for Ethics & Culture). 1/28/05.

Sen. Barbara Boxer's Historical Revisionism

Excerpt from the confirmation hearings of soon-to-be Secretary 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.

According to blogger someguy, Boxer's "it was WMD, period" 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 possession of WMD's, 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 January 19, 2005).

"Aiding and Abetting the Enemy"

What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True -- yes, accurate -- yes, but in context with the greater good taking place -- no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now. . . .

Lieutenant Colonel Tim Ryan (letter to BlackFive.net).

Fr. James Schall on "When War Must Be The Answer"

It has been the fault of both pacifism and liberalism in the past that they have ignored the immense burden of inherited evil under which society and civilization labour and have planned an imaginary world for an impossible humanity. We must recognize that we are living in an imperfect world in which human and superhuman forces of evil are at work and so long as those forces affect the political behaviour of mankind there can be no hope of abiding peace.

Christopher Dawson, "The Catholic Attitude to War," 1937

* * *

Last year George Weigel wrote a brief article on just war theory ("Force of law, law of force", The Catholic Difference April 2003), in which he stated that:

The juxtaposition of "the force of law and the law of force," a trope that got established in the Catholic conversation months before armed force was used to enforce disarmament in Iraq, will likely be a prominent feature of the post-war Catholic debate. . . .

The "force of law/law of force" juxtaposition neatly divides the world into two camps. Those who wish to settle conflicts through diplomacy, political compromise, and the mechanisms of international law live on one side of this Great Divide; those who believe in using armed force are on the other. Given that dichotomy, the moral choice seems clear: the first camp.

The problem, which involves both content and context, is that the world doesn’t work the way the trope suggests. . . . Is the relationship between international law and armed force a zero-sum game, such that every use of armed force necessarily entails a loss for the "force of law"?

Fr. James Schall revisits this topic in "When War Must Be The Answer" (Policy Review No. 128., December 2004), in which he delivers a broadside to "war is not the answer" protestors in a substantial reflection on the justifiable use of armed force, just war theory, and the war on terrorism.

My recommmendation would to be read Schall's essay alongside just war scholar James Turner Johnson' latest piece in First Things: "Just War: As It Was and Is" (No. 149, January 2005), which unfortunately is not yet available online.

For the sake of a counter-argument, see this essay on just war theory by brother John Raymond of the The Community of The Monks of Adoration, recommended by Fr. Jim Tucker.

As an intellectual/academic exercise, compare Brother Raymond's presentation of just war theory and his predisposition towards pacifism with the critiques of Father Schall and James Turner Johnson.

Iraq -- Bringing in the New Year with a Prayer

We still dream of a democratic Iraq ruled by the law
And this is something we deserve…this is the land of the first law in history
I still find my home in Iraq… it's still the best place in the world in my eyes
I will not waste a minute listening to the pessimists
Instead, I will add a brick to the house we're building
And I will write a word….and pray

I will pray for the ones who fought for the Iraqi freedom
I will pray for the hundreds of thousands who won't spend the night with their families, staying awake on the front
line to keep me safe
I will pray for the ones who gave their lives for the sake of others' wellbeing
I will pray for those who went through all the pains
And never lost hope
I will pray for a free and democratic Iraq
I will pray for the world's peace

Happy New Year.

Mohammed, Iraq The Model

Neuhaus on 'Internationalisms' and 'Americanism'

In December's issue of First Things, Fr. Neuhaus has an excellent piece on Internationalisms, on "conflicting internationalisms" in public debate today -- from the old-fashioned isolationism perpetuated by Pat Buchanan and, to some degree, George Will; to the "Bush Doctrine"'s advancement of human freedom and end to totalitarian ideologies, as endorsed by the Weekly Standard and more importantly Norman Podhoretz's exemplary article "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win"; to the "liberal internationalism of diminished sovereignty" popularized by Senator Kerry and those who percieve "the war on terror . . . as a defensive police action against criminal activities." Neuhaus concludes:

With few exceptions, we are all internationalists now. We have little choice in the matter. Jefferson worried whether our form of government could survive expansion on a continental scale. Now, by force of both intention and happenstance, our sphere of power and responsibility has expanded far beyond that. The liberal internationalism of diminished sovereignty is an abdication of responsibility and would be neither in our interest nor in the interest of world peace. The internationalism of global crusading for democracy is a delusion fraught with temptations to the hubris that has been the tragic undoing of men and nations throughout history. We should, rather, think of ours as an internationalism of circumstance, whose obligations we will not shirk. Our first obligation is to repair and keep in good repair our constitutional order and the cultural and moral order on which it depends. That we cannot do unless we are prepared to defend ourselves, not going abroad to seek monsters to destroy but also not fearing to resist and counter those who would destroy us.

An internationalism of circumstance, with its attendant duties, does not provide the thrilling drum rolls of the crusade or the glories of empire. Nor does it indulge dangerous dreams of escape into a new world order on the far side of national sovereignty. The world continues to be a world of politics among nations with, for better and worse, the United States as the preeminent nation for the foreseeable future. We cannot build nations, although we can at times provide encouragement and incentives for those determined to build their own. We cannot bestow democracy, but we can befriend those who aspire to democracy. We can build coalitions or act on our own for the relief of misery and the advancement of human rights, always having done the morally requisite calculation of our capacities and interests, and knowing that it is in our interest to be perceived as doing our duty. We can try to elicit, engage, and nurture constructive voices within Islam, recognizing that the Muslim future will be determined in largest part by those who seek to do what they believe to be God's will in relation to the infidel, which will always mean us. Above all, we can strive to be a people more worthy of moral emulation, which includes, by no means incidentally, our dependability in rewarding our friends and punishing those who insist upon being our enemies. Finally, given our circumstance of preeminence and the perduring force of envy and resentment in a sinful world, we need not flaunt our power. Whenever possible, we should act in concert with other sovereign nations, and especially other democracies. Often America will have to lead, and sometimes have to act alone. When we do, we should not expect to be thanked, never mind loved. We frequently will be, as in fact we frequently are, but that is to be deemed no more than a bonus for being and doing what we should.

See also "The Vatican vs. 'Americanism'", Neuhaus' review of John Allen's book All the Pope's Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks, by John Allen, Jr., and further reflections on the subject.

Did the Pope condemn the war on Iraq?

Did Pope John Paul II condemn the war on Iraq? -- It depends on who you ask. If you happen to be "liberal Catholic" blogger Jcecil3, then the answer is decidedly affirmative, according to his interpretation of the Holy Father's statement "NO TO WAR!" and his plea that "international law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy" prevail in resolving differences with Iraq (Address to the Diplomatic Corps January 13, 2003).

Jcecil marshalls as well the criticism of Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, that unilateral war against Iraq, without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, would be a "crime against peace" (Zenit.org. Feb. 24, 2003), a charge reiterated by Archbishop Renato Martino, then President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, who denounced the war as "a crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God." (Zenit.org March 17, 2003).

Sean Gleeson begs to differ, however, and has recently joined Peter Robinson at The Corner in his challenge to anybody to email him an actual quote from the actual pope confirming his "outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq.":

The first one to send me any qualifying quote will win the coveted Gleeson Researcher of the Century Award, an honor so exclusive no one's ever earned it. Not only will I mention the winner on my site, I will spend an entire day doing nothing but mention the winner on my site. . . . Just one ground rule: the winning entry must be a quote from Pope John Paul II condemning the U.S. liberation of Iraq. That means,

• Paraphrases don't coun't.
• Quotes from persons other than John Paul II don't count.
• Quotes by John Paul II that do not condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq don't count.
• Quotes expressing only a general regret of the existence of violence don't count.
• Quotes expressing only a general hope, prayer, or wish for peace don't count.
• Quotes simply urging "everyone" to please "outlaw war forever" don't count.

Mr. Geeson has recieved a few submissions, but none apparently have met his (perfectly reasonable criteria).

As Archbishop John Meyers has said in an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal ("Pro-choice candidates and church teaching" Sept. 17, 2004):

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

If those who propose that the Pope's "outspoken opposition to the war" was tantamount to an authoritative coondemnation, we're still waiting on the Vatican to correct the misleading remarks of the Archbishop.

Related links:

• War in the Gulf. What the Pope Really Said, by Sandro Magister
• War no more? - How How much of a pacifist is the pope?, by William MacGurn. OpinionJournal March 28, 2003.
• Has the Holy Father condemned U.S. action in Iraq?, by Carl Olson. Envoy Encore March 26, 2003.
• Iraq, Weigel and the Pope, by Russell Shaw (a Catholic who opposed the war recognizes the right of Michael Novak, George Weigel, Deal Hudson to support it).
• "The Sounds of Religion in Time of War", Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus. First Things 133 (May 2003).
• Different Levels of Catholic Teaching, by Michael P. Orsi. Homiletic & Pastoral Review December 2003.

Commonweal vs. First Things - Round One(?)

The War in Iraq: How Catholic conservatives got it wrong, by Peter Dula. Commmonweal December 3, 2004 / Volume CXXXI, Number 21.

A Mennonite Central Commmittee worker in Amman and Baghdad challenges what he allegest to be the post-war "virtual silence" of First Things on Iraq between Summer 2003 and October 2004:

. . . . I remain an admirer of their work. Yet it is precisely as a theologian and a reader-and more broadly as a citizen-that I want answers to questions raised by the arguments Weigel and Neuhaus made in support of the preemptive war in Iraq. Those arguments were made in the public square that First Things, especially in light of last month’s presidential election, has done so much to open up to religious language. What I am most concerned with can be reduced to four points. First, Neuhaus and Weigel, like the administration they support, failed in the summer of 2003 to see that the war was far from over. Second, their faith in the competency of the Bush administration, and their contempt for religious leaders who disagreed with them, can now more easily be recognized for what it was: an attachment to a particular brand of neoconservatism overwhelming their attachment to the just-war tradition. Third, their scant attention to how the war was actually conducted (jus in bello), and their disdain for those who pushed questions about noncombatant deaths and proportionality, suggest the need for a reappraisal of the value they placed on the just causes (ad bellum) of the war. Finally, I would argue that their silence since the fall of Baghdad is more disturbing than their mistakes before and during "major combat operations." The issue is not only, or not simply, that they were wrong. Perhaps they think they were right. The issue, especially in light of President George W. Bush’s re-election, is their current "moral muteness in a time of war."

I'm expect that a response George Weigel and Fr. Neuhaus will be forthcoming and that Mr. Dula won't be waiting long. Meanwhile, the "commentariat" at Amy Welborn's blog Open Book is abuzz with responses from the left and right.

Radek Sikorski interviews Paul Wolfowitz

Interview with Paul Wolfowitz, by Radek Sikorski, former deputy minister of defence for Poland and director of the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute. Prospect Magazine | November 23, 2004. A good discussion of U.S.-Iraqi affairs and the broader context of the war on terrorism.

"Iraq The Model" celebrates one year anniversary.

Belated congratulations to Mohammed, Ali and Omar, of "Iraq The Model", celebrating their one year blogiversary this past Sunday.

Steven Moore's "The Truth About Iraq"

The Truth About Iraq. A new website to counter the negativity of the mainstream media:

After working in Iraq for nine months doing focus groups and polling and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion, Steven Moore returned to the United States in May 2003. Upon returning, he was astounded to find how sharply his experience in Iraq differed from that being communicated on television. Even more staggering, were some of the questions being asked by average Americans who genuinely consider themselves, well-informed:

• Aren't we just shoving democracy down the throats of the Iraqis?
• Are all the Iraqis rallying around the "freedom fighters" fighting the US forces?
• Wouldn't things be going much better if we had gotten United Nations support?
• Don't the Iraqis just want to be ruled by clerics?

These were questions asked by well-read, intelligent, middle of the road people. Having spent nine months living among Iraqis, working every single day to understand the Iraqi mindset, Moore believed he had unique insight into the Iraqi people.

In order to help Americans better understand the Iraqi people, Moore began speaking to groups around California and on a variety of radio programs throughout the United States. Though radio is an important medium, television still remains the most effective medium to reach the largest number of people in the shortest possible time.

A team comprised of experts with specific and relevant experience has now been created. Their expertise will ensure the successful achivement of the following goals:

1. raise money to produce and air a 30 second television spot that reminds Americans that they can be proud of the good work being done in Iraq by the US and Coalition Forces, and
2. spread the message via the Internet about this project.

With your help, America can be proud.

Norman Podhoretz's plea to "stay the course."

In "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win", Commentary magazine editor Norman Podhoretz presents his reasons for why America must "stay the course" in its current war on terror, or what he prefers to label as "World War IV."

Surveying terrorist attacks on Americans from the 1970's to the present and the varying responses by the Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, Podhoretz concludes:

In the end the commission agreed that no American President and no American policy could be held responsible in any degree for the aggression against the United States unleashed on 9/11.

Amen to that. For the plain truth is that the sole and entire responsibility rests with al Qaeda, along with the regimes that provided it with protection and support. Furthermore, to the extent that American passivity and inaction opened the door to 9/11, neither Democrats nor Republicans, and neither liberals nor conservatives, are in a position to derive any partisan or ideological advantage. The reason, quite simply, is that much the same methods for dealing with terrorism were employed by the administrations of both parties, stretching as far back as Richard Nixon in 1970 and proceeding through Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan (yes, Ronald Reagan), George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and right up to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. . . .

The sheer audacity of what bin Laden went on to do on September 11 was unquestionably a product of his contempt for American power. Our persistent refusal for so long to use that power against him and his terrorist brethren -- or to do so effectively whenever we tried -- reinforced his conviction that we were a nation on the way down, destined to be defeated by the resurgence of the same Islamic militancy that had once conquered and converted large parts of the world by the sword.

Podhoretz drives home the point that, from 1970-present, an ineffectual policy on terrorism marked by the continued reluctance of the U.S. to use military force cultivated the impression that the U.S. was weak and impotent, and emboldened Osama Bin Ladin and other militant Islamic fundamentalists in their ongoing war against Western civilization.

Podhoretz then presents with great clarity the four pillars of "The Bush Doctrine," marking a distinct change in U.S. foreign policy initially launched with President Bush's speech to Congress on September 20, 2001:

1. A distinctly moral attitude, as opposed to the morally-neutral "realism" of times past. According to President Bush himself:
   Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. Different circumstances require different methods, but not different moralities. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place. . . . We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name.

2. A new understanding of terrorism as motivated by political oppression rather than the product of economic factors, perpetrated not by individual psychotics but agents of terrorist organizations that were dependant on government sponsorship for their survival.
   "No longer would we treat the members of these groups as criminals to be arrested by the police, read their Miranda rights, and brought to trial. From now on, they were to be regarded as the irregular troops of a military alliance at war with the United States, and indeed the civilized world as a whole."

3. The assertion of the right to premption and to "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism" -- as opposed to policies of deterrence, containment, or retaliation. (With respect to this website, it is on this particular point that the guidelines of Catholic Just War theory would be focused).

4. The repositioning of the Israel-Palestine issue (and the question of a Palestinian state) in the broader context of the war on terrorism. Citing President Bush:
   "Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure."

   In so doing, calling Palestinians, and Muslims everywhere, to a position of moral responsibility by renouncing support of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah.

Podhoretz follows this with a critical examination of the many varieties of anti-Americanism at home and abroad, citing numerous examples from the press, academia and publishing worlds engaging in what he dubs the "anti-American olympics". Here he makes the observation that "the hatred of Israel was in large part a surrogate for anti-Americanism, rather than the reverse. Israel was seen as the spearhead of the American drive for domination over the Middle East").

Finally, he reviews and rebuts some of the arguments against the establishment of democracy in the Middle East (by Fareed Zakaria, for instance), the charges that the Bush administration "misled" Congress on the war in Iraq (as made by Senator Kerry' Democratic campaign and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911). He issues a plea to the Democrats specifically not to abandon the policies of our current president in the event that Kerry should win the election in November:

If John Kerry should become our next President, and he may, it would be a great calamity if he were to abandon the Bush Doctrine in favor of the law-enforcement approach through which we dealt so ineffectually with terrorism before 9/11, while leaving the rest to those weakest of reeds, the UN and the Europeans. No matter how he might dress up such a shift, it would -- rightly -- be interpreted by our enemies as a craven retreat, and dire consequences would ensue. Once again the despotisms of the Middle East would feel free to offer sanctuary and launching pads to Islamic terrorists; once again these terrorists would have the confidence to attack us—and this time on an infinitely greater scale than before.

If, however, the victorious Democrats were quietly to recognize that our salvation will come neither from the Europeans nor from the UN, and if they were to accept that the Bush Doctrine represents the only adequate response to the great threat that was literally brought home to us on 9/11, then our enemies would no longer be emboldened -- certainly not to the extent they have recently been -- by "our national discord over the war."

A very good and highly educational article, and worth taking the time to read.

Archbishop John Meyers on Catholic disagreement w/ the war

In an editorial for the Wall Street Journal ("A Voter's Guide: Pro-choice candidates and church teaching", Sept. 17, 2004), Archbishop John Myers of Newark, NJ addressed issues of proportionality and voting for pro-abortion candidates. He also briefly addressed -- and challenged -- the arguments put forth by those who contend that the Catholic Church had authoritavely condemned the war in Iraq as immoral and saw opposition to the war as sufficient grounds for voting for a candidate who stood clearly at odds with Church teaching on abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and other "non-negotiable" issues:

. . . Certainly policies on welfare, national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security or taxes, taken singly or in any combination, do not provide a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.

Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization.