That was a
bumper sticker
Sojourners published at the outset of the Iraq war more than a decade
ago. American church leaders had not only opposed the war but offered an
alternative: "
An Alternative to War for Defeating Saddam Hussein, A Religious Initiative." We
not only presented it to Colin Powell’s personal council and Tony
Blair, but also printed full-page ads in every major British newspaper
the day before their Parliamentary debate and vote on the war. The
U.K.’s Secretary of State for International Affairs, Clair Short, told
me the only real alternative on the table in their Cabinet meetings was
“The American church leaders’ plan,” which, she said, was seriously
discussed. U.S. and U.K. leaders showed they were drawn to an
alternative plan to war that would remove any weapons of mass
destruction that Saddam Hussein might have had (which he did not) and
even to ultimately remove him from power but without going to war. Pope
John Paul II was also opposed to the potential war. Both the Vatican and
the American church leaders warned that the potential costs of a war in
Iraq could include increasing the scope and threats of international
terrorism. ISIS is that sad prophecy come true; the habit of war
prevailed.
Sojourners magazine Jan.-Feb. 2003 cover
I have always believed that any alternative to war
must still address the very real problems at hand — just in a more
effective way. To say that “war is not the answer” is not only a moral
statement but also is a serious critique of what doesn’t work; wars
often fail to solve the problems and ultimately make them worse. War has
to answer to metrics, just as more peaceful alternatives do. The war in
Iraq was a complete failure with enormous human and financial costs;
ISIS is now one of the consequences.
Yesterday I spoke at a very
creative non-partisan conference at the American Enterprise Institute on
finding a new approach to end poverty. I was pleasantly surprised when I
saw all the press cameras — until I realized they were only there to
cover Dick Cheney’s news conference on how America should respond to
ISIS in the room next door. Dana Milbank in
The Washington Post said:
“It
was just like the good old days. Scooter Libby was in the front row.
Paul Wolfowitz was in the second. And on the stage was Dick Cheney,
beating the drums of war.”
Yet again, Cheney railed
against President Obama in a “pre-buttal” to the president’s speech
coming that night. Cheney’s strategy, along with others like John McCain
and Bill Kristol, calls for serial American invasions and continued
occupations in every Middle Eastern country where there is conflict —
one after another. Milbank concluded, “In summary: War, war and more
war.”
I agree with Pope Francis when he said it is legitimate to stop an unjust aggressor:
"I
underscore the verb 'to stop'. I am not saying 'bomb' or 'make war',
but 'stop him.' The means by which he can be stopped must be evaluated.
Stopping the unjust aggressor is legitimate."
This
morning, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski agreed,
saying the war 10 years ago “was a monumental disaster for which we are
still paying.”
President Obama spoke to the “unique brutality” of
ISIS, destroying all who are in their path, including children; turning
women into sex slaves; perpetrating genocide against religious
minorities, including Christians; beheading their enemies,; and turning
foreigners into hardened fighters who could bring their terror back to
other countries around the world. ISIS clearly revels in its own
brutality by eagerly putting it all up on YouTube. I would add religious
“blasphemy” to the crimes of ISIS, doing their proud brutal deeds in
the name of God — which is an utter offense to all people of faith.
That
the world, including the United States, needs to respond decisively to
the real threats of ISIS is beyond dispute, but the practical and moral
question is — how? Let’s remember the principle that alternatives to war
must answer the questions that war promises to answer — but in a better
way.
I give President Obama credit for wanting to respond in a
“different way” than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His strategy will
focus on air strikes but also relies on supporting and training Middle
East partners on the ground, which will be necessary to defeat a force
already as powerful as ISIS.
But who those partners will be is
still a huge question at this point. All our potential allies are on one
side or the other of the 1,400-year-old Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict,
which produces very different visions for the future of the Middle East.
Air strikes will always kill innocent civilians, which will fuel the
hatred of the outside superpower and be used to recruit more terrorists.
And the 1,600 American troops who will soon be in Iraq will have to
stand with their “boots” someplace, which will be more likely “on the
ground” than in hotel rooms and offices.
To forge solutions to
conflict that are an alternative to the endless and failed habits of war
demands a much stronger set of other strategies — which the White House
has yet to fully understand or embrace. I applaud the president for
seeking a multi-national coalition and a more international approach.
But that could have begun with the United Nations, where the U.S. will
chair the Security Council in just two weeks — rather than taking the
American
plan to the U.N. for support. Strong U.N. leadership could both recruit
more Middle East partners and help take the United States out of the
role of the most hated target of Islamic fundamentalism.
Aggressive
diplomacy and the willingness to impose crippling economic sanctions
are both necessary if we are ever to find alternatives to war. For
example, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Emirates have yet to be
held accountable — for their enormous inequalities and injustices that
have spawned terrorism and for their export of hateful ideologies and
funding support for jihadist groups. Stifling money for terrorist groups
must extend to any and all nations, businesses, or organizations with
any connections to the flow of that lethal money.
Ultimately, we won’t see an end to our “war on terrorism” without dealing with the underlying
causes, and not just targeting the
consequences of growing terrorism. We must address the
world of oil
that the West has created, that has literally defined nations, changed
geography, and institutionalized the injustices and hypocrisies that
breeds the grievances of terrorism. Having justified the unjust
structure of that oil world to accommodate our
addiction to
fossil fuels has produced both a profound threat to our planet and the
rise of an angry terrorism that threatens our own children. We must
address the fact that 60 percent of the Middle East population is under
30 years of age, and many of them are unemployed, uneducated, aggrieved,
and angry young men — too easily drawn to the rhetoric of revenge. To
overcome terrorism we must address the grievances that give rise to it
and are exploited by hateful extremists.
Again, we must address all of these
causes. War and more war will not be able to solve any of it.
