U.S. Bishops Tackle the Iraq Issue

Plenty of material to read:

• USCCB: Bishops call for bipartisan cooperation and responsible transition in Iraq
• CNS: Bishops finalize Iraq statement, urge new directions in war, policy

This amid reports that "More than half of Christians have fled Iraq since 2003" and Christians in Iraq would also be the "main victims of attack by Turkey" should that happen.

Perhaps more helpful is the accompanying "Questions and Answers on the War in Iraq" prepared by Bp. Thomas G. Wenski, Chairman of the Committee on International Policy" (scroll down the page).

My observations about the document:

• It is important for the U.S. Bishops to speak out on the issue of the Iraq War, and that they bring to bear the Church's teaching on these matters to U.S. policy makers.
• The statement that "Our nation must focus more on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention" respects the sovereignty of Iraq but must also be contextualized within full a consideration of which strategy will improve humanitarian conditions in Iraq.
• Clearly, no one is happy with the situation in Iraq, that contribution of the document is nothing new.
• The two noted contributors to political paralysis ("Some policy makers seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the reality and failures in Iraq and the imperative for new directions. Others seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the potential human consequences of very rapid withdrawal") seem very sound.
• The statement explicitly mentions collaboration with Iran and Syria. While such a collaboration would be ideal, I don't see how it is necessarily a practical course.
• The statement calls for a pledge to not "seek permanent military bases in Iraq, nor control over Iraqi oil resources", a rather specific mandate.
• To its credit, the statment says "The suffering of the Christian community has a particular claim on our hearts and consciences." I think this dimension has not been receiving inadequate attention.
• A notable absence in the document - and I realize my observation could be taken as controversial - is a discussion of the religious/cultural causes of discord in Iraq and the Middle East in general. One could get the impression that U.S. forces "hold all the cards", so to speak, and retain ultimate moral responsibility for the humanitarian crisis. I think in addition to admonishing U.S. policy, more mention could be made of the embedded terrorist elements in Iraq (and Iran), and perhaps some guidelines could be given on how to address these enemy forces who are the primary cause for continued instability in the region. If Iraq were a united peaceful nation, American withdrawal would be far simpler.

Regarding the Q&A:

• In answer to question 4: "What was the position of the Church and the Bishops’ Conference prior to the Iraq war?", the response states: "Prior to the war, Pope John Paul II, the Holy See, and USCCB repeatedly expressed grave moral concerns regarding a possible military intervention in Iraq and the unpredictable and uncontrollable negative consequences of an invasion and occupation. The Holy See and the Conference remain highly skeptical of the concept of "preventive war." I remain open to seeing the documentation on that, but if my memory serves, "repeated ... grave moral concerns" were not vocally expressed at the time. I think this response lays itself open to charges of "I-told-you-soism". Similarly, I'm not aware of an entrenched teaching that views the concept of "preventative war" skeptically. Certainly, the stakes for a just preventative war are higher, but in an age of nuclear and biological weapons, I think the legitimate situations for preventative war will increase, not decrease. Of course, preventative individual military interventions is the more restrained and preferably path. While the answer to Question 11 elaborates on what they mean by this skepticism, the quotation from #501 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church seems to improperly use the term "preventative war" to discuss what is not legitimate "preventative war," thus begging the question. Of course unjust preventative war is not moral, but there is such a thing as preventative war that is moral, and that would be one where "a clear proof that an attack is imminent." The question about how imminent an attack must be remains one of prudence.
• One observation is very precient: "In addition, terrorism cannot be fought solely with military methods; we must address the poverty, powerlessness and injustice that terrorist leaders exploit to gain recruits."
• Regarding the question of religious freedom, the Q&A states "Post-war Iraq should be a nation where people of different religions and ethnicities can live together." Again, I think this obligation falls more on the shoulders of the Iraq people and Middle Eastern governments in general than the U.S. forces. No mention is made of the need for the Arab nations to spontaneously enact such legislation (I'm not aware of efforts). U.S. presence, if anything, is currently the best hope for religious freedom.
• Question 11 addresses the wider instabilities of the region, but makes no determinations regarding the endemic cultural and/or religious causes of this instabiliy. Have the U.S. Bishop's explicitly discussed this elsewhere, or do they for some reason consider it impolitic? It remains hard for me to see how the Bishop's can fruitfully criticize U.S. policy in the region without simultaneously identifying the unique challenges obtaining to a Western democracy intervening in the affairs of Middle-Eastern Islamic nations.

Okay, what do you think?