Thursday, July 14, 2005

Why did we go to war?

Many members of the general public seem to be of the opinion that the only reason we went to war against Iraq was WMD. This impression is fostered by what they read and hear in the elite media.

But in the age of the Internet, there is no reason to rely on second or third-hand sources for their information on so momentous a question.

The legal causus belli for the war in Iraq is given in the Congressional war resolution. This is about as official as you can get. And you can get it right off the Web. No need for anchormen or reporters or op-ed writers. You can go straight to the horse’s mouth.

And, if you do so, you will find, not one reason for war, but no fewer than twenty-five reasons for war. Judge for yourself.

*****************************************************************

[1] Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

[2] Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

[3] Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

[4] Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

[5] Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

[6] Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

[7] Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

[8] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

[9] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[10] Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11] Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

[12] Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

[13] Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[15] Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

[16] Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

[17] Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

[18] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

[19] Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

[21] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

[22] Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

[23] Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[24] Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

[25] Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

6 comments:

  1. Speaking of war:

    Read this comments thread (or just read crankmonster's contributions), and tell, if you have interest, if there is anything amiss with it all from your way of seeing things.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A few points regarding the CARM document:

    1.Catholicism can and does affirm the verbal formula of salvation by grace through faith. But unless Catholicism defines and relates grace and faith the way that Scripture describes and relates grace and faith, then Catholicism is not affirming what the Bible declares to be essential to salvation. So at this juncture I agree with CARM and (apparently) disagree with you.

    2.Catholicism is no longer committed to the Biblical witness regarding the “primary and secondary essentials.” Just read Ray Brown or John Meier or Joseph Fitzmyer or
    Cardinal Kasper. And this, in turn, has a corrosive effect on Catholic tradition.

    3.I’d draw a distinction between what needs to be true for someone to be saved, and what needs to be believed to be true for someone to be saved. For example, election is a prerequisite of salvation, but belief in election is not a prerequisite of salvation.

    4.Open theism does deal with the nature of God.

    5.Universalism affirms salvation by grace, but denies salvation by grace through faith. It drops the faith-condition.

    6.Mormons, antinomians, J-Dubs, and liberals aren’t saved. And I wouldn’t give the benefit of the doubt to those who deny the Trinity or Virgin Birth.

    As both a logical and practical matter, one's belief (or lack thereof) in the Trinity and one's belief (or lack thereof) in the deity of Christ go together.

    The burden of proof is always on us to render a credible profession of faith.

    I could say more, but that’s enough for now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I tend to agree, being a Calvinist, but what about this:

    Do you think there are any regenerate saved believers within the Roman Catholic Church?

    I mean, do you think (to pick a famous person as an example) Sean Hannity (a devout Roman Catholic) is not regenerate? I think he is (just based on my experience in observing people, not because I can view his soul).

    That's why I'd be inclined to not view that point #3 in CARM's grid in a too doctrinaire way, because if the context is essentials for salvation rather than hardcore understanding of doctrine I think by the wording of that point #3 regenerate RCs are orthodox.

    Of course there are all kinds of elements of nefarious mischief (and potential for it) in Roman Catholic church structure and non-essential-to-salvation doctrine and all that, but I am thinking in terms of regenerate saved believers within the RCC, and I think they do exist, so.

    I won't convert to RCism, myself, but I find that it just seems 'right' to think in terms of those seven essential doctrines when judging the RCC and its regenerate and potentially regenerate members.

    Imagine if you were a marine on a battlefield right now, and you have Protestant fellow marines and Roman Catholic fellow marines. The famous ecumenism in the American military I would think would be likely based on recognition of such shared, foundational essential doctrine and the secondary things would remain that, because the perspective that death and danger gives would make it so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the Christian status, or not, of Roman Catholics, if you go into the June archive and scroll down to my post on "A credible profession of faith," you'll find my answer.

    Yes, I'd obviously prefer to have a Catholic comrade-in-arms rather than a Muslim. And I don't deny that RCs can be allies in the culture wars as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just read "A credible profession of faith." So I guess you're saying you're not anti-Catholic (if that means the same thing as for instanct being anti-Mormon).

    I distinguish between the members of the RCC and the leadership. It's the leadership with the bad doctrine and mealy-mouthed doctrine and all the rest of it. The members of the church obviously don't hold to much of anything concrete if they are getting their doctrine from RC leadership sources.

    I guess I just see them (regenerate RCs) as sort of as lacking intellectual curiosity regarding doctrine yet having a real faith nevertheless.

    If conversion (as opposed to mere regeneration) involves learning what one is to have faith in and what one is to repent of and all that actual doctrine aspect of the faith then I suppose one could question an RC's conversion if they maintain a lack of intellectual curiosity towards biblical doctrine.

    That would just make me maybe put the regenerate RCs in an innocent category.

    There's an issue here that applies to Protestants as well: I don't get my doctrine from a church or from a pastor's doctrine or a denomination's doctrine. I get it from a conglomeration of sources that all - in the parts I accept - conform to Scripture.

    This is rambling, but there may be some pertinant points.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Basically, can we say that ragging on RCs because of their history and bad doctrine and still-existing-potential for totalitarian violence towards Bible-believing Christians is empty and not necessary? (I'm usually doing that.)

    This is what I'm seeing in the seven essential doctrines on that CARM site. I saw something that gave me an angle to approach RCs in a different way (or just think about them in a different way).

    Because from King Jesus' point-of-view He is seeing believers as they exist in all visible churches amidst the unregenerate, and from that perspective to maintain an approach that just sees the monolithic evil of the RCC and not the presence of the percentage of regenerate believers within it is falling short.

    Protestants also don't provide the best alternatives in terms of church experiences to give RCs a reason to leave their churches.

    Really, at this point of redemptive history it seems to be an individual thing. The Word of God and other theological type influences are available, and each believer finds his/her way pretty much on their own. (Whether they admit it to themselves or not.)

    Another rambling comment.

    ReplyDelete