War & Politics

Richard John Neuhaus:

"I confess to being haunted by the recent observation of Bernard Lewis that the retreat of the United States from Iraq will establish throughout the world the perception that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as an ally.” Such an outcome cannot be good for America and cannot be good for the world.

The New York Times editorial the next day held no surprises: “President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. . . . Without a real plan to bring [the war] to a close, there is no point in talking about jobs programs and military offensives. There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq.”

The editors do not say that they fear the policy will fail. With an air of supreme confidence they predict, as they have been predicting all along, that the U.S. will fail in Iraq. The editors have a steep stake in the vindication of their predictions. The editors want the U.S. to fail. This is vile.

Those less captive to partisan passion know that this is not “Mr. Bush’s war” but America’s war. All the mistakes notwithstanding, it was initiated for justifiable ends. I believe we are morally obliged to pray that it will be concluded in a manner that will benefit the people of Iraq and the greater Middle East and will not bring discredit upon America and its necessary role in the world. I earnestly wish I could be more confident of how that prayer will be answered."

I join in his prayer.

And, I agree this is America's war. In our system of political economy, one man, even the President, cannot take America to war by himself. Congress passed the Iraq War Powers Resolution, and absent that act by Congress the country's military forces would not be in Iraq today.

In some ways, I'm not so sure we have things quite right when we say Iraq is America's war at this point in time. America's war with Iraq began as a war against the government of Iraq. The government we went to war against was defeated. In the place of that defeated government we now have a new constitutionally elected government of Iraq. America is not at war with Iraq's government today. Instead, today, it seems to me America has committed itself to help provide the means by which the new government of Iraq can be successful in providing security for it's people. The acts of war and aggression today in Iraq seem to me to involve at least some people of Iraq attempting to topple the constitutionally elected government of Iraq, and also people who are agents of other countries (or even people without a country) seeking to topple the constitutionally elected government of Iraq. At this stage, my guess is that if America decides to no longer aid the new government of Iraq in providing security for the country, the result will at least be that the constitutionally elected government of Iraq will be destroyed. At this point, I hope our American leaders do not decide that it is best for America to let that happen.

Angels

James Madison in Federalist #51:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

I wonder how many people would agree with Madison on this? It seems to me that many people tend to overlook this idea when they think about government. Many seem to think that the point of government is to make us all better off through the good works that government provides. On the other hand, if you think about government from point of view expressed by Madison, then I think the first, and perhaps most important, thing you think about with respect to government is that government is granted a monopoly in the use of force to protect us from harm by others (those who are not angels).

Perhaps there is another thought suggested by Madison's observation. Since men are not angels, how will men (and women) act if they become elected to government and come to have their own hands on the coercive power of government? Surely politicians and government bureaucrats are not angels as well. And, I think the next question is something like this: If we have government to constrain men who are not angels, how will we constrain the same men when they become members of government and therefore our governors? Surely we don't want to trust them to constrain themselves.

Christian Views

Antonin Scalia:

". . . we live in an age in which many Christians are predisposed to believe that John D. Rockefeller, for all his piety (he founded the University of Chicago as a Baptist institution), is likely to be damned and Che Guevara, for all his nonbelief, is likely to be among the elect. . . ."

This is an interesting observation. It seems to me to have more than a little truth to it.