Replies

". . . it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature or Iraq's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11," wrote Bishop Wilton Gregory.

I agree with Bishop Gregory. But before you flame me, let me explain.

He is right about the possible criteria for a "just" preemptive strike:

1) the threat of an imminent attack of a serious nature, and/or

2) involvement in past terrorist attacks.

So now the question becomes: Is there evidence that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq meets either or both of those criteria?

If the answer is yes, then a preemptive, measured strike--with the goal of removing Saddam from power, defeating his forces, and eliminating the threat of his weapons--is indeed justified.

As to threat of imminent attack, an analogy can be made to a deranged, dangerous individual who hates your guts and now has a gun aimed against you and your family. He needn't have already pulled the trigger for you to act in self-defense.

And as to involvement in past terrorist attacks--by "involvement" I mean sponsoring, supporting, or sheltering the terrorists, and by "past attacks" I include not just 9-11 but also the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, etc.--if Saddam has been involved in past attacks against the United States, then a military strike by us would not really be "preemptive" or a "first" strike, would it?

Furthermore, in carrying out a military action, it is necessary for our government to proceed in a legitimate, orderly way, according to the established authority. Under our Constitution, then, it is incumbent upon the Bush Administration to present the evidence to Congress (this can be done without compromising our intelligence operations) and to receive a formal Declaration of War (not just some previous 9-11 "resolution").

Oh, I happen to be a Lutheran minister (Missouri Synod, the "conservative" Lutherans, in contrast to the extremely liberal ELCA mentioned in the article). The Lutheran Confessions do permit a "just war," as it has historically been defined. As far as the current Iraqi situation, though, I speak only for myself and not for our church body, since we have not taken an official position on it.

"And as to involvement in past terrorist attacks--by "involvement" I mean sponsoring, supporting, or sheltering the terrorists, and by "past attacks" I include not just 9-11 but also the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, etc.--if Saddam has been involved in past attacks against the United States, then a military strike by us would not really be "preemptive" or a "first" strike, would it?"

The "preemptive/first strike" argument is a red herring - by terms of the '91 peace agreement Iraq was supposed entirely disarm within six months under threat of continued advance by the allies. So we are now at the end of a 12 year long "rush to war."

Under our Constitution, then, it is incumbent upon the Bush Administration to present the evidence to Congress (this can be done without compromising our intelligence operations) and to receive a formal Declaration of War (not just some previous 9-11 "resolution").

Nowhere in the constitution does it state a specific format for a declaration of war. If the Congress authorizes the President to use force, that is more than adequate.

The US has used military force many dozens of times in its history. In only a very few of those was there a formal declaration of war. Vietnam, Korea and Gulf War I being only the most obvious examples.

The Churches are right.

Congress would not hestitate to 'declare war' if they thought the voters supported it. (including Korea, Vietnam, etc.) Notice the meally mouth way to fake a 'war declaration' - force; consequences, et al. Why not come out and define 'serious consequences' as war and bombing if that is what is intended? Sort of describes a 'sneaky fast pitch' in baseball.

If our representives who support war have the gonads, let them declare war on any country we want to bomb for America and not the UN, democracy or 'our friends'. Clinton bombed a pile of countries with Republican acquiesence. Democrats used to start wars and now the Republicans (one world faction, that is) have taken this baton.

Bush is being led around as a puppet outfitted by new clothes justifications other month. Yes, most of the world not on our payroll and the Churches see that these clothes are transparent.