The Moral Case for the Invasion of Iraq - Part I

There's been much hand-wringing in the West over the morality of pre-emptive strikes of force by national governments, especially in the wake of the new global war, the War on Terror.(2) For many, the invasive rooting out of terrorists in the cities and caves of Afghanistan by the USA post-9/11 was somewhat understandable, for some just about acceptable. For others, invasion and regime change in Iraq was the unacceptable face of imperial interventionism. The issue of justifiable moral response is perhaps clearer when self-defense and retribution are the clear reaction to overt aggressive acts (the USA declaring war after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor), but less so when self-defense is mooted as the reason for pre-emptive strike action (the Israeli destruction of the Iraqi nuclear facility in the 1980s). The 2003 invasion of Iraq in some ways clouded the distinction between these two areas. On the one hand, in the wake of 9/11, there were alleged links between al-Qu'eda and Saddam's regime, which represented a potential direct threat to the security of many nations(3) and - after twelve years of blatant defiance of the world community - the need finally to enforce UN resolutions which marked the disengagement at the end of the 1991 war. I do not here propose to discuss the morality of the invasion of Iraq. I will leave that discussion to part 2 of this essay. But if the media and public fall-out after the invasion of Iraq did anything, it focused our minds on the whole issue of the morality of the pre-emptive strike and foreign 'interventionism'. If the world has struggled with these issues, in my experience it is fair to observe that most modern Christians have not, with the simplistic 'all-war-is-evil' approach of the vocal, liberal church leadership gaining notoriety and apparently speaking for many. In particular, it is the notion of the invasion of sovereign territory (national states being set in place by God himself) that seems to exercise many. It is right, however, that we do not merely follow the herd in this, and especially the liberal-dominated academy and church hierarchy, but rather develop our position from a Bible-centered worldview. Before we get under way though, we shall need to establish one or two key ground rules to clear our path ahead. For the purposes of this article I will assume (and not argue - that would take a book in its own right) two elements which the world commonly accepts and which the Bible and the historic church have long taught. First, that Christians are not, except under appropriate circumstances, called to practice pacifism. When all is said and done, Christ was no practicing pacifist when he took time out to make a knotted cord (a weapon) to violently assault the cynical moneychangers and overturn their tables in the Temple courtyard. This was no mere outburst of spontaneous anger, but rather a calculated and premeditated act, having checked out the Temple courtyard activity the night before (see Mark 11:11). It was an action fuelled by righteous indignation at the terrible rip-offs which were taking place on sanctified ground and in the name of God. Later that week, however, he would partake of an entirely pacifist action when he went 'as a lamb to the slaughter' on Good Friday. Generally speaking, instances of passive inactivity are not to be the norm for man, especially when the more appropriate need is an angry outburst against spiritual and moral hypocrisy. Contrary to widely held humanistic opinion and the populist church worldview, man is not 'basically good', but, in God's terms, is sinful by nature (Rom. 3:23). Jesus and the Bible make it perfectly clear that the devil is at large in the world and that he is our evil adversary (1 Peter 5:8), doing all he can to stoke the fires of man's sinfulness. But man is not called to flee from him and his evil (unless in the form of temptation): rather he is called proactively to resist him (1 Peter 5:9) and expose his 'works of darkness' (Eph.5:11). This is not passive activity, but a highly proactive one. Second, I shall assume, for the sake of this article, that we have landed on Planet Reality and that we all (which some won't of course) hold the 'just war' position. War is indeed 'hell', with a tendency to cause indiscriminate suffering and pain by its nature, but God has used it often enough for his own purposes by raising up one nation to punish another (2 Kings 17:21-23; Jer.34:21). And nothing Jesus said in his famous Sermon on the Mount, which essentially addresses personal moral responsibilities and ethics and not communal and national ones, changes the fact that there will always be 'wars and rumors of wars' (Matt. 24:6). War is an inescapable fact of human existence and will be until, as Christians believe, Christ returns. So let us be realists, and not sentimentalists who believe, against all the evidence, that man is somehow going to eradicate war. If, as Christ teaches, man is sinful and 'not good', then how is man to achieve anything remotely approaching a peaceful human Utopia on this earth? History alone suggests a very different future. In doing so, we shall leave behind the arguments of theoretic pipe-smoking, corduroy-trousered academics, anti-war urban terrorists, retro-hippies, Anglican Archbishops, the bulk of the modern liberal church clergy and academy and all Planet Unreality pacifists, including, of course, French politicians and the United Nations. Chillingly, the words adorning a wall in the modern UN HQ building, 'Peace and Safety', are the very words the apostle Paul adopts saying 'When they say "Peace and Safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them' (1 Thess. 5:3). Having cleared the decks of the 'other-worldly' spiritual New Agers in our midst, the rest of us can acknowledge that war, dreadful and hateful as it may be, is not only morally justifiable before God, but may from time to time be the only moral course to take. However, though we may perhaps feel ourselves comfortable with pre-emptive action during 'wartimes', we may find the issue far less clear in what we perceive and know as 'times of peace'. It is this area to which we now turn.

The morality of self-defense 'Turning the other cheek' in the face of some intemperate provocation is certainly the plain teaching of the Christian church. But, as I have written elsewhere, when Jesus gave this and many other teachings during his Sermon on the Mount, it was in the context of minor and provocative violence and personal vengeance. Where the issue of more serious sustained and dangerous violence has occurred, the matter of vengeance (vengeance 'being mine' says the Lord) is removed from the personal realm altogether and given into the public realm, as a matter for communal judgment and response. But in the case of nation states, it is plain enough that God has often taken his vengeance by raising up one nation to punish another nation. Thus when the gangster Nazi regime in Berlin decided to obliterate the London skyline in 1940, we may not extrapolate from this that what Christ would have wanted was a mass 'cheek-turning' in the streets during the next wave of attacks. To allow the Luftwaffe to do their worst, was tantamount to inviting yet more unjust violence by providing them with a green light to continue - and to rearrange large tracts of Manchester, too. Historically, the right to self-defense, both personal and national, has always been a well-understood principle by most, including the Christian church. If we hold to the notion of the sanctity of human life as being in any way meaningful, then it must therefore be our right to defend ourselves and others, employing what the law determines is 'appropriate' or 'proportionate' force to that end. In this way then, we must admit that there has to be a limit to Christ's injunction to the individual to 'turn the other cheek', especially where doing so could lead to serious injury or death. Indeed the very example of turning the cheek which Christ uses, implicitly envisages no harmful threat coming to the body or person (in the form of bruising or serious bodily harm), but a mild chastisement or a humiliating effrontery (a slap or such). Anything beyond that must therefore bring (if we accept the hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture) other biblical principles into play. For a start, assuming that a pacifist response may in some circumstances be appropriate, even in the face of the severest violence, is surely the exception rather than the norm (Jesus' 'torture' was part of God's plan). Pacifism, or turning the other cheek, is largely for the realm of individual response where imminent serious danger is not present. Jesus' example of the 'slapped cheek' suggests that it is also largely in situations where the principle of 'swallowing one's pride' arises. In other situations it is plainly not taught as a life principle. Whilst there are many who like to think of themselves as pacifists, I have long maintained that most are more 'theoretic pacifists' than they believe. When it comes down to 'brass tacks', given the right circumstances and provocation, I would contend that most people would relinquish their pacifism in an instant.

The High Noon Syndrome Take the situation where a loved one, perhaps a small child, is being threatened with a gun. Being some distance away, the only way you know you can prevent the aggressor from pulling the trigger is by using the gun in your own hand. The bottom line is: do you pull the trigger or do you stand by and watch your innocent young child die at the hands of an evil killer? Do you see what I mean? There are lots of theoretical pacifists, but few who would remain so in the most trying of circumstances. Just like Grace Kelly's Quaker character in High Noon, very few of us could allow evil to succeed in taking away our nearest and dearest while we stood idly by. As Edmund Burke said, 'Evil flourishes while good men stand idly by'. I have a distinct recollection of wrestling, as a new Christian, with the morality highlighted in High Noon. It was one of my favorite films. Before becoming a Christian I had no cause to question Marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper)'s actions. It just seemed the right thing to do. But knowing the views of some older Christians who tended toward pacifist views, I had to rethink the whole thing. Was Kane right to stay and fight, after all? Should he have left town and avoided the undoubted bloodshed that staying would mean? By facing the evil, was he not bringing it upon the whole township (as many of the townsfolk, including his new Quaker wife, claimed)? Was Kane guilty of immorally pre-empting trouble and ushering in unnecessary violence? To agree with what the sheriff did in the film would, inescapably, mean agreeing that using guns, enjoining violence and killing, really is morally justifiable. It was all a little too much for a young Christian with little clear teaching and it took me some time to work it all out. But what it boiled down to was this: that the issue in High Noon was not violence for the sake of violence: rather was it largely unavoidable and inevitable. At the very best it was violence that could only have been deferred for a short time, since Miller's band were bent on murderous intent and exacting vengeance on the man who had put away their leader. As Kane explained, had they run (as they began to do) they would almost certainly have been caught out in the open, in an even more defenseless position. Such was the hatred of Frank Miller that he would have pursued them wherever they went. Far better then to stay put, ready to defend yourself and your family in an advantageous position. In short, Kane did what was right. But so, too, did his Quaker wife (Grace Kelly) when she shot and killed one of the would-be killers in defense of her husband - and in the process denied the validity of her own theoretic moral pacifism in the face of rank evil. In defending himself, Kane did indeed pre-empt the violence. While the Bible teaches man to 'flee temptation', it does not teach him to 'flee evil'. Rather man is called to expose and resist evil, as we have seen. So how do these moral realities play out in the arena of world affairs?

An example from recent history When Adolf Hitler annexed the Sudetenland and made it part of Germany, the whole world, including the USA and Britain, turned a blind eye, leaving an invaded people to their fate. Now emboldened, and believing no Western power would react, Hitler next invaded Poland. In 1939 Britain's Neville Chamberlain flew to Berlin and returned brandishing a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler, hailing his visit as a coup which had brought 'peace in our time'. We call this acceptance of evil gain, in an attempt to avert further evil, 'appeasement'. The history of appeasement, as one finds time and again by leafing through the history books, has a very long and distinctly undistinguished record. Just like the bullies who made our life misery in the schoolyard, it was not until someone stood up to the aggressor that we found two things: resisting evil does work, and that bullies, more often than not, turn out to be cowards at heart. In 1939 Great Britain finally listened to the prophetic warnings of Winston Churchill. It awoke to the truth that if it did not honor its pledge to defend the sovereignty of European allies, other countries and Britain itself could well be next. Though Britain did declare war against Germany, for the sake of others as well as for itself, it was in truth acting in self-defense and pre-emptively. No one seriously thinks that Britain's action then was anything other than right and moral, indeed the noble thing to do. If anyone still harbors doubt that the Bible teaches pacifism, they should look to the example of Jesus Christ himself.

Christ cleansing the Temple When Jesus entered Jerusalem at the beginning of the Jewish Passover, during that first Easter week, he made his way, not to the public market square, but to the precincts of the Temple. Anyone not understanding why, should appreciate that it is a recurring theme of Scripture that God's judgment always comes first to his own, the household of God - the church. It was already late evening and, having taken a good look around at the activities taking place there, Jesus left. The following day however, the first thing he did was to return. And there he did something entirely unexpected which undoubtedly fast-tracked him on the road to Calvary. What happened that morning was the overturning of the tables of the moneychangers. This was Jesus entering 'his Father's house' and specifically confronting the evil which was flourishing there in full public view. Of all places where evil should not be stomached, the Jewish moneychangers were systematically fleecing pilgrims from near and far, particularly the Gentile worshippers. And they were doing it at the heart of the worshipping community and with the full connivance of the Temple authorities. It is notable that Jesus did not take time to present a petition and argue his case. But neither was this a spontaneous outburst of uncontrolled anger. He did not simply go around pleading with these merchants to act more righteously. Their crime was beyond argument. What he planned was entirely violent, pre-emptive action. He even took time out to make a weapon, a cord of knots, to reveal the measure of God's wrath they had brought upon themselves. No wonder the Temple authorities saw Jesus as a threat. He was a threat not only to their authority and power, but also to their income. Here then is the Son of God himself setting forth a righteous example of one prepared to go to great lengths to cleanse the house of God in a pre-emptive defense of God's name and honor, as well as for the greater good of the people. So we have seen that when it comes to world events, to doing what is the Godly, moral thing, and acting in self-defense against impending violence, the principle of pre-emption is made out. But how does this principle apply to us with regard to the events of our time?

The Problem of Weapons of Mass Destruction All that we have said so far is perhaps less than controversial for most who know their Bible teaching - indeed most who take a common sense and objective perspective on these things. When cynical dictators build up massed armies on our border, it is almost certainly not a unilateral act of détente that they have in mind! Responding to such a build-up by moving our own army into a defensive position may exacerbate the problem, but it is only what any self-respecting nation must do in defense of its citizens. But what if you knew the build-up to be a prelude to full invasion, as with Hitler's blitzkrieg across Europe? Is it not morally defensible, if a nation has the strength, to pre-empt the invasion and disable the aggressive forces before they can perform their evil? Some would say that not to do so - and I would be one of them - may well amount to an act of national treachery which would probably lead to even more death and destruction than might otherwise have been the case. Had the world reacted to stop Hitler earlier, who knows how much death and destruction may have been averted - not least the Jewish holocaust of six million deaths. Pre-empting the actions of others is something of an inexact, subjective 'science'. But in the age of the indiscriminate mayhem that can be caused by weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which is undoubtedly the greatest specific threat to mankind today, pre-emption can become even more complicated. When the Americans dropped the hydrogen bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was the final act of a war in which the USA was not the aggressor. It had also become clear that the Japanese, because of their particular code of honor, were intent on fighting to the last. In other words, a lot more Americans and allies would have to die fighting to put an end to Japan's aggression. The stark calculation was that this was one way of shortening the war and at least saving the lives of thousands of Americans who would otherwise die because of the evil of those in the Japanese leadership. While the bombs took many lives, it undoubtedly saved many others. In short, it was a decision taken as the 'lesser of two evils'. But what of Israel's bombing of Iraqi factories which intelligence information alleged were close to developing nuclear weaponry - when Iraq's stated goal was the destruction of Israel. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had, as other Arab national leaders, long called for the annihilation of the State of Israel and had continually demonstrated its evil intent towards that sovereign state. In this regard I would argue that morally there is little or no difference at all between pre-empting an attack and adopting a 'first-strike' policy to deal with impending evil, whether it be massed armies on our borders or a nuclear attack from a neighbor bent on delivering weapons of mass destruction into our backyard. The only difference will be convincing the court of international law as well as the court of international opinion, that your intelligence was accurate and that you were therefore morally justified in taking pre-emptive action in your own self-defense. All of which brings us neatly around to why Saddam Hussein was removed from power as a result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Go to part II of this essay.)

Footnotes 1 Franklin D Roosevelt, speaking of the threat of Nazism, FDR Fireside Chat to the Nation, 11 September, 1941. See www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html. 2 I am fully aware that some leading liberal print columnists entirely refute the notion that there is in fact a War on Terror. These include Simon Jenkins and Stephen Glover (no relation!) and various others who write for leading newspapers and The Spectator magazine. It seems that these men are in a state of denial, given that terrorists declared war, not the West. 3 It is abundantly clear that there were extensive links between Saddam's regime and the al-Qu'eda leadership as Stephen F. Hayes important new book The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America makes abundantly clear.

© This essay is taken from The Politics of Faith: Essays on the morality of key current issues by Peter C Glover (Xulon Press) ISBN 1-594677-96-4 and is available from Amazon.com and all normal retail outlets. Visit the author's website at www.word21.com - a new conservative and Christian site based in the UK.

For footnotes see Part II