Skip to main content

The Iraq Debate: Russell Shaw's Closing Statement

The Iraq Debate: Russell Shaw's Closing Statement
by Russell Shaw
12/14/07
Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

Five quick comments:

1. My thanks to Bob Reilly for making my point: UN weapons inspectors were back in Iraq months before the U.S.-led invasion. That Saddam Hussein wasn't happy is neither surprising nor relevant.

2. Even I, no expert in such matters, can see something slightly, shall we say, fishy about anti-Saddam revelations by a defecting brother-in-law. In any case, this inventory of Saddam's WMD arsenal goes back eight years before the war. I share Reilly's wonderment at the disappearance of such a formidable force -- supposing it ever existed, that is.

3. It's beside the point that President Clinton in 1998 signed a measure declaring it American policy to "support efforts" to overturn Saddam Hussein. Lending unspecified support to others -- in this case, presumably, disaffected Iraqis -- and launching a war of one's own to effect regime change are two very different things.

4. By no stretch of the imagination can Pope John Paul II's encouragement of Iraqi democracy after the war be read as endorsement of U.S. policy before the war. Have we forgotten so soon that the Holy Father vigorously opposed this war?

5. I'm glad to amend what I said about U.S. unilateralism and make it practical unilateralism instead. It appears that many, if not most, of the countries in the Coalition of the Willing signed on in the expectation of being rewarded by the Bush administration. With the exception of the British and a few others, most sent token troop contingents. The number of coalition nations still in Iraq is down to 26. Sixteen have 100 or fewer soldiers there, many with non-combat roles. Even the British will cut their presence in half by next spring

In concluding, let me say I hope the pacification of Iraq succeeds. I hope General Petraeus is Time's Man of the Year. I hope a peaceful, stable Iraq will become the fulcrum of a peaceful, stable Middle East. But even if all that happens -- and I wouldn't bet a lot on it -- this will remain an unjust, ill-considered war.

However, instead of ending my part in this exchange with a friend I'm sorry to disagree with by making a closing statement covering the waterfront of my concerns, I want to return to a single aspect of this unjust war that ought to have special poignancy for American Catholics. I mean the harm done to Iraqi Christians.

Before the war there were 1.2 million Christians in Iraq. In the wake of war and a rash of anti-Christian threats and violence by Islamists, more than half have fled. The Iraqi government, to its credit, has offered free transportation and $800 to any family willing to return. So far 4,700 families have done that, and another 8,500 are on a waiting list. By my estimate, that adds up to about one Christian in ten of those who've packed up and left.

"They love their country, but at the same time it is impossible for them to go back to this situation," says Chaldean Catholic Bishop Antoine Audo of Aleppo, Syria, who struggles to provide pastoral services for 60,000 Iraqi Catholic refugees.

"It may be the end of Christianity in Iraq."

No one claims the United States had this tragedy in mind in 2003. But by recklessly intervening in a country we didn't understand, we unquestionably helped bring it about.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Shaw is a writer and journalist in Washington, D.C. His 19th book, Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication, and Communion in the Catholic Church, is forthcoming in 2008 from Ignatius Press.

[http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1912&Itemid=48]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...