War and Peace
A sermon delivered by the Rev.
Roger Scott Powers at Montclair Presbyterian Church in Oakland, CA,
on September 29, 2002.
Matthew 5:43-48, 7:1-5, 12-14, 24-29
You may have noticed from the bulletin that the theme for this morning
is "War and Peace." Those of you who are familiar with the
book by Leo Tolstoy know that it is a long novel (some would call it a
tome) running several hundred pages. Some of you may be wondering if
that is any indication of how long I plan to speak this morning. Well, I
want to put you all at ease, and assure you that my sermon is shorter
than Tolstoy's "War and Peace." What has more bearing is
the novel's weight, because it hints at how I have been feeling over the
past couple of weeks. I've been feeling a heaviness in my heart. I've
been feeling weighted down by the cares of the world. War, terrorism,
weapons of mass destruction -- these are weighty issues -- matters of
life and death. The debate over whether to go to war with Iraq is far
from simple. And the outcome of the debate could have momentous
consequences for the world.
In preparation for what I would say this morning about
Iraq and the possibility of war, I have been reading the newspaper every
day, listening to the Senate hearings off and on, sifting through emails
from peace movement networks, and surfing the web. And I must tell you
-- I am stressed out. I'm on information overload. The number of issues
involved is overwhelming. So, in trying to sort them out with you this
morning I will probably try to cover too much. Let me say up front that
this is not a three-point sermon. I don't know how many points there
are. I stopped counting after awhile. In any case, try to stay with me,
and hopefully we'll make it through to the other side together.
As I understand it, the case for going to war with
Iraq goes something like this: Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who
oppresses his own people, poses a threat to neighboring countries,
maintains ties to terrorist groups, has defied resolutions of the United
Nations Security Council, and is developing chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Let's look at each of these points
individually.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a brutal
dictator. But that is not enough of a reason to go to war. The U.S. has
a long history of supporting dictators around the world, including
Saddam himself during the Iran-Iraq War. He is a former U.S. ally.
Indeed, it was the U.S. that supplied him with chemical and biological
weapons in the first place. Going to war to overthrow the president of a
sovereign nation, no matter how oppressive his regime, would set a
dangerous precedent for the international community.
It is also clear that Saddam Hussein has been a threat
to his neighbors. In the 1980s, he was at war with Iran for eight years,
a war in which he used chemical weapons. And he invaded Kuwait, which
led to the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Given this history, it is probably
a safe assumption that Hussein still poses a threat to neighboring
countries, but such a threat could be managed through a policy of
deterrence and containment, much like the Soviet threat was handled. A
war with the goal of "regime change" does not seem necessary
to deter and contain an Iraqi threat to neighboring countries.
The Bush administration claims that Iraq has ties with
terrorist groups. That could very well be true. Last I heard, there are
estimated to be thousands of terrorists operating in dozens of different
countries. Why the focus on Iraq? No evidence has been brought forward
to link Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Most of the Sept. 11
terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. But no one is suggesting we
try to overthrow the undemocratic regime of Saudi Arabia. That
government is still a U.S. ally.
Then there is the matter of Iraq's defiance of United
Nations Security Council resolutions. A country should not be allowed to
defy the United Nations without there being some consequences. In the
case of Iraq,there have been consequences in the form of sanctions,
which unfortunately have hurt the Iraqi people far more than they have
hurt the Iraqi government. According to UN reports, more than a million
people (mostly children and the elderly) have died in Iraq since 1990
because of the sanctions. But in the case of Israel, which refuses to
comply with UN Security Council resolutions concerning the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the U.S. and the U.N. seem
content to look the other way. Only recently have there been calls for
economic sanctions against Israel, calls initiated by students on
college campuses. Here, with regard to noncompliance with UN
resolutions, there seems to be a huge double standard between how Iraq
is being treated and how Israel is being treated.
Finally, there is the question of whether Iraq
possesses chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
And this is probably the hardest question to answer, in large part
because United Nations weapons inspectors have not been able to enter
Iraq since 1998. President Bush claims that Iraq has biological and
chemical weapons and is developing nuclear weapons. Former UN weapons
inspector Richard Butler also says that Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons. But, on the other hand, Scott Ritter, who is a former United
States Marine and also served as a UN weapons inspector, believes it is
highly unlikely that Iraq has such weapons. And Senator Bob Graham,
Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says that based on the
evidence he has seen, Iraq is not developing weapons of mass
destruction. It is hard to know who to believe.
For the sake of argument, let's say Iraq does possess
weapons of mass destruction. Is that enough to justify war? No. Several
countries in the world possess weapons of mass destruction. Let us not
forget that it is the U.S. which has the largest stockpiles of such
weapons. Possession of weapons of mass destruction is not enough to
justify war. They would also have to pose a clear and imminent danger,
before a preemptive attack could be justified as an act of self-defense.
The fear that someday in the future, Saddam Hussein might use weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies is not sufficient cause
for war.
I keep wondering what this war-mongering is really all
about. What is behind this rush to war? Why now? Why after four years of
no weapons inspections in Iraq is the Bush administration pushing the
issue this fall? On Friday, I attended a clergy luncheon with
Congresswoman Barbara Lee. She seemed to feel that it is partisan
politics and the November 5 election that is driving the timing of the
debate over Iraq. The Republicans can't run on the U.S. economy, because
it's going down the tubes. So they're running on the war. Barbara Lee
also made the observation that the corporate scandal at Halliburton was
getting pretty close to Vice President Cheney, when the Vice President
suddenly emerged from his undisclosed location to raise the specter of
an Iraqi threat. Was that just a coincidence? And, of course, whenever
the Middle East is on the table, the issue of oil always looms in the
background: who has it and who controls it? Is this debate really just a
Republican ploy to divert the American electorate's attention away from
the faltering U.S. economy, corporate scandals, and the whereabouts of
Osama bin Laden? I would hope not. But if it isn't just a matter of
partisan politics, then why is it so important for the Congress to vote
on war before the election? What would be the harm in delaying a
Congressional floor debate and vote until after the November election?
Would one more month make that much difference?
Thus far, I've raised a lot of questions about the
current debate over Iraq and the rush to go to war. I'd like to now cast
all those doubts aside for a moment. Let's assume that Saddam Hussein
does possess chemical and biological weapons and is trying to obtain
nuclear weapons. He might or might not intend to use them against the
U.S. or its allies. He might or might not intend to slip them to
terrorists. But what we can be sure of, however, is that if we go to war
against Iraq, Saddam Hussein will use whatever weapons he has in his
effort to stay in power. He will have nothing to lose. That is the
ironic twist in this whole debate. The closer we get to war, the more
threatened Hussein feels, the more likely it is that Hussein will use
weapons of mass destruction (if he has them) to defend his regime. He
will be faced with a choice of using his weapons or losing them. That's
what makes a policy of pre-emptive attack so dangerous.
What would be the consequences of our going to war
with Iraq? It would certainly result in the death of many American and
Iraqi soldiers. It would cause more suffering and death for Iraqi
civilians. It would further destabilize the Middle East. It would
increase anti-American sentiments abroad and might encourage further
terrorist attacks instead of hindering them. It would cost between 100
and 200 billion dollars. And it would require U.S. forces to occupy Iraq
for years to come, as a new government is put in place and the nation is
rebuilt after years of war and sanctions.
A member of the Kuwaiti royal family has commented:
"Afghanistan is in turmoil, the Middle East is in flames, and you
want to open a third front in the region? That would truly turn into a
war of civilizations."
Someone asked me this week: "If we don't
overthrow Saddam Hussein, and he does obtain nuclear weapons, what's to
keep him from slipping one to a terrorist cell and nuking San
Francisco?" It is a serious question. And it gave me pause. It is,
I suppose, one of several worst case scenarios that we might consider.
As I have thought about it, my answer is this: Nuclear terrorism has
been a potential threat for many years. It's nothing new. And
eliminating Saddam Hussein will not eliminate the threat of nuclear
terrorism. It will still be with us. Indeed, as I said earlier, I think
going to war with Iraq could actually increase such threats rather than
decrease them.
We live in frightening and uncertain times. The Sept.
11 terrorist attacks shattered whatever sense of invincibility we may
have had as a nation. We now know just how vulnerable we are to
terrorist attacks. We may be able to reduce our vulnerability to attack,
but we will never eliminate it. No matter how much we beef up our
homeland security, no matter how much we curtail civil liberties, no
matter how much we expand our armed forces, we will never be able to
reduce our vulnerability to zero. We will have to learn to live with a
certain level of insecurity and uncertainty, just as the rest of the
world has. It's sad but true.
If war is not the answer, what is the alternative?
Well, certainly resuming UN weapons inspections in Iraq must be part of
the alternative. Lifting or revising UN economic sanctions so as to
provide sufficient humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians is another piece.
By alleviating the suffering of Iraqi civilians, it may be possible for
new leaders to emerge who can challenge Hussein's leadership.
The cover story of Sojourners magazine this
month is entitled: "How to topple Saddam Hussein - without war: Why
22 million Iraqis are better suited to bring democracy to their country
than the U.S. military." It lays out how oppressive rulers have
been overthrown by nonviolent movements - from generals in Latin America
to Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines to Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia.
"Strategic nonviolent action," the article concludes, "is
not about being nice to your oppressor, much less having to rely on his
niceness. It's about dissolving the foundations of his power and forcing
him out. It is possible in Iraq." Even to bring about regime change
in Iraq, there is an alternative to war.
Opposition to U.S. military action against Iraq is
widespread among U.S. church leaders. On September 12, a letter to
President Bush opposing a preemptive strike on Iraq was signed by 48
leaders of Christian denominations and organizations including the
Moderator and Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
"Rather than attacking Iraq," the letter said, "we urge
that your priority in the Middle East be an Israeli-Palestinian
ceasefire and peace settlement. As do many in the world, we look to the
United States government to set an example for the international
community. As Christian religious leaders responsible for millions of
U.S. citizens we expect our government to reflect the morals and values
we hold dear -- pursuing peace, not war; working with the community of
nations, not overthrowing governments by force; respecting international
law and treaties while holding in high regard all human life."
Our scripture reading for this morning consisted of
excerpts from the Sermon on the Mount: "Love your enemies and pray
for those who persecute you." "Do not judge, lest you be
judged." "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you." "Enter through the narrow gate." At the end of this
collection of Jesus' teachings, the writer of Matthew notes that the
crowds who first heard Jesus' words "were astounded" because
"he taught them as one having authority." Would that Jesus'
words had the same authority for us today.
World War II General Omar Bradley once said, "We
have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the
Mount. . . . The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power
without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical
infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about
killing than we know about living." Tragically, General Bradley's
words seem just as true today as they were when he first said them more
than 50 years ago. I wish it weren't so.
Jesus says: Everyone who hears his words and acts on
them will be like a wise person who built her house on rock. The rain
fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it
did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who
hears his words and does not act on them will be like a foolish person
who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the
winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell -- and great was its
fall!
Our nation has a choice. Will we choose wisdom or
folly? Will our nation's policies be built on solid rock or shifting
sand? When the storms come, will our nation stand or fall?
Wherever you come down on the question of war with
Iraq, I urge you to make your views known - to Congress, to the
President, to your friends and neighbors, to the press. We still live in
a democracy, for the time being anyway. We take it too much for granted,
and we are at risk of losing it. Democracy depends on our participation.
To opt out, to sit on the sidelines, is a vote for dictatorship. I do
not say that lightly. We must make our voices heard in the public arena.
We must be part of the public debate. Democracy demands dissent. So
please, at the very least, contact Senators Boxer and Feinstein and let
them know what you think. Monday has been declared a National Day of
Prayer and Faxing. Every Tuesday has been designated a National Call-In
Day. You will find contact information and other resources in this
morning's bulletin insert. Time is of the essence, as Congress is
expected to vote on a war resolution in the next week or two. It will be
a lot easier to stop this war before it starts, than it will be to stop
it after it has begun. Your voice does count. Please join me in speaking
out. Together we can make a difference.
