Kerux: a portfolio of Calvin Theological Seminary - Volume 41.13 - 5 February 2007

Does one mistake deserve another?

Concerning the U.S. invasion of Iraq

by Chad Vandervalk, Contributing Editor

When I was travelling through Greece before coming to seminary, I was very happy to be a Canadian, and I almost always wore something that identified me in this way. This was because the Greeks did not look too kindly on the U.S., since this was at the beginning of the U.S.-led invasion into Iraq.

There were quite a few times that I was taken aback at the graffiti along the railway. Things like: “F*** the U.S.”, “Get the f***ing U.S. out of Iraq”, etc. The reason they were none too pleased was that they have had a long history of being occupied by other countries. Talking with some of the locals, they did not think that there is ever a valid reason to invade some other country and occupy it, for any length of time.

President Bush's State of the Union address, as well as the reporting around it, brought up some of these issues again. The president called for more troops in Iraq to continue the 'war on terror'. Right now I am not calling into question the rhetoric concerning this war on terror. What I am interested in discussing is the validity of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the method of its continuance.

There are some at the seminary and elsewhere who would like to think of the U.S. and its current ‘war on terror’ as something akin to Allies against the Axis in WWII. I even saw an excerpt from one of the speeches of Winston Churchill floating around with his picture blazing beneath it, which read, “Victory at all costs, because without victory, there can be no freedom.”

I do not think that this is an appropriate comparison. The U.S. has embroiled itself in a conflict that is much tougher than initially projected, and some believe that the best plan for the success of the original plan is a further increase in troops. However, others think that the U.S. should have kept their noses out of the area in the first place, and that this increased need for troops is evidence of the naivety of the government's plan in the first place.

I happen to be one of them. I do not think that the U.S. had the obligation, the right, or even the authorization to begin this invasion. It was more like, “Well, now the bear has been provoked, so you will feel the wrath.” There were even popular songs at the time giving that kind of thing credence. The invasion into Iraq was riding on the coattails of the extreme patriotism, which arose in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Toby Keith's song Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue is a perfect example of this extreme patriotism:

Hey, Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list and the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist and the eagle will fly and it's going to be hell when you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell and it will feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue.

Oh, justice will be served and the battle will rage this big dog will fight when you rattle his cage you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A. cause we'll put a boot in your ass it's the American way.

This kind of extreme patriotism is wrong. The U.S. is not to be confused with God. It is not the upholder of justice in the world. It is not the place to which people should go to seek peace, order, and security. This kind of patriotism confuses one's ultimate allegiance. As Christians, our allegiance is to God, not to some country – especially not to one that promotes values that are contrary to the Gospel. Watch TV in the evening and you will see what I mean.

This kind of patriotism, while sinful in itself, should be distinguished from some theological discussions that are downright dangerous. Directly after the September 11 attacks, I felt a rise in the idea of Manifest Destiny, and I am not sure that this has been eradicated completely. If there are those who espouse this idea, they should really check their theology. The United States is not God's chosen instrument to bring peace, justice, and democracy to the world. It does not have sanction from God to act in international affairs however it sees fit, overthrowing other governments and replacing them with different ones.

Some would argue that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to value all human life and was a way to protect the safety of those who were being oppressed and even killed. Though this was not the reason given to provide justification for the action in the first place, this rhetoric has shown up as a sort of secondary justification, or at the least a laudable side effect. This kind of argumentation is post hoc ergo propter hoc; more freedom has occurred, therefore this must have been the reason for the invasion. Remember, the reasons given for the invasion was that Iraq was a direct physical threat to the rest of the world, specifically the U.S. and the U.K. I agree that if this invasion produces more freedom for the people of Iraq, then that is a good thing. However, I am calling into question the tactics used to produce such an effect: Were they appropriate?

I am not saying that people underneath oppressive and tyrannical regimes should simply cow-tow to whatever the dictator says. I am not arguing in support of what the church did in Germany when it turned a blind eye on what the Nazi's were doing. Nor am I arguing that the world has no right to protect the rights of the innocent and oppressed in other nations. I am, however, arguing that one or two nations do not have the right to push their agenda on the rest of the world. There are structures in place to help the international community deal with things like this. The U.S. and the U.K. had no right to act unilaterally outside of the body of the U.N. Granted, this structure becomes clumsy and useless at times, but it is better than the alternative of international anarchy or rule by rogue states.

Some may say that it does not matter how we got into this mess, and that to call it into question now is to deny support to the military, to be unpatriotic, or to ally oneself with those who seek to propagate terror. Bollocks! I am calling it into question now, because I disagree that one mistake deserves another. Should the first error to send troops into Iraq in the first place be followed with another to send more troops? Maybe those who want to see more troops in Iraq should volunteer themselves.

And while we’re thinking about whether or not this invasion into Iraq was, or is, appropriate, consider the following: The government of the U.S. used its military might to force another country to adopt its style of governance. For those who are happy that the U.S. has taken things into its own hands in Iraq, I ask you this question: Would you have been just as happy if some other country did this to you?