tothesource

Rebuttals to: Memorial Day...When Action Saves Lives

The morality of pre-emptive military action remains suspect, especially for many Christians who take seriously the admonition of Scripture to love your enemies. Further, D'Souza's speculation that such pre-emptive action would have prevented WWII is just that--in fact it is the very 'second guessing' he criticizes from those opposing Bush's Iraq policies. G. O.

I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by Mr Dinesh D'Souza for continuing war in Iraq in a recent email. There is nothing remotely similar to Hitler in Saddam. The original motives--to find WMD--has proved bogus. It is not our particular right to go off instituting democracy wherever we happen to think it would be good to do so. And who is keeping count of all the Iraqis who have been killed by American forces? In addition the US policy in the 80's was to support Saddam. It could be argued that the Taliban and Saddam were both creatures of US foreign policy in the past. The invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq have only exacerbated the problems, not solved them. It is a completely wrong-headed policy. And a deadly one--for Afghanis and Iraqis and also for our own people. Rev'd Canon J. S.

The Bush Administration's actions have been controlled by an agenda which is devastating to America's position in the world. This pre-emptive war mentality has only increased the likelihood of violence and terror not decreased it. It has heightened hatred around the world instead of bringing people together to face common issues and enemies. This Administration has been an ideological fiasco and the regime change must begin at home. Bring the troops home and send Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle and Rumsfeld to Baghdad - let them solve the mess they have created at the cost of over 800 plus wonderful young and too early lost American lives. All in the name of Halliburton, Bechtel and the great Oil sucking monsters that seek to rule the world - it is a crime and a waste. There was a better way and a way to truly fight terrorism - but Bush and Company have lost the war. R. M.

Your open letter comparing Bush's actions in Iraq with Normandy was based on a false assertion: "But the attacks on America�s policy in Iraq are short-sighted, because they fault the administration for undertaking costly actions when the costs of inaction would have been greater." Opponents to Bush's unilaterist foreign policy do not advocate "inaction." We have advocated: intensive multinational policing, shutting down of funding sources of terrorist groups, new (and costly) foreign policy initiatives to support development of impoverished areas which are the breeding ground of terrorism, increased educational exchange and cultural engagement, enforcement of International Law including sanctions against the illegal occupation of territory by Israel (which state is in violation of more U.N. resolutions than any other country including Iraq). No, the objection has not been to action, the objection is to unilaterilist military intervention because we predicted that the specific sorts of action proposed by the Bush administration would result in chaos and increased terrorism. Our predictions have sadly been verified by events. As for the idea that a coalition comprised primarily of the United States and Great Britain could impose democracy in Iraq: this is not only risky but foolhardy. One need only recall that Great Britain created the modern state of Iraq in 1921 when it imposed -- not democracy -- but a foreign monarchy (deploying an Arab prince who had been Britain's ally against the Ottoman empire) and who was sustained in power only by harsh repression of the very same groups that are now fighting each other and their "liberators." One might also wonder if the people of this predominantly Muslim country might look with fear rather than hope to the United States, given its pro-Christian, anti-Muslim, history in Lebanon; its support of the dictatorial Shah in neighboring Iran until he was overthrown by a fundamentalist Muslim revolution, and its massive support for Israel against the democratic aspirations of the Palestinians. The United States and Great Britain do not have the standing in the region to attempt the "democratization" of Iraq. Although word may not have reached you, the Bush administration is backing off from that goal as well. There was a good reason why President Bush, Senior, refused to decapitate Iraq in 1991. That had to do with the fact that the chaos we are now enjoying was not just predictable, but was predicted. Foolish action is not better than inaction; wise action is better than either. B. R.

The recent article on the rationale for the war in Iraq, though well-written, leaves out an important detail. The American people were told that we were going into war with Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. We failed to let the UN inspectors continue to do their jobs and we rushed to action on bad intelligence. Yes, Sadaam is bad and we helped remove him from power, but this was not our rationale for war. There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11, but the Bush administration twisted arguments in such away that many Americans thought this was the reason. I am bothered by the fact that we know of a Saudi connection to 9-11, but we don't pursue action there. I am disgusted for the reasons why not. Further, we knew of Korean weapons at the time we went to war with Iraq, but have taken no action there. The American people have been manipulated and the Iraqi people, while free have no security. I cannot see the comparison of WWII with the war in Iraq. Yes, two tyrants, but we actually had allies. In this war, we have not acted in community with the world. We acted as though we could solve all of the problems on our own. From my "Judeo-Christian moral framework" this attitude goes against what is Godly. An arrogant spirit has no need of the counsel of God. M. S.

I�m sorry, but I have difficulty comprehending why we invaded Iraq, where there were only rumors of �weapons of Mass Destruction�, and ignored Korea, which plainly has them! The only answer I come up with is North Korea doesn�t have any oil North Korea was not a target for a �Bush Revenge� Sorry to come off like a cynic, but this was has brought out the cynic in a lot of people. I don�t know whether Dinesh D�Souza is simply na�ve or if he�s more cynical than I am! H. B.

What gives us the right to impose our system of government on any country. If we can do so in Iraq, why not Saudi Arabia, who seemed to have more involvement in 9/11. By being pro-war, any war, and pro-violence for any reason we are totally ignoring the teachings of Jesus. How then can we call ourselves Christians??? One who believes Jesus taught and lived the truth. T. L.

Though I usually disagree with much of what appears in this column, I appreciate this article. I find the arguments follow a reasonable line, and it makes sense how Dr. D'Souza gets from premise to conclusion. I was struck, however, by the unstated assumption in this article that God sides with the U. S. of America. I want to state, hopefully clearly, two cautions: 1) The U. S. of America runs the risk of contributing to further hostility directed against the U. S. of America from around the world by assuming that we have the right answers. 2) Christians in the U. S. of America are done a disservice when any group assumes that God stands on their sidelines. I don�t see many people at all critiquing the pervasive assumption, whether explicit or implicit, that God prefers democratic forms of government over all others. Personally, I�m not ready to stand up and speak for God, or even to say what I believe would be closer to the mind of God. But I would like to see that conversation happening in the public sphere in a more prominent way instead of assuming that since democratic governments are the richest and most technologically advanced, that democracy is scriptural. Pastor M.

I just love Dinesh D'Souza. I first heard him speak while I was attending Indiana Wesleyan University and I have read his book, "What's So Great About America." His work is so scholarly, yet grounded in such sound logic. As odd as it sounds, that combination is hard to find these days. God bless him for his work. I hope to hear much more from him in the future. R. M.

Click on the banner below and it will take you through the process of connecting to tothesource articles from your website.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.