I find it truly naive to think that the removal of our troops is going to, somehow, improve the situation in Iraq. To believe that the violence will miraculously cease, once the last coalition soldier has gone home, is dangerous and, frankly, irresponsible. Withdrawal is merely going to blow apart a Pandora's Box full of problems in that region, not the least of which will be a bloody sectarian war between the various Islamist factions. The insurgents, in Iraq, are NOT fighting "U.S. occupation", as so many foolishy wish to believe; they are fighting, to the death, the nascent roots of democracy. Democracy is anathema to the fundamentalist Islamic belief system, with its strict adherence to Sharia Law. If democracy were to flourish in Iraq, then God forbid, it might spread to other Middle Eastern countries, and this, they will never allow to happen. Democracy and Sharia Law are like oil and water, so there is a vested interest in making sure democracy does not take root there.
So, in its misguided attempt to be 'peacemakers', the anti-war movement rather than helping to solve a problem, is only contributing to a far greater problem, down the line, for the people in that region,, and the rest of the world. And with the continuing trend towards Islamic conservatism, in Europe and elsewhere, the growing threat of radicalization is only going to increase, exponentially.
Since the beginning, people have called this war 'immoral'. That claim was bandied about, once again, when one of CPWI's event sponsors, the Rev. Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, stated that, "This war, from a Christian point of view, is morally wrong - and was from the beginning. This war is ... an offense against God." But what does that mean exactly? And whose sense of morality? Yes, war is a terrible thing, but sometimes a necessity. And do we have the right to judge which particular one happens to be morally justifiable and which not? And how dare they speak on behalf of God. How do they know what is or isn't an offense against God? Perhaps this is exactly what He wants: freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people. And do they not think that, perhaps, God was offended by all the heinous deeds that Saddam perpetrated on the Iraqis? I wonder if they truly realize how detrimental their actions are; that by demanding immediate withdrawal, they only serve to fortify and embolden the enemy. The extremists know the American people (like the Europeans) are wimps. We've demonstrated that part of our nature, time and time again. They know how to capitalize on our 'wimpitude' and are using it to their advantage. They're now engaging in a "media jihad" with the express purpose of encouraging Americans to continue on their Anti-War path. Apparently, they've been going to U.S. web forums, and posting jihad videos on sites like You-Tube, in order to sway U.S. and Western public opinion, and hence Western governments to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And they seem to be succeeding, quite well, in their endeavour.
I read the following comment on someone's blog: "I always find it very interesting that many soldiers and officer who have been to war usually come back convinced about the ineffectiveness and inhumanity of military solutions no matter the good intentions of those who initiate the action. In the end such tactics usually results in more bullshit and suffering that the locals have to deal with.There is nothing humanitarian about war, innocents is the first and the majority of the victims. (I am no pacifist,I do believe people have a right to defend themselves if they are being invaded). Indeed I find it a very reasonable position for many to be opposed to war or military solutions." This man believes, as I'm sure many do, that the only justifiable military action should be in defense of one's own land, but what about those who are unable to defend themselves? Would it have been "humanitarian" to have left Europe alone to deal with the Nazi problem? And what about the situation in Bosnia? Should we have let the Serbs continue to massacre the Bosnians? And what about Rwanda and Darfur? Do we not have a moral and spiritual obligation to help those in need? Is it not morally offensive to think that as long as it's not in my back yard, it's not my problem? Where do we draw the line?
As for CPWI's demand that we stop "threatening Iran and other nations", diplomacy has proved to be totally ineffective with bully countries, so what do they propose we do? If threats can stop a bully from violating another, than isn't it worth making that threat, rather than having to eventually witness the destruction of that "other" and then being left to pick up the bloody pieces; or living with the guilt of having stood by and done nothing? That would be my option. Had we entered into World War II and the Bosnian War sooner, there would be thousands still alive.
I would venture to say that most people, in the civilized world, desire peace with every fiber of their being. It's a wonderful goal to aspire to, but (sadly) not always possible. There are far too many people who don't want peace; who thrive on chaos and violence and oppression. And, yes, praying for peace is noble and good, but there is praying for peace and praying for peace. One doesn't pray for the withdrawal of troops, like the anti-war activists do, because that doesn't solve the underlying problem. One prays for those whose hearts are filled with hatred and fear and ignorance. One prays that they somehow find their way from the darkness to the light. That is praying for peace.
"Let There Be Peace on Earth and let it begin with me."
from the song "Let There Be Peace on Earth" by Sy Miller and Jill Jackson, Circa 1955