Jim Wallis of Sojourners seems to be growing increasingly nastier and strident in his political rhetoric, and in this piece I think he says some things which are really quite indefensible. He writes, for example, that:
Bush stubbornly believes that military solutions are always the best answer, and consistently chooses war over politics. But without a political solution in Iraq, no escalation of the war will succeed. Whether in Iraq, or even in the larger war on terrorism, Bush believes, as he said again last night, that we are in a great "ideological struggle" between us and them, good and evil - and that only military solutions against "them" will suffice. Both wisdom and humility (two religious virtues) suggest that political and diplomatic resolutions to conflict are ultimately required. But last night, Bush again chose the primacy of military solutions.
This is such a distortion of the President's words and actions that I have to fight the temptation to think Wallis is deliberately misrepresentating the facts.
First, what has the president ever said or done that justifies Wallis' claim that he believes military solutions are "always the best answer," and how does Wallis conclude that Bush "consistently chooses war over politics"? Wallis has to ignore the entire history of our involvement with Iraq from 1990 on in order to say such things. The fact is that Bush only chose war after Iraq continued to violate one U.N. resolution after another, after they tried to assassinate an American president, after they repeatedly fired on our aircraft in violation of the terms of the cease-fire, after they committed mass murder against both Shia and the Kurds, and after they refused to give our weapons inspectors full cooperation, and gave every impression that they were trying to hide illegal weapons.
Second, when did Bush say that "only" military solutions would succeed in Iraq? He's never said that. He's spent the last three years trying to make political solutions work in Baghdad and when they came up short, and force became necessary, Wallis accuses him of only wanting to use force. Of course politics and diplomacy must be implemented, and they have been, but this is not an either/or strategy. There has to be diplomacy and there has to be force to back it up. Otherwise, diplomacy will never work. Wallis seems to think that diplomacy and military force are mutually exclusive so that if we employ one we cannot, and must not, employ the other.
Wallis then quotes an American soldier who is reluctant to go back to Iraq as if to demonstrate that even the military has given up on the war.
"I don't want to die over there; I don't think it's worth it," said one American serviceman who was interviewed this morning about the president's new plan. He and his new wife had a new baby just five days ago, but now he has been ordered back to Iraq. He named several of his friends who have new wives and babies on the way, who will now also be sent back.
Yes. Our soldiers are giving up on the war. That's why enlistments and re-enlistments are higher than ever. That's why the one segment of our population that is most supportive of what we are doing in Iraq are military personnel and their families. That's why Bush consistently gets standing ovations when he addresses military audiences. That's why the one segment of our population that least wants us to cut and run is the military. Wallis ferrets out one or two soldiers who are a little less than gung-ho and offers them up to us as if they are representative of the military as a whole. I'm sure he could have found soldiers in every war we've ever fought who felt the same way as the serviceman he quotes above, but it means nothing.
He goes on in his article to contend that the Iraq war fails to meet the traditional criteria of a just war, and, in the process, makes some very questionable, and very disappointing, assertions. In a day or two we'll consider this part of his argument.
RLC
