Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost takes Jim Wallis to task for what he sees as .... inconsistency in Wallis' willingness or unwillingness to resort to force:
Two months ago, Jim Wallis wrote about his support for military intervention on The Huffington Post:
[Representatives from Evangelicals for Darfur] had complete agreement that only a large and strong multi-national peacekeeping force, with the authority to use "all necessary means," would suffice to end the genocide in Darfur - and that Sudan must be compelled to accept it.
Although Wallis is willing to use military force to protect the people of Darfur, he does not believe the people of Iraq should have been afforded the same protection, In fact, a recent anti-war protest, Wallis denounced the war as "an offense against God" and said that we don't need a surge in troops but rather, "We need a surge in conscience."
It does seem strange that Wallis would endorse the use of force to stop the genocide in Darfur but condemn the use of force to end genocide in Iraq. Perhaps Wallis, who usually sounds very much like a pacifist, has a reason for this distinction. If so, we'd like to hear it.
Meanwhile, others who are opposed to U.S. involvement in Iraq but in favor of U.S. involvement in Sudan might offer their own rationale for their views via our Feedback button.
RLC