Spiritual wickedness in high places

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” I Cor. 13:1

I have to apologize to you readers because every time I hear George Bush speak on the television, I feel like I’m being lied to and it bothers me. On the other hand, I love to hear Bill Clinton speak. I know that he has lied to the American people too, but for some reason it just didn’t bother me as much as it does when George does it.

So I’m going to try to do my best to demonstrate a little charity but unfortunately, it is going to be laced with a health dose of conspiracy theory.

As I sit here trying to figure out why we are sending more troops to Iraq, the best that I can come up with is that Mr. Bush is delusional. Honestly, though, I can’t bring myself to that conclusion. All that I’m left with is the conclusion that this is a deeply cynical political gambit to keep the Republicans in power. Perhaps from a solipsistic point of view, Republicans losing the white house might the worst thing for the country that Mr. Bush can imagine and it justifies the lives that he is putting at risk. That’s really the best charitable explanation that I can come up with. The less charitable theory is that the Republicans like the power that a war president has and would be happy to have an extended sort of conflict as long as the casualty count is manageable.

So here’s how that theory goes.

If the US pulls out of Iraq now, we’ll save US lives but there is likely to be a very bloody civil war including the sort of ethic cleansing we’ve seen in other parts of the world when new political boundaries are being drawn. We could help mitigate some of that violence by helping to partition the country in a more peaceful way, but even that may not help. Any admission by the white house that our original goals are no longer attainable in Iraq will surely cost the Republicans the white house in 2008.

The only choice to preserve the white house for the Republicans is to make front-runner John McCain right. He has been an advocate of overwhelming force from the very beginning. If we are able to pour enough American troops into a small enough area like Baghdad, we may be able to change the nature of the fighting from open warfare to the sort of low boil conflict we see in Israel. With that sort of “progress”, John McCain could squeak out a victory. We’ll still be Iraq with no clear exit strategy, but the Republicans will have retained executive control and all the war powers that entails.

Don’t be surprised to see Ms. Rice also moving closer to Mr. McCain in the near future. Why else would heavy-weight John Negroponte take a demotion to a deputy position at the state department? This is preparing the way for Rice to gracefully exit and hit the campaign trail.

I believe that if the Democratic ticket starts looking like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, you’ll see the Republicans respond with a ticket of John McCain and Condoleeza Rice. I wish I could claim credit for this idea, but I read it first in a John Hughes column in the Christian Science Monitor.

Whatever happens, I do pray for the protection of everyone in that region. An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God is speaking to us all including George. That message remains one of harmony, peace, and love. If we listen with humility and obedience, we might just learn something.

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Prov 16:18

The beginning of a New Year is a natural time for reflection, planning, and perhaps new direction if things didn’t work out so well last year. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to see much of that going on in the White House.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has now lasted longer the WWII and will quickly cost more American lives than were lost in the 9/11 attacks. The level of violence in Iraq is at an all time high and the economy and infrastructure there remains in a shambles.

Mr. Bush’s answer to these problems is more of the same. The strategy that he appears to be considering is adding more troops. Here’s the theory behind that strategy. If there are sufficient troops on the ground to quell the warring factions in any particular geography and then hold that area by leaving troops there, we can expand the parts of the country that are able to live in relative peace. The hope then is that those Iraqis who support moderation will be able to act on their beliefs without fear of reprisal. If the fighting factions can be squeezed down into smaller and smaller enclaves, the rest of the country can return to some state of normalcy and the Iraqi police can take over.

The problem is that it won’t work.

The reason that it won’t work is because the Iraqi government forces are unreliable. The tribal bonds that motivate the current fighting are much stronger than loyalty to the central government. Finally, if the US switches from “search and destroy” tactics to “secure and hold” tactics, the opposing fighters will also adapt their tactics to much smaller sniper and assassination engagements. The door to door fighting that will result will drive up US and civilian casualties and further weaken our position with the Iraqi population as well as here at home.

Perhaps Mr. Bush is motivated by pride, or maybe a genuine fear of the consequences of our failure. The reality, however, is that we have put ourselves in a position where this is not winnable under the current definition of victory. We have to change our expectations of what is possible and recognize that until the Iraqis sort out their own internal differences, there is precious little we can do to bring peace to that region.

The best that we can do is prevent Iraq’s neighbors from taking advantage of the instability in Iraq and perhaps foster a transition so some federated state where the sectarian fighting can be contained and those areas that are currently peaceful can make some progress toward self-government.