I don't play "what ifs?" (Except, I do)

Syria states that it is withdrawing its troops from Lebanon.  Whether Syria is making a complete withdrawal from Lebanon (as the Syrian government implies) or a partial withdrawal (as I suspect) really doesn't matter; this is big news.  I can't help but think that hope is coming, at long last, to the Levant.

Would it have happened if Saddam was still in power?  I frankly don't know. 

(I tend to think not.)

Comments

[Amos Newcombe]

There's a reason not to play "what ifs". They are by nature undecidable. I can predict how all the frequent commenters here will react to this statement, just based on their published reactions to the Iraq war. You can do it probably even better than I. What is to be added to that discussion by trying to co-opt this proud achievement of the Lebanese people?

Those of us who thought the Iraq war was misbegotten from day one, are not now compelled to search for retroactive justifications for it.

Come ... join us ... don't be afraid ...

[Anarch]

As long as Syria abides by its declaration, I don't care why they did it or whether Saddam's ouster was the primary cause. We can have that debate later. For now, let's just cross our fingers and hope that peace is slouching towards Beirut.

[rilkefan]

"What is to be added to that discussion by trying to co-opt this proud achievement of the Lebanese people?"

I doubt the invasion of Iraq is a principal cause of this, but if it were, I'd want to know for future reference in evaluating the likelihood interventions will have a good effect and in evaluating the policy opinions of the "encourage democracy" minority of war supporters.

[dmbeaster]

Well, I guess the reverse "what if" agenda is that increased nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea are due to taking out Saddam.

[Jesurgislac]

Amos: I can predict how all the frequent commenters here will react to this statement, just based on their published reactions to the Iraq war.

*grins*

You know, you're right, Amos. So assume that I said whatever you predicted I'd say.

[Anarch]

You know, you're right, Amos. So assume that I said whatever you predicted I'd say.

Jes, you ignorant slut.

[Jesurgislac]

Jes, you ignorant slut.

How predictable!

[von]

Those of us who thought the Iraq war was misbegotten from day one, are not now compelled to search for retroactive justifications for it.

Amos, you may have missed this post from me (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/10/realism_and_the.html):

My support for the Iraq War was accordingly cautious, my trust in our infallibility nonexistant, and my hopes for a quickie democracy in Iraq close to nil. When WMD were not found in Iraq, I was forced to confess that the invasion was a mistake -- albeit a mistake we must not magnify with defeat, or by drawing down our forces too quickly.

[von]

Or this one (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/02/was_democratiza.html):

The point that I fear is being missed in all this, however, is whether democratization alone was sufficient as a casus belli in Iraq. (There's a subsidiary question as to how heavy an emphasis was placed on democratization in the build up to war, but put that aside for the moment.) I've never thought it was. We've never fought a war for democracy and freedom alone. And for good reason. Any doctrine that requires the forced democratization of the world is a doctrine that, in the present world, requires total war with the world.

We invaded Iraq because we believed that it posed a threat to our national security. That was the casus belli. That was the basis for our "preemptive" strike. To argue that the Iraq war was only, or even mostly, about democratization is to pretend. It's worship of the ridiculous. If we "pre-empted" tyranny in Iraq, why don't we also pre-empt tyranny in Syria, the Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, et al. Why not fight until the world is united and exploring the galaxy in peace beneath a benevolent Picard?

* * * * * * * *

So: Reasonable minds can differ as to whether, with hindsight, the Iraqi war was wise. Admittedly, my support was wobbly at the beginning. It was based on the perception that Iraq was a direct threat to our interests -- or, at least, a greater indirect threat than the other regional ne'erdowells, e.g., Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Consequently, the absence of WMDs in Iraq has caused me to rethink the war more than some. It re-emphasized for me the validity of the old lessons that wars are tough and unpredictable and aren't always won, and should never be entered lightly, or quickly, or without sound cause.

Yes, I'm cheering for the Iraqi democrats. I'm hoping that Iraq's new constitution is a resounding success. I'm grasping for silver linings. But that's what they are: silver linings in clouds we should have avoided.

[Charles Bird]

To answer the question, I seriously doubt it, but I think the more accurate answer is this: If the Afghan election didn't occur, if the Orange Revolution didn't take place, if the Palestinians didn't elect a new prime minister and if the Iraq election didn't happen, then half a million Lebanese would not have taken to the streets and fomented the Cedar Revolution, which was the catalyst for Syria's withdrawal. These things don't happen in vacuums.

[KCinDC]

You forgot "if Hariri hadn't been assassinated". Is Bush taking credit for that as well?

[liberal japonicus]

Someone needs to say something about the Red Sox winning cause it has to fit in here somewhere.

[greenconsciousness]

We play "what if" games with children so that if the actual situation occurs in reality the children will know what to do.

What if you are playing an excellent game of ball faster and faster and the ball just misses your finger tips and goes between those two cars? What if a young boy loses his dog and asked you to help him? What if the man next door suddenly appears in the house and says you are coming with him to his house?

This is called Prevention Education.

So play the "what if" games - you need to think about things to prepare yourself, to know what you are, what you want to be and how you want to act in the face of oppression.

Those who have used the issue of human rights to gain support need to be challenged on their failure to act.

Those who have supported them need to understrand the difference between wars of oppression and wars of liberation.

They need to understand how they are supposed to act, how they want to act when faced with the reality of humans held as slaves of their government and religions.

[CharleyCarp]

Not sure about the Red Sox, but I'd say that the decision of the Mass Supreme Court in Goodridge has plenty to do with President Bush's re-election. So, to the extent that unintended consequences can be found worthy of such, the Cedar Revolutionaries can thank the brave lesbians who brought the case. Hey, what about the Swift Boat Vets and their role?

This is like the debate over whether Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. Gore lost because of a great number of semi-independent variables, any one of which, if absent, w/could have made the difference. Butterfly ballots, unpostmarked absentee ballots, USSC making up constitutional claims where clearly none exist, Bolton gets vote counting stopped in Miami, etc etc. Oh yeah, and 100,000 votes in FL for Nader.

OK, here are some more unintended consequences to think about wrt Lebanon: the GWOT wouldn't have gotten its start without the 911 attack, which wouldn't have come off if AQ had been annihilated in the wake of the Cole bombing. So the failure to retaliate in this way for the Cole bombing has led to freedom for millions. Actually, the Cole wouldn't have been bomber if AQ had been rolled up in 98 after the embassy bombings, which was made politically impossible by the impeachment. So we can thank Linda Tripp for the Cedar Revolution.

How about this: the Iranians gain their primary foreign policy objective -- a weak and benign (to them) Iraq and at the same time don't feel the need to control Hezbollah so tightly. (Let's say that the primary point of Iran's Lebanon and Syria policy was flanking Iraq.) They loosen the reins, and something stupid happens. Now they're thinking about whether dropping Syria from the equation can enhance their position in Lebanon -- because any recasting of the representational scheme will benefit Shiites, and probably pro-Iran Shiites most of all. And to stop having to deal through a weak and not-completely-controllable client in Syria. OK, that makes the removal of SH a primary cause for the withdrawal of Syrian troops, but maybe not in exactly the way you were thinking.

[cleek]

Actually, the Cole wouldn't have been bomber if AQ had been rolled up in 98 after the embassy bombings

hey, this looks like fun!

and we can thank Reagan for scurrying out of Lebanon for giving the precursors to AQ the idea that the US would run when stung. so, Reagan, once again, saves the world.

plus, if Saddam was still in power, i'd be nine feet tall.

[NeoDude]

Americans are gleefully pondering the theories conserning representational governments. In countries where there is peace and order.

There are sure a lot of dead innocent people in Iraq. And I wouldn't wish the crime and chaos on my worse enemies.

I would love to see how democratic most of the other nations would be if they were living through such hell.

[BSR]

I think the Syrian withdrawl from Lebenon has a lot more to due with the death of Hafez Assad and his Son's weak leadership abilities. Hafez Assad was known as the Lion of Damascas for a reason, his son is a very weak substitute.

[DaveC]

I don't think that the Bush admin had Lebanon or Krygystan (just randomly pressed consonants and y's, not sure about spelling), or women's rights movements in Kuwait, or orange Ukraine, or whatever, in mind in 2002/2003 but they knew that the status quo was untenable. So mix things up, see what happens, hope for the best, hail eris!

Not that all foreign policy should be conducted that way.

[Amos Newcombe]

von: And yet ... you're still grasping for silver linings.

(Thanks for this formulation, by the way. I can see now that my idea of "looking for a retroactive justification" is a misinterpretation of your point of view. Sorry. I knew the general arc of your thought, but had forgotten the words. And I was also talking in advance to others who might try to use this Syrian move to justify the war.)

But why grasp for silver linings at all?

I guess my problem is that I can easily believe that the Syrian attitude toward the US is something like this: George Bush is such a lunatic that we have to be really careful about provoking him. And they are surely aware that some people over here speak of them as being next in line for toppling.

I could make a different case -- that this move is timed not at the moment of American military triumph in Iraq -- two years ago now -- nor yet at the moment when we are free enough from Iraq to think realistically about adventures elsewhere, but at the moment when the Syrian occupation became a public issue in Lebanon. I think this new guy in Syria is more inclined to look at the occupation realistically based on its political costs/benefits, without the emotional attachment to it that the old man might have had. So when the costs go up, home they go.

But I have nothing else to support this argument, or criticize the "they-fear-us-mwa-ha-ha" argument, besides my opinion. I don't have recordings of Syrian cabinet meetings. I don't have a cross-universe machine to show me what happened in the alternate universe where we didn't invade Iraq. (I'd pass on the flying car if I could just get one of those.) I just have my opinion. And I have an anti-war bias that goes back more than 35 years. No one will be convinced one way or the other.

At this point the invasion of Iraq is an accomplished fact. More important now is to prevent the next war from being sold to us the same way the last one was. The last thing we need to look for is silver linings.

greenconsciousness: We play "what if" games with children so that if the actual situation occurs in reality the children will know what to do.

In that context, before the fact, as a training exercise, it can be very valuable. Part of the problem in Iraq is, we didn't do it enough. But here, after the fact, trying to get a handle on people's motivations, which even in their heart of hearts they might not be fully aware of themselves, it seems a lot less useful.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Well, I guess the reverse "what if" agenda is that increased nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea are due to taking out Saddam."

That would be a better "what if" if they hadn't done so before the invasion--unless your are positing a reverse temporal effect.

And don't think I don't blame Reagan for part of the problem in Middle East relations with the US when he withdrew. The only reason I give Reagan or Carter any slack for their atrocious Middle East policies is that they both had a stronger focus on the USSR. Bush and Clinton didn't have the excuse.

[Anarch]

So mix things up, see what happens, hope for the best, hail eris! Not that all foreign policy should be conducted that way.

I completely agree with that, except for disagreeing that it should have been done here. Spot on.

[NeoDude]

I'm glad many of you were so brave as to volunteer Arab bodies "to mix it up a bit"

That attitude will be essential if democracy is going to bloom in the Middle East.

[praktike]

I'd say it's unknowable as to whether the creation of a failed state in Iraq inspired Lebanese angered by the assasination of a billionaire backed by three powerful states to demonsrtrate in favor of an official Syrian departure.

[bob mcmanus]

Maybe OT if this is about Iraq and Syria, but two links:

Kleiman

An analysis piece

And this is what I am most interested in, can Syria survive the loss of Lebanon economically, especially in keeping its military happy.

Economics Syria Comment Indispensable

I haven't really commented because there be actual experts around. Maybe a good question is not whether Bush's Excellent Iraq Adventure liberated Lebanon, but whether and by whom it will be perceived as doing so. And is that perception an unqualified good?

[DaveC]

Look, there were plenty of Arab bodies before the war, 300,000 and counting in the mass graves. But that was not the only reason, WMDs weren't the only reason, to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

Gary Farber laid out the reasons for going ahead with the war, before the war, and before he was against it.

I think that E. nough did a pretty good job of it as well.

[bob mcmanus]

And praktike, Kleiman talks of a Shiite crescent across the top of the Middle East. Now I have learned a little about Alawi, but I haven't quite got all the details of the religious demographics of Syria/Lebanon down yet, and the political relationships of those religious subcultures, in theory and practice, to the wider sectarian competitions in the rest of the ME. Could you sum it all up in a short comment?

:)

[ral]

Mass graves

Who is in the mass graves in Iraq and what was the U.S. involvement? Let's think back.

The Iran/Iraq war, Sep. 1980 - Aug. 1988. Exact numbers are hard to come by. Combined estimates of the dead on both sides range as high as 1.5 million. For the few remaining months of the Carter administration the U.S. declared itself neutral. Later, the Reagan administration gave support to Iraq including intelligence and some technology suitable for weapons production. The famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld paying his respects to Saddam Hussein dates from that period.

The attack on the Kurds (the "Anfal Campaign"), Feb. - Sep. 1988. The Kurds in northern Iraq had a long history of armed struggle against the central Iraqi government, beginning well before the Saddam Hussein regime. Toward the end of the Iran/Iraq war Saddam Hussein launched an attack on the Kurds. Middle East Watch gives an estimate of 50,000 to 100,000 dead, including the 5,000 in Halabja. In response to Halabja, the U.S. Senate passed the 1988 Prevention of Genocide act. The Reagan administration was opposed and the bill died.

The first Gulf war, 1991. Casualty figures are highly disputed. The Air Force commissioned Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report estimates 10,000 - 12,000 killed by the air war plus 10,000 in the ground war.

The Shiite uprising, 1991. After the end of the first Gulf war, the Shiites in the south, with encouragement from President George H. W. Bush, rebelled. U.S. forces did not prevent the Saddam Hussein regime from crushing the rebellion.

Saddam Hussein certainly was a tyrant, but citing the mass graves is not very flattering to the United States.

[DaveC]

I undertand what you're saying, but that's why I also linked to Gary and E.nough.

[ral]

DaveC, maybe some other time we'll rehash the justification for attacking Iraq. For now, here is my view of this kind of "what if?"

"What is Fate?" Nasrudin was asked by a scholar.

Nasrudin answered: "An endless succession of intertwined events, each influencing the other."

The scholar objected, "That is hardly a satisfactory answer. I believe in cause and effect."

"Very well," said Nasrudin, "look at that." He pointed to a procession passing in the street. "That man is being taken to be hanged. Is that because someone gave him a silver piece and enabled him to buy the knife with which he committed the murder or because someone saw him do it or because nobody stopped him?"

[dmbeaster]

Sebastian:

That would be a better "what if" if they hadn't done so before the invasion--unless your are positing a reverse temporal effect.

No -- I actually don't ascribe to the "what if" nonsense, as its a juvenile way to analyze cause and effect, and to evaluate policy.

But my point was that if we are to indulge in this type of thinking, Bush's warmonger mentality against Saddam creates the likelihood of inspiring in your much more dangerous adverseries (N.K. and Iran) a redoubled effort to arm to the teeth rather than reach compromises. After all, the Bush precedent is that even if you have disarmed of all WMD, you will be invaded anyway.

Or are you arguing that they already had the same level of nuclear resolve in 2002, but Bush stupidly went after the one alleged "Axis of Evil" that had no WMD?

[ral]

dmbeaster: ... but Bush stupidly went after the one alleged "Axis of Evil" that had no WMD?

I would put it another way -- we attacked Iraq because we could. There was no one to stop us and the Iraqi army was not much of an obstacle.

[lily]

That's what I've always believed. We attacked, not because he was evil, but because it was supposed to be easy.

[DaveC]

we attacked Iraq because we could.

That certainly was part of it.

But there was much more. I was going to cut and paste this USS Clueless log entry, but decided it wouldn't fit on the screen ;^)

[Slartibartfast]

We attacked, not because he was evil, but because it was supposed to be easy.

Hmmm...lotsa places would have been easier; wonder why Iraq?

[Charles Bird]

citing the mass graves is not very flattering to the United States.

The choice was Saddam's to put those hundreds of thousands in mass graves. The U.S. didn't have a gun to Saddam's head. Talk about liberal sleight of hand...

One other thing. From 1980-1990, the U.S. provided 0.6% of Saddam's weaponry. Russia, France and China provided 85%, just to add a little perspective...

[Mark]

Cite?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I'd say it's unknowable as to whether the creation of a failed state in Iraq inspired Lebanese angered by the assasination of a billionaire backed by three powerful states to demonsrtrate in favor of an official Syrian departure."

No, we are playing 'what if' not contrafactual.

"Or are you arguing that they already had the same level of nuclear resolve in 2002, but Bush stupidly went after the one alleged "Axis of Evil" that had no WMD?"

I can easily argue that the level of resolve before the invasion was still high enough to be an incredibly serious matter, such that the increased resolve you mention is not a big deal.

[Anarch]

The choice was Saddam's to put those hundreds of thousands in mass graves. The U.S. didn't have a gun to Saddam's head. Talk about liberal sleight of hand...

The US did, however, use its influence on the UN Security Council to prevent a motion of censure or anything stronger from being levelled against Saddam. The US didn't merely exist contemporaneously with the massacres, it actively abetted them by giving him diplomatic cover and an international aegis. For all our talk of being the world's policeman, that blood is on our hands too.

[dmbeaster]

I can easily argue that the level of resolve before the invasion was still high enough to be an incredibly serious matter, such that the increased resolve you mention is not a big deal.

Which brings me back to the point that "what if" scenarios rarely provide much insight as it devolves into rank (altough sometimes entertaining) speculations.

The best point made in this thread is that the recent events in Lebanon are primarily attributable to the vacuum in Syrian leadership resulting from Hafaz al Assad's death. Most everything else, including the Iraq invasion, is peanuts compared to that factor.

Kind of like the pre-dominant cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the unwillingness of the then communist leadership to do a Stalin redux in overthrowing Gorbachev, or for that matter, simply a Tianamen Square repeat in Red Square. They would still have been weak due to their economic problems, but they could have politically renewed the true spirit of communism and continued the evil empire for decades.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The US did, however, use its influence on the UN Security Council to prevent a motion of censure or anything stronger from being levelled against Saddam."

At least we have outsourced that to France nowadays.

[CharleyCarp]

The US did have a gun to Saddam's head in 1991, but neither pulled the trigger, nor yelled "stop" as he filled mass graves with participants in the failed Shiite uprising.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The US did have a gun to Saddam's head in 1991, but neither pulled the trigger, nor yelled "stop" as he filled mass graves with participants in the failed Shiite uprising."

This was one of the great tragedies of the first Gulf war. It was foolish to let Saddam survive the invasion of Kuwait.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

Re allowing Saddam to survive GWI.

So Bush pere should have broken his promise to his coalition, just so Clinton could have been saddled with the obligation of occupation?

And as to the cheap shot regarding France, va te faire foutre.

[praktike]

"From 1980-1990, the U.S. provided 0.6% of Saddam's weaponry. Russia, France and China provided 85%, just to add a little perspective..."

How much value do you put on satellite imagery?

[Slartibartfast]

So Bush pere should have broken his promise to his coalition, just so Clinton could have been saddled with the obligation of occupation?

I'm pretty sure that GHWB wasn't working under the assumption of a Clinton successor to the WH. As always, though, I could be wrong.

[lily]

I still don't see a link between the toppling of Saddam and the withdrawal of the Syrians. The Lebanese have a new generation now that doesn't believe the Syrians are necessary to prevent civil war. The Isreali troops ( the main rationale for Syrian troops) were withdrawn and a popular leader was killed. The Ukrainians provided a model for protesting. Where do we fit in? We really don't have any means for pressuring the Syrians militarily. We can't invade them. The public would not support an air attack (or, at least, I don't think we would).
I have a confused memory of the French going to the UN and proposing sanctions, an action which, I believe, the US supported. If I am remembering correctly it seems much more likely that the pressure which finally moved the Syrians came from France and the UN, with us helping.
On a sort of related note: I just got through reading an article in Harper's about a wingnut church in Colorado Springs. The article quotes parishioners and the pastor extensively. Among other things they assert that the US is locked in a battle with Islam to determine which religion will take over the whole planet. They see themselves involved in a literal war with anyone, inside the US or outside, who does not schare their interpetation of Christianity. Their take on the invasion is is that we are in Iraq to convert the heathens. To help out they send Bibles to Iraq. All of this would be scarey and disgusting but dismissable as wingnuttery except for one terrifying fact: the pastor is a White House insider. He meets with either Bush or a top aide every Monday. Every Monday. Even Republican Congresspeople don't have access like that.
I bring this up because the pastor stated quite frankly the while Christians don't lie they also are not obligated to tell all they know. George Bush and the leaders of this administration never ever explain their long term goals and real agendas. On the war they have been particularly sparing of the truth. The current rationalization is that we invaded Iraq to create a democracy there, which is supposed to result in the spread of democracy to other Middle Eastern countires. But we don't know, because, as a Christian, Bush doesn't feel obligated to tell the whole truth.
Another with this explanation for the war is that the deomcracy movements in many Middle Eastern countries are also Anti-American movements. Abu Aardvark had quotes from one of the leaders of the protests in Egypt, for example, and she said the goal of the Egyptian democracy movement was to ddisassociate Egypt from the US. If the Iraqis are able to establish a democratic government, there are already plently of indications that it will be one that rejects our cultural values and military presence. This reason for the anti-American sentiments is our historical support for bad governments and a sense that we are out to force our cultural values on the Middle EAst and are not respectful of their history and way of life. Again there is opinion poll data about this on Abu Aardvark ( am American polling company, but I forget which one).
Which brings me back to the pastor and his vision of using the Republican party to lauch a crusade against the Middle EAst. There are elements within our cluture, who have power within the current administration, who do indeed want to attack Islamic culture and who do indeed what to establish, not democracy, but political and culural dominition over the Middle East. Given that reality, and the history we have of supporting bad governments, Middle Easterners have good reason to view this administration with suspicion. So it is unlikely that our actions will inspire political change, unless it is change in opposition to us.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I still don't see a link between the toppling of Saddam and the withdrawal of the Syrians. The Lebanese have a new generation now that doesn't believe the Syrians are necessary to prevent civil war."

It was never principally up to the Lebanese when the Syrians left.

[DaveC]

To help out they send Bibles to Iraq. All of this would be scarey and disgusting but dismissable as wingnuttery except for one terrifying fact: the pastor is a White House insider.

I have worked with Assyrian Christians that are Iraqi ex-pats. There is a sizable Christian presence in Iraq, and I don't mind helping them. I also don't mind helping Jews in Iraq or anywhere else. Christians may seek to convert people, but that is a voluntary conversion, accomplished by intellectual and emotional persuasion, not by rule of law. Check to see how Jews are treated in Jordan, Saudia Arabia or Libya. (Hint: there are NO Jewish citizens in these countries.) Then check out how religious minorities are treated in the USA (predominatly Christian) and Israel (predominately Jewish). There are PLENTY of Muslims, Druze, and Bahais in Israel. There are only 7 Bahai temples in the world, and one is in Israel.

[CharleyCarp]

DaveC:
If I hear one more person argue 'but the other guy is way worse' one more time, my head is going to explode. Participating in the conversion of Moslems is a very serious offense. I'm not saying our government should be banning it, but we should very much not look like we're encouraging it.

[Slartibartfast]

Forced conversion, CharleyCarp? You do think voluntary conversion would be acceptable, no?

[DaveC]

As as an exercise,

Actually talk to Mormons, and casually say "Well, y'all can convert me after I'm dead, so why don't you do that and save me the trouble?"

Or talk to Jehovah's Witnesses and say "Look if only 144,000 will actually get into heaven, seriously what are my odds?"

I've done this kind of stuff and gotten away with it, and actually had interesting conversations with those guys.

But then again I don't get freaked out when the Salvation Army band plays "Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War", so maybe I have a higher tolerance for that sort of thing.

I don't see an equivalence between the Salvation Army and Islamic Jihad.

[lily]

Well I know it wasn't entirely up to the Lebanese to set the withdrawal date. I just pointed out the attitudinal change within Lebanon as being a factor in the development of pressure within Lebanon against the Syrians. The actual decision by the Syrians to leave is probably inspired by a number of factors including pressure from the French via the Un, with our support (if I remember correctly).
I'm not sure how the Salvation Army got into the conversation. I know that war is used as a metaphor by various religions, but the members of the Colorado Springs congregation were clear that their war was literal.
Handing Bibles out to people can be a harmless activity or a tactless, threatening, and offensive act, depending on the context. In this case the context is people who believe Islam should be destroyed want to hand out Bibles in a situation of actual war, in an area that retains memories of the Crusades.

[NeoDude]

May the Lord transform their hearts, so that they may accept the cleansing blood of Christ...before we slaughter them.

The cultural war is against those who deny Christ's lordship, and his return...whether they be secular or degenerate religion.

[westone]

lily,

"I still don't see a link between the toppling of Saddam and the withdrawal of the Syrians."

Ha Ha. You're so funny.

I guess you can't see a connection between your nose and your face either!

[Anarch]

I guess you can't see a connection between your nose and your face either!

Perhaps you'd care to explicate the link? Please try to use something more sophisticated than post hoc, ergo propter hoc though.

[DaveC]

westone,

That's probably not the best way to make your case.

Besides, if there's anyone here to deserves to be pointed to and laughed at, it's Edward_.

[DaveC]

In this case the context is people who believe Islam should be destroyed want to hand out Bibles in a situation of actual war, in an area that retains memories of the Crusades.

From the Iraq the Model blog, Iraqi leadership is quite interested in protecting Christian Churches:

Society:

Ibrahim Al-Jafari met a number of the prominent Iraqi Christian clerics to discuss a number of the issues that concern the religious minorities in Iraq like providing security for the churches and protecting freedom of belief.

See, there are better ways to disagree.

[DaveC]

post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Anarch, hoc this!

Or Take a hoc, Anarch.

might also be a permissible way to disagree, especially when you're not sure what they're talking about.

[Anarch]

hoc me? hoc you! ;)

[Catsy]

Don't make me hoc a loogie at you two.

[CharleyCarp]

Slart:

I think the concept of forced conversion has to be completely off the table. This will not surprise you.

I also think that voluntary conversion is very problematic, and should get less than zero cooperation from our government. I have a friend who was a Protestant missionary to Iran in the 60s and 70s. He is under a death sentence, because converting Moslems (including his wife) is abetting heresy. He doesn't live in fear or anything, but I put this out there to illustrate that in a society with communal rather than individual values, encouragement of voluntary conversion is not benign.

As I said, I don't think we ought to be banning voluntary conversion. But I'm interested in a much bigger game here than the conversion of some small number of Iraqis to Christianity. I'm interested in their success as a state. And just I don't think the divisiveness that Christian missionizing necessarily causes is helpful on either a gross or net basis.

That said, I have no objection whatsoever to American Christian denominations making contributions to indigenous Iraqi Christian communities -- without any hint of US government sponsorship. But evangelizing a form of Christianity that is significantly different from the local variants? Madness, that will drag us all down.

[CharleyCarp]

A fundamentalist former colleague of mine left the law, and has moved from one calling to another for nearly a decade. At one point, he was doing missionary work in the former Yugoslavia. I recall thinking that a new religion was just what people there needed, but what really caught my attention was when he told me how hard they had to work to keep a prospective convert's family from influencing him/her back to Islam. They really try hard to get the convert away from his/her parents for a while.

My former colleague thought he was doing a great and good thing. The Word being worth whatever pain might be caused.

I'll say again, as awful as I think this sort of thing is for US foreign policy, I wouldn't use the power of the state to ban it. I'd try a lot harder, though, to keep it from appearing like official policy.

[Slartibartfast]

I'll say again, as awful as I think this sort of thing is for US foreign policy, I wouldn't use the power of the state to ban it.

Two things here: first, it's not US foreign policy. Second, missions don't just evangelize. And third (in an increasingly inaccurately begun reply) the state getting involved at all isn't even something you want to consider. There are varying degrees of evangelization, ranging from simply being available to what you described (and possibly worse, if you consider Scientology a religion); don't judge all of it by your personal, limited exposure.

and should get less than zero cooperation from our government.

I'd be happy with exactly zero.

[CharleyCarp]

Slart:

It's a small disagreement you and I have. The Harpers article that Lily cites makes it clear that much of this activity is being conducted by the President's friend. A thing doesn't have to actually be US foreign policy to be bad for US foreign policy.

I'm not nearly as worried about missionary work minus the evangelizing. If that is what they were talking about, I'd have little problem. It's when people talk about wholesale conversions -- and they don't have to be getting them for their efforts to get them to be disruptive.

The sole question about anything that ought to get any help (including transportation, security, imprimatur of any sort) from the US government in Iraq ought to be: does this help the fledgling Iraqi state get off to a better start. Talk of conversion of Moslems to Christianity, under any terms at all, fails this test. In afct, I'd say that it doesn't just fail to move the ball downfield, it drops our side for a bit of a loss. For that reason, I wish the President would tell his friend to back off . . .

CC

[CharleyCarp]

in a friendly non-coercive way, of course.

[Slartibartfast]

The Harpers article that Lily cites makes it clear that much of this activity is being conducted by the President's friend

Did we ever get a link to that? Or even a name or two?

[CharleyCarp]

It's not on the Harpers site yet. My May 2005 edition came today in the mail. The article is 'Inside America's Most Powerful Megachurch' by Jeff Sharlet, and the man who is said to talk to the President or his advisors every Monday is Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

All in all, it looks like a good issue, including the pieces on Shiite iconography and the Nepalese Maoists. The Mark Twain quote on the Old Testament God is simply priceless, and on-point to this thread:

"The portrait is substantially that of a man -- if one can imagine a man charged and overcharged with evil impulses far beyond the human limit; a personage whom no one, perhaps, would desire to associate with now that Nero and Caligula are dead. In the Old Testament, His acts expose His vindictive, unjust, ungenerous, pitiless and vengeful nature constantly. He is always punishing -- punishing trifling misdeeds with thousandfold severity; punishing innocent children for the misdeeds of their parents; punishing unoffending populations for the misdeeds of their rulers; even descending to wreak bloody vengeance upon harmless calves and lambs and sheep and bullocks as punishment for inconsequential trespasses committed by their proprietors. It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere."

And today's Xtians feel attacked because merchants say 'Happy Holdays" . . .

[CharleyCarp]

Sorry, on-point to that WMD thread. Sofort ins Bett ...

[NeoDude]

CharleyCarp and lily,

Thanks for taking me to school...just when I think I know everything, CharleyCarp and lily sbhow me that I don't.

The "communal vs. individual" obseravtion is right-on.

What is ironic is that many right-wing Christians are trying to force a communitarian ethos on an individualistic culture, themselves.

If prostelytizing is so innocent, why does Israel have some real hard-core restrictions on Evangelicals?

[lily]

I'm sorry, Slarti, but i don't know how to do links. Also, I wasn't reading Harper's online--I was given a subscription for Christmas. The article didn't say that Bush and Pastor Tom (or Tim, I forget) were friends. The article said that the pastor had regular meetings with Bush or one of his top aides. I'm assuming these were phone conferences because it is hard to me to imagine someone flying to DC every week for what must be a short meeting. The article is one of two on religious extremism in the Harper's of last week.

[lily]

Oh I just read the post upthread--it's Pastor Ted.