Iraq

Bin Laden declared war on America.  This lead to the terror attacks in 2001.   We declared war on Al Qaeda.  We undoubtedly have had some success to date with no major attacks on our soil since 2001.  Intoxicated with rather rapid victory in Afghanistan, we set our sights on Saddam.  We screamed into Baghdad and declared the end of major conflict.  Saddam is in custody.   

What went wrong?

First, we must understand the enemy that declared war on us.  Not just Bin Laden.   Although there is a relatively small percent of Islamic believers who are militant, the huge numbers of Muslims means there is a large number of militant believers who are interested and fully committed to our complete destruction. 

Islam is a religion with incredible reliance on morality to ultimately obtain salvation.  Salvation is never guaranteed to the believer but there will be a reckoning according to the relative amount of good in someone's life verses the evil in which the person participated.  In theory, Allah alone chooses the recipients of eternal life as he weighs good verses evil on scales.  Virtually the only guarantee for salvation within that religion is for martyrs dying in the name of Allah. 

Of course they are wrong.  Desperately and sadly mistaken. 

Ignoring the difference between their chosen religion and the American mindset that still has a remnant of Christian influence removes the ability for us to defeat terror.   Further, success at "nation building" in Iraq depends on this as well.

As it is obvious that our nation has largely blessed all the other nations in the world, why wouldn't the Iraqi citizens prefer a new "democratic" government?   Why do they see us as occupiers as compared to liberators?  Is it just that there are a few thugs and terrorists that have been our opposition as has been alleged?   No, unfortunately.

Of course no one would want a foreign nation to send troops to their country unless it was requested and certainly the foreign fighters should leave quickly.  When we removed Saddam, something wanted by most Iraqis, we found many reveling in new found liberation.  We found many looting government buildings, museums, banks and other opportunities as they arose. 

looters in Baghdad

 

The liberation from Saddam was welcomed by criminal behavior. Without the anchor of the governmental control or self control, individuals and groups engaged in doing wrong.  In Islam, moral behavior is given a break when it comes to self fulfillment, especially when unacceptable behavior is raised against an enemy who is considered evil. 

The deceived terrorists who flew planes into buildings hung out at strip clubs, etc.  Yet they still thought themselves to be of a higher moral character than the Americans
as they thought they were exempt from Islamic law when they are punishing an enemy. 

Do we appear evil to them? 

Surah 25: 68. Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. 69. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy,

The Qur'an mentions the following crimes as especially worthy of eternal punishment: arrogance, false worship, taking innocent life, adultery, and a complete life of sin. (Unveiling Islam, Ergun Caner and Emir Caner).  Is it not reasonable that the Muslims believe those who engage in such deeds should be the recipients of Allah's greater punishment ("doubled" vs. 69 above)?  If so, now ask yourself just why do they hate us and wholeheartedly believe we deserve such punishment?  Do we find those worse 'crimes' against Allah in our nation?  With great sadness, they are correct.   Although those are clearly sins in Christianity, our nation has embraced and ignored Biblical teaching and sadly  we have actually taken pride in many of these sins.  Why do they hate us?  It is obvious. 

Proverbs 16: 7 When a man's ways are pleasing to the LORD, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.

Given this scripture, could we have avoided Islamic hatred?  To a large degree, yes.  They would have no 'moral ground' to exterminate the infidels if we were as moral than they are, which we should be anyway.  Arrogance?  Yes, we call ourselves great when we refuse to give Almighty God the credit He deserves.  False Worship?  Yes, we choose the almighty dollar over worshiping Almighty God.   Taking Innocent Life?  Abortions, for a horrible start.  Adultery?   All the time.  Complete Life of Sin?  Not hard to find.  Islamic countries have extremely low HIV rates.  We export pornography.  It is no wonder many consider us the "evil empire", deserving of annihilation. 

Do I hate America?  Absolutely not.  From God's standpoint we deserve punishment.  We need healing.  Are we the great Satan as many Muslims would believe?  Of course not.  They are deceived by Satan.  Unless we follow Christ, so are we.  The sad thing, unfortunately, even though they are deceived, they also have a point.  It is no wonder Muslim clerics, Al Qaeda members and others can work a religious crowd into a great hatred of us and more ordinary people cheer when westerners are hit by roadside bombs.

So, knowing the difficulty of dealing with a committed mindset that places Allah high, just why would Iraq embrace democracy?  Iran chose a theocracy.  The Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan, a religious sect.  The false god Allah is considered greater than government.  Given that both our founding fathers and those in Iran were deeply religious, why were the Christian and Islamic governments so different?    

James Madison wrote:

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God

John Adams in 1776 wrote:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.

The authority our nation was founded upon was that of God as the Supreme law-giver and the importance of His laws ("Natural" and Biblical). This translated into our founders attempting self government based on a personal moral code that would please God.   Further it was dependent on Christ’s teaching that we should treat others as we wanted to be treated ourselves. For such people, no law is needed.

Benjamin Franklin in 1787 said "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters".

From the above quotes, it is overwhelmingly obvious that for a people to successfully engage in self government the people must be virtuous and self controlled.   Otherwise, the people require rulers who will help keep our dangerous tendencies in check.  Therefore, when a tyrant like Saddam is removed, the people have a new found freedom that without the internal control of trying to please Christ, the people choose self fulfilling actions such as looting. 

In fact, the founders were concerned that even we would choose leaders who promised us more comfort and financial well being with entitlements as time progressed in this government.  They chose to base the government not on 'majority rule' in democracy but on the 'rule of law' as handed down by God in the Bible.  The founders wanted to avoid ‘mob rule’ by the majority that could be swayed with popular opinion and make the government very difficult and slow to change. They understood that the governed need to submit themselves to some authority.  If we were a pure democracy, the president would be Al Gore since he won the popular vote last election and of course he promised more government entitlements.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary shows the contrast in "democracy" and a "republic", written closer to the time of the founder's use of the terms.   Our republic is based on God's law and 'Nature's law' with the people's will represented by elected officials, still fully subservient to God's law.  In many states, elected representatives were required to be Christians as a necessary prerequisite for running for office. 

Without God as the anchor that our government was based on, the democratic government we plan to help the Iraqis to obtain is absolutely doomed to failure.  After democracy fails, it is a toss up whether the next Iraqi rulers will be any better than Saddam.  Corruption must be expected unless it is a theocracy by highly moral clerics who will impose horrible rules as was seen with the abuses of the women in Afghanistan.  

DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

REPUBLIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.
2. Common interest; the public. [Not in use.]
Republic of letters, the collective body of learned men.

Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr wishes to form a theocracy in Iraq.   He was exiled from Iraq and his father had been killed by Saddam.  Taking the Benjamin Franklin quote, we see it in action here.  The coalition forces allowed al-Sadr to return after Saddam's ousting.   Al-Sadr had been kept in check by Saddam.  Franklin's quote explains that the people, especially his supporters, must be virtuous and moral or they require more "masters".  Al-Sadr has no self-control and has waged havoc against both Iraqis and coalition forces.  Saddam, as awful as he was, protected the people from al-Sadr and Al-Qaeda.    No one wants someone like Saddam to become leader, of course.  He was capable of limiting the reach of these terrorists and therefore protected many Iraqi citizens.  Was it worth the dictatorial rule of Saddam for the protection from such dangers?  No.  He who gives up some freedom in exchange for some safety, deserves neither, according to our founder Benjamin Franklin. 

Given the above, while we are thinking about "nation building", shouldn't we see the obvious lessons to learn here?  For our own nation to succeed, we must return to Christian values and submission to God's law.   Democracy leaves a people without self control an opportunity to expect the government to take care of them as they will vote for whoever promises the most.  The result is the loss of freedom as people give up control of their lives in response to the growing government.  We, too, are in great danger of this.  Should we impose such a predictable end to an Iraqi people who do not have the necessary prerequisites of Christianity and self control? 

What about our own nation?  Same sex marriage 'legalization' in Massachusettes is an offense to God.  When we choose to ignore His direction, we open ourselves to more governmental control and loss of freedom.  We open ourselves to growing dangers.

As we see the horrible actions of the American soldiers in the Baghdad prison, we wonder just how could this have occurred by the greatest military on earth?  Those soldiers who chose to participate in the disgusting actions perpetrated upon the inmates are no better or worse than the rest of us.  They are wrong, they are guilty of terrible crimes but are they really different from the rest of us?  Without the saving grace of God and the indwelling of the Spirit, it is understandable that such actions occurred.  When there is no Biblical anchor to control us, we become dangerous instruments of evil.  There are always some bad apples in the military but see how our original Commander in Chief, George Washington, handled soldiers losing control. 

On April 18, 1756, in a letter to Governor Dinwiddie, Colonel George Washington wrote from Winchester, Virginia:
It gave me infinite concern to find in yours by Governor Innes that any representations should inflame the Assembly against the Virginia regiment, or give cause to suspect the morality and good behaviour of the officers....
I have, both by threats and persuasive means, endeavored to discountenance gambling, drinking, swearing, and irregularities of every kind; while I have, on the other hand, practised every artifice to inspire a laudable emulation in the officers for the service of their country, and to encourage the soldiers in the unerring exercise of their duty.

In June of 1756, Colonel George Washington issued the following order while at Fort Cumberland:
Colonel Washington has observed that the men of regiment are very profane and reprobate. He takes this opportunity to inform them of his great displeasure at such practices, and assures them, that, if they do not leave them off, they shall be severely punished. The officers are desired, if they hear any man swear, or make use of an oath or execration, to order the offender twenty-five lashes immediately, without a court-martial. For the second offense, he will be more severely punished.

In 1756, Colonel George Washington issued the order:
Any soldier found drunk shall receive one hundred lashes without benefit of court-martial.

As we see the caliber of the American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, we see a strong contrast between the allowances given to the soldiers from the commander verses the allowances given to the soldiers today.  Swearing is acceptable today.  How could we expect God's blessing in our efforts when cursing with God's name is normal?   Sexual harassment would never be tolerated.  The primary problem?  The lack of the Christian moral anchor in our soldiers to regard such activity as off limits.  Again, an indictment of our nation's moral character. 

In 1832, in his History of the United States, Noah Webster wrote:

Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion....

The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.

The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws....

All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

So, what should we do in Iraq?  The more important question is what should we do to work through our own problems?  We must repent of our own sins and then we can implore Almighty God to support us in our efforts to avoid Isalmic terrorists and to give wisdom to our leaders to make appropriate decisions.  President Bush's errors are inherently tied to our own moral condition and citizenry who pray for his wisdom.   Prayer without righteousness cannot be expected to be answered.  Therefore, as in the past, each of us are partially responsible for errors made by our leaders and for our soldiers who die under their orders.  Our danger in the hands of Al-Qaeda and others who hate us, is dependent on our righteousness as well. 

Would we rather submit ourselves to God's rule or otherwise find ourselves punished by external forces for our sins?  If we answer God, then we will be rewarded for this choice.  If we choose to fix it on our own, we fight not only the terrorists but also God.  We therefore, cannot win.

Joshua 24: 14 "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." 16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us to forsake the LORD to serve other gods! 17 It was the LORD our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt, from that land of slavery, and performed those great signs before our eyes. He protected us on our entire journey and among all the nations through which we traveled. 18 And the LORD drove out before us all the nations, including the Amorites, who lived in the land. We too will serve the LORD, because he is our God." 19 Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD. He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. 20 If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you." 21 But the people said to Joshua, "No! We will serve the LORD." 22 Then Joshua said, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD." "Yes, we are witnesses," they replied. 23 "Now then," said Joshua, "throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel." 24 And the people said to Joshua, "We will serve the LORD our God and obey him."

You see, it is all up to us.  Pray for forgiveness and mercy and then beg God for support.  Lives are dependent on this, perhaps your own.  Certainly we all are in danger of God's chastisement at the least.