"...AND RUMORS OF WARS..."

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

Sunday, January 26, 20003

Indianapolis, Indiana

At the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was asked when he would return to establish his kingdom. When he spoke of a number of signs that would indicate this event, he said that they should expect "wars and rumors of wars" before the time would come, and then he said, "do not be alarmed, this must take place, but the end is not yet."

We as a nation have been facing wars and rumors of wars for a year and a half. First, there was the war on terrorism, which is on-going, but still frustrating -- for the enemy is elusive. But for more than six months now, there have been strong rumors of another war - a war with Iraq. Troops are in place, planes and bombs are at the ready, and our President has warned us that war is right around the corner.

This is a crucial concern to all of us, and it is important that we in this congregation feel free to air our opinions and listen respectfully to others. In order to help generate this discussion, today I hope to give my own perspective, and invite your responses. I do not speak for everyone here, or for the congregation at large, but it is my responsibility, I believe, to help encourage open and honest discussion. From time to time, I have encouraged a time of discussion following the service. Today will be just such a time. Any of you who wish to stay here in the sanctuary following the postlude, are invited to do so to express your ideas and responses to the issues I will raise. Just to be sure that no one feels overlooked, I'll announce now that the discussion will go for 20 minutes.

I have formed my opinions in the shape of a letter I have written to and tomorrow will send to, President Bush. This sermon contains the contents of my letter.

Dear Mr. President,

What you are reading is both a personal letter and a sermon. I am writing to you as a citizen wishing to express my opinions to my President. But I will also read this letter on Sunday, January 26, to the congregation of All Souls Unitarian Church in Indianapolis, where I am minister. The subject is the potential war in the Middle East.

I would like to begin by saying something about the people of this congregation of whom I am so proud. We have quite a number of World War II veterans here - some real heroes, in fact, who would humbly disclaim the label "hero." I agree with Tom Brokow's assessment that these are, the "greatest generation" of Americans.

We also have among us quite a number of Vietnam veterans who also served with distinction, even when the nation itself was unsure its course. There are also, of course, veterans who served in peace time, ready and willing when called to risk their lives.

We also have in this congregation people who have devoted their lives to opposing war. There are those who have marched in the streets and written countless letters and organized dozens of rallies and signed hundreds of petitions to advocate alternatives to war. There are people here who have committed their lives to this cause. Some of these people are veterans, too.

We have people in this congregation who see significant nuances in the different circumstances of war, and find one war justified and another not. There are plenty of people here struggling hard to decide the right and wrong of the prospective war before us.

I am proud that this congregation has many strong, even partisan, Republicans who work for Republican causes and political leaders; and we also have many strong, even partisan, Democrats who are active in that party's causes. We have members who strongly support the policy of engaging a war with Iraq, and others who strongly oppose it. There is no necessary correlation between a person's party and a person's opinion on this subject.

I am honored to be serving a diverse congregation such as All Souls. We are united on quite a number of values that have public _expression - issues of freedom and liberty, issues of racial justice and so forth - but on issues such as economics or foreign policy, this congregation has a healthy spread of opinion.

Needless to say, the perspective I am about to give is mine. I do not, and never have, spoken for the people of this church, but I do offer ideas to generate discussion and thought.

I thank you, President Bush, for the leadership you gave during the frightening time following September 11, 2001. Your reassuring presence helped this country to take time for healing from its grief. Your voice encouraged a unifying spirit I never thought I would see in America. Your decisive action in Afghanistan was, I reluctantly believe, the thing to do. It is not easy for me to offer support for military action in most circumstances, but in this case I did, and offer you my respect.

Perhaps one of the best outcomes from that devastating day was the solidarity of support from around the world for the people of the United States. Never in my life can I remember a time when we Americans received so much compassion, support, and good will of people all around the world. Our church has a "partner church" relationship with another Unitarian Church in Transylvania, as well as one in England. My heart was warmed in learning that both partner churches held candle-light vigils for us in the spirit of solidarity following September 11. I would give a great deal of credit to your leadership for helping engender a sympathetic spirit from the whole world toward us.

I write in part because I fear that good will might be squandered to the extent that the United States decides to ignore the rest of the world when it comes to beginning a war in Iraq.

You have my appreciation for the caution you demonstrated last Fall. When the issue of Iraq arose over the Summer, it seemed at first that the United States was ready to go in like a cowboy in the lawless old west and shoot the bad guys, asking questions later. Cooler heads prevailed. You are to be commended for all the work you and your administration have been doing to put together a truly international coalition. You are to be commended for going to the United Nations and eloquently stating your case. In the end, your persuasion was effective. I believe your support for the inspection program was the right thing to do.

I write because the media are again suggesting that your administration is considering going to war with or without world support. The papers tell of a growing interest to take action before the United Nations completes its inspections. I write in fear that this may be so, and my country might be making a huge mistake if it acts in disregard, or even in defiance, for the will of the rest of the world. Since September 11, I believe we have, for the most part, taken the high road and have deserved the good will expressed around the world. My plea is that we not lose what we have gained, by disrespecting those who have shown support.

There seems to be no question that you are right about Saddam Hussein being a potential threat to all of Iraq's neighbors, as well as his own people. There seems to be no question that the people of Iraq - and for that matter, the entire world - would be safer, and far better off, if he were no longer in power. But it seems far more damage can be done to the world if the United States thumbs its nose at international law and advocates by action a world where nations with power have no accountability to the rest of the world. A belief in "might makes right" is bound eventually to turn on us and we'll be the victim of our own tragic policy.

In the shadow of September 11, many Americans were stunned to discover that many people in the world dislike us, even hold us in contempt. It should not have been surprising, because that has been the case for quite some time. There may be many reasons for it, but it seems to me the most commonly cited reason is the perception by many around the world that Americans are arrogant. And American arrogance is reflected in our foreign policy, which is too often based on the premise that we know what is best for everyone else. The world resents that attitude, and they also can observe how often we have been wrong.

Fifty years ago, when the United States disapproved of the rulers of Iran, we organized a "regime change" there and placed into power our own choice: the Shah of Iran. The Shah became such a detested despot that when the people drove him from power, the reaction against the Shah made the Ayatollah Khomeini seem a welcome alternative, probably because of his strong contempt for the United States, who was responsible for giving them the Shah in the first place. We are still paying -- the whole world is paying -- for that mistake. Thirty years ago, when the United States disapproved of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected leader of Chile, we organized a violent "regime change" there, ending the longest-standing democracy in South America, leading to the assassination of Allende and the coming to power of Augusto Pinochet, a dictator who is now universally recognized as a murderous tyrant. Fifteen years ago, when the United States disapproved of the government of Nicaragua, we organized, financed, and directed a war for "regime change" there, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, many times more than died in the Twin Towers. When the World Court ruled that the United States was violating international law and must immediately stop funding and directing the war in Nicaragua, our government ignored the ruling as if the rest of the world didn't matter. It seems to me there can be little doubt where people get the image of arrogance in American foreign policy.

Add to this the fact that it was our policy to give arms and support to the Taliban, when it was at war with Russia, which helped make Al-Qaeda possible. Also add in the fact that it was our policy to give arms and support to Saddam Hussein, including the means to make biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, when he was fighting Iran, all of which helped strengthen his dictatorial hold within his own country. In some ways we are now cleaning up our own messes which we happened to make in other peoples' countries. It is easy to understand why some people would be just a little shaky at the thought of the United States knocking on their door with a suggestion about what would be good for their country.

I would hasten to add my honest view that the United States is also one of the most generous, perhaps the most generous of nations in the world. I am aware that our government provides great humanitarian assistance to needy nations throughout the world, and so often when there is a crisis or natural disaster. I believe our people are compassionate, and I believe our leaders are compassionate. I am very proud of my country and what it provides in aid around the world. But in the matter of deciding who should rule in other countries, I'm afraid the world sees that the United States has too often presumed to know best, performed a "regime change," and the result has been disastrous. It has also created in the minds of other people the perception that the United States is arrogant.

There are a few other aspects that concern me about the current call for unilateral action by the United States, with or without world support. For example, it is difficult for me to understand justifying a war that is "pre-emptive." It is not charged that Saddam Hussein is currently doing anything wrong, but rather, that he has before and likely will again do something wrong if we don't stop him now.

This feels like a tremendously dangerous precedent - to fight a pre-emptive war. Every possible military action being considered by any country would be justified under such a policy. Imagine if the Israelis and Palestinians subscribed to this new policy of pre-emptive wars?

There was a popular movie out last year by the name of "Minority Report." It took place in the future, and the premise was that science made it possible to know ahead of time what people were going to do - "precognition", it was called - so the government went around arresting people, not for committing a crime, but because they believed the person was going to commit a crime. I confess I thought the premise of this show a little incredulous. Then I began hearing justifications for pre-emptive wars, which strikes me pretty much the same.

I have seen comparisons drawn between the current situation with Iraq and the world's posture with Germany in 1938. History seems to show that a policy of appeasement with Hitler didn't work, and probably made matters worse. England and France should have taken action then, some historians conclude. And the analogy says that appeasement won't work here, either, which is why we need a "pre-emptive" war.

This strikes me as a false parallel. For one thing, when Chamberlain signed a peace pact with Germany in 1938, Hitler had already invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia. If England and France had taken military action then, it would hardly be "pre-emptive." They would be responding to an actual transgression. German military aggression had already happened.

What the UN is doing with Iraq has no resemblance to appeasement 1938. Appeasement meant simply that Hitler could get away with what he took by force, as long as he didn't go any further. At present, United Nation's policy is anything but appeasement. There is no aggression by Saddam Hussein that the UN is willing to overlook. The world body is in complete agreement that Iraq must be disarmed of any weapons of mass destruction. That is a policy designed to stop Hussein from doing something unacceptable to the rest of the world. The UN is not appeasing anything. That is reasonable "pre-emptive" action. But a "pre-emptive war," it seems to me, is a reversal of progress in human civilization, taking us backwards to the days of might makes right.

I was stunned to read about plans for assassinating Saddam Hussein. Such action, needless to say, is an announcement that assassination is an acceptable form of foreign policy.

In philosophical ethics, there is a concept known as the universalization rule. All ethics is based on this simple concept. It means simply that my behavior is acceptable if I believe everyone ought to be able to do what I do. If I think it is wrong for someone else to do it, it is wrong for me to do it. The universalization rule. Every culture and every religion has a version of it. In Christianity it is known as "the Golden Rule." This is why it is wrong to kill, this is why it is wrong to lie, this is why we don't steal.

To approve of assassination as policy, then, is to invite it from others. There can be no moral abhorrence of assassinating any leader if indeed we assassinate one leader. To approve of a policy of assassination is to erase any moral objection to having someone assassinate you or any American leader.

I certainly wish there were some objective yardstick that could measure whether a war is justified. I suspect you feel the same way. No such tool exists, of course, or the decision you face would not be as agonizing as I expect it is for you. It must be difficult having so many people give you so much conflicting advice. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't just one of tens of thousands of letters you receive on this subject this week, if not just today.

One measuring stick that has been used philosophically for centuries - though it is far from an objective measure - is the "just war" theory passed down through Catholic tradition. I am not Catholic, of course, and I don't feel this analysis has any special authority, but I do think it might at least help us focus on the important issues at hand.

According to the "just war" doctrine, there are six questions that need to be asked and answered before a war can be considered justified.

1. Is war engaged for a just cause?

2. Is the war authorized by competent authorities?

3. Is war undertaken with the right intentions, that is, are the stated reasons the actual reasons?

4. Is war the last resort - have all peaceful alternatives been pursued?

5. Is the probability of military success sufficient to justify the human costs?

6. Are the costs of war proportional to the objectives to be achieved?

As I say, I don't consider this doctrine to have any special magic for making a decision, but I do think it asks some of the right questions and helps us focus our response. In considering many of these questions, it seems to me that unilateral action by the United States would have dubious justification.

For example, "is war engaged for a just cause?" ...and, "are the stated reasons the actual reasons?" The official reasons given for the proposed war sound justifiable enough. Iraq has (or may have) weapons of mass destruction, the leader of Iraq is deranged enough to use them, and in fact has used them in the past. His word is not believable, and he poses a threat to thousands, even millions in the region.

All this is true. He is, I agree, a potential threat to the world. But it is the world, in the collective body of the United Nations, that should be justified in acting. If the United States acts alone, the world will perceive one overriding cause for such a war: oil. Iraq is no credible threat to the United States. If a hostile country having the potential for creating a nuclear bomb is justification for war, then we should invade North Korea before invading Iraq. Iraq may be a real threat to its neighbors, but not to the security of the United States. If the U.S. goes it alone, the world will see one reason: oil. The United States is the most oil-dependent country on earth and both you, the President, as well as your Vice President, were in the oil business before you were in politics. I'm not saying this is true, of course, but I do think that unilateral pre-emptive war by the United States would lead much of the world to that conclusion.

With regard to the question about whether war is the last resort, and whether all peaceful alternatives have been pursued, it seems that the rest of the world is taking that consideration very seriously. There can be an honest disagreement of opinion on this question, but clearly as long as the world, through the UN, is pursuing other peaceful alternatives, then we cannot say there is no alternative to war left.

Finally, it is significant to ask whether the costs of the war are proportional to the objectives to be achieved. The costs, of course, include both money and, more importantly, lives. No one can predict how many thousands or even hundreds of thousands might be lost on both sides, but I know you must include that consideration in your weighty decision-making.

There are other costs that concern me if we choose to do this without broad international support. As I mentioned earlier, the United States has, probably since World War II, earned a reputation around the world as being arrogant, not caring what others in the world think. One potential cost of pursuing this war without world support would be to risk confirming this view and further alienating us from those who would otherwise be our allies. We could win on the battlefield and lose all respect from those who care. I might add that another potential cost would be strengthening the Islamic extremists. Surely the picture of United States unilaterally invading an Arab country without first being attacked is something that would be a recruiting poster for future Al-Qaeda terrorists. Some have also observed that the surest way to have Saddam Hussein actually use weapons of mass destruction, if he has them, is to attack, and have him perceive that using those weapons is his only tool for survival.

Are the costs proportional to the objectives to be achieved? It seems to me to be a spectacular gamble. If our objectives are to make the world safer, and we end up with the whole world more afraid of us and our arbitrary or subjective use of our great power, then it seems not to be worth the effort. If our objectives are to help establish security for all the neighboring nations in the Middle East, including Israel, it would seem to me that few actions could be more destabilizing than the one being considered.

These are my thoughts, and I hope you receive them respectfully as I have intended. I have no question that it would be wrong for us to act in defiance of world opinion, as expressed through the United Nations. It is even difficult for me to accept the decision of the UN if it is, indeed, a decision for war. Opposition to war has been an integral part of my belief system. Yet it seems to me more important than to have human civilization advance to the place where countries learn to work cooperatively, and the good of the human race is advanced before that of any individual country. Sometimes, that may mean military action, especially against those who threaten civilization itself. The NATO did this effectively a few years ago in the Balkan states. It may be that it needs to do this again in Iraq. But for me the action can only be justified by the broad approval of the nations. I am convinced that action by our country in defiance of the rest of the world would, in the long run, do more damage to us than Saddam Hussein could dream of doing.

As I say, I speak only for myself. Members of my congregation hold differing views on this matter, but our strongest commitment is to the respect for democracy, and respect for the honest opinions of others; that if we disagree, do so respectfully. It in that spirit that I write and send you this letter of concern and hope.

Sincerely,

Rev. Bruce Clear, Minister

All Souls Unitarian Church