One of the things I’d like to see is an intelligent gospel-related discussion on Iraq and Iran that does not fall into predictable partisanship, Bush-bashing and/or Harry Reid-bashing.
Is it possible?
Here are some assumptions to form this debate:
1)The United States given its unique role as the lone superpower since about 1989 will be engaged with the world one way or another. And even if the United States is not engaged, some of its enemies will force it to become engaged. With this later point, I am referring mostly to the many Islamist attacks on United States assets since 1979 and the U.S. Embassy takeover in Iran. In the 1990s, there were the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole attack and of course Sept. 11. My point is that any argument that says, “let’s disengage from the world and the world will leave us alone” is basically not realistic and certainly ahistorical.
2)Given that the United States must be engaged in some way (or will be forced to become engaged), what is the right thing to do from a gospel perspective? What I mean by this is, how can foreign policy be affected by the gospel to do both A) what is right in protecting the United States and B)what is morally right in the short and long term?
3)In the Middle East we face two difficult issues from a strategic and moral standpoint: 1)we are involved in a war in Iraq today where the roll of the United States military is primarily to prevent widespread slaughter and greater death and 2)we are faced with an implacable enemy (Iran) that has openly declared war on us since 1979 that is on the brink of getting nuclear weapons. In the case of 2), even if we don’t believe a Shiite-dominated Iran could fire nuclear weapons on the United States, their acquisition would certainly destabilize the region, causing Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states to feel they also need nuclear weapons.
4)Recent history has shown us that very often the only thing that brings lasting peace is complete victory over enemies followed by generosity and the buildup of democracy so that the defeated people choose a better route for themselves. I’m thinking specifically here of Germany, Japan and Italy in the post World War II era. I’m also thinking of eastern bloc countries that were involved in a Cold War in which the bad guys lost and the people for the most part chose peace, democracy and capitalism.
5)At the same time, the Book of Mormon shows us that over time the defeat of enemies is only temporary and that the only thing that effects real change is the enemies’ conversion to the Gospel. I’m thinking specifically here of the great missionary efforts by Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah who were able to turn implacable foes like the Lamanites into peace-loving followers of Christ. What, if anything at all, does this example have to do with the modern situation in the Middle East? Is there anything we can learn from that?
These are the things I sit thinking about when I get through being depressed about foreign policy these days. You’ll notice my thoughts try to avoid partisanship and bashing of modern-day politicians and instead try to concentrate on real solutions. I hope this discussion can foster a similar spirit.