Spectre of Sadaam Dead as a Door Nail

Sadaam Hussein is dead. I expected to write those words in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, and with the 15 year delay they take on even greater meaning than they would have then. President Bush, in his statement on the execution of the deposed dictator, rightly reminded the world that Sadaam was sentenced after a fair trial by the Iraqi government and his subsequent execution was the completion of Iraqi justice. Sadaam was executed by Iraqis for crimes against his own people, crimes including torture, murder, genocide (Kurds), and starving citizens through his stubborn failure to comply with UN resolutions regarding WMD inspections. Clearly Sadaam was an oppressive, brutal dictator who merited his ultimate fate.

The President appropriately reminded the world that before this war fair trials and elected representation did not exist in Iraq. Having been given the opportunity to govern themselves, Iraqis chose to execute Sadaam quickly and continue on the path to a successful democracy. They do not enjoy the luxury of debating and second-guessing the justifications for and execution of the war. They are far too focused on the survival of their elected government to dwell on how or why this gift of freedom was given to them.

The permanent removal of Sadaam from the Iraqi psyche will inject fresh commitment and courage into the efforts of the Iraqi government to nurture the fledgling democracy. While Sadaam lived, many Iraqis continued to harbor fears of a possible return to power in which Sadaam might rule with even more horror and bloodshed. His execution will quell such sentiments and truly end the nightmare of Sadaam experienced firsthand by millions of his citizens.

Many anti-war pundits argue that the removal of Sadaam only replaced a dictator with hordes of Al Qaeda and other terrorists, and thus the Iraqi people are in more danger than ever. That analysis misses the obvious and critical point of freedom: the danger to Iraqis is no longer posed by their own leader and his government. Iraqis now face the same danger we face here and Israelis have faced for decades, and that is terrorism. These newcomers to democracy have made remarkable progress in cobbling together an elected government and it stands to reason that if such an ethnically diverse population can unite on self-rule, they will also unite on a national strategy to combat terrorism in their country. Having opened the door for this democracy, we must remain as long as requested to preserve its fragile foundations.

Iraq War War On Terror Sadaam Hussein Al Qaeda Iraq execution

No, Senator Biden, This is OUR War

“I know we in Congress agreed to go to war, President Roosevelt, but here in December 1942 the war is costing us too much in expenditures and casualties, and so now we want nothing to do with it. This is now your war President Roosevelt, and you alone will be responsible for its outcome. Although we authorized the war and agreed our intelligence on Hitler justified action, we now think you were wrong and will not support the war.” As outlandish as this fictional exchange may sound, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the incoming Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed just such a course in comments made during a teleconference with reporters today. Biden, apparently unaware that Christmas should bring goodwill toward men, spent the day after Christmas blasting the President’s Iraq strategy. While such behavior is normal for Biden, the Senator made a few remarks that deserve further scrutiny.

Biden told reporters he wants to hold hearings on Iraq beginning on January 9, and added that the purpose of the hearings would be to create bipartisan consensus on Iraq. The Senator is so enamored with the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group Report that he wants to review its findings and give them more media attention than they initially received. Of course, the ISG findings were highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, so it is unclear how rehashing its findings in the media will generate bipartisan consensus on anything. It is far more likely that Senator Biden seeks a more public forum in which to present Americans with his diplomatic bona fides in advance of his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.

More troubling was this comment from Biden: “Mr. President, this is your war.” In the difficult early years of U.S. involvement in WWII, there were some very bleak moments, many lost battles, and terrible casualties. Hitler continued to advance, and many were losing hope of eventual victory. Despite such misery and with no certainty of success, where were the Senators telling President Roosevelt, “Mr. President, this is your war”? Fortunately, that generation, unlike Mr. Biden’s, understood that once American troops are committed to a war, bipartisanship means doing everything necessary to ensure victory rather than ridicule the President or accuse him of lying to create the war in the first place. There is no such thing as “your war” or “his war” or Bush’s war.” When our troops are fighting, it is OUR war. When they win, we win. When they lose or are prevented from winning by obstructionists like Biden, we all lose. There will always be time for hearings, committees, investigations, and other tools for embarrassing a president after the war is won and the troops have returned home.

However, for Senator Biden and other Democrats seeking the presidency in 2008, victory in Iraq is unacceptable politically. It would give too much credibility to Republicans who stayed the course in supporting the Bush strategy, and make those who opposed the war appear like nothing more than 1960s peaceniks with little stomach for difficult times or battles. A U.S. victory in Iraq, in the minds of today’s Democrats, means political defeat in 2008. Accordingly, even the politically astute Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of anti-war presidential hopefuls in a risky gamble that victory in Iraq will not be snatched from the jaws of defeat prior to the 2008 election. Pete Rose’s betting on a sport he was personally involved in pales in comparison, and the stakes were never this high.

Candidates like Biden rise up indignantly when their patriotism is questioned, but patriotism is displayed by how well one works to achieve American victory, not how fast one can bring the troops home. Based on that criterion, it is fair to challenge Biden’s patriotism, because he has labored unwearyingly to cast the war in a negative light and clamor for a pullout of all U.S. troops at the earliest possible date. He is not interested in victory because he believes the war should never have been fought. He continues to carp on this administration for waging this war instead of offering useful ideas for how to win it now that we are in it. Either Biden has no such ideas or he simply cannot bear the thought of eventual victory, because winning the war would confirm he and the entire anti-war, anti-bush movement within the Democratic Party were wrong about this President and the Iraqi people.

Thankfully during the many initial defeats America faced in WWII, Senators possessed sufficient patriotism to tell President Roosevelt, “This is OUR war.” The size of the war does not matter. Which party was in office when it started is insignificant. Who will receive the credit for victory or the blame for defeat is irrelevant. The only questions so-called bipartisan lawmakers should be contemplating are: “how will we win OUR war, and what can I do to make that possible?” When a Senator holds hearings to discuss those questions and then acts to achieve victory, then his/her patriotism will be beyond question.

Joseph Biden Iraq Study Group Hillary Clinton Iraq War Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Being On The Christian End of Persecution: A Response to Megan Basham's Townhall Column

Townhall.com columnist Megan Basham wrote yesterday that she is finding it difficult to be as indignant about this year’s ACLU war on Christmas because compared to violence faced by Christians worldwide, specifically in India, the ACLU’s efforts are “more like a nuisance than persecution.” Basham’s column is eloquent and makes many astute observations. Clearly she wrote it with the best of intentions, notably to draw attention to the plight of Christians in India who are driven from their homes and churches, tortured, and even killed for their beliefs when they refuse to convert to the dominant faith of their country. She cited numerous horrific examples of violence and persecution against Christians in India as documented by Gospel for Asia (GFA), and then offered the following thought-provoking personal statement:

Of course, I am annoyed when I hear that liberal atheists are once again protesting a courthouse crèche—but I likely would be more annoyed to be on the Christian end of any of the above incidents.

Certainly no sane person hopes to be driven from home, stoned, mutilated, burned alive, or to suffer any of the horrific assaults described in Basham’s column. Yet Basham’s application of persecutory relativism does a disservice to both the suffering Christians she clearly hopes to help and to American Christians fighting tenaciously to preserve the right to say “Merry Christmas.”

While Basham clearly asserts she would not want to “be on the Christian end” of any of the violent incidents described in her column, the reality for Christians historically is that suffering persecution and even death has always been a possible result for being true to the faith. Martyrs are revered and in some denominations granted saint status for making the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of Christianity. Why? The reason quite simply is that being threatened with death is a true refiner’s fire, the most severe test of faith a Christian can face. Choosing to suffer death rather than deny the faith or submit to forced conversion demonstrates the depth and sincerity of a Christian’s love for and belief in Christ. To deny one’s faith, or even temporarily to depart from it, can cause suffering and pain more soul-wrenching than physical death.

To be “on the Christian end” of violent persecution, though physically painful, can polish character and soul in ways no other test can duplicate. Likewise, witnessing suffering can prick consciences in ways no other method can approach. The images of the 1961 Freedom Riders facing mobs, beatings, and frightening intimidation, and similar images of civil rights marchers being assaulted by dogs and fire hoses stir feelings of outrage tempered by admiration for those who suffered for a greater cause. Though a different way might have been less painful, those who suffered considered it an honor to stand firm in the face of persecution.

In many ways, India’s persecuted Christians are in a better position than their American counterparts. As Basham rightly notes, India’s Christians have been relegated to the poor classes of society, precisely the class of people who best received the Jesus’s teachings in Jerusalem. Among the poor are often found the most humble and receptive elements of society. American Christians have long suffered from an excess of material wealth, and such prosperity breeds apathy toward religion, or if not apathy, only partial observance of Christian values. How else does one explain the American Christian abandonment of the commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy? How do shopping, dining out, boating, youth sports leagues, and attending sporting events honor the Sabbath? Notably, all these activities require prosperity. This willingness to obey only those religious tenets that are convenient pales in comparison to the courageous Christianity exemplified by those Basham describes. Although they may suffer for it, India’s Christians are certainly living closer to the Christian ideal than America’s Christians. Perhaps diligently living one’s faith is a greater challenge than dying for it.

As the ACLU subtly undermines religious faith by taking small but persistent steps toward eliminating religious expression from public life, more and more American Christians do what Megan Basham, albeit inadvertently, did: look at extreme examples of persecution around the world and succumb to the whisperings of relativism. To declare that since the ACLU is not killing Christians its activities are a mere nuisance underestimates the eroding effect the secular war on Christianity is having in America.

In India the Christians are persecuted because they continue to meet together to worship, facing assaults and death in their desire to practice their religion. American Christians cower in the corner when the dreaded word “lawsuit” comes from the lips of an ACLU attorney. India’s Christians are assaulted for teaching from the bible in their schools. American Christians stop teaching that Christianity was important in the founding of the nation and no longer offer prayers at schools and public events because they are intimidated by lawyers. India’s Christians are removed from their homes rather than deny their new faith. American Christians meekly turn the other cheek when city councils vote to remove crosses, crèches, and the Ten Commandments from public view. Who then is better off, one who suffers for Christianity’s sake, or one who avoids the suffering by shrinking from his/her Christianity?

Basham, in making an admirable plea to readers to support and pray for India’s Christians, concludes, “The day may come where the ACLU has its way and our faith is officially declared an affront to the state, but that day has not yet arrived.” Unfortunately, that day is closer than Basham may realize.

ACLU assaults on Christianity in America, though different in form, are no less insidious or fearsome than those faced by India’s Christians. The physical persecutions faced in India bring focus and a dependence on Divine assistance to face those trials with courage in the face of death. The legal and social persecutions faced in America should generate the same determination not to deny the faith or be intimidated by legions of lawsuit-wielding lawyers.

ACLU Townhall GFA India Christianity Megan Basham religious persecution war on Christmas