I watched President Bush’s address two nights ago. Heard the "plan," listened to the justifications. Saw how Americans–and by virtue of being joined at the hip, we Canadians–were asked to trust in militaristic wisdom. Wisdom being, to send over another 21,000 troops. The force of which will contain the insurgents long enough for Maliki and the Iraqi government to spread democracy across the land.
And then there was the President’s gaping logic of…we can’t and won’t leave Iraq without a victory…but we’re going to leave if you guys can’t get your act together.
And all of this was wrapped up neatly in a not too oblique prayer that the "Author of liberty" would bring about the desires of the American people. That is, the desires of the Bush administration because obviously the Author is on America’s side.
Thing is, I could understand, I still wouldn’t like it, but I could understand if President Bush and his supporter in the stuff of war, Prime Minister Harper…if their own life-views were secular, agnostic, atheistic, even outwardly Imperialistic, Machiavellian, and so on. But no, for perhaps the first time in history we have, at the same time, two leaders that are Evangelical Christians. And they publish and proclaim the thing. They both pray in the name of the Prince of peace. And they both support the violence of an unjust war (whether or not there is any such thing as a just war). 
So I don’t see how it would be asking too much for a kind of admission that in their understanding (Evangelical) Christianity is good to a point. Good within the confines of Sunday AM, and family and private life. But that when it comes to the big picture, Jesus didn’t address this, left it up to, well, God ordained leaders of course. Because, in private life, the "Author of liberty" proclaims that liberty never comes from violence, but regarding nationhood, violence and it’s escalation is obviously necessary to procure liberty. And because in the personal realm, the "Author of liberty" is on the side of victims, but publicly, politically, nationally, one must know that "He," God, is on the side of the militaristically superior.
As an evangelical Christian Bush may even see himself as an instrument for ushering in the end of days. Just may see himself as catalyst to Revelations’ apocalypse, where true Christians escape to paradise.
Now I’m being alarmist. Simplistic perhaps. So while I’m at it…there couldn’t possibly be any Iranian design in this escalation. And even if there was I’m one of those who needs protection through the "noble lie." I cannot possibly understand or "handle" the real truth. Better to leave statecraft to the illuminati…like Bush and Cheney (and Harper). After all the "noble lie" worked well enough keeping us plebes unruffled leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Okay, here’s the sting. We are trapped, caught like skin in a zipper, and it’s going to hurt like hell to pull it back, and it’s going to bleed, but if we don’t things will fester and degrade and destroy us. Time to get out the sandwich boards.
Technorati Tags: Author of Liberty, George Bush, January 10th 2007 Presidential Address, Iran, Stephen Harper, Evangelical Christianity, Iraq, Violence
I like the zipper analogy.
Keep preaching. I have become so repulsed by modern world politics that I’ve lost my appetite for protest, but maybe with a little more encouragement I could get it back.
“Okay, here’s the sting. We are trapped, caught like skin in a zipper, and it’s going to hurt like hell to pull it back, and it’s going to bleed, but if we don’t things will fester and degrade and destroy us”
ouch !!!!!! what an image.
very well said
I’m not sure I totally agree with everything you said but it is eloquent and powerful as per usual.
The Iraq misadventure seems like a mistake from first to last. Mostly a failure of competence, not malicious, or conspiratorial evil but we have to hope that the area can be pacified and people given a chance to have a semblance of peace and order (good government is too much to ask, at least for now).
A full out sectarian civil war will not be a pretty sight.
Going in was wrong, based on wrong intelligence and wishful thinking.
Going in so under manned was hubris on a grand scale. To not impose a quick and effective order was a huge mistake. And to expect democracy to become possible by a snap of the fingers was naive in the extreme.
And the present state of violence is worse than what the Iraqis usually had to endure under Sadam and comparable to the terror many felt at his worst.
The level of troops being sent in may not establish order but hopefully something pulls that society from the brink of total meltdown.
One thing that may save it is the seldom-reported fact that despite the awful tensions and terror in many areas, the Iraqis are working like madmen to improve their economic life and the results as reported in today’s Post are very encouraging.
If ideology, religion, politics or force doesn’t stop the violence, the pursuit of Mammon may yet succeed in neutering the violent passions.
We all hope something gives them a chance at a more normal life.
Victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan in October, November 2001 came awfully easy for President Bush and Vice President. Had the US-led coalition bogged down there, perhaps there would have been no Iraq War. I’m still astonished that they defied the UN and half of the population of their own country but I am also glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer terrorizing his own people. Some good has and will continue to come from their decision to invade Iraq though it may take decades for it to outweigh the bad, if ever.