Features: January 2007

Stated Clerk Response to President Bush on Iraq Military Strategies by Clifton Kirkpatrick

Presbyterians and Separatist Evangelicals: A Continuing Dilemma by R. Milton Winter

Stories from Our Past by Fred Heuser

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence by Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Christmas Gift by Dee H. Wade

Past Issues

OGA Main Page

Items marked with are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. For best results, right-click the link (or click and hold for Macintosh), select "save target as" and save the document to your desktop for viewing and printing.

Los archivos marcados con este icono pueden ser descargados en el formato publicable de Adobe Acrobat. Este archivo requiere obtener el programa Acrobat Reader que es gratis. Para mejores resultados haz clic sobre el enlace con el botón derecho del ratón (o haz clic y mantén el ratón para las Macintosh), selecciona "save target as" y guarda el documento en el tope de tu ordenador para poder verlo e imprimirlo.

In 2004, the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) made a clear judgment “that the invasion of Iraq has been immoral, unwise and illegal.” While it also clearly affirmed our support for the troops and the right of people of conscience to disagree with that judgment, it was clear in its opposition to the war in Iraq. We believe that history has borne out the wisdom of the General Assembly’s action.

The General Assembly also expressed the conviction that in looking toward the future, the U.S. Government must assume responsibility to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq, but that such a reconstruction effort should be shared with the international community under the leadership of the United Nations. It further stated that in that process, further military deployment should be avoided as much as possible.

In light of these clear convictions, we view with grave concern the proposal of the President to send over 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. We urge the administration, instead, to give serious attention to the counsel of our General Assembly, other religious communities, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, to seek the stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq through other means.

Clifton Kirkpatrick is Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

*****

Response to Iraq strategies outlined by President Bush on January 10, 2007, reflecting previous actions of the General Assembly

The 216th General Assembly (2004) of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) concurred in the judgment of many critics “that the invasion of Iraq has been unwise, immoral and illegal.” Since that time, the number of deaths of U.S. military personnel has risen above 3,000 and it is estimated that more than 100,000 U.S. personnel have been physically and psychologically maimed by their involvement in the war—with their families suffering the “collateral damage.” Iraqi dead are numbered in the tens of thousands, and the toll of daily violence on the general Iraqi population is incalculable. Many now insist that the fruit of the current strategy is, in fact, civil war.

No sign of an end to the violence is in sight. In the face of the worsening internecine strife in Iraq and the continuing failure of U.S. military policy to ameliorate the situation, the presenting dilemma is how to find a way out, short of total disaster.

Widespread agreement exists among much of the U.S. military leadership that “success” by any measure is not attainable by simply continuing strategies that have been employed thus far. That includes previous efforts to increase U.S. military presence in particularly troublesome parts of Baghdad and other areas. These “surges” have been unable to quell the violence in any sustained fashion, whether it be inter-ethnic killing or actions opposition to the occupation.

What the President is now proposing can hardly be interpreted as anything short of an escalation of the current conflict. He acknowledges that in the “short term,” there will be continuing, perhaps increased, bloodshed, especially as that involves giving our troops a “green light” to invade areas like Sadr City—a guarantee of sustained, house-to-house fighting and further alienation of much of the poor Shiite population.

Even more ominous is the President’s repetitious “good versus evil” rhetoric with regard to Syria and Iran. “We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria, and we will seek out and destroy the networks that are providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” He threatens to put a stop to support from those two parties by the use of force at a time when the clear wisdom of the Iraq Study Group and many others is that no movement toward a lasting peace is possible without diplomatic contact with these two parties. This threat is even more disturbing in the face of informed speculation that the administration may have given its blessing to Israel to use its own nuclear capability, at some point in the future, against Iran’s suspected nuclear programs.

Even with clear acknowledgement by the President that Iraq must take on major responsibility for their future and his providing some “benchmarks” for measuring their willingness to do so, his overall strategy looks, in large measure, to be “more of the same” with regard to military strategies for the “pacification” of Iraq.

The President declared, “America’s commitment is not open-ended.” What he did not offer was any hint as to how long our own men and women might be placed at risk; however, earlier hints from the White House suggest that the “surge” in U.S. troops is hardly a short-term escalation. Indeed, The White House press secretary went so far as to say that the outcome of this strategy should not even be assessed for at least two years, a long time for U.S. personnel to continue to be at risk in a war that has already lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II.

Our General Assembly recognizes that in assessing the justification for military action, traditional Just War Principles may be considered. Among those most salient in this situation is the criterion requiring that such actions must have a reasonable chance of success. At the moment, many doubts exist, especially among military strategists, as to the ability of the President’s “surge” strategy to meet that criterion. In fact, strong proponents of a “surge” such as Senator McCain argue that even the 21,000 additional “boots on the ground” promised by the President is insufficient to accomplish that mission.

The General Assembly has expressed its deep concern for those who are serving at great cost in this conflict. The assembly has called for adequate pastoral care for them and their families as well as for adequate logistical support and protection. While that support should not be abridged in any way, it does not follow that new financial resources should be allocated to place several thousand other men and women in the cauldron of violence in which injury and death will come, as the Administration has acknowledged.

The General Assembly has made clear that in such conflicts, there must be an effort to involve the community of nations—most important, the United Nations—as an agent through which the various parties may be brought together to find a way beyond the sectarian violence and to begin the process of rebuilding. In 2004, the 216th General Assembly urged the U.S. Government “to move speedily to restore sovereignty to Iraq, to internationalize the reconstruction efforts without penalty to those nations that chose not to endorse the U.S.-led invasion, and to recognize the United Nations as the body most suitable to facilitate the transition to peace, freedom, and participatory governance in Iraq.”

In summary, the strategies announced by President Bush run counter to the carefully crafted advice of the Iraq Study Group, and a great many of the U.S. military commanders from whom the President, earlier, promised to take his signals about military deployments. They also run counter to the moral, ethical, and familial concerns of millions of Americans that surfaced in recent elections. It is time for the U.S. Congress, in whatever ways available to it, to tell the President “No!” to further escalation of the conflict by the United States.

Vernon Broyles is the volunteer representative for public witness for the Office of the General Assembly.

Copyright Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). All Rights Reserved.