Francois Ntone

Did the Gulf Wars Solve Problems Related to World Terrorism?

World terrorism continues, today, to be a frightening but escalating feature of the news.  Politicians continue to call for military solutions to bring about peace, as if that approach has not been tried unsuccessfully in the past.  On January 17, 1991, George H. W. Bush launched Operation Desert Storm as a response against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.  As a justification for the war against Iraq, the United States had, in previous months, initiated a campaign to demonize the Iraqi leader.  In Congress, the debate focused on describing Hussein as a mad man who threatened American interests and could not be allowed to control oil resources.  The US government presented him as a Hitler- like character who committed terrible atrocities against his own people and his neighbors, defied the will of an international coalition and had to be humiliated.  The Iraqi forces were even accused of committing atrocities in Kuwait, including the murder of babies who were supposedly snatched from their incubators, a story that has been widely discredited.  In reality, even though Hussein was a known dictator who used highly questionable methods against his people and his neighbors, he had been an American ally who was only emboldened to invade Kuwait because he thought he had received assurance of non-interference from April Glaspie, the American ambassador to Iraq.

In a televised address, Bush stated the objectives of the attack against Iraq:

“Our objectives are clear: Saddam Hussein’s forces will leave Kuwait. The legitimate government of Kuwait will be restored to its rightful place, and Kuwait will once again be free.  Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions, and then, when peace is restored, it is our hope that Iraq will live as a peaceful and cooperative member of the family of nations, thus enhancing the security and stability of the Gulf.”

He also quoted statements from several army representatives who, presumably, fully understood the importance of their mission.   He referred to one of them as Master Sergeant J. P. Kendall of the 82nd Airborne, who said:

“We’re here for more than just the price of a gallon of gas.  What we’re doing is going to chart the future of the world for the next 100 years. It’s better to deal with this guy now than 5 years from now.”

Desert Storm was launched with air attacks followed by a ground campaign that started on February 24, 1991.  The entire operation was designed as a “shock and awe” type of demonstration of the tremendous American military might, partly aimed at overcoming the national malaise associated with memories of the Vietnam War.  In an effort to present Iraq as a worthwhile adversary, Hussein’s military capability was described as more formidable than it really was.  It turned out that the Iraqi forces were powerless against the American attacks, and it only took the ground forces a few days to accomplish the objectives stated by Bush.  However, the campaign took a tremendous toll on the country of Iraq, which was left completely devastated.  More than 100000 Iraqis lost their lives.  In addition to annihilating military targets, the bombing of Iraqi cities destroyed civilian infrastructure, including communication systems, oil refineries, electric generators, dams, transportation centers and water treatment facilities.  Over time, hundreds of thousands of children died as a result of the destruction of the water supply, and Iraq’s ability to produce food was severely damaged.  Economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations against Iraq added to the human suffering and the loss of lives.

The desolation that resulted from the war was considered as mere “collateral damage”, an acceptable price to pay in order to achieve American strategic goals.  Today, politicians and pundits only seem to remember George H. W. Bush for his success in gathering an effective international coalition against Saddam Hussein.  However, it is clear that his assumption that use of military force will lead to peace and order in the Middle East has been completely invalidated.  It is only fair to assume that the huge amount of pain inflicted by the Bush coalition on Muslims in Iraq added to the hatred against the United States.  The hatred existed before the Bush administration, and was seen, for example, when 241 American servicemen were killed in the Beirut barracks bombings on October 23, 1983.  Ironically, this happened under Ronald Reagan, who had promised to restore American strength which, he claimed, had been eroded under his predecessor Jimmy Carter.  The only response from this “strong president” was to invade, a few days later, the tiny island nation of Grenada, an action that was condemned by the United Nations General Assembly as a flagrant violation of international law, but was meant to distract US public attention from the events in Lebanon.

In the years after the Iraq invasion, the hatred against America was expressed on various occasions.   On February 26, 1993, operatives with Al Qaeda connections bombed the World Trade Center, killing 6 people and injuring more than a thousand.  The hatred  was further expressed when Al Qaeda carried out suicide bombings of American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 which killed 200 people, and the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, which killed 17 sailors.  Of course, Al Qaeda actions against the United States culminated in the infamous September 11 attacks in 2001 where almost 3000 people lost their lives.  World terrorism had now reached American soil.

After Operation Desert Storm ended, a debate arose as the Bush administration decided not to remove Saddam Hussein from power.  It seems the administration had to face the local reality: there was no clear alternative to the dictator, and his removal would have led to chaos.  Ironically, 10 years after George H. W. Bush proclaimed that he would establish a new order in the Middle East by flexing his military muscle, his son, George W. Bush, decided that a preemptive strike against Iraq was necessary.  As one who was born in a developing country, I found baffling the expectation stated by him and his neocon advisors that American troops would be received as liberators, even though they were about to impose their will on a sovereign nation with a different worldview.  I also found puzzling the assertion that the terrorists hated American freedoms.  In fact people in the Third Word are attracted to American freedoms, but hate the fact that the American government is so willing to use its military power to force its will on other nations.  They also hate the idea that their lives are mere collateral damage, and that one American life is worth a thousand of theirs.  The rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of right wingers in the United States actually sounds like an excellent recruiting tool for those who hate America and want to persuade their younger, disenfranchised generations to hate America as well.  Right wing rhetoric can only lead to an increase in world terrorism.

That George W Bush and his advisers invaded Iraq under false pretenses is an established fact today, given that no weapons of mass destruction were found.  But more importantly Bush, like his father, only made matters worse.  The second Iraq war led to a strong Al Qaeda presence in Iraq.  ISIS also appeared and went from a local terrorist organization whose activities were confined to Iraq and Syria, to an organization that brings terror to Europe and North Africa, and even inspires terrorist acts within the United States.  Today, unfortunately, world terrorism is still on the rise.

The Christian Perspective on World Terrorism: All Who Draw the Sword will Die by the Sword

My goal in writing this article is not to debate military strategy, an area that is of very little interest to me.  Military strategists, politicians and pundits claim to have knowledge of what needs to be done regarding the so-called war on terror and the restoration of not only order in the Middle East, but international security.  However, they all assume that the use of extreme forms of violence, such as warfare as known today, has the potential to bring about peace.  It is particularly amazing that George W. Bush, a self-professed Christian who claimed that Jesus Christ is his hero, seemed so attracted to a preemptive military solution to world terrorism.  But Bush is not the only “Christian” politician who seems to have completely misunderstood Jesus.  It seems that many who can be described as war hawks go to church on Sunday and do not see this as a dilemma.

The whole Middle East situation illustrates Jesus’ rebuke of Peter quite well: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mat. 26:52).  Christians are called to be peacemakers and are told by their Lord and Savior to love their enemies and turn the other cheek.  Of course, the easy retort against the above statements will inevitably come: “What if your family is threatened?  Will you not do anything?”

Many people who consider themselves as Christians recognize that their God rejects violence, and are careful to say that they can only use it for self-defense and as a last resort.  Others call themselves Christians but actually see the use of violence as a legitimate weapon, especially against people who are not like them.  Obviously the first category is closer to Jesus’ teaching: a follower of Christ must certainly agonize over the decision to go to war.  But even that position should be considered as a failure by a true believer.  It represents a detour taken by Christendom from the time Christianity was absorbed by a belligerent Roman Empire.  Christians, who were suddenly in a position of power, adopted a complacent form of Christianity that deviated from the teaching of Christ and his apostles.  That form of Christianity wanted to keep the benefits promised by Christ regarding individual salvation.  However, it tried at the same time to circumvent Jesus’ calls for self-denial, self-sacrifice and acceptance of suffering in his name.  Perhaps the material comfort and power gained by Christians in the Roman empire became too seductive to be relinquished.  Indeed, Jesus sent out his disciples as “sheep among wolves”, warning them that following him would endanger their lives.  He honestly told them they had to count the cost of following him, but urged them not to be afraid of those who can kill the body but not the soul.  Simply put, Jesus knew that peace in an evil world could only be achieved through the self-sacrificing attitude of true believers.

Jesus’ teaching is a radical one that emphasizes total avoidance of sin and sets before man God’s perfection as a standard.  If God hates violence performed by men against men, then it is absurd to assume that man can use violence as a tool and still please God.  Using biblical language, one might say that violence is a tool of the devil, and using the tools of the devil in order to vanquish the devil automatically implies that the devil has won.  Therefore the expectation stated by Jesus that a son of God is called to be a peacemaker is a radical one that must be carried all the way.  Jesus himself demonstrated the concept by his peaceful resistance and acceptance of death.  But his victory was revealed by his resurrection, and his disciples were confident enough in that victory that they were willing to follow the same path of self-denial and self-sacrifice.  Furthermore, the movement initiated by Jesus peacefully overcame persecution from an empire bent on violent repression and became the religion of that empire.  That in itself demonstrated that God’s side can triumph without adopting Satan’s methods.  This is a lesson to be learned by Christians as they react to world terrorism.

The biblical narrative describes an irreversible progression of ideas that culminates in the coming of Christ and his description of the kingdom of God.  However, Christians conveniently use the Bible to navigate back and forth between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  They attempt to exclude others from God’s salvation by insisting that salvation cannot be obtained through the works of the law, but only through belief in Christ.  At the same time, they conveniently revert to the stories of the Old Testament, where the law is the guiding principle, to justify their natural tendencies towards violence.  Indeed, that explains how a 21^st century fundamentalist preacher can call for the death penalty against gay people as prescribed by the book of Leviticus.  Such a position is either ignorant or fraudulent, and can only be justified by the erroneous assumption that the Old Testament and the New Testament are equally relevant, an assumption conservatives tend to promote by using the ill-defined notion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Breaking the Cycle of Violence

Today, as in Old Testament days, the cycle of violence seems unbreakable, a situation that seems inadmissible considering that Christians hold power in much of the world.  Perhaps it is time for Christians to escape their self-deluded belief that they belong to Christ even though they reject an important part of his teaching, the one that might cause inconvenience to their earthly lives.  Today, life is not as dangerous to Christians as it was in Jesus’ time.  If they truly respond to their calling to be the “salt of the earth”, promoting love and good will towards all of God’s creation, perhaps they might even win the hearts of those who otherwise would see terrorism as the only attractive option.