Skip to content

Anchoring the Lamb or Pacifying the Anchoress?

January 17, 2007
Nate over at The Lamb and Dragon has a very interesting and moving piece on war and terrorism, which, to his credit reads quite like the pre-Constantine Church Fathers. Nate is responding to some pressing and difficult questions forwarded by The Anchoress. Gerald has already given his brief response: 1. short term: kill or capture; 2. long term: support forces in usual suspect countries that aren’t hell-bent on holy war.

Since the drive of the debate focuses on terrorism, assuming that terrorism was, in fact, the sole or primary reason to go to war in Iraq, I think it’s important that we begin examining what are the root causes of terrorism. This would lead to a re-assessment of certain American trends: globalized business and economic presence in the Middle-East, military presence in the Middle-East, and supplying of military arms to Middle Eastern leaders during the ’70’s and ’80’s. While I am not saying that these are the sole causes of terrorist activity against the U.S., they most certainly play a substantial role. Yet, those who support the Iraq War, however reluctantly, do not seem to take into consideration that the U.S. has adversely affected areas of the Middle East and that terrorists may see their own actions as “just war”. Does this justify, even minutely, terrorist activity? Never. But a holistic look at the war in Iraq cannot overlook the manner in which the U.S. contributed to the hatred, violence and distrust of the West found in the Middle East today. U.S. may be the land of the free, but it has not always been the land of the innocent.

Countless U.S. citizens, here and abroad, have suffered on account of poor decisions by U.S. leaders. I think especially of Carter and Reagan. No doubt, many of us will suffer greatly on account of President Bush’s decisions over the past four years, long after his presidency has ended.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: