Related articles and links |  1 of 2

In the debate over U.S. action in Iraq, there is little consensus among Christians. Before the war began, Robert A. Seiple wrote in The Christian Science Monitor, "Although this will disappoint many of my friends in the faith community, I come down on the side of President Bush."

Seiple is president and founder of The Institute for Global Engagement. After 11 years as president of World Vision, Seiple spent two years in the State Department as the first U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.

What's your response to the war in Iraq? And how have you viewed the response of the Christian community?

There was a great deal of controversy and hesitancy as the events in the United Nations played out. And people came down on different sides. I have to say that in my own family we were not of one accord on this.

My point of view was in favor of the action for three reasons. First, the Middle East is a cauldron of activists who hate the United States and the West. There's a great deal of terrorism that is spawned there and kept there. Right in the middle of this cauldron is this country of Iraq, that also hates us and has the ability to create the kind of weapons that could really play havoc in the world after 9/11.

Second, when I was in the State Department for two years as the Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, I read all the cables coming from in and around Iraq. Saddam Hussein did the most brutal things to the Shiites in the south and we sanctioned Iraq because of that. But the guy is absolutely heartless and probably the most brutal dictator that we have seen in the last 100 years.

The third reason is that many people say we shouldn't go to war but, my goodness, we were already at war. And war was declared against the Shia, war was being fought against Muslims in Iraq by Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction were already being used in the gassing of the Kurds. We could no longer turn our backs on that part of the world. We had to do something dramatic. All available means had disappeared. Diplomacy could not get the job done. We simply had to make a stand. None of this is easy, but there comes a point in time where you say, "Nothing else has worked, will work," and you have to apply power.

Why has there been so much animosity toward America in reaction to the war?

We probably didn't do a very good job in terms of articulating why we should do this and why it was important. A real reason [for the backlash] is that we're the last remaining superpower. Whoever is the last remaining superpower would face a certain amount of animosity, a certain amount of jealousy, and a certain amount of caution in terms of how that superpower may react.

But along with that we also have a problem that unfortunately we've created in this country—a [lack of balance between national values and national interests.] We have national values like the golden rule and religious principles that are deeply imbedded in our history. At the same time, we have national interests that tend to be economic in nature. Essentially we've never put the two together. One speaks to power and the other speaks to philosophical precepts and theological underpinnings.

This disjuncture between the two and our inability to resolve it creates an inconsistency. The Achilles heel of human rights is always inconsistency. Why people hate America is that we have this large display of power that sometimes allows us to be inconsistent and get away with it.

next page... |  1 of 2

April (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47