[Dialogue] Resend Spong on Iraq and Abortion

[KroegerD@aol.com]

December 29, 2004
The Shadows over Iraq Darken the New Year 

When a new year arrives, there is normally a sense of hope that the future 
will be better. That, however, is not my feeling as New Year's Day, 2005, dawns. 
We live rather in a world of increasing tension. We are engaged in a war that 
is not being won and out of which we are not able to extricate ourselves. 
That is the classic definition of a tragedy.
The price of the Iraqi war is enormous. Between 10,000 and 20,000 
Anglo-American casualties, either killed or wounded, have already been absorbed. Those 
cold statistics, regarded by the Pentagon as "tolerable losses," represent the 
broken lives of many people beyond the actual victims. Families have been 
shattered by the deaths of sons, daughters, husbands, wives and parents. Estimates 
of the loss of life among the Iraqi people are currently in the neighborhood 
of 100,000 killed. The numbers of wounded and broken are uncountable. For that 
sacrifice they have to show only a devastated nation, a divided citizenry and 
a fearful future. Our leaders assure us that we rescued the Iraqi people from 
a brutal dictator, which only makes us wonder why many appear not to be 
grateful. Perhaps one answer is that the brutality of their past appears little 
different from the brutality of their present. 
Nations always seek to justify their wars of aggression and to cover their 
motives with noble slogans. The fact remains, however, that war always brings 
out the very worst in human life. We dehumanize our enemies in order to kill 
them with impunity. We cover our own losses with deception and denial. No 
flag-draped coffins appear on televised newscasts. No national coverage accompanies 
the burial of a service person. Our discomfiture about this war is masked with 
hyped patriotism. Politicians applaud the efforts and sacrifices of our young 
men and women, urging us to "support our troops" and to recognize that the 
armed forces of our nation, 'the finest in the world,' are "doing a terrific 
job." I am sure they are, for it is obviously true of the people I know personally 
who are on active duty in Iraq. That affirmation, however, should not be used 
to suppress criticism of the policy decisions that brought this nation into 
war. It is neither inappropriate nor unpatriotic to do so. To sacrifice these 
lives for the noble purpose of bringing democracy to the people of Iraq sounds 
appealing until we begin to realize that this is much more our goal than it is 
the goal of the Iraqi people. I am always suspicious of those who want to do 
something to someone else "for their own good." When these slogans are 
repeated over and over again, I wonder why we have to re-assure ourselves so often.
It is an act of courage and deep conviction for a citizen of this nation to 
be critical of a war effort once our troops have been committed to the field of 
battle. It took years and some 50,000 battlefield deaths before public 
opinion in America turned against the Vietnam War. Our citizens came slowly to 
realize that not only was the war not being won but it also could not be won 
without a greater commitment of personnel and resources than this nation would ever 
have been willing to make. Remember the shock of the Tet offensive? Remember 
that indelible picture that flashed across our television screens of the young 
Vietnamese girl screaming as she ran down the road, her naked body on fire 
from an American soldier's flamethrower? Or the South Vietnamese officer 
summarily executing a bound prisoner on a public street with a pistol shot to his 
temple? Remember the trial of Lt. William Calley after the My Lai massacre? Then 
there was the strange logic voiced by the American commanding officer, "The 
only way we could save that village was to destroy it." When the massive 
accumulation of these data finally turned public opinion against the Vietnam War, we 
discovered the incalculable cost such a turning exacts on the psyche of a 
nation. This nation is still paying that price.
Vietnam-type disillusionment about the war in Iraq has not yet gained 
sufficient traction to change this country's direction. The November 2004 elections 
made that perfectly clear. Most Americans still find it hard to say that this 
war is a mistake for that means they are implying that the deaths of more than 
1300 of our military personnel are meaningless and that the 10,000 wounded 
must embrace the realization that their lives were devastated in a cause that was 
simply wrong. These sentiments run counter to our deepest tribal identity. 
Yet such a consensus is beginning to emerge in this land. More attacks on 
structures where our military personnel are eating without adequate protection will 
bring about that consensus rapidly, and it will unleash throughout the land an 
uncontrollable political fury. No nation can finally tell a member of its 
armed forces that he or she must die for a mistake. This administration, however, 
better prepare itself for that reality, for daily the intensity is growing 
with observable signposts along the way. 
First, the citizens of this nation had to face the fact that the reasons 
given for going to war were simply not so. No weapons of mass destruction have 
been found. Iraq had no nuclear capability. It had no chemical or biological 
weapons. No connection existed between Iraq and 9/11, despite the constant linking 
by Vice-President Cheney and right wing commentators like Bill O'Reilly. Rush 
Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. When the official reasons for the war began to 
waver, credibility declined. Skilled counselors inform us that when one adjusts 
the explanation for doing anything to meet new circumstances, the real reason 
has not yet been stated.
Then came the premature announcement by our president on board an aircraft 
carrier in the Pacific that our mission in Iraq had been accomplished. It felt 
good to hear those confident words in May of 2003 but at the dawn of 2005 those 
words look inept. Our leaders acted as if they believed it was true, for 
marine units began to be sent home, only to be ordered back when reality set in 
during 2004. No action of our nation could have made it more obvious that 
something had gone wrong, badly wrong. It was becoming clear that this nation's 
political leaders had little understanding of the forces at work in Iraq. It was a 
war entered with what is now seen as an appalling ignorance. The erosion of 
confidence continued.
The prison scandal of Abu Graib was the next moment of disillusionment. 
Americans want to be proud of our armed forces, which are said to represent our 
highest values, hopes and aspirations. Those prison photographs dashed those 
sentiments. The public was not allowed to see the worst of the photographs that 
were termed too gross for public consumption.
The downhill trend grew. The promise of elections only elicited increased 
violence from significant parts of the Iraqi population. Increasingly the war 
seemed to be fought on a political not a military timetable. In April the marines 
had been withdrawn in the first battle for Fallujah, allowing it to became an 
insurgent fortress. As soon as the American election was over a new offensive 
against Fallujah was begun. It was successful in all things except its major 
goal: the capture of the leaders of the insurgency. They appeared to escape to 
Mosul, which became the new center of opposition to the American occupation. 
Somehow we now find ourselves in the midst of an Iraqi civil war that we 
neither understand nor are properly equipped to fight.
Prior to our presidential election there was a troubling and revealing story 
about some American soldiers who refused a direct order to drive their supply 
trucks through hostile territory. That is nothing less than mutinous behavior 
for which court martial and firing squads are deemed appropriate. Something 
has to be very wrong to elicit this kind of behavior in the military. When 
questioned these soldiers claimed that their vehicles were not adequately equipped 
for the dangerous task assigned them. They called it a suicide mission. 
However, the story disappeared quickly as if it was something the military did not 
want to pursue openly. 
We did not have to wait long for an answer as to why. The main architect of 
this war, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, went to Iraq. He refused to 
take questions from the press, but agreed to allow them from the military. A 
young National Guard soldier from Tennessee inquired as to why American soldiers 
are having to dig through garbage heaps to find armor to put on their vehicles. 
Rumsfeld grimaced but that question was greeted with loud applause from the 
audience in that room. These soldiers knew better than anyone else that the 
highest percentage of casualties in this war had come from bomb attacks against 
unarmored vehicles. Now we could understand the action of those soldiers, who 
refused a military command. The answer from Secretary Rumsfeld was shockingly 
revealing, "We go to war with the army we have, not the army we wish we had!" 
It should be noted that this war began in early 2003 by the choice of this 
administration. This question was asked of Secretary Rumsfeld near the end of 
2004. Even if unprepared at the time of the war's inception, the fact that almost 
two years later this basic life saving equipment is still not available 
becomes inexcusable. The accumulating disillusionment took a huge leap forward. 
Dis-ease is rising in America. When a war is so poorly planned and executed as 
this one, then patriotism requires that we be critical.
The elections in Iraq are less than a month away. Had this war gone as 
expected this should be the last step before our troops come home. Yet Mr. Rumsfeld 
now says our troops will be there for "several more years." I predict that it 
will not be long before a new anti-war majority arises in this nation. If we 
do not pull out the death rate for American military and civilian personnel 
will rise to frightening proportions. If we do pull out a civil war, 
destabilizing the entire Middle East, is almost inevitable. That is the predicament into 
which this administration has led us. The choices are bleak. I wish I saw a 
happy New Year. I hope I am wrong.
-- John Shelby Spong
Question and Answer
With John Shelby Spong
Colette from Lithgow, Australia, writes: 
I was raised a Catholic and am still a disgruntled participant in the Church. 
I am a big fan of yours. "A New Christianity for a New World" finally 
articulated most of the views I have been coming to over the last few years. My only 
problem is your view on abortion. I work in a community health setting where 
abortion is just considered another medical procedure. I have always believed 
that it is an affront to humanity, and that we are making an innocent life pay 
for our individual stupidity, regardless of whether or not you believe in a 
deity. I once heard a doctor describe it as justifiable homicide. I am 
interested to know what your views are on the subject. How is it justifiable? 
Dear Colette, 
I am not sure that abortion is justified on some ultimate scale of right and 
wrong.
I believe sex education is an essential ingredient in modern society. 
Included in sex education, I mean birth control and family planning. That would 
greatly reduce the number of abortions, which I would welcome. I find it 
interesting that those religious voices that are so vehemently opposed to abortion are 
also opposed to sex education and birth control. I regard their reliance on 
teaching abstinence or seeking to control sexual desire with heavy burdens of 
guilt to be naive at best and evil at worst.
I have known poor young girls in urban areas, already living on welfare, 
totally unaware of what causes pregnancy, who became pregnant by their fathers, 
their uncles or their mother's current lover. I do not think that a young girl's 
life should be determined by that act.
Abortion is too serious and traumatic an experience to be employed as an 
emergency form of birth control. So I think we should do everything possible to 
make abortion rare. In the world as it is now organized, I believe it must 
always be a legal option and the ultimate decision must be exercised not by a 
male-dominated government or a male dominated church, but by the woman, together 
with her medical and spiritual advisors.
Homicide is, in my opinion, too strong a word to use to describe abortion. 
Without abortion, as a legal option, our cultural experience is that women die 
at the hands of illegal practitioners. Those victimized women also come 
overwhelmingly from among the poor and disadvantaged members of our society. I regard 
abortion as one more compromise we have to make in a radically compromised 
world in which life not death, wholeness not brokenness, health to illness, 
fulfillment not oppression, ought to be the driving goals behind everything we do. 
I believe the life of the mother must be given equal, I would even say 
superior, weight to the life of the unborn. To protect both should be our ultimate 
goal. When that is not possible, we accept the lesser goal of protecting one. I 
wish it were easier. I do not think it is.
-- John Shelby Spong

Dick Kroeger
65 Stubbs Bay Road
Maple Plain, MN 55359
952-476-6126