The War in Iraq -- An e-interview with Jim Winkler of GBCS

This Sunday thousands of people from around the United States are planning to march here in  Washington, D.C., to call for peace in Iraq. I asked Jim Winkler (pictured below), general secretary of the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), who is a leading opponent of the War in Iraq, to respond to some questions about his position on the war.  I appreciate his willingness to engage in this conversation.  My questions are in italics.

You have stated that you believe the United States should pull out of Iraq immediately because we cannot bring peace, democracy, or stability there. Why   do you say this?

Each nation has its own reality, peculiarities, nuances, complexities, history, culture, etc. What, realistically, can an invasion force accomplish? If strong enough, it can certainly overthrow the existing regime but the very idea that the invaders can impose peace, democracy, and stability seems unrealistic to me, at best.

Imagine an invading force attacking the United States in order to change us to a monarchy or to remove the ruling party from power or to require us to pay reparations to Vietnam or Grenada or Panama or other countries we have invaded. Perhaps each of these aims could be temporarily achieved with enough power, but real and lasting change would have to come from inside our nation. Indeed, an outside invasion would probably setback the aims of the invaders due to the intense anger the population would feel against them.

Iraq is an ancient and complicated land and the administration's planning for the post-war situation was haphazard at best. Let's face it, the Bush Administration did not invade Iraq to achieve the aims stated in your question. Rather, one and only one goal was in mind and that was to remove Saddam Hussein whose ouster eluded George W. Bush's father.

If I understand you correctly,you believe Iraq will have to undergo a civil war, maybe a five-year-long war, no matter when U.S. troops pull out. Do I understand you correctly? Is there no way the United States can help avert civil war in Iraq?

Iraq is a deeply fragmented nation, an ancient land but still one with borders arbitrarily drawn in 1916 by French and British diplomats. Different religions, tribes, and ethnic groups are contained within its borders.  I suspect as bad as Saddam was he held it together through terror and brute force. Likely, either it will fall apart or another dictator will eventually seize control.

I simply have no idea if the United States can do anything to avert a civil war, but our motives are too suspect and our presence has resulted in the deaths of too many innocent people for us to play a positive role.

If genocide is a possibility in Iraq, don't we have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen? Why not?

I don't know that genocide is a possibility in Iraq, but if a slaughter of Sunnis, Kurds, or Shiites were to result I believe the international community must be mobilized to stop it and I hope we would contribute under the banner of a United Nations peacekeeping force if it was judged that our soldiers presence would help.

You have suggested that peace in Iraq is dependent upon peace in the Middle East in general, including between Israel and Palestine. Help us better understand the relationship between the situation in Iraq and the situation in Israel.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims all consider Jerusalem to be a holy city and the land around it to be the Holy Land. So many emotions and so much spiritual force is focused there that no one can see the struggle there as a minor conflict in a small territory. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict dominates the agenda of the entire region. Peace is possible in Israel and Palestine and if it can be reached in a just and enduring manner, the resulting positive energy can be harnessed for good throughout the Middle East.

What are you hearing from United Methodists throughout the nation? Are we mostly divided about this war? Have you noticed any changes in the sentiment of United Methodists during the past months? Is a denominational consensus emerging?

I find fewer and fewer people supporting and defending the war. It has been a huge disaster and people mostly seem to be depressed about it. Mostly, supporters lift up our troops and say that opposition to the war undermines their safety. At the leadership level, I can't remember the last time a bishop or general secretary expressed to me support for the war.

You have taken a lot of heat. Why have you chosen to take on this issue? What sustains you?

Actually, I have taken a lot less heat for my opposition to the war than I thought I would. When I do, I mostly hear from men and when I am able to determine who they are, they are almost always white men over the age of 40. Support for the war seems to be led by that powerful demographic group. I believed from the beginning that this war was a terrible idea. I spoke out for the first time on Aug. 30, 2002 after traveling twice to the region in the wake of Sept. 11. No one there I spoke to thought an invasion of Iraq was a wise course of action. There is something uniquely evil about war. I am sustained by my faith in Jesus Christ. I can find no evidence whatsoever that Jesus would support this or any other war.

My thanks to Jim Winkler for this e-interview and for his leadership within our denomination.

Comments

[Keith Taylor]

I read nothing but hypocracy in this intervew.

Rev. Winker states" I suspect as bad as Saddam was he held it together through terror and brute force. Likely, either it will fall apart or another dictator will eventually seize control.
I simply have no idea if the United States can do anything to avert a civil war, but our motives are too suspect and our presence has resulted in the deaths of too many innocent people for us to play a positive role.

Okay war is evil. I will admit to that. But Winker seems to be implying that Saddam was an evil leader, but he was okay since he held the country's various ethnic and religious groups together and kept them from killing each other. Never mind the hundreds of thousands that he locked away in prisons, torture chambers, and killed and maimed.
Winker then states, I don't know that genocide is a possibility in Iraq, but if a slaughter of Sunnis, Kurds, or Shiites were to result I believe the international community must be mobilized to stop it and I hope we would contribute under the banner of a United Nations peacekeeping force if it was judged that our soldiers presence would help.
So let me get this straight. It is evil right now for American troops to be in Iraq under a US flag, but if we pull out now, then the country falls apart and a civil war breaks out that kills thousands of Sunnis, Kurds, or Shities, it will be morally right for US to reenter the nation of Iraq under the baby blue flag of the UN. Is that what this man just stated? Am I reading this right? Nevermind what flag the US troops are there under, what about the thousands of innocents that would be killed in the process of mobilizing? Let us suppose that Winker is right and his protest movement eventally leads to the US withdrawal of Iraq prior to a civil government taking control of the country and then a bloody civil war follows. Will not the blood of those persons partially be on his hands?
The interview the steers toward the nation of Israel. Well fine lets talk about Israel. Prior to ouster of Saddam Hussien, every single night I turned on the 6:30 news and another one of these Muslim infadels had walked into a public square somewhere in Israel and blown themselves up. Almost every single day. And guess what. Everytime that happened, Saddam wrote a check to the poor, pathetic family of that homocide bomber for $10,000.00 USD. That is right, each and every one of those bombers was funded by Saddam. Since the beginning of the war and and the topple of Saddam, I can't remember the last time I heard of one of these homocidal fanatics blowing themselves up. Yes, there have been a few, but the number is a fraction of what it was in the pre-War days. Thus, the security of Israel has been improved upon by the removal of Saddam for the moment.

[gavin]

i think everyone knows why i'm slanted on the war, and i take deeply what i feel are narrow comments (and at times childish, referencing the jaded son motivation) like this from leaders on all sides, especially from the church.

the accounts of saddam's genocide is prevalent then and now, the middle east was more nameless people for us, so it never made our media. the accounts of his rule of fear and intimidation is just coming out. throwing out the 'if this happened here in america is adolescent and completely out of context. from what i know of human development and psychology, children and groups that live in fear have many negative impacts which we are only just now figuring out. we don't live in that type of environment, why would we welcome the ridding of freedom.. but we might welcome the daily fear.

jim's right on the complexity of the middle east. this may have been a simple interview, but i see nothing that inclines that he has depth in his thoughts that lead to his practice.

shalom
-g

[Revwilly]

Why is war evil and abortion not? Most abortions today are not done for health reasons, but for conveniece reasons. Our UMC position is only in favor of abortion for health reasons. Winkler and others protest war, but clearly one of the most dangerous places in the world today is in a mothers womb. Why no major outcry against unnecessary abortions?

I ask this question because I have a hard time hearig the arguements against war and its consequent loss of lives when those making the argument are seem to have little conscience about hundreds of thousands of babies lives being taken unnessecarily each year. I just don't get it. (And yes, I am opposed to the death pentalty.)

[Kristin]

It seems as if everyone has forgotten the pretext of the premptive invasion...the illusive WMDs. We were told that we would be victims of another 9/11 style attack on our soil if we did not invade Iraq. Since then the intelligence has proven false, and the world has become more dangerous than ever. The U.S. did not invade to rescue the Iraqi people. We went in there to kill out of hatred and fear. Don't make GW out to be a hero when he truly is nothing more than a hateful, ignorant leader with too much power.

[Ciona]

I hardly see hypocrisy in Winkler's statements. They are bold and faithful.

The solution is not simple, and I think Winkler acknowledges this. But he knows that the solution is not what we are doing now. This war must end.

People--nameless soldiers and Iraqi people--are dying. We still do not give face and names to the full scope of atrocities that have happened and that are happening in the Middle East now. We simply move on to the next big atrocity and add soldier deaths to the number reported in newspapers.

I respect that soldiers are there and fighting hard for their survival and for the survival of their peers. We were directed falsely into an unnecessary battle. So, people of faith, we must seek faithful answers to get out of this mess!

Thanks, Dean, for interviewing Winkler. I'm interested to know, however, the role he sees the church playing in bringing peace to the Isreli-Palestinian conflict. If peace is possible, how is it possible, and do we have a role in the process?

[Revwilly]

I'm looking for perspective. No one has responded to my question about war being evil but unnecessary abortion not. Let me try something a little different. War is evil - at best it is a necessary evil sometimes. It always results in death, destruction and devistation. It costs billions of dollars. Many rightfully protest war for those reasons and many more.

Here is what I do not understand - in a given year approximately 1400 young people between the ages of 18-25 will die as a result of someone abusing alcohol(this is just in the USA). If you do the math in two years this exceeds the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq. Across all age groups Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions. Globally both the deaths and economic costs would be astromonical. Here's my question: if we are trying to reduce death, destruction and devistation and if we are saying that money could be better used for many other things, why does not the church give just as much attention to this matter as it does the war? Is something which causes this much death and destruction not an evil that is being swept under the rug? Please help me understand why no outcry about this. I know it's legal,but aren't people being exploited? Isn't the message being sent that the alcohol is really fun and not harmful?

[Dean Snyder]

Rev. Willy

You are right that alcohol is a serious societal problem, and that it is widely abused. We ought to be investing heavily in alcohol-abuse education, and alternatives to teen and young adult gatherings focused on drinking. I know many churches that offer after-prom non-alcoholic gatherings, etc., and applaude this.
Dean

[Revwilly]

Dean,
Yes, but I don't recall you every blogging on this issue. I don't recall Jim Winkler ever giving a speech on it. I've never seen a petition in AC about it. It is just not glitzy enough I guess. Is Ms. Sheehan had protested about her son being killed by a drunk driver, we would never had heard of her.

[Dean Snyder]

Rev. Willy

Well, I am also concerned about the hundreds of people who die at the Mexican-U.S. border, but I've never blogged about it, and you have never raised it in a comment.

I am very distressed about the fact that cancer reearch has not made more progress. I pray about it regularly. I've not yet blogged on it, and you have not commented on it. I care more about cancer than almost any other thing. I think the whole way we live today causes cancer.

I am concened about the level of obesity in the U.S. I've not blogged on it, and you've not commented on it.

None of us can do everything at once. Let's not dimiss what we do say on the basis of what we haven't yet said. Right?

[Revwilly]

Dean,
You most certainly are right and I am not trying to dismiss the evil of war. My point is that there are greater evils occuring right now in terms of the number of deaths and cost and all I hear is silence. That puzzles me.

[John]

At the time of the invasion of Iraq, I, too, thought that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. But my primary reason for supporting the invasion was then and still is now, different.

America had a terrible image problem in the Islamic world. We were/are seen as debauched, rich, fat, and most importantly -- cowardly. Beruit, Khobar, Mogadishu, the Cole all indicated one fact: make Americans bleed and they'll run like sissies. Bin Laden explicitly said this, repeatedly, and referred to us as a 'paper tiger' that would fold in and collapse on itself after 9/11.

No great power can afford the appearance of cowardice. In order to deter future attacks against our nation, it was essential to chose a random Arab country and bomb the *&$# out of it. Why? Because America will only be safe when the world thinks of us as powerful, brave, war-loving, and a little bit crazy.

Then we will be safe.

[Dean Snyder]

Hey John

What if the world thought of us as caring, loving, sacrifical, good, and a little bit crazy with generosity?

[John]

That'd be great, too, and would appear to be the Iraqi opinion.

[Revwilly]

Dean,
We are far from a perfect nation in too many ways to count but we are also caring, loving, sacrificial, good and crazy with generosity. Who gives more foreign aid that we? Who gave more for Tsuami relief that we? Who gives more to the U.N. than we? We can't expect the world to see us that way and we could never give enough of anything for the world to view us that way. Thousand of Americans sacrificed their lives during WW2 to save the French, do they think we are generous? Are they grateful?

[Chaplain (MAJ) Mark E. Thompson]

Sir,

I am saddened by your recent comments on our involvement in the war. I was on the front line of the war serving as an Army Chaplain with the 101st Airborne Division. There are many comments that you have made representing the UM Church that I would like to understand. However, as you have based many of your arguments on what the people of Iraq want, I need to know how much time in the past two years you have spent in Iraq. I was there, I have friends there now and I plan to return the summer of 2007. We just can’t seem to find the people that you say “…want the United States out of Iraq.” Unless you meant the terrorist and the insurgents then I stand corrected. Here is a question for you: how is the United Methodist Church making statements about the war without consulting United Methodist Ministers serving as military chaplains in this war?

Respectfully,
Chaplain (MAJ) Mark E. Thompson
Nebraska