[1] [from the right] It is not President Bush’s job to “solve the problem of the Middle East”. His job is to protect and defend this country from foreign attacks.

[2] [From further left]

Of course, the issue is whether or not the US was under threat from attacks from Iraq. There is no evidence that it was at the time of the invasion. The alleged link between al Quaeda and Iraq was entirely mistaken, not to say deliberately dishonest. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was a CIA creature. The war was partly unfinished Bush family business, partly about oil, and partly a seriously botched attempt to establish US influence in the middle East. Now, inevitably, al Quaeda operatives are swarming over Iraq, fostering and supporting the so-called insurgency.

[1]

It is not the United States of America’s vocation to “die on the cross” in order to “save” the Middle East through endless diplomatic chatter that ultimately provides the cover for the terrorists. It is our vocation to be the bearer of the light of democracy and the power of personal liberty. That vocation is only possible when we defend ourselves from foreign attacks.

[2]

What foreign attacks? Where is the link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq? Has the invasion of Iraq reduced or increased the likelihood of threat from middle Eastern countries to the US and UK? Has the invasion of Iraq provided a pretext for terrorist attacks and Islamic disquiet? Where in scripture is democracy represented as the light that is to be borne by ‘us’? If it is the vocation of the US to spread democracy and personal liberty, why not do something about Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and North Korea?

[1]

The President of the United States does not have an endless supply of “postmodern weaponry” at his disposal for “ending” the war on terror through the hearts and minds of the eastern people. We only have conventional weaponry, which does not solve problems, but contains them, and provides the cover under which the Iraqi people must work toward solving their own problems.

Bishop N T Wright accuses the US and the UK of acting like the Roman Empire rather than followers of Christ.

If defending this country with finite resources is acting like Rome, then yes, the US is guilty as charged, and I’m proud of that. That’s how nations survive. That’s how freedoms are protected. That is where ideology gives way to the realities of self-defense. When we stop acting like Rome, then another nation will start, and we will go from winner to loser.

[2]

The use of the US’s conventional weaponry seems to have done little to contain any problems in Iraq. It has simply served to turn a country that had roads, electricity and a semblance of order into a huge killing field. Once again, self-defence is not the issue, and any American who has been taken in by the repeated neo-con assertion of a link between al Quaeda and Iraq is naive.

I agree with most of Wright’s assertions about Iraq, but would add that his position as a bishop or as a theologian gives no more weight to his opinions than would be provided by any other calling, whether factory worker or doctor. However, it is not very clever to say that he should confine himself to Pauline and Jesus scholarship. If the results of biblical scholarship do not impact on private and public life then they are a waste of time.

November 2006