The 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA recently concluded, having passed several Overtures that have caused more than just concern in traditionalist congregations because of, among other things, changes to ordination standards. Worse to me, as an Elder of the Central Presbyterian Church of Huntington, Long Island and as a father who has two sons in the military (one who has served in Iraq for 15 months as an infantry platoon leader), is the Overture that was passed as to the Iraq War. The Overture contains some language praising our troops, but that language is only window dressing, so as not to appear to be hostile to our troops, for the essence of the Overture that is hard core left wing politics -- a left wing politics that is caught in a time warp of opposition to the Vietnam War, that is a stupid slap in the face of our troops and that is not Christianity and not Presbyterianism. I condemn in the harshest way the 218th General Assembly for this horribly misconceived, deceitful Overture.
1. The Overture commends those "peacemakers" who have acted nonviolently to bring an end to violence in Iraq. That is irrationally delusional if taken seriously. The "nonviolent" Christian Peace Witness has accomplished nothing but make a nuisance of themselves. The recent drop in violence in Iraq has occurred because we increased our troop levels (the surge) to bring greater security in Iraq at a time that (i) the Iraqis turned against the radical Islamists because of the violence committed by those radicals against innocent Iraqis and (ii) the democratically elected Iraqi government has been taking hold. It has been our strong men and women of war acting on the side of the angels who have brought about a better Iraq. Commending our troops for their service and sacrifice is not good enough; it is they who have acted effectively for the good in Iraq, not the peaceniks. I suggest to everyone to read Michael Yon’s Moment of Truth In Iraq. To commend the peaceniks who have done nothing and not to commend our troops for what they have done to bring about a better Iraq is a slap in the face of our troops.
2. The Overture first praises the American troops for their sacrifice and then calls for an end to the "occupation." We are not occupiers. We first removed a murderous tyrant in Saddam, who was a state sponsor of terrorists, who had thumbed his nose at the international community when violating 17 U.N. arms resolutions, who had and used WMDs against the Kurds (nerve gas) and who intended to get WMDs (the Oil-for-Food corruption at the U.N. was aimed at lifting sanctions for that purpose). An article "Why We Went To War in Iraq" by Douglas J. Feith, the Under Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2005, published in the Wall Street Journal (July 3, 2008), is a well written review of what we have forgotten that made the Iraq War a "necessary" war. Had we not removed Saddam, the world would be in avery dangerous state. Thereafter, the Iraq War became what Osama bin Laden has called the central front in the conflict between the jihadists and the West; it should be remembered that before 9/11, bin Laden declared war on us. During that conflict, to the credit of the Iraqi people, the Iraqis have democratically adopted a written Constitution and have democratically elected their Government. We are in Iraq now at the request of that democratically elected Iraqi government, just like we are in South Korea and Germany; and we are in Iraq to protect the Iraqi people from the violence of the radical jihadists.
3. The Overture calls for recognition of conscientious objection, as if we don't already. This might seem harmless, but it is not. The intent is to make it seem like there is a problem, when there isn't, and to express a pacifism that has certainly not been validated as to the conflict with the radical jihadists.
4. The Overture calls for an international solution. That is unrealistic at best. Where has the U.N. been in all this? It has been virtually worthless. The U.N. took off early on after we removed Saddam and violence levels spiked. When the insurgency began. It has been the American soldier and Marine, along with their Brit compatriots, who have been the effective force against the destructiveness of the radical Islamists and the effective force for an Iraq in which the Iraqi people have democratically adopted their Constitution and have democratically elected their government. The notion that we need to be told to seek a peaceful solution, as if we are the problem and a peaceful solution can be reached if we just be nice and promise to leave is worse than ridiculous; that is playing into the hands of the radical Islamists. What the Iraqis need is security from the radical Islamists. As Michael Yon records, the Iraqis know they can count on the Americans. The U.N.? To the Iraqis, who are they?
5. The Overture calls upon the U.N. to work with the Iraqi government and "neighboring nations" for a solution. That is a stupid slap at our troops. "Neighboring nations" means Iran, whose radical Islamic leader calls for the obliteration of Israel and the removal of American forces from the region. Iran has sent weapons to Iraq for attacks in American and Brit forces. "Neighboring nations" also means Syria, whose leadership has been trying to undermine democratic government in Lebanon and turns its back on the use of radical Islamists who use the Syrian border for entry into Iraq.
6. The Overture calls for the initiation of "a process of truth and reconciliation to promote healing and forgiveness." That is dangerous language. Words mean something; what do these words mean in the concrete circumstances of Iraq? "Truth" about what? Spinning history so that we are the bad guys and the radical Islamists are not? Reconciliation with and forgiveness for whom? Those poor misunderstood radical Islamists who engage in suicide bombings? Right now, the Iraqis want to be protected from the radical Islamists. This part of the Overture smacks of a call for an effort to re-write the narrative so that opposition to the Iraq War is justified and the heroism and sacrifices of our troops can be written off as being for a bad cause.
7. The Overture calls for "restitution." This is disturbing. The United States already pays for damage to homes and the like from military operations. As for the damage done by al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent groups, they have never paid anything for the severe damages they have done and never will. So what is it intended by a call for "restitution"?
8. The Overture makes a broad call for prosecution of "war crimes." This is not harmless. Just what "war crimes" are meant? The war crimes committed by radical Islamists who do not wear uniforms and do suicide bombings killing innocent civilians alll against the Geneva Convention? No, the Overture refers instead to torture of prisoners, which means us. We have already prosecuted the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib, which involved humiliation but no physical injury and no loss of life. The CIA agents who used waterboarding on Skeik Kalid Muhammed and a few others did so right after 9/11 in order to prevent another 9/11 with the loss of thousands of innocent lives; another 9/11 has not occurred. In Iraq and elsewhere, our policy and practice is not to use torture: we are a signatory to UNCAT, and we have been following the Army Field Manual. Asking for international investigations of "war crimes" invites the hate America crowd at the U.N. to "investigate" our troops who have acted to protect the Iraqis. The left wingers at the national Church level know this, and it is why I view their words nice words about our troops to be window dressing for an attack on them.
9. The Overture calls for the removal of weapon caches and materials for the making of WMDs, as if we have not been engaged in that removal. The United States is and has been removing weapons caches in Iraq and has taken possession and destroyed materials for the making of WMDs that Saddam had every intention of making. One can ask U.S. Army First Lieutenant John Byler about that.
10. The Overture calls for the "return" of oil resources to the Iraqis. This is deceitful. The Iraqis have been in control of their oil resources, are now negotiating with oil companies for development of Iraqi oil resources and are working on political compromises to split the oil revenues among Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. To say that we should "return" control is a way of saying that the overthrow of Saddam and helping the Iraqi people to adopt democratic government was all about oil, which it was not.
11. The Overture calls for its forwarding to Congress. This is but an invitation for those in Congress who want us not to succeed in Iraq to invoke the moral authority of the Presbyterian Church with what is a horribly misconceived, deceitful document.
I CONDEMN THE 218th GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE ADOPTION OF THIS HORRIBLY MISCONCEIVED, DECEITFUL OVERTURE.