FWIW, this month’s message is a revision of President Hinckley’s talk from the October 1986 General Conference, “The War We are Winning.”

Justin, thanks for that. The two talks are virtually the same with just a few new historical details. Interesting that the prophet would release this talk again at this time.

When Gordon B. Hinckley spoke in April 2003, I was personally struck by the maleable nature of his talk. Any member of the church, regardless of their position on the then-looming war, could find something in that talk to support their view. Notably, he made it clear that differing viewpoints on the matter were not signs of apostacy, etc.

At the time, I was serving as a stake executive secretary. The Seventy to whom our stake president reported informed us of a meeting of general authorities, in which Hinckley said that this war would possibly open up the Middle East to missionary efforts, but that the United States would “never again be seen as the moral authority in the world.” This viewpoint certainly didn’t make it into the Ensign, but I found it interesting. At the least, it sounds like less than a ringing endorsement of the war, or at least of U.S. methods which would be employed therein.

Insofar as some (such as you, Geoff) might see this Ensign message as an expression of support for the ongoing war in Iraq, do you think the timing might have some relationship to the recent appearance of Dick Cheney at BYU, and its accompanying “courtesy visit” to LDS HQ?

Thnks for bringing this to my attention. I had not read the article up until now. I do have a question though, I do not see how you got point a-c from this article? Are you saying that Pres. Hinkley addresses these points in this article, or are you inferring them from your understanding? I did not see anywhere where he alludes to those points A-C, nor have I heard Pres. Hinkley comment on those points. So are they your points or are you saying tha tthye are his?

Nick, I would be very cautious in how I describe this article. I don’t necessarily see it as “an expression of support for the ongoing war in Iraq.” I definitely see it as supporting some wars that increase freedom. I personally see the war in Iraq as part of the struggle to increase freedom, but the prophet has not said that clearly, so I would be cautious about putting words in his mouth.

I don’t see the prophet as being affected by Cheney’s visit.

I would also agree with you about the April 2003 talk. I was in Brazil at the time, and few Brazilians (who overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq invasion) saw it as supporting the war, whereas I (who supported the invasion) saw it just the opposite way, so it is true different people took away different things from the talk. I think a careful reading of the talk definitely supports your point, ie, differing viewpoints are allowed by faithful Saints. But I also believe a careful reading shows the prophet is definitely not condemning the war in any way and is indeed endorsing wars that increase personal freedom.

Adam, great question #4, and I would say points A-B are my personal inferences and C) is implied in the article and D) is definitely the main point of the article.

A-B are relevant because there has been a lot of discussion and/or speculation on these issues with regard to Iraq.

Following up on #7, I think it is extremely significant that the prophet includes the line:

“The war goes on. It is waged across the world over the issues of agency and compulsion.”

This clearly seems to me a reference to wars of liberation, wars that bring an increase of personal freedom and overthrow those (ie dictators) who would decrease personal freedom. It seems to me the prophet is saying the forces of righteousness are in favor of an increase in personal freedom while Satan opposes an increase in personal freedom.

That is my personal take on that line.

The Lord supports free agency and is opposed to compulsion.

War being, of course, the ultimate form of compulsion. We can’t reason with you (or rather, we prefer not to go that hard route), so now we have to kill you.

Mark N, I would agree with you that dictators primarily choose compulsion. And the Prophet is clearly opposed to that. I read your comment to say that the Prophet therefore opposes all war, but I find no justification for that position in the two articles I link or indeed in any of his comments ever.

Geoff,

We are winning, and the future never looked brighter.

What is President Hinckley referring to here in this passage?

C)Wars that increase personal freedom are sometimes justified simply on the basis that free agency is augmented and compulsion decreased.

I agree with Mark. War is the ultimate form of compulsion, hence the ultimate contradiction in terms.

I believe if President Hinckley is going to release a talk about a totally different situation, that of the Cold War, and reference it to today’s “war on terror,” he needs to clarify his remarks, because, frankly speaking, we’re not doing very well at ending terror. In fact, as numerous studies and charts have shown, terrorism has increased, significantly since we invaded Iraq. It seems our invasion of Iraq has produced the very opposite thing war proponents were hoping for, and that is an increase in terror, an increase in fear, and less freedoms for the peoples of the world. For example, before the war in Iraq, habeas corpus, one of the standard bearers of freedom from tyranny was taken from us by our government. How exactly is that a progress towards freedom?

Statements like “The devastation of war seems so unnecessary and such a terrible waste of human life and national resources. We ask, will this terrible, destructive way of handling disagreements among the sons and daughters of God ever end?” and “But the war did not end. It abated somewhat, and we’re grateful for that” don’t seem to provide much of a case for war. And even when he expresses support for military adventures like the Revolutionary War, Hinckley also mentions the fact that the resulting “government of the nation had come against our people, determined to destroy this Church as an organization.”

In short, I find no justification for your conclusion that the prophet supports the Iraq war on the grounds that it had a dictator who opposed personal freedomes.

I think you will find many more examples of church leaders preferring to work with local leaders, regardless of their oppressive policies, rather than advocating wars of liberation. A few examples come to mind like East Germany (even though it was communist) and Chile under Pinochet (probably because he was anti-communist, church leaders practically fell over themselves gushing with praise for him. Pinochet responded by granting Mormons privileges.).

Peter, if you read the entire articles I linked, I cannot see how you can come to that conclusion. How about this:

“It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”

Or this:

“It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.”

That seems pretty clear to me.

But as I say in #5, it is possible for people to read the same talk and come to different conclusions. I’ve seen that illustrated many times. I respect your viewpoint even though I don’t agree with it.

It seems that with respect to this war, with the lack of direction coming from the Prophet, we’d have to fall back on default instructions from the Lord regarding war in D&C 98 where he says:

32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.
38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

Curtis,

America certainly did not follow the recommendations the Lord laid out in D&C 98 vis a vis Iraq.

Curtis, I know you are a member in good standing, and I respect your well-thought-out opinions, although I disagree with them. Are you saying you can interpret the scriptures and the direction of the Lord better than the prophet?

So I read the talk carefully, and, well, I just can’t see where President Hinckley has tied his “war” with the physical wars we are facing right now in Iraq and Afghanistan (and soon in Iran).

It is the war between truth and error, between agency and compulsion, between the followers of Christ and those who have denied Him. His enemies have used every stratagem in that conflict. They’ve indulged in lying and deceit. They’ve employed money and wealth. They’ve tricked the minds of men. They’ve murdered and destroyed and engaged in every kind of evil practice to thwart the work of Christ.

He later gives an example of just what kind of “war” he is referring to:

President Woodruff knew whereof he spoke. He had then only recently passed through those difficult and perilous days when the government of the nation had come against our people, determined to destroy this Church as an organization. Despite the difficulties of those days, the Saints did not give up. In faith they moved forward. They put their trust in the Almighty, and He revealed unto them the path they should follow. In faith they accepted that revelation and walked in obedience.

And who is on the side of good in this “war?”

The war goes on. It is as it was in the beginning. There may not be the intensity, and I am grateful for that. But the principles at issue are the same. The victims who fall are as precious as those who have fallen in the past. It is an ongoing battle. The men of the priesthood, with the daughters of God who are our companions and allies, are all part of the army of the Lord.

The priesthood bearers and their spouses.

President Hinckley is in no way referring to America’s aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, Geoff. He’s referring to the battle we each must make against hatred, against violence, against that which is evil. So my question to you, and this is an honest question, why do you seek more justification for physical war when the prophet speaks about a wholly different kind of war?

Dan, I would kindly ask you to re-read my post and my comments on this thread. That is the extent to which I am willing to engage you in discussion. There is simply no way we will ever find any agreement on this issue, and discussion with you is a waste of time for me. If it makes you feel better, you can believe you have “won” the argument because I am not willing to argue with you. Really. You won.

In the meantime, unlike past threads, this thread will not get into personal attacks on me or other commentators. That means calling me out by name or trying to “argue to the death” against people with whom you disagree. You have not crossed the line yet, so this is just a warning. Any personal attacks will be deleted. I hope you can abide by those rules.

Geoff,
The Prophet hasn’t really given us much direction as to how our opinions should lean as to the merit of this war. He has not said that we should be for or against it. He has told us that it is ok to be a dissenter as long as we don’t break any laws. He has told us to pray for both the people involved. As far as I can see, this is about as far as the direction from the first presidency has been on this war. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Without direction from the prophet otherwise then, I would assume that our default position lies within revealed truth found in the scriptures. It appears that the default constitution of the Lord on war appears in D&C 98.
I do not feel I can interpret scriptures and direction from the Lord better than the prophet… and have not done any interpreting that would argue against what the prophet has given us as official church doctrine as far as I can tell. Please let me know if I am incorrect, and let me know if I am somehow mistaken in my interpretation of scripture.

D)We need to be ever more vigilant in our awareness that Satan is waging a war for our souls and will try to convince us to go down the wrong path. He truly is at war with God’s people, and even though we can’t see it we can feel its effects around us when people stray from righteousness.

Of the four messages you’ve taken, I can only see D actually applying to the talk after reading it twice. So I see nothing to discuss because as far as I can tell everyone here agrees with that statement. It’s a pretty long stretch to get to A-C, sorry Geoff.

Geoff,

I agree with others in the thread that you are reading far too much into the Ensign article. With the exception of the first two paragraphs, President Hinckley is writing exclusively about spiritual warfare.

And those opening to paragraphs do not speak well of war, its methods, or its results:

Nearly 10 decades have passed now since my birth, and for the better part of that time, there has been war among mankind in one part of the earth or another. No one can ever estimate the terrible suffering incident to these wars across the globe. Lives numbered in the millions have been lost. The terrible wounds of war have left bodies maimed and minds destroyed. Families have been left without fathers and mothers. Young people who have been recruited to fight have, in many instances, died while those yet alive have had woven into the very fabric of their natures elements of hatred which will never leave them. The treasure of nations has been wasted and will never be recovered.

The devastation of war seems so unnecessary and such a terrible waste of human life and national resources. We ask, will this terrible, destructive way of handling disagreements among the sons and daughters of God ever end?

You got really touchy in your comment #17, but I don’t see any “personal attack” coming from Dan at all. He’s asking a legitimate question: Why do you see this most recent article as a justification for current U.S. military actions in Iraq?

Curtis, thanks for this clarification. There are a lot of people who agree with you, including most of the Saints overseas, who, based on my experience traveling abroad, oppose the Iraq war. So, please don’t misunderstand me: I think the primary message we all should have is that you can disagree and oppose or support the Iraq war and still be a member in good standing. The reason for my question was that your comment was unclear to me. I thought you were saying that you disagreed with the prophet and that you were discounting his opinion. I understand your position now, and it is very clear. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

My personal interpretation — and the interpretation of many, many people — of the April 2003 conference talk just as Iraq was starting is that Pres. Hinckley was justifying wars such as Iraq.

Again, I quote from that talk:

“It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”

Given the timing, just as we are invading Iraq, it seems very clear to me what Pres. Hinckley’s message was.

There have been rumors since then on the Bloggernacle that President Hinckley has turned against the war. I think this Ensign article is a sign that he has not. Otherwise, we would have had a very different kind of article in this month’s Ensign.

I honor you and other Saints for being in favor of peace. Part of me wants to become a complete pacifist. I really admire Gandhi, and of course my Savior never fought in a war. There are admirable pacifists in the Book of Mormon. I certainly don’t want my two sons to ever have to fight in a war.

But after reading the prophet’s comments in context, and studying the Bible and the BoM and history very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that there simply are times when it is necessary to go to war to stop even greater bloodshed. Just imagine if we had overthrown Hitler in 1933 or Stalin in the 1920s or Mao in 1948 — imagine how many millions of our brothers and sisters we could have saved.

Of course that argument can be taken even further — imagine if we had overthrown Saddam in 1991, for example. Just imagine how many Shiites and Kurds would have been saved during the 1990s.

I don’t think the prophet will ever come out explicitly and say: “I favor the Iraq war.” I think his comments are open to interpretation. I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me.

But I support our activities in Iraq precisely because I am against greater bloodshed and because I oppose tyranny and oppression. I believe from the bottom of my heart, with all sincerity, that if we do not defeat terrorism in Iraq today my sons and daughters will be fighting against terrorism in 20 years. And it will probably not be in Iraq but may even be in America. I shudder to imagine that.

It’s too bad that President Hinckley’s talk was not about the war in Iraq.

Mike, #20, I respect your viewpoint, and you make some valid arguments, as always. JJohnsen, #19, basically agrees with you. I agree different people will interpret talks different ways. I find it interesting that there is no evidence that the prophet has changed his viewpoints from April 2003. There has been a lot of speculation that he has.

As for Mike Parker’s comment at the end of #20, there is a lot of history that you may not be aware of. Believe me, my comment was pretty restrained given some of that history. Let’s leave it at that.

When I read the article on the ensign ( In fact, today ) .. I couldn’t hold back the thought that what he was referring to the physical wars as wars of perdition, with a lost sense for fighting for the wrongful purposes. He then made an analogy about the wars that we are all fighting in the background, that of our souls. Those are two distinct topics. The war that The United States is fighting in the Iraq, currently labeled as War On Terror, by all means has a political persuasion into it. Politics and current war can have a whole total meaning into the first persuasions into going to war and what the reasons were.. which by today have all been fraud intelligence. This is an open opinion from each individual.

Now Geoff, I do remember Pres. Hinckley supporting a war only for the reasons of defense, which again, anyone can bring a set of ideology’s of why are we in this war in the first place.

In other words, I don’t really see any stance but neutrality on Pres. Hinckley’s comments, although Im sure that members over seas or even within the United States that Pres. Hinckley is referring to the wrongdoing by United States behalf by creating all this discomfort with the current held war, but then there are those like you that can find support for the war.

What I see in this Article is him talking about the wars atrocities in general, and then focusing on the war that we are all in, which is the one of ours souls.

Now I hope this comment doesn’t come off as offensive

Nope, Felipe. Not offensive. Thanks for your input. Most people who have commented so far agree with you.

While, as I said, the April 2003 talk allowed anyone to hear what they wanted to hear, I think it also is fair to say that Hinckley more than hinted his *personal* support (at that time, perhaps based on the blatant lies then told to the American people) for the invasion of Iraq. Whether he feels the same today is another question.

Personally, I’m just glad that he specifically talked about the freedom to “faithfully” disagree on the subject. Had he not done so, even his mere hinting of his personal opinion would have been enough for republican LDS to start verbally bashing those LDS who disagreed with the invasion.

I wonder what it’d take for LDS people to start verbally bashing fellow Latter-day Saints who agreed with the invasion.

Sadly, I’ve been in classes where hard-line supporters have brought the topic into discussions going as far as saying that one needs to support Bush if all the sources said it should be so ( this was way back ).. minutes later he was interrupted and corrected by members in the class that such things should not be discussed in class as to who should endorse who.. Church was not meant for that. So to comment #27, you can expect anything from both sides of the isle.. I’ve heard some very harsh things from those for the invasion too, so I wouldn’t be surprise to see otherwise from the other side. But hey, this is a discussions board to discuss things that one wouldn’t normally do in Church heh.

Geoff #21: “I honor you and other Saints for being in favor of peace. Part of me wants to become a complete pacifist. I really admire Gandhi, and of course my Savior never fought in a war. There are admirable pacifists in the Book of Mormon.”

Geoff, one of the persistent myths about those (like myself) who oppose the Iraq war is that we are all pacifists; that we oppose war of any kind.

But I think I speak for many when I say this is not the case. I am not opposed to war when it is in defense of our families, our homes, and our freedoms. When attacked, we may defend ourselves. As Latter-day Saints, we should use D&C 98 as our guide to determine the appropriate response.

As has been discussed here ad infinitum, the Iraq invasion was, by any definition of the word, not a defensive war. It was a Wilsonian pipe dream. It was — and remains — immoral, unrighteous, illegal, and just a plain bad idea. It has been horribly unfortunate that 3,500 Americans and 70,000 Iraqis have had to give their lives* before most Americans have come to understand that.

(*Sources:
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ )

Mike,
That 70,000 number is a very conservative estimate mind you. Good points though.

Mike, #29, you have laid out your opposition to the war in many different discussions quite eloquently. I understand that you and many others who oppose the war are not complete pacifists. My comment was aimed primarily at comments like #8, which use slogans such as “war is compulsion, therefore we should oppose war.” Well, we should certainly oppose some war, but there are wars that are justified and indeed necessary.

It was — and remains — immoral, unrighteous, illegal, and just a plain bad idea.

I don’t buy that, and not only because I’d expect some clear guidance from the leadership of the church if it was so clear cut as you make it seem.

Throw out the start of the War and just focus on where we are today, with our troops in Iraq fighting against an insurgency that is attempting to take down their democratically elected government.

We have evil men over there that are blowing up innocent women and children. Those are the people we are fighting, and our soldiers are putting their lives at risk by taking extra caution to not inflict harm on the civilian population as we do so. How can such motive be construed as immoral or unrighteous?

Perhaps the original Iraq War was not a defensive war, as you say the point has been argued back and forth for years so let’s put that aside for now. But the current stage of the Iraq War is most definitely a defensive one in that we are defending the Iraqi government and people. We are entitled to defend our allies, and to defend the weak. We do not have to turn our backs and allow others to suffer simply because we are not the ones that are currently being attacked.

Aluwid, I agree with you 100 percent. It’s nice to have some support every once in a while. The Bloggernacle can be a very lonely place for a conservative (btw, that’s OK because I know many congregations are primarily conservative, and it’s a good thing that people of other political persuasions have someplace where THEY don’t feel so lonely).

When I read the June 2007 Ensign article, I had a few thoughts. 1)I thought, “wow, the prophet still stands by his April 2003 talk,” 2) “the prophet is pointing out that the righteous spirits of God will always be at war against the evil and we need to know that and be prepared.” 3)”the prophet is reminding us again that wars that support freedom are righteous.”

Now, obviously, if you read this thread, very few people agree with my interpretation of the talk. And I have said several times that it is OK for people to hear the same talk and go away with different interpretations.

What were your interpretations of the talk? Did you share any of my thoughts or am I alone in thinking this way?

Geoff,

I agree with you on A and C. This line in particular stood out in giving the message behind the justice of some wars:
“There came a time of renaissance, with struggles for liberty struggles for which much of blood and sacrifice was paid.”

As for #B as much as I’d like to see it given the degree of hostility that I feel from others for supporting our continued operations in Iraq, I’m not sure you can draw that conclusion from this article. His main thrust of his talk was on the Spiritual War that has always existed, and I don’t see anything that can be concretely linked towards a message that the Iraq War itself is just. Yes I do see a theme of wars against oppression being justified, but that can be spun either way depending on what you think America is doing in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t believe that he has really changed his mind, I just don’t see any evidence either way in this talk.

#D is evident throughout his talk so I definitely agree with you there.

My main takeaways from the talk are:

A. War is a tragic part of mortality. The world would be a better place without it.
B. Sometimes mortal wars are just.
C. There is an eternal Spiritual War that is even more crucial than any mortal war.

The most interesting lines for me are: “The war goes on. It is waged across the world over the issues of agency and compulsion.” That sounds more like it’s talking about mortal wars. I don’t generally think of compulsion when thinking of the Spiritual War, I think of agency yes, but not compulsion. Yet it’s in the middle of a paragraph on Spiritual Wars which to me provides another tie between just mortal wars and the overall Spiritual War that we are in.

Thanks. Good analysis. We are in agreement on the issue of “agency and compulsion.” For me, that clearly was an inference to mortal wars in which the righteous are on the side of increasing freedom. I can understand those who probably will say this was simply a reference to Satan’s plan, which decreases agency and forces compulsion. But personally I was struck with the “world over” phrase, meaning he was referring to mortal wars.

Again, as I’ve written several times now, the primary point of the talk was on spiritual wars. I don’t want to be misunderstood.

To number #32, President Hinckley clearly said to respect the stance of other members on the subject of America going to war, implying that there was nothing wrong with it. Of-course the prophet won’t say go for it or say it’s totally wrong. Why?!?! First of all because it would imply getting into politics.

At the start of the war, there was a broad spectrum of people and countries opposed to the war. The path that was taken was in all means Illegal in international law. The US had full support for the war on Afghanistan and War against the Al Quaida Cell and terrorist as a whole world-wide. It had a strong support, it unified parties and the American people.
Today, you can see the reasoning of Powell resigning and speaking out several times. The way the war on Iraq was perceived in the beginning was a war of defense, where most of the conservatives believed Saddam was linked to Al-Quaida, the plutonium deal in Africa, so on and so forth. Today, on 2007, you can see a mounting amount of historians, experts, intelligence, fraudulent dealings in the current administration in regards of the handling of intelligence, and, Intelligence that actually warned the Administration not to take such role on going into war. To not derail out of topic, that’s just to give an idea of how the perception of the war has been from the beginning to today where more information has risen as to real FACTS for been in the war. Many thought it was a right war to go into, but now realize after further analysis that it no longer is such a moral war after all.

Now, what to do in the current country of Iraq??. Iraq is experiencing worst happenings then under the rule of Saddam, and when people in Iraq start saying that, it’s pretty sad. What to do in Iraq Now?!?! Well that’s a whole different topic and subject to get into. It is very different to discuss about what this war was about, to what we are fighting now. We are in the midst of a civil war created by the war itself, the orientation and track to take has become so difficult, and to my opinion, either road that the US takes, would be a hard one.

My major is international Relations, so I’m studying a whole bunch spectrums on the subject and others a whole, the effects of every little word spoken etc etc…

In diplomacy, one has to be very careful, because the consequences can lead to thousands of deaths… and calling government Axis of Evil, or anyone, an EVIL, can be a terrible mistake, especially when you need them in the future ( Look at today’s news US trying to talk with Iran and Syria ). Diplomacy can do wonderful things, even when dealing with the enemy, example can lead to wonderful things.

Now going into the topic of politics and religion, it is sad to see leaders to use Religion for political advantage for their own-self, for wrongful doings and purposes ( I should quote my Bishop on that on the class while studying Pres. Wooldfruf )

I can think of few better examples of “compulsion” than invading a country and compelling its tribal people to establish a form of government in which they have no background, history, or philosophy.

Mike,

I would be quite comfortable to be found before the judgment bar confronted with the accusation that I supported forcing oppressors to provide freedom to their people.

Seriously, how is this any different from the argument that the Blacks were better off as slaves because they were an inferior race and couldn’t handle freedom? Every man deserves to be free. We have a chance now in Iraq to make a difference in this regard, let’s stick with it and give them the freedom and peace they deserve.

I think it’s sad that many view the act of removing tyrants worse than the acts of the tyrants themselves. It’s as if we’re ok with the status quo because it’s not affecting us personally and to fix it would require us getting our hands dirty.

Tyranny is bad. There are lots of bad people in power around the world. If the Iraq war had been sold as “let’s get rid of Saddam so we can free the Iraqi people,” I would be less upset. But it wasn’t sold that way — it was sold with manufactured evidence of WMDs and connections to al-Quaeda.

Now that we’re there, all Bush can repeat is “the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.” Honestly, I’m not so sure about that. Nearly 100,000 people are dead, possibly more. The violence is getting worse. Baghdad is a war zone. Death squads are killing people by the dozens every week. Over a million Iraqi refugees are living in Syria and Jordan. All the best and brightest people in the country have left. The region is hopelessly destabilized. Saddam was bad, but this is worse.

The Iraqis are not an “inferior race.” But liberal democracy is not something you can impose upon people; it has to be adopted by them. It is quite clear that the Iraqi people are not willing to adopt it. The elections that have been held thus far have given power to tribal clans. The elected government is virtually powerless — elected representatives don’t run the country, the militias do. Our cherished ideas of civil liberties and separation of church and state aren’t even comprehended there, let alone shared.

I think it’s sad that (a rapidly diminishing minority of) Americans still argue that Iraq was a good idea. The Bush administration and FAUX News can put lipstick on a pig, but more and more people are starting to see that it’s just a pig.

Oh, I also failed to mention that the Iranians now believe that they are the next targets for invasion, and are developing nuclear weapons because they believe that is the only way to protect themselves.

“Removing tyrants” sounds noble, until one begins to count the costs involved.

Usually it is a good idea to empower people to get rid of their own tyrants instead of blowing up 655,000 liberated people in the process.
If we truly cared about Iraqi freedom, we would have never supported the tyrant Saddam in his many atrocities in the first place. We would have provided the necessary arms to the Shiites when they rose up in rebellion against Saddam after Gulf War I instead of refusing them and hovering overhead while watching their slaughter.
A big clue of what exactly we are doing over there has to do with what we are seeing in their Hydrocarbon Act. That is the one that the Bush administration is insisting they take care of sooner than later. It is touted as a tool to evenly and fairly distribute oil revenue wealth among the different segments of the country, but actually has nothing to do with that. The majority of the bill has to do with the privatization of the oil industry, allowing it to be open to foreign domination for the most part. Ask yourself why in this society that has descended into sheer chaos, are we so concerned with what our oil companies will make out of it?

By the way Mike,
Whether Iran is making nuclear weapons or not, we have no evidence that they are doing nothing more than what they are saying they are doing. The scare tactic of the mushroom cloud here is deja vu all over again for what we were spoon fed in the run up to Iraq. The whole nation is starting to fall for it again along with the gullible and complicit media.

#43 and #44 are part of one comment. Curse our software!!!!!!

Mike and Curtis, I personally am not willing to get into another re-hash of all of the points related to the Iraq war. Just a quick point that I think needs addressing.

I really take exception with the claim that the Iraq war is/was immoral or unrighteous. There is no evidence from the talks from any of the Brethren that we are being warned against this “immoral” intervention. We are warned all of the time by the Brethren against immorality – p-rnography, breaking the commandments, and on and on. Yet modern-day prophets, seers and revelators have remained silent — and in my opinion have actually supported if you read the April 2003 talk — the Iraq invasion.

I have said it before and I will repeat it: if President Hinckley were even to hint that he saw the Iraq war as immoral, I would join you in condemning it. I do not relish war. But it has not happened.

Further, Mike, I think there is a contradiction between your earlier characterization of the Iraq war as “Wilsonian” and your claim that it is immoral and unrighteous. Wilsonian foreign policy — and indeed all morality-based foreign policy even including Jimmy Carter’s disastrous human rights policy — is based on morality. Whether or not it is effective is another issue, but intentions count enormously with the Lord. If we look at our personal actions, if we act in a way that we believe to be moral — even if it is not effective — we are going down the right path.

And I would agree with you that the best way to describe the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq is indeed “Wilsonian.” It is a stark contrast of the Realpolitik of Nixon/Kissinger. It is certainly not “right-wing.” Indeed the far right wing of the Republican party — the Pat Buchanans, etc — oppose the Iraq invasion precisely because they reject morality-based foreign policy.

Personally, I have been in favor of overthrowing Saddam Hussein on human rights grounds since the 1980s. I favored the first Gulf war and thought we should have gotten rid of him then. I favored our invasion of Panama and the overthrow of Noriega on human rights grounds. I favored the Serbia intervention and the prosecution of Milosevic on human rights grounds. I favored overthrowing the Taliban on human rights grounds. And I favor our continued involvement in Iraq primarily on human rights grounds. I could not live with myself if I favored a pullout of U.S. troops that brought Iranian and Saudi intervention and caused an even greater war in the Middle East. My conscience tells me such a policy is simply wrong and immoral.

So, if you want to argue the Iraq war has been ineffectual and poorly executed, I think you are in a strong position. I don’t accept — nor will I ever accept — the idea that it is immoral and unrighteous.

Please don’t come back at me quoting death statistics. I have heard them all, and indeed we hear them every day in the mainstream media. Yes, U.S. troops have caused some deaths, but the vast majority have been caused by the very forces of darkness and tyranny I oppose. By quoting death statistics, you are only bolstering my case. Certainly an al Qaeda or radical Shiite or radical Sunni-led government in Iraq would cause many more deaths than the current situation.

I want to make it clear that I don’t dispute your right to go around saying the Iraq war is immoral. Clearly that is the position of many people and on the Bloggernacle and in many other sectors in society. I probably cannot convince you it is moral, and I don’t expect you to agree.

But I hope I can convince you that I personally would never support a policy I thought was immoral. So I hope you will not question my motives and/or my intentions. I have given this issue a lot of thought and I am simply supporting the position I feel is morally right. I feel comfortable about being judged by the Lord on that position.

“I’d expect some clear guidance from the leadership of the church if it was so clear cut as you make it seem.”

Aluwid, I’m not sure that expectation is reasonable.

The following is from Robert E. Wells, “Peace,†Ensign, May 1991:

I would like to share an incident which took place during the Vietnam War. There were some who were convinced that the United States was engaged in a noble and justifiable war. However, public opinion was changing, and there was opposition which argued that the U.S. should pull out of Vietnam.

President Harold B. Lee was the President of the Church at the time. While at an area conference in another country he was interviewed by reporters from the international news services. One reporter asked President Lee, “What is your church’s position on the Vietnam War?†Some recognized the question as a trap—one which could not be answered without a very real risk of being misunderstood or misinterpreted. If the prophet answered, “We are against the war,†the international media could state, “How strange—a religious leader who is against the position of the country he is obliged to sustain in his own church’s articles of faith.†On the other hand, if President Lee answered, “We are in favor of the war,†the media could question, “How strange—a religious leader in favor of war?†Either way, the answer could result in serious problems regarding public opinion both inside and outside the Church.

President Lee, with great inspiration and wisdom, answered as would a man who knows the Savior: “We, together with the whole Christian world, abhor war. But the Savior said, ‘In me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation.’ †(John 16:33.) And then the prophet quoted that other comforting scripture from John: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.†(John 14:27.) President Lee then explained: “The Savior was not talking about the peace that can be achieved between nations, by military force or by negotiation in the halls of parliaments. Rather, he was speaking of the peace we can each have in our own lives when we live the commandments and come unto Christ with broken hearts and contrite spirits.†(See Ensign, Nov. 1982, p. 70.)

Perhaps is was the better part of valor for President Lee to demur, when asked to state the church’s position on the war. However, he became president of the church only late in 1972, long after the change in public opinion was well underway.

I thought at the time that President Hinckley’s 2003 address tried to do the same thing with a little less success. It was the only time in many years of watching and admiring his discourses that I thought he sounded a little bit confused. It seemed like he felt he ought to address the issue, but wasn’t quite sure the best way to do it, hence all the ambiguity. I remember wishing that he hadn’t said anything.

I remember thinking that to the extent President Hinckley’s personal feelings could be discerned, our country’s policies had his tacit support. I don’t think that this is just because at the time I supported those policies also, despite the beginnings of serious reservations. The misbegotten Shock and Awe campaign was underway and only days later the insufficient number of troops stood by while looters had free reign of Baghdad. A few months later it would become clear that Hans Blix had been telling the truth all along.

Even so, the majority of Iraqis gave us the benefit of the doubt for far longer than we deserved it. Paul Bremer came over and, helped by legions of totally inexperienced, but politically connected flunkies proceeded to make just about every worst decision possible, undermining the military and experienced diplomats at every turn. President Bush’s interventions were rare and desultory.

I still think that the invasion was justified given UN resolutions and the information we had at the time, however incorrect it turned out to be, and that even if it was a bad idea, (at the time, although not opposing the invasion, I argued for doing so only if Afghanistan was not neglected, which of course, it was) with competent leadership a very different outcome was imaginable.

All of that said, I can’t argue with anything Mike Parker says in comment 39.

Mike,

The War should be considered in two stages. The first was the invasion itself which was a standard military operation. It was an absolute success, Saddam’s government was overthrown with little resistance and the words “Mission Accomplished” described the outcome. That is the portion of the War that was justified due to the threat that Saddam’s government provided, the evidence that he had a WMD program, etc. We could have left immediately and it would have gone down in the history books as a great military success. It would also have left Iraq in chaos and as such would have been unwise and unjust.

The second stage is where we are now. We decided to stay and build up the country just as we did in Germany and Japan following World War II. The WMDs are out the window as justification so stop bringing them into the picture. There are now two central reasons for our presence there: 1. National Security - Whether or not al-Qaeda was present prior to the invasion they are there today. It’s in the best interests of the US to leave Iraq as a free democratic country, and to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing a foothold there 2. Humanitarian Reasons - The Iraqi government is depending on us for stability and support. We are there building their infrastructure, protecting their people, etc. If we get our way the people will be better off, if we lose they will see more death and oppression.

We imposed liberal democracy on the freed slaves. Perhaps it was not the wisest way to do it, maybe we should have waited for them to revolt themselves. But I believe it was the right thing to do, as I believe giving the Iraqis a chance at democracy is also the right thing.

BTW, I’d recommend you lay off the name-calling. Saying things such as “Faux News” degrades your argument and intellect. Generally speaking I stop reading as soon as I see such ridiculous comments (”Defeatocrats” instead of Democrats for an example from the other side of the aisle), I’m guessing I’m not the only one that uses such language as a filter to determine if someone’s opinion is worth spending time reading about or not.

Curtis,

Your number of deaths is off, take a look at Mike’s posts, they are more likely to be accurate. Either way attributing the actions of our enemy to ourselves doesn’t make sense. It’s like blaming the US for the six million Jews that died during World War II. We’re fighting the bad guys here folks. If our enemies laid down their weapons today then Iraq would be in freedom and peace tomorrow. If we lay down our weapons today then tomorrow will bring more death and oppression to Iraq. I don’t understand how you spin that into us being the immoral or unjust ones.

Regarding your statement of Gulf War I. I agree with you, we should have finished the job then. But our past failures do not justify future ones. Let’s get it right this time.

Bill,

My point is that modern day wars such as Vietnam and Iraq are not going to be clear cut “Support it or you are immoral” or vice versa. Both good or bad could come from either action and in my opinion the morality of ones stance all comes down to what your underlying motivation is. I believe that is the reason for the lack of direct statements by Church authorities. Instead they focus on our underlying motivations that influence our stances. But again, if a war was expressly unjust or immoral and there was no way that a righteous priesthood holder should support it then I would expect to get that direction from the Prophet.

Aluwid,
I fall into the category of people who consider this war to be immoral, unrighteous and illegal from the beginning. I was against this war before it was even conceived in Cheney’s brain. I was opposed to the murderous sanctions imposed by the UN which ended up in taking the lives of a million Iraqis, at least half of which were little children. Scott Ritter and Hans Von Sponek knew what we were doing to that nation and quit their positions in protest. I knew that the weapons of mass destruction wouldn’t be found as Ritter plainly stated, and as our own National Intelligence Estimate stated.
Saddam was a bad guy, but he was Washington’s boy until he started policies that we really disliked such as transferring their currency into other forms away from the US dollar. We supported him in all of his atrocities up until then, and then after the first Gulf War we supported him again in massacring the Shiites in their rebellion.
The numbers of deaths given by Mike are from the IraqBodyCount.org site. They only count deaths reported in two english media sources and ignore all else. The numbers of deaths I quote are from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Study which interviewed 12,000 people in Iraq and took a clean cross section of their population. Their method is the gold standard for estimating deaths in war time. It is only an estimate, but their statistical analysis gives us 95.5% confidence that the true number falls inbetween 400,000 and 800,000 (or somewhere in that ballpark… I can’t remember the exact numbers). Noone has refuted their methodology. The IBC website has brought up a numbr of issues with the numbers, but offers no real substantive refutation of the methodology which is solid.

As for Geoff’s assertion that we need to be there to stop the carnage… the study showed that the US military was responsible for an estimated 200,000 deaths, 55,000 due to non-violent deaths in excess of what would be expected had we not invaded and the rest due to other violent deaths.

The majority of those violent deaths are now due to sectarian strife and not due to Al Queda. If we leave Iraq all agree that there will probably be a spike in carnage. There is also a strong indication that Al Queda will be extinguished from Iraq. Even Sunni insurgents are fighting against them. Noone likes people who blow up your own people. After the civil war is settled (which is already under way) we’ll see what happens. Vietnam turned out alright after we left in spite of the civil strife. They are now our trade partners. Perhaps the same will become of Iraq. In any case, we have to obey the democratic voice of the people. 144 Parlianmetarians have signed a letter demanding a withdrawal of US forces… a clear majority of the total of 275. If they want us out, it is the true test of how much we really desire the freedom of the Iraqi people. I doubt we will obey.

The key issue is that we are not over there to protect human life or freedom right now. That’s what we are led to believe. However, the truth is that we are over there to support a government that is friendly to the US so that we can maintain control of their great oil resources. The wealth from the oil is secondary. It is the control of oil that matters to us. That is why we are pushing so hard for the Hydrocarbon Act to be passed. It will open the way for privatization of the Iraqi oil industry so that the control rests with the Chevrons and Exxons of the world without even being required to hire Iraqis to work at their sites! It’s a bad law for Iraq and it reveals our policy for what it truly is.

Geoff:

I don’t believe the president of the Church needs to declare a war immoral for it to be so. I have come to conclusion of my own free will. Reasonable people can disagree on this point, of course.

I am a libertarian, and do not believe it is our job to police the world. So I disagree with you about American military adventures in Serbia, Panama, etc. These were regional problems that would have been best solved by regional players. Instead they cost American lives and American dollars and returned nothing to America in the way of protection or freedom.

Aluwid:

I was opposed to the war before it began, and remain so. So I was against “stage 1″ and remain against “stage 2.” Just because we won in “stage 1″ does not mean it was the right thing to do.

Our presence there is a destabilizing influence. We could engage Iraq’s neighbors to get them to help the situation, but we’ve made so many enemies in that region that most countries (especially Iran and Syria) are perfectly content to let us twist in the wind. We created the mess, and now there are no good ways out, only bad and less-bad ones. I’m for partitioning the country and allowing its portions to be absorbed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and an independent Kurdish state; that is the quickest way out with the least lives to be lost.

I reject your comparison of African slaves freed in the U.S. civil war to the Iraq situation. The two are not even remotely analogous.

I’m sorry you took offense at my little jab at FOX News. It’s just hard to take them seriously when they use the motto “fair and balanced” but operate as the de facto propaganda ministry for the Bush White House.

Geoff B. - Yes, U.S. troops have caused some deaths

Care to assign a number to “some”? How many deaths are you comfortable with?

If the ratio of “their deaths” vs. “our deaths” is 5 to 1, is that OK? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? When does it become a slaughter? When does it become unacceptable?

As far as the US not being a destructive force in Iraq, perhaps many of you have forgetten the not isolated type of violence we brought to Fallujah. Here is a reminder from a 16 year old Fallujah resident:

Oops, here’s the link for that:

http://gorillasguides.com/2007/05/24/there-was-a-funeral-in-fallujah-today/

The nearsightedness continues.

The true cost of Iraq isn’t just people dead in Iraq.

It’s the cost of ever singly other foreign policy concern that we are currently unable to address because of this quagmire of US blood, treasure, and credibility.