Unlike many of the more recent presidential debates, this year’s was one of the best, especially in terms of the issues.  It was no surprise that Iraq dominated the first debate between President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.  What was refreshing was that rarely have the differences between the two men--and therefore the choices for the country--been stated in such forceful and passionate ways.  On ever major aspect of the conflict in Iraq (and North Korea and Iran), Bush and Kerry differed.  They disagreed over whether Hussein posed a serious threat to the US when Bush took the country to war.  They disagreed on whether it was correct to fight this war.  They disagreed over whether the President had a plan to secure the Iraqi peace.  Finally, they disagreed over whether the President has actually advanced American security in a world of terrorism or whether he has actually weakened it.  So, let’s think about this.

• First, what exactly is John Kerry’s position on Iraq?  Throughout the campaign so far, Kerry has not articulated a position on Iraq.  No longer.  Here, in summary, is Kerry’s position on Iraq.  In fact, I believe it would be accurate to say that Iraq is now the centerpiece of his campaign.  (1) Kerry argued that Iraq was never a serious threat to the US, that the war was never justified and that Bush’s focus on Iraq was a “profound diversion” from the real enemy, Osama bin Laden.  (2) Kerry argued that we are losing the war in Iraq.  Casualties are mounting, the insurgency is spreading and daily life in Iraq is more miserable.  (3) Kerry argued that in such difficult times courageous leaders must tell the truth to the American people.  He reminded everyone that he returned from another conflict “to offer my own personal voice of dissent,” and he is now doing the same thing again.  In short, Kerry seems to be saying that Iraq is the new Vietnam.  (4) Kerry has declared that he has a clear plan and the centerpiece of that plan is to get out by next summer.  He seems to be saying that if he is elected, the entire momentum of American foreign policy in the Middle East will be to get out of Iraq.  Iraqis themselves and other countries must take more responsibility.  He has stated:  “The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden.”  Iraq will no longer be US responsibility; it will be the world’s.  In addition, he has called for an international summit to deal with Iraq.  Also, he called for NATO to be more involved in training Iraqi soldiers. 

• Second, what did Kerry not make clear?  He did not say what the US should do to defeat the insurgents and stabilize and rebuild Iraq, beyond what Bush is already doing.  He did not say that the US could fight the insurgency more effectively or completely.  He did not offer any ideas on how to tame Fallujah or handle Moktada al-Sadr.  He really did not offer a strategy for victory in Iraq.  There is no question that Kerry’s debate performance and his subsequent speeches are the best he has done.  But his position is hugely vulnerable.  Does he really believe that 1,000 American troops died for nothing?  Does he really believe that the world community will take ownership of Iraq?  (This is a silly dream in light of Darfur, Iran and other hot spots.  Were it not for the US, no action would be taken on any of these areas.)  Does he really believe that a summit will convince them to contribute vast sums of money and significant troops to relieve America’s burden?  Perhaps David Brooks is correct: “Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat.  If ‘the world’ is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them.”  Kerry’s position is that Iraq does not “pass the global test.”  I doubt anyone really knows what that means.  Finally, if Kerry really believes that Iraq was a “profound diversion” [from pursuing bin Laden and al Qaeda] and thereby a mistake, then shouldn’t we stop fighting tomorrow?  What do you say to the last man to die for a “profound diversion?”  [Kerry’s words when he referred to Vietnam.]  The American electorate now has a profound choice; indeed, a straight up or down choice.

• Third, President Bush’s position on Iraq is clear.  He believes that the world is safer with Saddam out of power and that the US must stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy.  He believes that spreading freedom is the obligation of the US and that obligation is being tested in Iraq.  He believes that Iraq was a terrorist state and a grave threat to the region, the world and the US.  He therefore depicted Kerry as a politician without core convictions who has repeatedly changed his mind and said that, by describing the Iraq war as “the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place,” he has called into question his ability to lead US troops and the world.  Bush argued that Kerry has sent “mixed messages . . . and you cannot lead if you send mixed messages.  Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops.  Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies.  Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens.” 

In conclusion, the American people now have been presented with a stark and clear choice on 2 November.  This was a debate without gimmicks, gaffes, canned one-liners, “gotcha moments” or even light-hearted exchanges.  This was serious business.  In some ways this was one of the most significant and helpful presidential debates since they began on TV with Kennedy and Nixon.  The clarity of choice is now before the American people and they will need to take that responsibility very seriously.

See helpful articles by David Brooks, editorial in the New York Times (21 September 2004), and Dan Balz in the Washington Post (1 October 2004).

Back to top

AIDING THE TERRORIST ENEMY

About six years ago, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, in his book The Clash of Civilizations, argued that the world is divided not so much by geographic boundaries as by religious differences.  He predicted that in the 21st century, the great clash would occur between Islam and the West--and, he argued, Islam would ultimately prevail.  It seems that Huntington is wrong, at least we hope.  However, there are some facts that must be a part of the discussion.  Let’s think about this claim.

• First, Charles Krauthammer has argued that the obvious reasons Islam is fighting “the great jihad” against the US are religion, ideology, political power, and territory.  But, he argues, “this is also about--deeply about--sex.”  The jihadist Muslims argue that wherever freedom travels--“especially in America and Europe--it brings sexual license and corruption, decadence and depravity.”  Further, Christianity Today editor Mark Galli also contends that Islamic militants are angry at the West for exporting “hedonism and materialism into their very homes through television, enticing Muslims to become religiously lazy and morally corrupt.”  Galli quoted a 1985 communique from the terrorist group Hezbollah: “Our way is one of radical combat against depravity, and America is the original root of depravity.”  Anger at Western decadence fueled the writings of Sayyid Qutb, which so influenced Osama bin Laden.  These radical Muslims see themselves not so much as terrorists, but as holy warriors fighting a holy war against decadence. 

• Second, as Chuck Colson has also argued, “let’s acknowledge that America’s increasing decadence is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  When we tolerate trash on television, permit pornography to invade our homes via the Internet, and allow babies to be killed at the point of birth, we are inflaming radical Islam.”  He goes on, “Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment.  This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.” 

• Finally, President Bush has made it clear that our goal is to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East; and that is the issue in Iraq.  The further goal is to make freedom so attractive that other Muslim countries will follow suit.  However, when radical Muslims see American women abusing Muslim men, as they did in the Abu Ghraib prison, and when they see news converge of same-sex couples being “married” in US cities, we make our brand of freedom abhorrent and repugnant to Muslims!  In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul argues that as civilization allows decadence to reign, “God gives them over” to their own decadence and allows the natural consequences of that decadence to be worked out.  This is known only to God, but it is at least reasonable to conclude that, as we allow our decadence to go to seed, we may actually be sowing our own destruction.  Perhaps, radical Islam could be the vehicle for that destruction!

See Colson’s brilliant article in ChristianityToday.com (29 September 2004).

Back to top

ELISABETH KUBLER-ROSS: R.I.P.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross died recently.  She was one of the most influential women of the 20th century, for she forced Western Civilization to come to terms with death.  She observed that in Third World countries death is a regular aspect of life.  However, in the West acceptance of death as a part of life had largely been forgotten.  As she began her medical practice in New York, she observed that the dying were kept isolated in distant wards and that doctors viewed themselves as failures in an age where every infection and disease seemed to have found its cure.  Her pathbreaking book was On Death and Dying, published in 1969.  In it she listed five stages through which, in her medical experience, the dying passed.  The first was denial; the second, anger; the third, bargaining, in which the patient tried to do his best to extend the time left to him; the fourth, depression, when the bargain failed to work; and the fifth, stoical acceptance. 

The effect of her book was provocative and controversial.  She argued for better treatment of the dying.  Her five stages were considered arbitrary.  Further, she did more than anyone else to push forward the hospice movement, living wills, and the notion of death with dignity.  Also, she began, in the latter years of her life, to disseminate her views of the after-life.  Death to her was the shedding of the unlamented body and the release of the spirit to a higher, better life.  She began to fill her lectures with tales of out-of-body experiences, including traveling through space at the speed of light. 

Kubler-Ross was a terrible tragedy!  She tried to make death respectable and “one of the greatest experiences ever.”  How do we think about this biblically?  1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that death is our enemy because of sin.  Further, death is our enemy because it is the curse of sin.  However, Jesus, through his death, burial and resurrection, conquered death.  It is no longer to be feared.  For the Christian, death no longer has authority, for eternal life is our destiny.  Out-of-body experiences, channeling, “spiritual cloning”, all positions Kubler-Ross embraced, are absurd and thoroughly unbiblical.  Her life was sad and became increasingly bizarre.  She began with an unbiblical analysis of death and ended her life with increasingly outlandish ideas.  How sad!!

See The Economist (4 September 2004), p. 81.

Back to top