Repenting bishops 2

Further to this item from yesterday, on the bishops intending apology for the Iraq war, I post, with his permission, the following email from a reader:

Don't be too hard on the bishops. I have now had a chance to read the full report (100pp [pdf]; downloadable from the Church of England's website) and it is a more balanced and nuanced document than the initial press reports might suggest. Yes, the overall tenor of the report is against the war in Iraq, but it does make some attempt to accommodate the views of those who supported the war. For example:

1. It expresses guarded support for the humanitarian arguments in favour of military intervention in Iraq. 'Some of the war aims were laudable, notably bringing an end to Saddam Hussein's tyranny... Some of the possible results of the action, namely the establishment of a democratic regime based on law and observing human rights, are desirable' (p. 27). I would have liked to see this expressed rather more robustly - but still, it's a step in the right direction.

2. Interestingly, the bishops are prepared to accept that pre-emptive military action 'might be regarded as morally justified' (p. 72) even though it may not meet traditional just-war criteria.

3. It is clearly recognised that 'to pull out of Iraq precipitously [sic; I think they mean 'precipitately'] would be irresponsible' (p. 27) and that at present there is no realistic alternative to continued US and British occupation. 'It is right to stay in Iraq' until a democratic regime can be secured (p. 28).

4. The section on Israel does make some effort to strike a balance, pointing out that while some Christian organisations 'cite the continuing occupation of the West Bank and the building of the separation wall as acts of aggression perpetrated by Israel... many Christians, and particularly but not only those from the political right with Zionist sympathies, argue that the legitimate defence of Israel as a democratic state requires such actions'. Again, one would have liked to see this expressed more robustly, and not simply in terms of on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand, but it does at least accept, albeit grudgingly, that not all supporters of Israel are crazed right-wing extremists.

5. There is a reluctant admission (p. 53) that US intervention in Iraq may possibly have had the desired effect in promoting political reform elsewhere in the Arab world.

6. The report acknowledges, if only in a footnote (p. 8), that Osama bin Laden's atrocities are deliberately aimed at Muslim civilians, not merely at the West.
.....
Then there is the passage highlighted in the press reports, regarding an 'apology' for the war in Iraq. This is worth quoting at length:

'... there is a long litany of errors in the West's handling of Iraq that need to be remembered. These include: its support for Saddam Hussein over many years as a strategic ally against Iran; its willingness to sell him weapons; its willingness in particular to sell him components for weapons of mass destruction; its failure to distance itself from his regime in its use of chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds; the suffering caused to the Iraqi people by sanctions; and the fact that the recent war against Iraq appeared to be as much for reasons of American national interest as it was for the well-being of the Iraqi people... It might be possible for there to be a public gathering, well prepared in advance, at which Christian leaders meet with religious leaders of other, mainly Muslim traditions, on the basis of truth and reconciliation, at which there would be a public recognition of at least some of the factors mentioned above" (p. 29).

There is certainly a good deal of muddled thinking here: e.g. the doublethink implicit in the idea that it was wrong to support Saddam yet equally wrong to remove him from power; and the apparent assumption that it is, in some way, morally wrong for America to take her own national interests into account when waging war. (And what exactly is meant by 'religious leaders of other, mainly Muslim traditions'? Why not just say 'Muslim leaders' if that is what is meant?) All the same, I am rather taken with the idea that Western leaders (beginning with France and Russia, maybe) should express public repentance for their role in supporting and arming Saddam's monstrous regime.

Plainly there is much to criticise in the report, but it is by no means as simple-minded as it has been painted - and, for all its faults, I think it would be better to draw attention to the good things in it, in the hope of guiding Anglican opinion in the right direction, instead of merely rubbishing the whole thing as woolly-minded liberal claptrap. (Not a criticism of you - I am thinking of some of the comments elsewhere.)

As I said in the earlier post I haven't yet read the report. I'm glad to have this account of other features of it than were highlighted in the media.

On the aspect that received the most publicity - the intended apology - see also this post by Natalie Solent. And from another reader's email:

One really offensive aspect is that the apology is not being aimed at Iraqis, but seems to be aimed at all Muslims - so giving support to the contention that the war in Iraq was a 21st century crusade by the West against Islam.