March (Web-only) 2007

ARTICLE TOOLS

Find similar articles E-mail this page

Every other month, CT will ask editors on our masthead, along with selected evangelical leaders, about current events within our movement and the broader culture—and then publish the best of their comments.

Q: Should the U.S. have gotten involved militarily in Iraq in 2003?

50% Yes

• Martin Luther compares the warrior's craft with that of a surgeon cutting off a limb in order to save the body. Seen that way, the U.S. was right getting involved in Iraq.
  
  
• I was in favor of military action. At the same time, I am appalled at our lack of adequate preparation for the occupation and change in government.
  
  
• Given the conditions and the support for the cause in the country at the time, I think the President and the Congress made a reasonable move in entering Iraq.
  
  
• It was universally believed that Saddam Hussein had been developing WMDs. Hussein was in breach of a series of U.N. resolutions and a threat to neighbors and the U.S. alike.
  
  

50% No

• Going into Iraq had little to do with the war on terror. It had to do with protecting our oil interests in the Middle East.
  
  
• Iraq was a distinctly weaker nation after the first Gulf War and the U.N.'s ensuing sanctions. Though Saddam resisted U.N. weapons inspectors, we possessed reliable information that it was highly unlikely he possessed nuclear weapons or biological weapons.
  
  
• The great mistake behind it was to base the decision on a priori ideological presuppositions of neo-conservative advisors of the President.
  
  
• More important than the inadequate or manipulated intelligence sources related to WMDs is the ongoing evidence that diplomatic resources had not been exhausted. The diplomatic outcome in North Korea is a case in point.
  
  
• Bush and Cheney were using the 9/11 attack as a pretext for a war that was projected even before Bush took office.