Bush�s petition for divine blessings for America�s imperial rampage is hard to swallow.

by Lee Hwok Aun

The moral dimensions are more important

President Bush�s rally for war, in the guise of an ultimatum delivered in his 17 March speech, leaves me with nothing but disgust and sadness. It was an implicit command to let the bombing begin. But of course, the Bush administration�s intentions have been explicit from the start: attack and occupy Iraq, whatever the UN and people may think. The Saddam and arms issue has been a dilemma for Christians. He is a despicable despot, no one would argue. We would like to see him gone. But is a world with one less dictator better than a world with a new emperor? The mark of imperial power is that one man can order his army around the world, without seeking consent or providing credible cause.

But the moral dimensions are more important than the military and political ones. The Bush campaign has been filled with opacity and deceit in speech, arrogance in conduct, everything you�d expect of a Big Bully. Bush maligns France for indicating it would veto, when America has been a most prolific user of veto power, having played that card more than 70 times in the last 30 years.

There are two ways Christians can walk by faith, when there is little that our sight can offer. One is to believe God may be doing something through Bush. Supporters of war will choose this stance. Another is that, based on Christian principles of truth and justice that we know and hold dearly and the contempt Bush has shown toward voices of restraint and patience, this attack is unacceptable in God�s eyes. I believe this to be the right stance.

Moving Target

The motives and reasons for this war have not been clearly stated. Is this about disarmament or regime change? The Bush administration has not been honest and consistent, shifting from one to another. It was about non-compliance with disarmament, then a threat to the American people, then terrorist connections, then liberation of the Iraqi people. Like a moving target, it becomes harder for dissenters to shoot at.

The President could not evade the issue of disarmament, because this is what the UN resolution is about. But non-compliance alone does not have enough of a bite. The President had to conjoin the two, Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, because Saddam is what the war is about. The threat, he said, comes from Saddam equipped with arms. Threat to whom? �The world,� Bush said. And, oh, the American people as well. His desperate attempt to drag �the world� into his net of fabricated insecurity further shows the dearth of credibility.

He persisted in linking Iraq to al-Qaeda and anonymous terrorists although this connection has been widely discredited. Iraq may supply arms to terrorist groups? Yes, maybe. But a few months ago, a clandestine shipment of missiles from North Korea to Yemen was permitted to pass after it had been intercepted. Bush accepted that it was an open, legal deal between governments � but the warheads were hidden under sacks of other goods.

Thus, needing a further moral cause, or a bright ideal to overshadow the spectre of death, Bush of course attached the freedom mantra. �Iraq, your day of liberation is near.� Hmm, how near is liberation to the Afghans, quickly forgotten by America after the fall of the Taliban and the capture of terrorists.

And, again, what about systematically sidelined North Korea? Kim Jong Il has perpetrated more heinous crimes against his people in recent years. The moral case for war � to liberate the Iraqi people and to rid the world of a menace � must stand the test of consistency. Why has Bush been so tactful and lenient with Kim but so vindictive and intransigent with Saddam?

Is there a precedent for this �war of liberation�? Our attention has been drawn to the bombing of Serbia, which catalysed the downfall of Milosevic. However, in that case there was no deceit on the scale that we are now witnessing. It was waged by a NATO alliance, and civilian casualties were limited. The US Army has already indicated that, in this invasion, �collateral damage� will be heavy � that is, many people will die.

Other Motives

With so many gaping holes in the Bush administration�s justifications, its relentless evasion and manipulation, other motives inevitably must fill the vacuum to justify the war. Something must fire this passion for war. We are left to deduce that it is a combination of vengeance on behalf of the Bush dynasty (and America�s furious elite), greed for oil, and the pleasures of imperial conquest.

The ultimatum was been issued, Saddam and his sons had to leave Iraq in 48 hours. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell knew that Saddam will not go. He did not comply with the ultimatum in 1991, even when he had no defence whatsoever for invading a neighbour and seizing its territory. This second war becomes Saddam�s fault, for bringing attack on himself and his people, once again. Sure, Saddam is more evil in his willingness to sacrifice the men, women and children of his nation. But Bush is no saint to force Saddam to the brink of bloodshed. In effect, this war amounts to a tacit conspiracy of two rulers who do not care for the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

Will it be a swift war? That is what everyone is expecting or hoping for. With the arsenal at America�s disposal, this is most viable and probable. A missile blitz can be effective to secure surrender. But with America�s weapons, one can kill a lot of people in a small amount of time.

In the interests of continuing deceit, a fast war will be better. It will also be easier to shroud the fatalities and manufacture information because it becomes simply too dangerous to be on the ground reporting. It becomes more conducive to the process of fudging and forgetting the carnage that will begin immediately after.

Bush closed his rally to battle in usual Presidential fashion, by invoking the �may God continue to bless America� refrain. I wonder, at this time, is it a plea, a prayer or a provocation? Bush is not God and neither is he America, as many protests evidence. Thus, two questions resonate: God continue to bless whose America? Whose God continue to bless America?

The first question is only for Americans to answer. The second question is for all Christians to ponder. For Bush to claim that God will bless America as it goes on its imperial, immoral, deceitful and vindictive rampage goes beyond the pale of faith. I cannot believe, as a Christian and global citizen, that this is the same God that I worship.

God help us.

Lee Hwok Aun is a lecturer in the faculty of Economics and Business Administration in the University of Malaya

Now e-mail us and tell us what you think.