Q: Help me understand Archbishop, why these Christians, these exiles from Iraq have been targeted?
A: Since the Iraq war, Christian communities in Iraq which have lived there for literally thousands of years have been seen as, in some sense, agents of the West. People described how the sort of notes that were pushed under their door, the messages and threats they received said ”˜you are American agents’ or ”˜you are Zionist agents and we’re going to have to get rid of you.’ So there’s a very clear link in people’s minds with the conflict.
Q: That link is a causal link in effect and I don’t want to put words into your mouth. Britain and America invaded Iraq and therefore these Iraqi Christians are suffering. Is that a link that you would make?
A: I’m afraid it’s a very clear link. This is the link that’s made locally and whether justly or not, that is how it’s seen. Now, as I say, these are Christians who’ve lived in that society for generations, they’re not newcomers, they’re not aliens. Certain – I’m happy to say small – extremist groups regard them as aliens, it suits their own political agenda. But these are groups with no scruples and with considerable resources.
Compare the above with Ruth Gledhill’s notes found here:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/10/archbishop-take.html
in part,
[blockquote]…mention must now be made of left-wing commentator Nick Cohen who on Sunday took the Arcbhishop to task for failing to mention who were the true persecutors of Iraqi Christians. As Nick rightly notes, it is not Britain or the US. The main difference the war in Iraq has made, it seems to me, to the plight of Christians in these countries is that now we are beginning to find out about the persecution because we are over there.
Nick wrote: ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury is proving a master of the evasive style. Returning from visiting Iraqi refugees in Syria last week, he declared: “Women in Christian communities were regularly forced to wear the hijab and were followed as they went to church.”
Nick continued: ‘Yes, yes, Your Grace, but who is forcing and threatening them? He couldn’t speak plainly, because if he admitted that al-Qaeda in Iraq kill Arab Christians for being Christians, he would have to accept that their persecution isn’t the responsibility of Britain and America, but of the psychopathic adherents of theocratic ideology.’
Nick then went on to compare the Archbishop to David Cameron for being ‘slippery’. [/blockquote]
Yes, the ABC is certainly someone who you want to look to to resolve conflict;-)
Rowan Williams has shown so much humility and so much courage in his leadership – this is another example of why I hold hope for the Communion with someone like him called to lead it in these turbulent times.
I am not defending Saddam, by any means. But, it seems to me that I remember that under Saddam the Christians were protected from radical-Muslims’ abuse and for the most part were free to worship and exist in relative peace.
One of the sad consequences of our invasion (which we should have anticipated and planned for), is that now the Christians communities in Iraqi live in constant fear, are persecuted, killed, and exiled. So, we good, Christian Americans strive to save our own skin and our stuff and it seems we care little (or at least hear little) about the consequences of our actions concerning our brothers and sisters in Iraq.
Fear and selfishness have truly overtaken us.
#4, Bob G+, your logic leaves out a step. There is a war in Iraq … yes, but the warriors from the US and UK aren’t persecuting the Christians, the Islamic radicals are doing that. You are placing the blame, however, on the fact that US and UK soldiers are there, when there presence, logically, should not require persecution of Christians who had been there all along by Islam. Don’t you see, you need to blame the Islamic radicals for what they are doing, not the Christian Americans, who did what they thought was right at the time, and still are doing what they believe is right. I would ask you to seriously try to look at things throught the eyes of objectivity there, instead of through the eyes of anti-war or anti-Bush bastion.
# 4: Saddam played a game of playing one group off against another. Christians were protected by Saddam because he didn’t trust his fellow Muslims. The country was and is a snakepit of suspicions.
Billy – The persecution of the Christians is a result of what? It didn’t happen under Saddam. The persecution is being perpetuated by anti-Christian zealots, not U.S. or U.K. soldiers to be sure. What enable them to prosecute their zealotry? It wasn’t happening before the invasion.
Looking at the situation right now, were these Iraqi Christians better off before the invasion or after? How have they benefited? Our thinking and doing is not about their wellbeing, but only about our own, I fear.
Bob, #7, the persecution of Christians didn’t happen under Saddam because nothing happened under Saddam except what Saddam wanted to happen. But the persecution of Christians is not happening right now because we are there. It is happening because Islamic radicals decided to persecute those Christians. We went in with the best of motives … to free people from the tyranny and abuse of Saddam and, we thought, to make the entire world safer. How were we to know that Islamic radicals would begin persecuting Christians who had lived in Iraq peaceably for centuries? We are not the reason the persecutions are taking place. The decisions of the Islamic radicals is the reason. That is the part you are leaving out and it is the main part in the story. You are choosing to blame our participation in the war, when the direct and only cause is the decision of the Islamic radicals.
Billy – The anti-Christian zealots are able to persecute the Christians because Saddam or another force is not there to stop them. Why is there not a force there to stop them? Because we removed Saddam (the force that stopped them previously) and we didn’t plan well or prosecute the occupation well and now we cannot or will not stop the anti-Christians from persecuting our brothers and sisters in Iraq.
Regardless of whether we are better off, are the Iraqi Christians better off now or before the invasion?
Bob G+, #9, the question of whether the Iraqi Xns are better off before or since the invasion is the precipitating question. Let’s assume they are worse off now. The real question is “why.” The reason is not the invasion; it is the decision of the zealots to persecute them after the invasion. Now you have raised a better question, finally, as to why there is no longer a force to stop the zealots from their persecution, if we believe (I haven’t seen the proof – just hearsay statements) that Saddam actually protected the Xns. The answer to that lies with the present Iraqi government and with our State Department, not with our military. As few people may know, our State Department is the agency that has been in charge in Iraq since the “war” ended, not our military. Our military can only do what our State Department allows it to do (or tells it to do) or what the Iraqi government allows. Therein lie most of the problems in organization and security. I think I agree with your statement that we have not prosecuted the “occupation” well. I can’t tell about the planning, as who knew what was what at the time of the planning. But then again, given the decay in most of the country allowed and required by Saddam except in Sunni areas, we may be doing as well as can be expected even in the occupation area. I understand your cause and effect argument – before the invasion, Xns at peace; after the invasion, Xns being persecuted. I just disagree with your logic in holding the invasion as the sole cause of the change in the Xns’ status. By the way, I also agree with you that Xns here in US are more concerned with our own well-being and security than our brethren in Iraq. Wish it were not so, but it is obviously part of the human condition to look out for ourselves first. (By contrast, Xns in Iraq are probably not particularly concerned about Xns in US or elsewhere either.) In my opinion, our Xn concern for others outside our country needs to become primary. Thus, I am very concerned about our HOB and HOD having so little regard for the rest of the Anglican Communion in the decisions they have made. I’m sure you, being a rather strong supporter of TEC and its innovations and reappraisings, have the same concern I have for TEC’s calloused disregard for the tear in the fabric of the communion that it has caused and continues to rip by its actions, and I’m sure you would very much like for TEC to have the same concern for the rest of our Anglican Communion brothers and sisters that you want Xns in the US to have for Iraqi Xns. N’est ce pas?
Billy – I understand what you’re saying. I don’t know about the State Department being the U.S. agency in control in Iraq. I never hear our president say something like, “If our Secretary of State determines we need more troops, then they will have more troops.”
I disagree with your description of me and what I support in the latter part of your post, by the way.
Bob, glad to know you don’t support TEC’s reappraisings and innovations that have torn the fabric of our communion.
As far as the State Department running things in Iraq, remember that Paul Bremer was not a military guy … he was State Department. The most powerful guy in Iraq on the American side today is the Ambassador of Iraq; next would be the head of the Iraqi government. The reports to the President come from the State Dept and the DOD then sends a report as to what its needs are to do the job the State Dept gives it to do. I have spoken to two high ranking officers, who have just returned from being in central command in the Green Zone in Baghdad. They have both told me that the chain of command starts at the top with the State Dept and that is who is in charge. (They also laugh at the extraordinary time it takes to do a memo to the Iraqi government, when State Dept tries not to offend any party. One of them said what should be a half a page turns into 3 and what should take less than an hour takes all day.)
Now Billy, I said that I didn’t agree with the way you described me and what I support, but don’t let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. It is always safer to ask a person what they actually believe before writing down what is presumed. 🙂
I will take your word for it concerning the chain of command in Iraq.
Why is anybody surprised, shocked, concerned? All of this was easily predictable, indeed, *was predicted by several commentators before the invasion (not many, and mostly people with connections to Christians in the region – my employers are Lebanese, so we get the news from the ethnic press). We as a society didn’t give a rip then, so why get exercised about it now?
Anybody here care about the ongoing genocide of the Mandaeans?
Didn’t think so.
Yeah, things were much better in Iraq when Sadaam was only killing off his fellow Muslims by the thousands because they were of a different ‘tribe’. Ah the good old days.
libraryjim – Did anyone say that life was good under Saddam? Where was that said above? Why is sarcasm needed? Ask the returning soldiers what life is like in a war zone. What must it be like for those who live through it everyday, all day, without the prospect of returning to a stable, relatively safe, prosperous country?
The reality is that the country right now, regardless of the questions of morality or rightness of our invasion, as a whole is not better off. Perhaps it will be, but the way we have conducted the war and the administration of the country has been terrible. The Christians certainly are not better off.
Bob, your generalizations are way too broad. How can you say Iraq is not better off today. With Saddam, Baghdad and Sunni areas had electricity all the time and the rest of the country (Shia and Kurd country) had none. Women and girl children had no education, and now they do. There was no freedom or money for 80% of the population to travel outside the country. Now there is at least the freedom to do so. Kurds now rule their own areas and don’t fear genocide. There was virtually no medical care outside of Sunni land; now there is everywhere. The 20% minority Sunnis had everything and the Shia and Kurds had little or nothing. Maybe violence from al quieda and sectarianism was not there, but violence and repression for anyone who raised any issue against Saddam was there. “Stable” yes, through an iron fisted dictator. “Relatively safe,” only if you did not intentionally or unintentionally cross Saddam or any Bathist. “Prosperous,” now you really are stretching it. Properous for Bathist, but not for anyone else, and especially not for women and girl children, whose education was taken away for the 30 years of Saddam’s power. Also, your statement that the conduct of the war and administration of the country has been terrible has to have a comparison. So I ask you, in comparison to what? Let’s look at the war: less than 4000 Americans killed. How many were killed in Viet nam (58,000) or WWII (not sure, but over 250,000, I know). Yes, there have been civilian lives lost, also, but there were in other wars, too … more. Look at the administration of the country: schools are reopened all over it; electricity grid is open to the whole country now, not just selected Bathist areas. Granted it is only for 4 hours a day, but it is 4 hours more than before. A democratically elected government is in place (remember the dyed finger to show the vote); a legislature and executive branch is in place; trials for Saddam and his other war criminals have taken place; new police force and national guard type force is being trained – yes, slowly but surely. Have there been mishaps … you bet! Have there been mistakes … absolutely! Abu Grabh was awful. On the other side, so was the decapitation of Americans by al quieda. So are the IEDs that kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. But the surge apparently has worked as far as decreasing violence and continues to work. So show me what administration of what brand new country is better than what has happened here. It’s real easy for you to make your high sounding generalizations from afar. But without comparative facts to support them, that is all they are. (By the way, is our government responsible for the persecution of the Xns in Darfur, also. Or can we lay that one at the feet of Islamic extremists alone? Do you think TEC’s decision to embrace homosexuality is responsible for the persecution of Xns in parts of the world where Anglicans and Islamic radicals intersect? Or is that only laid at the feet of Islamic radicals? I think there are some analogies with TEC here that you can’t overlook, if you are going to blame US government policies for everything that is bad in the world (or even just in Iraq.)
Billy, I don’t necessarily disagree with many of your comments, and I will challenge some. Concerning electricity, here are two viewpoints, both using the data analysis from the Brookings Institute as their base:
– McClatchy News website
– Gerd Schroeder (Major in the U.S. Army)
I am not convinced that medical care is available “everywhere.” I think you are doing what you accused me of going – generalizing too much.
From what I’ve heard and read, most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone. Who wouldn’t be! He was a brutal, mercurial dictator. I have been following the developments in Iraq for two decades, and from what I know the people caught up in this war, the Iraqi civilians, do not believe their lives are better off right now. Glad Saddam is gone? Yes. Want to live in peace? Yes. Right now, do they feel better off? Not really, IMHO – particularly the Christians!
As I’ve said previously, this administration has done a horrible job in prosecuting the war – we have failed the people of Iraq by our ineptness (whether because of civilian leaders or military planners or both). Can we redeem the situation? I hope so, but we first have to face the truth. I believe Canterbury is speaking truth to this situation. This administration continues down the same policy path that continues to prove its own failure.