The war in Iraq: how Catholic conservatives got it wrong

Commonweal, Dec 3, 2004 by Peter Dula

   Ranking ecclesiastics took up the time of U.S. decision makers,
   badgering them about whether they had thought of this possible
   consequence or that. What about Muslim reaction? What about civilian
   casualties? The simple answer is that such consequences are
   unknowable and therefore unknown, except to God. I know that possible
   consequences have been considered, day and night for many months, by
   competent parties. I know there is a determination to minimize damage
   to innocents, and a reasoned expectation that successful action will
   weaken Islamist enemies of civilization and strengthen the Muslim
   forces of decency and freedom. The U.S. plans for changing the
   politics and culture of the Middle East, including
   Palestinian-Israeli relations, are indeed ambitious. Nobody can know
   for sure what will happen, but religious leaders should bring more to
   the discussion than their fears. Nervous handwringing is not a moral
   argument.

For religious leaders to raise questions about civilian casualties and Muslim reaction was, according to Neuhaus, "badgering." Concerned religious leaders were taking up the politicians' valuable time. It was as if the only thing for religious leaders to do was to get out of the way and let the responsible parties do their thing. Even Neuhaus and Weigel weren't really needed. They were simply agents of the ground clearing, trying to minimize the influence of those whiny pacifists so that Bush and the neocons could have a clear and unobstructed path to war. What is striking here is Neuhaus's apparent faith in the "competent parties," the same faith proclaimed by Weigel when he wrote of the politicians' "charism of responsibility." But sentiment--"I trust my government to try really hard"--is not any kind of argument. "Nobody knows what will happen" is not an alternative to so-called nervous handwringing. Cheerleading is not an alternative to badgering.

Trusting the government?

The possible consequences of war had in fact been considered day and night for many months. (See, for example, James Fallows, "Blind into Baghdad," the Atlantic Monthly, January-February 2004.) The competent parties were the Army and the State Department. Their conclusions were rejected, their committees silenced. Of course, we know now not only that the Pentagon ignored the conclusions of the Army (which was preparing for conditions predicted by those naive hand-wringing ecclesiastics), but that the whole invasion and occupation were based on a set of dubious claims, if not outright lies, about weapons of mass destruction and the link to Al Qaeda.

So, what was functioning--like a badly manufactured pair of eyeglasses--for these two Catholic theologians who take rightful pride in their otherwise often clear-eyed view of things? Can there be any doubt that what blurred their perception was their faith in the current administration? Weigel and Neuhaus are right to remind us that there are many things religious leaders don't know that the government does know. But the lack of resources among those outside of government is, finally, obvious. What is not at all obvious is why this disparity in access to information is a reason for trust instead of skepticism, or even mistrust, toward even democratic governments. If the events and revelations of the last sixteen months have not been enough to tilt the balance toward mistrust, there are also good old-fashioned theological reasons to side with skepticism, and not just toward this administration or other Republican administrations. Still, I remain curious why Weigel and Neuhaus are so oblivious to some other good reasons why conservatives should question what their government says. Since when are conservatives not suspicious of government? Since when is a deep mistrust of state bureaucracies not a defining characteristic of conservatism? These conservative suspicions are not just about the relative expertise of those making prudential judgements. As George Will wrote in the April 5 Washington Post: