Faith based foreign policy

Scott Ritter, UN Chief Inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998:

The Chair of the Select Committee on Defense, Bruce George, listened patiently as I took apart Tony Blair's case for Iraq's retention of WMD, piece by piece, in the back of the Member's cafeteria. When I finished, George shrugged his shoulders. "I still believe that this war was justified over the issue of WMD," he said, "if for no other reason than Saddam's ongoing intent to acquire them in the face of UN inspections."

"Intent?" I asked, incredulously. "What intent? No one has made a case that Saddam was attempting to either hold on the hidden WMD, or reacquire new capabilities."

George was taken aback by my words. "Certainly you can't be saying you don't believe Saddam wanted WMD?" he asked.

"What I believe and what I know are two different things," I replied. "Our two nations went to war because our respective leaders said they knew Iraq possessed WMD, that they knew Saddam intended to acquire WMD. It has turned out that there has been no WMD found in Iraq, and no hard evidence to sustain any ongoing acquisition of WMD by Saddam."

"Yes, we know that," George repeated. "But we also know that Saddam intended to get these weapons in defiance of the UN, and for that reason he had to be removed."

"How do you know this?" I asked. "On what basis can you back this up?"

"Because," George said, with a smile, "Saddam is evil."

And with that, the discussion ended.   article

When it comes down to it, people everywhere are guided by beliefs. Maybe we need to address that more seriously than just saying there will be a separation of church and state. That doesn't seem to be working.

In this article, Scott Ritter discusses what he calls "the theocracy of evil" which he believes guides the decisions leaders are making. He says that facts don't matter when you believe you are confronting evil.

That's true, but I think it falls short of the underlying drive. From where I stand, it looks as though people use the evil theme to carry out their own desires. I don't think they really believe they are confronting evil.

Ritter says:

Going beyond mere political ideology, the theocracy of evil encompasses a faith-based value system that embraces a simplistic 'good versus evil' opposition. If Saddam is evil, such thinking holds, then evil must be confronted, and such niceties as fact and fact-based logic no longer apply. As such, WMD became simply an enabling issue – something designed to focus the attention of the public while those in charge pursued the broader agenda of confronting evil.

What I'm saying is that confronting evil is actually also an enabling issue designed to focus the attention of a sympathetic and gullible public - one that believes in confronting evil. Those in charge, I believe, are actually pursuing a very narrow agenda of personal enrichment and empowerment.

The 'theocracy of evil' establishes a deeply ingrained mindset that may be the reason why the U.S. intelligence community failed to accurately assess Iraq's WMD capabilities; why Congress failed to adequately debate the issue of Iraq before voting to go to war; and why the American public willingly allowed itself to be drawn into a war without demanding more proof to back up the Bush administration's allegations. If Saddam is evil, such thinking holds, then he surely intends to acquire WMD, and as such every bit of data collected regarding Iraq must be assessed with that assumption foremost in mind.

Agreed. But Congress and the intelligence community and the American public are not "in charge". And this is why, I think, Bruce George said what he said "with a smile". He knew very well that saying "Saddam is evil" is the buzzphrase that will get you where you want to go.

Andrew Mackinlay has made it clear that as far as he is concerned, democratic principles will trump the 'theocracy of evil' in Great Britain. "Politics be damned," the influential member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said to me during my stay in London. "If it turns out that the Blair Government lied or misrepresented fact to make its case for war, then the defense of democracy requires nothing less than coming to a full accounting over what transpired, regardless of the consequences. I'm certain my constituents would demand nothing less of me."


Looking at the political landscape in the United States today, I wonder if there are politicians today from either major party who are willing to do the same in defense of American democracy, or constituents with the courage to demand it.

Well, now, I wonder that myself.