Guest Post: The War For Democracy

This was submitted by Chris B. as a comment on "Origins of Evil" and "The Failure of Success" below. InstantReplay encourages commenting and guest posts by readers.

Ok... you see, the thing is this: hate breeds hate, and this war can only escalate. Because there is no Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin - no head of regime that we can take out that will topple the regime - this will not end like we have known wars to end in the past. These are 'grassroots' organizations where the leader is much less essential than the identity of the group as a whole.

So how do you combat this? Yea, the high-level funding freezes and halting of weapons purchases are good, but that's like taking the chocolate chips out of the cookie and calling it low fat. The organizations can subvert this, and we are not going to stop every cent and every gun... we need to fight the root of the problem.

And I think that is what Salim is getting it by trying to explain the root; Parker wants the same thing too. You guys both agree that democracy is a solution; but it is how you arrive at that solution that you begin to differ.

I think that if we're going to look at history, we should check on how democracy arrived on the scene: in America and France it was via revolutions against hard-handed monarchies; in Russia, a similar revolution sparked the rise of communism, which eventually led to democracy via a coup many years later; in Germany and Japan, we had to conquer a dictator and an emperor and set up democracy. In each of these instances violence precedes peace under the rule of democracy. I think that England is one of the few countries where a form of democracy came to be through peaceable means... I could be a bit rusty on my history though.

I think the we could look at WWII Japan as a parallel to our war with Iraq: a very different culture from ours with a different religion, a very strong identity and both cultures valued suicide attacks to some extent. The parallels to the Muslim world are certainly not countless, but I think they are there to an extent. In order to conquer Japan, we had to crush the resolve of its citizens, and then occupy for several years. Fortunately for us, the Japanese were dominated by our military and didn't put up too much of a fight after Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

So, does this mean we should go out and conquer Iraq in the same manner? We certainly have done everything but drop some H-bombs... How come Japan didn't put up a fight? Did they have ticker-tape parades for the US as they came in and occupied? Certainly not; but like I said, they were dominated by our military occupation because after the war, we were able to isolate them and set up a rule of law that suited our liking.

We can't, and won't be able to do that in Iraq, and I think that model in general is antiquated given the fact that just about anybody can acquire the weapons necessary to ambush a convoy of trucks, tanks, or humvees.

What’s the point? The last-ditch efforts of the Kamikaze pilots in world war two could be paralleled to the suicide bombers in the Middle East... except I don't think there is an end in quite in sight yet. Salim is right, the masses that make up the bulk of the 'fighting force' in this 'war' are unskilled, impressionable, idealistic young men and women who are sold out to dying for this. You can't fight that forever - someone is going to run out of troops.

So, if we can't just overpower and occupy, we need to establish some sort of diplomatic relations, but what about dictators, communists, and oppressive monarchs? Are we supposed to be going around giving 'freedom' to everyone on this planet? What about letting them figure it out for themselves? It takes time for revolutions to develop, for people to realize their oppression, and for governments to change. I think one of the issues here is that we think we've got all the answers and the truth is maybe we don't... politically anyway.

I do agree with Parker and Salim that we are given a commission as Christians to go into all the world - Christ told us to take the shoes on our feet and the cloak on our back; not an army so we can liberate people as we go - we offer ultimate freedom, freedom that no amount of political unrest or oppression can take away.

Look at China, Christianity is spreading like wildfire in that country, and not because we're marching US troops into Tieneman Square, but because we are sending missionaries who are preaching, praying, and witnessing to what true freedom is. And now what is happening to China? They are realizing that democracy is necessary, that they cannot function forever as a communist dictatorship, and that they need to be in contact with the outside world both economically and politically. They get it - and I'm not going to come out and say that it is because Christians 'infiltrated' their ranks, but hey, we all know that God changes hearts, and if you change enough hearts you can change a country.

So, that needs to happen in the Muslim world - we need to get Christianity in there. The church thrives despite persecution and hardship - in the face of everything - because Jesus is the ultimate hope. That message is more powerful than any army we can send to Iraq, stronger than any 'cease fire' we can have between Israel and Palestine, and more loving than all the care packages the Red Cross has ever handed out.

Seriously, we need an army, we need to defend ourselves, we need to fight against terrorism, and we need to be compassionate as a nation towards the less fortunate - but we don't need to go around telling other people how to govern their own countries. Ultimately, I think that I don't have an answer for these types of political questions, and I certainly don't feel that I can help to bring about a successful change of regime - but I do know that Christianity makes a difference and I CAN do something about that.