That's My Church!

No, it's not the secession issue this time. Instead, the Arch-Bish of Canterbury comes out swinging on the Iraqi War:

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Dr Williams voiced deep concern about both the decision to go to war and the policies pursued in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

“I am wholly prepared to believe that those who made the decisions made them in good faith - but I think those decisions were flawed,” he said. “And I think the moral and the practical flaws have emerged as time has gone on - very painfully - and they have put our own troops increasingly at risk in ways that I find deeply disturbing.”

He added: “I said before the war began that I had grave reservations about the morality of it. And as I’ve said recently, I haven’t really been convinced that that case was fully made. That’s not to impugn the actual motives of people making those decisions.”

Emphasis added. Now I'm just a simple soul so perhaps I'm missing some nuance here, but since when did the morality of military action become predicated on the difficulty of its execution? I mean, Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 after Germany invaded Poland. A year later, the BEF was in ruins and London and the Southeast were being blitzed to Kingdom-come. Would it have been more moral for the Brits to sit on their hands, given the "practical flaws" that emerged during that period?

Or another example: The Union made the decision to put down the Confederacy and finally resolve the free-state/slave-state issue in 1860. The "practical flaws" in that war are legendary, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, many more wounded and untold property damage. Would it have been more "moral" for the government in Washington to let the CSA go and hope, in a vague way, that industrial slavery would eventually crumble under its own economic weight? (Okay, maybe this isn't such a good example, as I can see most of our Southern readers answering "yes.")

And coming back to Iraq, if the allies had swept in, deposed Saddam, and left the country with a brand spankin' new, top o' the line peaceful and pluralistic society (plus a lot of dead terrorists) all in 72 hours with a casualty list of two sprained ankles and a bad sunburn, would the elimination of any "practical flaws" have changed the moral equation in Dr. Williams' mind? Or again, if we had discovered large, underground bunkers full of nuke bombs labelled "F.O.B. Tel Aviv" but still encountered the insurgency we're now facing, would that have made any difference to him?

Look, I respect gen-u-ine pacifists like our pal LB Buddy whose arguments about the morality of war are based on principle and (presumably) do not change with shifting fortune. The Arch-Bish says he was opposed to the Iraqi invasion from the beginning and perhaps he was. But piling on now with an emphasis on How Bad Things Are Going strikes me as an exercise in craven blowing with the wind.

UPDATE: Speaking of the War, INDCent Bill phones in his first report from Kuwait. Go check it out and consider hitting the tip jar at the bottom.

UPDATE DEUX: Also speaking of the War, how about a little Joe-Mentum, Dr. Williams?

In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.

Read the rest.