Jimmy Carter: Iraq war Does Not Meet Just War Criteria

It's not just Catholics. Here's an interview with the leader of Bush's church (mine too).
________________
Praying for Peace
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert and President George W. Bush share the same faith, but one preaches for a peaceful resolution in Iraq while the latter prepares for war

By Jennifer Barrett
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


March 7 — On Thursday, President George W. Bush went on national television to warn that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to U.S. security and to try and prepare Americans for the growing possibility of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq—perhaps within days.

WHEN ASKED ABOUT his faith, Bush told reporters that he still prays for peace. But he is also preparing for war. That has caused friction with a number of religious leaders, whose prayers focus on more diplomatic solutions. A day earlier, Pope John Paul II had implored Roman Catholics around the world to fast and pray for peace and sent a personal plea to President Bush. Even members of the president’s own United Methodist Church have pleaded publicly with the president to give peace—and the U.N. weapons inspections—a chance. Is he listening? NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, the United Methodists’ top ecumenical official who has appeared in national TV ads urging the U.S. government to “let the inspections work,” about the fading prospects for peace. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: You and the president share the same Methodist faith. Yet you have said that an attack on Iraq would “violate God’s law and the teachings of Jesus Christ” while the president continues to support using force, if necessary, to remove Saddam Hussein and says he is at peace with that decision. How do you explain that?
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert: It’s clear to us that he is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a “just war” theory. He is following a clear ideology that is not a part of any particular church that I know of. It’s an ideology of control that we find ourselves totally in opposition to.
Our church takes a strong stance against war but allows room for those who choose to be a part of the military. It comes down on the side of conscience. There are times when, if you are attacked, for example, you should defend yourself. But it should never be the first resort—only the last resort.

Would there be any justification for war with Iraq in your view?
Personally, I’d be willing to consider it if the United Nations supported it and we had exhausted all other possibilities. But until that happens, I think we have no right unilaterally to go in and take over another nation. If this is based on the fact that Saddam is a dictator, we must be reminded that there are many other dictators in this world. Are we setting ourselves up to say we must take out every dictator? In fact, we have one in North Korea [Kim Jong Il] who says he has nuclear capabilities, and we have not taken a stand there but have opted for diplomacy.

You traveled to Baghdad with other religious leaders in late 1990 to try and prevent the last Persian Gulf War. What happened?
It was a very tedious mission. We were on the brink of war. We thought we’d try to get the people of Iraq to blink. We agreed that they had no right to invade Kuwait. But we met with Tariq Aziz, [now Iraq’s deputy prime minister] and he was very tough on us and said we needed to go back and talk to our government. But we left knowing the war would start because they refused to blink.

You were also part of a peace mission to Iraq at the beginning of this year and met with Aziz again. Did you leave with a better feeling this time?
There were 13 of us, and we spent four full days in Iraq. This time we met with some of the Iraqi people—with leaders of churches and mosques and several NGO groups. We didn’t plan to meet with government officials, but they sought to meet with us. The heads of the Department of Religion and the Department of Health met with us, and so did Tariq Aziz. I don’t think he remembered us as much as I remembered him from the visit in 1990. He was much more cordial and open to dialogue this time. He was frustrated with the fact that the United States was refusing to have any dialogue at all with the government of Iraq … he and the people we met with were pleased to hear voices other than the voices of the government saying we want peace and we don’t want to go to war.

But do they believe war is imminent?
They believe the United States is very intent on going to war with them. They were hoping that we could be successful in avoiding the war.

Do you feel you have been?
We’ve made some steps in that direction, but it appears our government has made up its mind. That’s become increasingly clear in the last few days. Still, we are not giving up, and we continue to be vigilant and to say to all governments that will listen that we don’t think this is the way to go. We have sent delegations to Rome, London, Germany and Russia. We were able to see the leaders of those countries. But our own government refuses to see us. That’s very troubling to me. We are a democracy and we talk about peace, and yet our own government refuses to hear a dissenting voice.
To hear him [Bush] castigate the dictatorship of a person like Saddam—and I don’t disagree with that—but it is disturbing to see him also operate like a dictator. He’s basically saying, I made up my own mind and I won’t listen to those who disagree.

Are we seeing more opposition among religious leaders to an attack on Iraq than we did before the 1991 Persian Gulf War?

Yes, very much so. I’ve been talking with other religious leaders and we agree that more religious leaders are more openly opposed to the possibility of this war than there were opposing the Vietnam War even two years into that war.

Why do you think we’ve seen more reaction among religious leaders this time?
There are many reasons. We are deeply concerned about the way our nation is using its power. We have a strong conviction that we need a United Nations and that our government has not shown a respect for and wholehearted support for the U.N. process. Instead, it is standing over and against the United Nations. We believe we need the United Nations now more than ever.

Do you think the national ads and the public pleas for peace prayers have had much effect on the public’s—and on the president’s—opinion?
I think the president has been influenced. When he first announced he was going to war his language was quite different than it has been—well, until the last few days. Initially, he was not talking about using the U.N. at all, but then he went back to getting U.N. support.
I believe the population has shifted, as well. You don’t get above 50 percent supporting war with Iraq until you get to the fact that the U.N. has indicated that it would support the war. We have been working since June of last year to participate with the public in raising the issue. When we started, they were overwhelming supportive of the president. If he goes ahead now without the support of the U.N. and unilaterally, he will have a tough road ahead.

How optimistic are you now for a peaceful resolution?
If we could put our support behind the inspectors, I think we could keep nibbling away at the Iraqis and get them disarmed. I think we can still do that. They are dismantling the weapons they found. I don’t think we’ve used up all our diplomatic options. But it seems as though our president is not going to back down now. He will continue to find the excuse to go to war. The question now seems to be when it will happen, not if.

 

Ok...you want to be smug about it, fine. Two can play that game. What if Gerald Ford came out and supported military action in this instance, would you be the first to sing it from the mountaintops...I doubt it. This isn't about ex-Presidents and their opinions to you glynch, and you should admit it. This is something that you read where somebody who sounds impressive agreed with you so we should ALLLLLL take it as Gospel.

As for the church, I can speak on this because I am Catholic.

(1) Can you tell me the last war that the church publicly supported? NONE...next!

(2) Is this something important to you or is it a kind of "cafeteria" approach? For instance...the church is against the war thus so am I...but the church is also against contraception, but what the hell do a group of priests know about that? I don't care what they think?

All I seek here is a little consistency, and it seems you've given me none.

 

Well, the church was for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Jimmy Carter is old, wrinkley and useless.

 

Carter has a <b>strong</b> pacificist bent........so his opinon about Iraq is definitely colored by that. It is pathetic for anybody to portray him as an objective observer.


<a HREF="http://slate.msn.com/id/2065887/">Jimmy Carter He would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling voters.</a>

<i>

Jimmy Carter's post-presidential career has been characterized by a seemingly irresistible impulse to continue the presidency that American voters ended in 1980. Nowhere is this tendency more evident than in Carter's free-lance diplomatic efforts, which have been governed by an anti-democratic attitude: When faced with a conflict between democracy and peace, choose peace. Carter relentlessly promotes democracy abroad by monitoring elections and by making well-argued defenses of democracy and human rights, such as the one he made this past week in Cuba. But sometimes his ardor for peace has come at the expense of democracy—democracy in America.
<b>
During the buildup to the Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, Carter unsuccessfully worked to undermine the foreign policy of America's democratically elected president, George Bush. Carter behaved as the Imperial Ex-President, conducting a guerrilla foreign policy operation that competed with the actual president's. What's disturbing about this behavior is not that Carter opposed war with Iraq. Many Democrats opposed going to war, and they worked within the American system to try to prevent a war that many predicted would be bloody (which it was, for Iraq). But Carter went further than merely lobbying Congress to oppose military action or speaking out in an effort to tilt popular opinion against the coming war. He used his status as a former president to engage in foreign policy, a deliberate effort to subvert the democratic process.


In November 1990, two months after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the heads of state of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He urged the countries to drop their support for Bush's proposed military solution. Instead, as Douglas Brinkley outlines in The Unfinished Presidency, his glowing but not uncritical assessment of Carter's post-presidential years, Carter asked the countries to give "unequivocal support to an Arab League effort" for peace. (As Brinkley notes, Carter's anti-war position conflicted with the Carter Doctrine he had outlined as president: Any "attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such force will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.") Right up to Bush's Jan. 15 deadline for war, Carter continued his shadow foreign policy campaign. On Jan. 10, he wrote the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and asked them to oppose the impending military action. "I am distressed by the inability of either the international community or the Arab world to find a diplomatic solution to the Gulf crisis," he wrote. "I urge you to call publicly for a delay in the use of force while Arab leaders seek a peaceful solution to the crisis. You may have to forego approval from the White House, but you will find the French, Soviets, and others fully supportive. Also, most Americans will welcome such a move." Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft later accused Carter of violating the Logan Act, the law that prohibits American citizens from conducting unofficial foreign policy.
</b>
During the Clinton administration, Carter had similar difficulties coming to grips with the fact that he was not president. In 1994, President Clinton dispatched Carter to defuse an impending war with North Korea over that country's nuclear program. Again, Carter confused the foreign policy of the U.S. government with his own personal inclinations and conducted some free-lance diplomacy, this time on CNN. After meeting with Kim Il Sung, Carter went live on CNN International without telling the administration. His motive: Undermine the Clinton administration's efforts to impose U.N. sanctions on North Korea. Carter believed sanctions threatened the agreement he had worked out. By speaking directly to the world about the prospects for peace, he knowingly encouraged countries like Russia and China, which were resisting a sanctions regime. According to Brinkley, a Clinton Cabinet member referred to Carter as a "treasonous prick" for his behavior.

No matter: Carter reprised his direct-to-CNN antics during his trip to Haiti later that year. During his mission as envoy there, he also defied orders from Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Carter had a tendency to treat Christopher as his deputy secretary of state, which Christopher had been during the Carter administration, and not as his boss, which he was during the Clinton-sponsored Haiti mission.

Granted, during none of these scenarios did Carter's actions seriously damage the U.S. effort. The Bush coalition held firm, and wars with North Korea and Haiti were averted, in large part due to Carter's diplomacy. But democracy is focused on means, not just ends. Unlike John Quincy Adams and Theodore Roosevelt, ex-presidents who remained active in American politics after their terms expired, Carter has set himself up as separate from American politics. He says he aims to work in areas where he doesn't interfere with the White House or the State Department. But he has no problem interfering when it suits him. His efforts to end the trade embargo in Cuba may be laudable, for example. But Carter's position is at odds with the U.S. government's, and the American system is designed for only one president, and one foreign policy, at a time.

Carter trades on his role as a former president, and many of the non-democracies in which he works have difficulty understanding that he's not a major leader in the United States. Yasser Arafat, for example, once asked Carter to serve as an intermediary with the first Bush administration, not understanding that at the time Carter was tremendously unpopular with Republicans and Democrats alike. Other presidents trade on their former roles, too, cashing in by holding sinecures on corporate boards or by making lucrative speeches. But as distasteful as that behavior may be to some, it doesn't interfere with the current office-holder's ability to do his job. Imagine if all five former presidents, Ford and Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton, were perpetually jet-setting around the globe, pushing their own foreign policies and urging foreign leaders to oppose the policies put forward by America's government. That's the stuff of tin-pot dictatorships, not mature democracies.

Carter has done admirable work since he left office, particularly in Africa, where he has helped nearly to eradicate some deadly diseases. And when he's brokering a cease-fire during a civil war in Ethiopia, or promoting new agricultural techniques in sub-Saharan Africa, he's actively making the world a better place. But a benevolent ex-president is still an ex-president, and it would be nice if Carter remembered that more often.
<i>

 

I heard the funniest mixed metaphor today. I could NOT stop laughing. Even as I type now I am literally laughing. The guy on the show said They "were still ironing out the bugs." Man that is funny as ****. I just picture those poor lil' critters...Ironing out the bugs....Jeez.

 

Do you just make sh*t up whenever it suits you?

Carter served in the US Navy, on a fricking nuclear sub. Doesn't sound like a pacifist to me.

 

They are a church...OF COURSE they are against war.

Churches want peace in ALL situations...you know...Jesus...peace, love, tolerance...all of that???

This is why they are pretty much patently against war...genius.

 

No Worries -

Now, now, don't get all pissy just because another of your conspiracy theories got shot down. Making sh*t up? That Carter is a pacifist? What friggen world do you live in? Oh, that's right - the one where Carter is a warrior and Saddam is a wrongfully persecuted legitemate head of state who has no desire to either hurt the US or develop WMD...

Did you even bother reading Mango's article? Did Mango make that sh*t up, too???

 

Hey Treeman,

Let's do the math:

Bush Sr builds coalition to take back Kuwait
The US builds military base in Saudi Arabia
Coalition kicks Saddams's ass out of Kuwait
OBL is po-ed about the Great Satan's having a military base in the Holy Land of Mecca
OBL spear heads 9/11

Maybe Carter was right, letting the Arab Nations solve their own d*mn problems.

 

Can anyone name a single foreign policy crisis in the last decade or so that Carter has been successful in "solving", given that he has interjected himself into just about every single one?

At least he's consistent; here's his '99 editorial opposing military action in the Balkans:

Have We Forgotten the Path to Peace?
By JIMMY CARTER New York Times 5/27/99

After the cold war, many expected that the world would enter an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Those who live in developed nations might think this is the case today, with the possible exception of the war in Kosovo. But at the Carter Center we monitor all serious conflicts in the world, and the reality is that the number of such wars has increased dramatically.

One reason is that the United Nations was designed to deal with international conflicts, and almost all the current ones are civil wars in developing countries. This creates a peacemaking vacuum that is most often filled by powerful nations that concentrate their attention on conflicts that affect them, like those in Iraq, Bosnia and Serbia. While the war in Kosovo rages and dominates the world's headlines, even more destructive conflicts in developing nations are systematically ignored by the United States and other powerful nations.

One can traverse Africa, from the Red Sea in the northeast to the southwestern Atlantic coast, and never step on peaceful territory. Fifty thousand people have recently perished in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and almost two million have died during the 16-year conflict in neighboring Sudan. That war has now spilled into northern Uganda, whose troops have joined those from Rwanda to fight in the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire). The other Congo (Brazzaville) is also ravaged by civil war, and all attempts to bring peace to Angola have failed. Although formidable commitments are being made in the Balkans, where white Europeans are involved, no such concerted efforts are being made by leaders outside of Africa to resolve the disputes. This gives the strong impression of racism.

Because of its dominant role in the United Nations Security Council and NATO, the United States tends to orchestrate global peacemaking. Unfortunately, many of these efforts are seriously flawed. We have become increasingly inclined to sidestep the time-tested premises of negotiation, which in most cases prevent deterioration of a bad situation and at least offer the prospect of a bloodless solution. Abusive leaders can best be induced by the simultaneous threat of consequences and the promise of reward -- at least legitimacy within the international community.

The approach the United States has taken recently has been to devise a solution that best suits its own purposes, recruit at least tacit support in whichever forum it can best influence, provide the dominant military force, present an ultimatum to recalcitrant parties and then take punitive action against the entire nation to force compliance.

The often tragic result of this final decision is that already oppressed citizens suffer, while the oppressor may feel free of further consequences if he perpetrates even worse crimes. Through control of the news media, he is often made to seem heroic by defending his homeland against foreign aggression and shifting blame for economic or political woes away from himself.

Our general purposes are admirable: to enhance peace, freedom, democracy, human rights and economic progress. But this flawed approach is now causing unwarranted suffering and strengthening unsavory regimes in several countries, including Sudan, Cuba, Iraq and -- the most troubling example -- Serbia.

There, the international community has admirable goals of protecting the rights of Kosovars and ending the brutal policies of Slobodan Milosevic. But the decision to attack the entire nation has been counterproductive, and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and excessively brutal. There is little indication of success after more than 25,000 sorties and 14,000 missiles and bombs, 4,000 of which were not precision guided.

The expected few days of aerial attacks have now lengthened into months, while more than a million Kosovars have been forced from their homes, many never to return even under the best of circumstances. As the American-led force has expanded targets to inhabited areas and resorted to the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs, the result has been damage to hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen ambassadors, and the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians and an untold number of conscripted troops.

Instead of focusing on Serbian military forces, missiles and bombs are now concentrating on the destruction of bridges, railways, roads, electric power, and fuel and fresh water supplies. Serbian citizens report that they are living like cavemen, and their torment increases daily. Realizing that we must save face but cannot change what has already been done, NATO leaders now have three basic choices: to continue bombing ever more targets until Yugoslavia (including Kosovo and Montenegro) is almost totally destroyed, to rely on Russia to resolve our dilemma through indirect diplomacy, or to accept American casualties by sending military forces into Kosovo.

S o far, we are following the first, and worst, option -- and seem to be moving toward including the third. Despite earlier denials by American and other leaders, the recent decision to deploy a military force of 50,000 troops on the Kosovo border confirms that the use of ground troops will be necessary to assure the return of expelled Albanians to their homes.

How did we end up in this quagmire? We have ignored some basic principles that should be applied to the prevention or resolution of all conflicts:

Short-circuiting the long-established principles of patient negotiation leads to war, not peace.

Bypassing the Security Council weakens the United Nations and often alienates permanent members who may be helpful in influencing warring parties.

The exclusion of nongovernmental organizations from peacemaking precludes vital "second track" opportunities for resolving disputes.

Ignoring serious conflicts in Africa and other underdeveloped regions deprives these people of justice and equal rights.

Even the most severe military or economic punishment of oppressed citizens is unlikely to force their oppressors to yield to American demands.

The United States' insistence on the use of cluster bombs, designed to kill or maim humans, is condemned almost universally and brings discredit on our nation (as does our refusal to support a ban on land mines).

Even for the world's only superpower, the ends don't always justify the means.

 

What was the holy wars all about. Wasn't that started by the catholic church. Churches aren't against war because churches are run by people and people do things to serve their best interest. G dubb is supposedly strongly christian, but he apperently has no problem bombing the crap out of people that don't agree with him.

Religion for most people is just a way to justify the means they use to serve their best interest. I'm not knocking christianity or religion. I'm knocking the people who say they practice and then do something totally against its teachings.

 

Can you name one G W Bush has solved? What's your point?

 

The point is Jimmy Carter isn't the person to listen to on this issue. Why do you think we should listen to him? Because you agree with him?

 

Buck, excellent post. And you know my leanings. But that Carter essay, in hindsight, looks pretty damned weak.

 

Can anyone name a single foreign policy crisis in the last decade or so that Carter has been successful in "solving", given that he has interjected himself into just about every single one?

I believe he was instrumental in getting the Haitian dictator to step down, allowing the US to go in peacefully rather than invading.

 

Why shouldn't you listen to him, because you don't agree with him. We should listen because he has legitimate points. I'm not against using force to deal with Sadam. I just don't think Bush has done enough to avoid a war or get support from our world partners. If Bush has info on the smoking gun, he needs to share it if he wants their support.

 

I am sure that doesn't count for some important reason.

 

Carter's views are what makes America great, a dissenting voice.

I think he is very repsected around the world. More so then Geroge W.

However, Carter was a very weak president and he failed to stand up to Iran when they took the Hostages.

However, no one can fault Jimmy for using his forum to express his views.

Guys that fought in wars try to avoid them at all costs. And that, is not a bad thing.

DD

 

First of all, you can chose whomever you like to listen to. If you Carter is a fraud or whatever, don't listen.

Many people do listen to Carter and give weight to his words, including many who thought he was not a very good president. Carter's body of work since leaving the presidency (i.e. getting his *ss kicked by Reagan) is very distguishing. I will go further and say that all of his work in foreign countries gives him a perspective that very few Americans have.