Monday, June 26, 2006

Bush in Austria

I was really sad by the reaction to Bush in Austria last week. Where was it in Europe that a hefty percentage considered the US a greater destablizing force in the world than Iran or North Korea? It appears that the general feeling of the world toward us right now is generally negative everywhere.

Other things have struck me as well. Karzai in Afghanistan has criticized American forces for killing 400 fighters in southern Afghanistan. Also, the prime minister of Iraq is calling for amnesty to Iraqis who have fought against the US.

On the one hand, I don't care about foreign opinion as much if I feel confident we have the moral high ground. I feel we had generally good intentions, but not the moral high ground.

So I have tried to ask myself objectively, "Who has destabilized the world more in the last 4 years (that is, in the time after 9-11)?" Al Qaeda sparked the destabilization of the world at 9-11, to be sure. But I don't think our actions in Iraq have worked at all toward its stabilization, even though that was our intention. I think, in terms of the past four years, we have had a far more destabilizing effect on the Middle East than Iran. The question is where it is going--will the net effect be more stability or more instability. I do not feel confident at all that it will be more stability.

I feel we have effectively cemented a new generation of coming terrorists. If the Russian-Afghan war of the 80's raised bin Laden. Then I fear in twenty years we will be fighting someone we have helped raise in Iraq. I hope we will not follow the same courses of action then that we followed in the 80's and are following again now.

I say in all sincerity. If I had been president instead of Bush, we would be on the best terms with the world now that we have ever been, including the Muslim nations, and we would have been concentrating on stabilizing Afghanistan all this time instead of pursuing tangential adventures in our own blood and budget letting in Iraq. Iraq did not start as a war against terrorism.

When all is said and done. Iraq and Afghanistan will not be more our allies than Turkey or Egypt. And that will not have been worth the loss it took to get there.
Posted by at

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stick with theology and leave the politics alone. That's my recommendation!

12:41 PM
Anonymous said...

You will sooner or later sadly learn that a professor could be liberal in their theology or bible intrepretation and get away with it far easier than to lean any way but right on their politics. I agree with the above advice--steer clear of any positions that do not 100% support George Bush and Co. and lift up Republicans as God's saviours of the USA.

Evangelicals have made up their minds and they are not going to listen to one isolated college professor trying to convince them elsewise.

You may be right, you may have strong biblical foundations, you may be theologically accurate in serving as a prophet on such issues but remember what they did to the prophets--they killed them for their unpopular "unpatrotic" messages.

American evangelicals will do the same to you. They have no room for prophets. If good Bible/theology disagree with their politics there is no contest--politics will win and Biblical intrepretation and theology will be revised to reflect the politics. Write about Bible and theology and you can continue to be safe from these modern crusaders on the right.

--From a sister school

3:04 PM
Ken Schenck said...

For anyone who might be worried, I don't generally share my political views in class. Most assume my views are the same as theirs--and often they are.

But as Dobson found out... hardly anyone responds to my biblical posts! It gets lonely.

I guess Dobson tried to get out of politics once but lost so much financial backing that he had to let people go!

:-)

3:09 PM
Anonymous said...

Ken, I am a conservative Repubican and I am sorry to say disagree with the Bush policy in Iraq. We had no business going into that country. The US could have contained Saddam and bombed him occasionally to remind him that we are watching. It was an unjustified war.

You may be right about the future of Middle East Politics toward the US. They apparently do not appreciate our good intentions. The only good thing that I see has happened since these wars is that no attacks on the US have happened since 9/11, instead the terrorists are in Afgah.and Iraq fighting the Marines, Army Rangers and Green Berets instead of the city cops in NYC, LA and Chicago.

6:04 PM
Ken Schenck said...

I would like to think that Bush's phone tapping and eavesdropping activities have helped stop any terrorist plots. I myself am not too concerned about my privacy--after all, I'm not trying to hide anything and no McCarthy has thrown me into prison for my blogging.

Whether the war in Iraq has diverted Al Qaeda's attention from America, I'm not sure. I have significant doubts. It seems like we have perhaps generated far more terrorists than before from the anger we've generated in the Muslim world (a world I might add that was largely sympathetic to us immediately following 9-11).

We created Zarqawi as a major player by naming him a major player. So bin Laden reluctantly accepted him as a part of some new "Al Qaeda in Iraq" after the fact. This "home grown" cell in Miami had no ties to anyone--they were fishing for connections. They would not have existed before Iraq. In the end, Zarqawi would never have had any impact on American soil--he was just a lowlife thug, lower class trash.

I would have rather have fought these insurgents in Afghanistan.

My two cents...

10:42 PM
Anonymous said...

Wow Ken. If you were president "we would be on the best terms with the world now that we have ever been". And Schaeffer and Dobson are "kindergartenish".

You seem to have an amazing grasp of ... everything! Can you leap tall buildings in a single bound too? ;-)

I enjoy your writing but I have to call em like I see em.

11:18 AM
Ken Schenck said...

That's all I'm doing. :-)

3:30 PM
Ken Schenck said...

In all seriousness, when you've been around scholars who make you feel stupid and incompetent when you grasp just the smallest bit of the complexity they are able to grapple with... and then you return to Schaeffer or even Lewis, they don't seem too impressive any more. And it may not even be a question of intelligence; it is often a matter of paradigm. There's just far too diverse data in the world to fit into the simple typologies of a Schaeffer.

And with regard to Bush, it wouldn't have taken much to build on the good will of the world after 9-11. We have forgotten how even Muslim countries we are on shaky terms with were at least putting on a good show of sympathy back then. It was a golden opportunity to capitalize on, not rocket science. My comment was about the incompetency and mismanagement of the Bush administration, not about me.

It is not how great I am... it is that I have seen a glimpse of what it would be like to be greater... and it is not Bush, Dobson, or Schaeffer.

3:55 PM
Anonymous said...

Dr. Schenk, there is a reason why world class theologians are never elected to the presidency, as much as we might wish for someone of that caliber in the White House: they are not good at politics. George Bush may not be brilliant, but he (along with Bill Clinton, Reagan and other lesser lights) is good at what he does; getting elected. I have mixed feelings about the war in Iraq, in fact, I wonder if in a quiet moment Big W questions whether or not he bit off more than he could chew.
However, as right as you may be on matters of foriegn policy, and as wrong as Bush may be, I have not seen any real alternatives put up by those who could make a difference. What is the Democratic position on the war? Don't ask Hillary, John K, or Nancy Pelosi, they don't seem to know. Oh, that Howard Dean had been elected president :). As much as I find fault with our current president, even though I voted for him twice, I can't seem to generate any enthusiasm for the viable alternates offered by the only other party that has a prayer of getting someone elected. But maybe I'm just not too bright, myself. After all, I read a bumper sticker just the other day which said, "I think, therefore I am liberal." There were several other bumper stickers on the car, but they wouldn't be appropriate to repeat here. Let's just say they were cartoonish :), to put it mildly. And that seems to be so typical of non-Christian libs, they can't seem to dialogue without resorting to the crude, rude, profane and downright obscene. I find myself thinking that "My lack of education hasn't hurt me none, I can read the writing on the wall." (Yeah, I know the guy who wrote that was probably not a conservative).
I personally don't mind your expression of political opinions, and I am quite certain I could never "convert" you, frankly, I lack the intellectual firepower to do so. Too bad there is not a true media via in American politics, but for now, it is pretty much either/or. I consider myself a thinking/reflecting Christian, and yes, I listen to Dobson (some, and NPR some) and read Lewis, Touchstone, and World, and believe there is a viable defense for conservative politics in general, even though the execution is sadly not what any of us might hope for. This is not news to you, of course. But keep thinking, and posting, and godspeed to you for challenging us. P. S. I may not agree with your politics, but I would rather have you politically liberal than theologically so.

11:39 AM
Ken Schenck said...

I think I agree with almost everything you said here, John (Mark?). And I'd like to think you could convince me of any number of things. I'm sure I don't follow through, but I at least think I am interested in the truth rather than sticking to my guns or looking smart. I think several times someone has filled me in on things I hadn't considered here.

And I agree with you that I don't want Kerry, Pelosi, Dean, or Hilary as my president. And it doesn't seem that a good middle of the road, balanced type can get elected. You probably wouldn't agree with me, but I personally would take a McCain, Powell, Clark, and others from both sides.

12:48 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)