The Righteous Empire

By Louis R. Eltscher

The Battle of Verdun in World War I is considered by some historians to have been history's worst battle in terms not only of casualties relative to numbers engaged but to the length of the struggle as well. It raged from February to November 1916, and according to several reliable sources, it became the graveyard of some 300,000 to 400,000 men. Of those who survived, between 700,000 to 800,000 were gassed or wounded. These figures represent approximately “one death a minute, day and night, for the ten months that the battle lasted.”

I have had an interest in visiting those killing fields for many years because I wanted to see for myself the consequences of history's first total, industrialized and mechanized war. That wish was fulfilled last October. What I saw there exceeded my worst expectations. The images of the death and destruction that descended upon that tortured ground will haunt me for the rest of my life. In addition to the battlefield itself, however, was a sight that provided me with a vivid object lesson in the ways in which religion can be enlisted, perverted and subverted to serve the interests of the state.  

At the midpoint of the building is a tall spire or steeple that can be seen for miles around. It is designed to represent an artillery shell. At the very apex of this “artillery shell” is a Christian cross. When I saw this structure I was stopped short, virtually stupefied. The symbolism astounded me. Here was Christ in the service of the French nation.

One of the most prominent structures at the battlefield site is the Ossuary, which holds the remains of some 130,000 unknown soldiers. It is situated at the top of a prominent hill overlooking a cemetery containing the graves of 15,000 French soldiers who died in the battle. The Ossuary itself is somewhat reminiscent of a stylized and elongated Quonset hut, with its rounded roof giving the appearance of a half cylinder resting on its side. At the midpoint of the building is a tall spire or steeple that can be seen for miles around. It is designed to represent an artillery shell. At the very apex of this “artillery shell” is a Christian cross.

When I saw this structure I was stopped short, virtually stupefied. The symbolism astounded me. Here was Christ in the service of the French nation. Armageddon had come and gone. The great battle was over. Satan and his minions had won. Civic religion had triumphed and Jesus, now a Frenchman, was serving the state.

As I ponder these images, I am reminded of events currently transpiring in my own country, and of the way in which religion is being subverted in the interests of state policy. I am also reminded of fascism and how it has used religion to support its program. And I am disturbed. The similarities are very disquieting.   

From its start, the so-called “war on terror” has been cast in Manichean terms, which was clearly expressed in the famous “axis of evil” reference in President Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address. This sort of self-righteous moralizing and demonizing of the adversary is hardly anything new in the history of American foreign policy. What is new, however, is the way in which current policy gives at least the appearance of being shaped by religious doctrine, especially evangelical dispensationalist theology, which contends that human history is divided by God into “dispensations.” According to this theology, human history will culminate in Christ's return to earth to establish his millennial kingdom. Therefore, the duty of the United States of America is to prepare for this apocalyptic event.

The implications of all of this are many and profound. When, for example, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona reputedly subscribes to a “faith-based foreign policy,” it's time for evangelicals to pause, take a deep breath and think about where this sort of thinking is taking the United States of America in this 21st century world.

Traditionally, the evangelical wing of American Protestantism espoused a theology that demanded “separation from the world,” which in practice meant a dedication to the principle of separation of church and state. Former President Jimmy Carter argues that all of this began to change about 25 years ago, when the Republican Party began to meld with fundamentalist Christianity, especially with the Southern Baptist Convention. The facts support his contention. The last quarter of the 20th century saw a growing religiosity within the Republican Party that seemingly has reached fulfillment with the administration of George W. Bush. Political scientist Kevin Phillips, in his recent book, American Dynasty , traces the connection between evangelicalism, especially the Texas variety, and George W. Bush. As a self-proclaimed “born-again Christian,” Mr. Bush evidently has appropriated the major themes of current evangelical doctrine into his own Weltanshauung and has used them as the basis for his foreign policy. For example, he has adopted an unlimited pro-Israeli stance that far surpasses that of any previous occupant of the White House. The foundation of this evangelical Zionism is the belief that Israel is the key to world history, and by giving unqualified support to Israel, the faithful can “hasten the Lord's return,” and usher in Christ's millennial reign.

The so-called “neocons,” or neoconservatives, who currently dominate the Department of Defense, are at the least complicit in promoting this view. Although they obviously do not subscribe to the evangelical dispensationalist doctrine, they most certainly do subscribe to Zionism, and they have been active for many years in promoting an unrestrained pro-Zionist U.S. foreign policy. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a very pro-Israeli organization financed largely by Richard Mellon Scaife, has been instrumental in producing a document entitled, “ A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm .” Written in 1996 by Richard Perle and other neocons, allegedly with input from Benjamin Netanyahu [the right-wing former prime minister of Israel], this document stresses the need for Israel to devote its energies to “rebuilding Zionism.” It also argues that “Our claim to the land – to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years – is legitimate and noble.” This view dovetails nicely with evangelical eschatology.   (Incidentally, the IASPS document also called for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power well before the 9/11 tragedy.)

Armed with dispensationalist theology and neocon support, President Bush could now wage war on the “evil forces” that were responsible for the 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. . . he believes that Muslims are trying to kill Christians, “And we Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know.”

Armed with dispensationalist theology and neocon support, President Bush could now wage war on the “evil forces” that were responsible for the 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. Peter and Rochelle Schweizer have written a book entitled The Bushes , in which they claim that the president sees the war on terror as a religious war. According to them, he believes that Muslims are trying to kill Christians, “And we Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know.” If indeed this is his belief, it would explain much about current American Middle Eastern policy. Former CIA Director James Woolsey has claimed that this “war against radical Islam” is “World War IV.” Thus there is to be no negotiation, no discussion, and no compromise with the adversary. One can only speculate about how many Verduns will have to be fought before victory in this war will be achieved.

This approach to international affairs has been described as a   “crusading – what one might call ‘madman' – school of right-wing foreign policy . . .” The neocons have been characterized as being infused with the righteousness of the true believer. Thus the neoconservative movement melds with the evangelical Weltanschauung to produce an ideologically driven foreign policy based upon a Manichean ethic. Ideology, it must be remembered, provides a very simplistic way of observing human events and giving meaning and understanding to a bewildering array of factual information. The ideologue views reality through a distorted lens that eliminates all nuances and all shades of gray.   It has been suggested that: “Ideology provides a . . . set of beliefs that [requires no] empirical confirmation. Evidence that contradicts those beliefs is summarily dismissed.” When the two elements – neocon ideology and dispensationalist evangelical theology – are combined, a toxic mixture results, producing a rigid, crusading and militaristic foreign policy.

Hence, the ramifications of this neocon cum evangelical Weltanschauung are many and varied. Two examples will suffice. First of all, it provides a rationale for American global intervention in order to bring the blessings of a superior American civilization to the less fortunate countries – whether they want those blessings or not – and to use our awesome power to promote a utopian vision that in reality serves American interests.   We will dominate in order to liberate and enlighten. This is nothing less than neocolonialism, a return of manifest destiny with a vengeance. Secondly, this Weltanschauung argues that we must also use our awesome power to destroy the palpable evil that threatens to undermine world order, in this case, the Islamic extremist infidels who threaten to destroy Christian civilization. We will spread democracy “unilaterally and by force, if necessary.”

Men who are either members of or closely connected to the current administration have presented these arguments forcefully on occasion, such as two prominent neoconservatives, William Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan. Referring specifically to the Middle East, they are quoted as follows: “Well, what is wrong with dominance, in the service of sound principles and high ideals?”

The question is valid. What could be nobler than to use the awesome power of the United States to bring about a transformation of the Middle East that would give that tortured part of the world the peace, order and stability it so desperately needs? The answer, in the abstract, is “nothing.” In theory, idealistic goals, whether pursued by individuals or nations, are praiseworthy and deserve to be emulated. Politics, however, functions within the framework of power relationships rather than as an abstraction. Politics is the application of power to specific issues.

And therein lies a problem, which the British historian, Lord Acton, has summarized clearly and succinctly in his famous aphorism: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This statement, however trite it may be, nevertheless suggests that there is a fatal flaw within the genetic code of the human species, predisposing it to ultimate failure in its attempts to achieve perfection when dealing with political issues. This flaw has been analyzed and described in various ways by countless philosophers, statesmen and theologians throughout recorded history. Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the truly seminal minds of twentieth century American philosophy and theology, has contended that every thought and action of humanity, every attempt at creative achievement, is inevitably marred by the corrupting influence of human pride. As a theologian, he identified the problem as “sin,” which he defined as pride and self-love. However we may wish to describe this phenomenon, the fact remains that human history is littered with the debris of failed utopias, many of which have ended in tyranny of the worst sort. The perfect idea becomes corrupted by human pretense, which invariably tries to mask its actions in the name of some higher moral goal. Our ambitions become translated into “God's will” or the “peoples' will,” or whatever rationalization suits our purposes. Thus, every ideal, however high or exalted, will become corrupted the moment it achieves political power. It will be reinterpreted in such a manner as to promote and preserve the power structure that proclaims it.

Two classical examples of this phenomenon can be found in the French and Russian Revolutions. Each of them began with the belief that the ideology that they represented would produce a perfect world. Each of them concluded with a return to an authoritarian rule more repressive than its predecessor. Although each was democratic in name, the people themselves had no share in the power that was exercised in their name.  

This conflict between altruism and self-interest is the source of the hypocrisy to which Americans seem oblivious but which is readily apparent to the rest of the world. In sum, good intentions and noble goals will not protect us from the corruption that is implicit in the exercise of absolute power.

The perspective of history suggests a similar scenario for William Kristol's utopian dream of a selfless America using its awesome power in the service of sound principles and high ideals. They too will become perverted to serve America's interests and power, and we deceive ourselves when we say that we will use that power in a completely altruistic manner to create a “new” Middle East. Our interests are destined to pervade the whole process of reconstruction. This conflict between altruism and self-interest is the source of the hypocrisy to which Americans seem oblivious but which is readily apparent to the rest of the world. In sum, good intentions and noble goals will not protect us from the corruption that is implicit in the exercise of absolute power. Hence, the noble goal of creating a “new” Middle East based upon the American model will doubtlessly fail. More than 50 years ago, a similar experiment was attempted in China. It failed, and we are reminded of the words of historian Barbara Tuchman: “In the end, China went her own way, as if the Americans had never come.” One suspects that a similar scenario will unfold in the Middle East.

A second quote, reflecting the belief that the United States is engaged in a mortal conflict with Islamic radicals, is attributed to Vice President Richard Cheney. Speaking of al Qaeda, he is reported as having said: “The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it.” Unfortunately, this attitude will only lead to a further escalation of hostilities with an ever upward-spiraling level of violence, wherein terrorism and the responses to it become indistinguishable. This sort of mind-set reduces us to the level of our fanatical adversary. As this adversary demonizes us, so we must demonize him. We characterize him as a “Hitler” and apply the so-called “lessons” learned in the war against Nazi Germany to every international dispute that comes along. In fact, not every tyrant that comes along is a “Hitler” and not every country that he rules is a Nazi Germany. Moreover, no matter how abhorrent the beliefs and actions of the terrorists whom we oppose may be, the fact remains that genuine and valid grievances and issues fuel their actions, and until the United States addresses them, terrorism will continue to flourish. Our failure to grasp this reality only exacerbates the problem. The fact that millions of people worldwide view Osama bin Laden as a hero while at the same time they vilify George W. Bush should tell this nation something.

No, Mr. Vice President, with all due respect, you are wrong. You cannot destroy this adversary. For every Osama bin Laden you kill, a score will arise in his place, preaching the same murderous message. However perverse an idea may be, it can never be destroyed. We destroyed Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime, but Nazism as an idea is alive and well over half a century after the end of World War II. The best this nation can hope to achieve is a neutralization of bin Laden and al Qaeda by successfully resolving the issues that legitimize him and his organization. The most explosive and critical of those issues is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which weaves its way through the entire fabric of Middle Eastern politics and society like a scarlet thread. Within the Arab world, American credibility in general – and the credibility of this administration in particular – has been destroyed by its pro-Israeli bias. The prevailing belief among Arabs worldwide is that, because of the persistent favoritism shown by the American government toward Israel, the United States is incapable of pursuing a balanced Middle Eastern policy. A move by the American government to correct this imbalance would be a major step forward in the resolution of the terrorist threat. Unfortunately the influence of evangelical dispensationalist theology and Zionism within the current administration creates an effective barrier to a more balanced Middle Eastern foreign policy.

As the “struggle against evil” unfolds, terror confronts counter-terror in an ever-escalating cycle of violence. In each case, the finale is the same: innocent people die and we are no nearer to a solution of the underlying problems that brought about the terrorism. One is reminded of the words of Albrecht von Wallenstein, the great Habsburg military commander in the Thirty Years War: “In the end, after all countries are reduced to ashes, we shall have to make peace.”

The two quotes of Kristol/Kaplan and Cheney form a duumvirate of ideas that contain the seeds of disaster for this country and its constitutional system. The attempt to legitimize political power in the name of high ideals becomes a justification for the suppression and ultimately the destruction of whatever opposition may arise – or may appear to arise.

For example, the war analogy, which at best is a very imperfect description of the terrorist threat, enables the administration to justify whatever action it wishes to take in response, including the suppression of civil liberties and the exploitation of fear to promote its policies. This nation is fond of using the term “war” in a variety of ways, such as the “war on crime,” and the “war on drugs.” In reality, the conflict, as Senator John Kerry has pointed out, is “not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering operation, law enforcement, public diplomacy effort.” In sum, the United States is engaged in a conflict that will not be decided upon the field of battle. Nevertheless, the carefully crafted rhetoric of the current administration permits it to take actions in the name of military necessity but of questionable constitutionality that otherwise would be resisted by the American people.

The indiscriminate use of force against the adversary beyond our shores ultimately will bring exhaustion and weakness. The United States of America is undoubtedly the single most powerful nation in world history. It is not all-powerful, however. Nemesis inevitably follows Hubris.

In this atmosphere, the conflict with the adversary becomes open-ended. The “righteousness” of the cause becomes the rationale for an ever-widening commitment to the realization of the goal. In such situations, the state will become more authoritarian domestically and more expansionist internationally. If our nation follows this imperial path it will – like all empires in world history – eventually become over-extended, especially if it acts in a unilateral manner to impose its particular “solutions” to international issues. The indiscriminate use of force against the adversary beyond our shores ultimately will bring exhaustion and weakness. The United States of America is undoubtedly the single most powerful nation in world history. It is not all-powerful, however. Nemesis inevitably follows Hubris.

Unfortunately, Christian evangelicals, perhaps unwittingly, have been enlisted in the pursuit of a foreign policy that has been described as a “dangerous fantasy.” The mission of the Christian Church is not to impose an American imperium upon the world. Rather it is to promote peace and to spread the love of Christ with acts of mercy and compassion. There is no place in the Christian gospel for a civic religion that serves the interests of the state. The nation is ill served by sincere but misguided Christians who blindly and mindlessly support these policies. The image of the cross atop the “artillery shell” should be a reminder of this.

The history of the 20th century is replete with examples of nations that have embraced an ideology in which religion has become the handmaiden of politics and the state. A bona fide national debate about the role of the United States of America in world affairs – and about the role of the church in the United States of America – is desperately needed. Whether such a debate will be forthcoming, however, remains to be seen, especially since dissent from established policy is often viewed as activity that is tantamount to treason. In this context, still another quote, this one from World War II, seems to be appropriate:

Why of course the people don't want war…. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. [Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, Chief of the Luftwaffe.]

Louis R. Eltscher is a professor emeritus at the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, N.Y. He may be reached by email at loucar@frontiernet.net .