Some historians have argued that World War II actually began with the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I. Many of the factors that contributed to the rise of the Nazis were the result of the unfair treatment of a vanquished enemy. There were other contributing factors as well.
When Winston Churchill was asked what they should call World War II he answered immediately—“The Unnecessary War.” He began warning early and unrelentingly that Hitler had to be stopped. The “peace loving” leaders of the time insisted that if they just gave him a few more concessions that he would be appeased and there would be peace in their time. Churchill was called by just about everyone “a warmonger.” Still he never wavered because he knew he was right. The war that resulted from the delusions of those who claimed to love and want only peace consumed nearly 100,000,000 lives. Will future historians make the same conclusions about the conflict that we are now in?
Bob Jones, a prophetic friend who has had remarkable accuracy in prophesying major international and national events, has maintained for many years that World War III began with the assassination of Anwar Sadat. At the time this looked improbable at best because the great point of conflict in the world was between communism and what is known as “the free world.” Then in the mid-1980s Paul Cain received a word that “communism will become commu-wasm,” but what would emerge from the meltdown of communism would be a merger of the remnants of communism with radical Islamic extremists, and it would be far more dangerous than communism ever was. That prophecy was true. Now we are facing just such a threat—it is more dangerous!
Bob Jones has also maintained adamantly that the Persian Gulf War was not over when it looked like it was over to the whole world. Again it appears that he has been right. Even so, both Bob Jones and Paul Cain are also resolute in believing that it would be a grave mistake for the United States to attack Iraq at this time. Why?
I have other prophetic friends that feel this is a righteous war and that the United States has a responsibility to act even if it has to do it alone. I am not trying to be political, but I believe both sides may actually be hearing from the Lord. How could that be? In I Corinthians 13:9 it says, “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part...” So if we are going to have the whole picture we must learn to put the different parts together that different people are getting. Until they are put together they do often appear to conflict.
I confess that I have a different view on this matter than maybe anyone else I know. I also do not claim to have heard anything personally from the Lord on this matter. I have prayed and asked Him to give me something clear about it, but He has not. The last time I prayed to hear from Him this much and He was silent, it was about Y2K. Finally, the Lord said that He was not going to speak to me about it because it was not going to be anything. That is what I shared and it proved to be true. I hope it is the same in relation with Iraq. I pray it is resolved in such a way that it really turns out to be nothing major, which I think it still can in spite of all appearances.
I am not prophesying that this is going to turn out to be nothing like Y2K, but I was given instructions to simply try to put together what other prophetic people are saying. That is what I am doing here. I am also going to share something that I believe the Lord did speak that was quite shocking, but we need to hear it if we are going to be prepared for what is coming.
Also, I think some of the greatest mistakes made by prophetic people are the result of thinking that what they have seen “in part” is the whole picture. So this bulletin is an attempt to look at the different things that are being said and try to see a bigger picture.
As with most political, ideological, or religious conflicts, the question of whether we should go to war with Iraq is causing almost everyone who has an opinion to move toward polar opposites on this issue. However, there is substantial merit on both sides of the argument. Very few wars in history have ever been a cut and dried good versus evil. Before I share my own view on this matter I think we should take a look at some of the basic points on each side of this issue politically so that we have a better picture of the different views.
Arguments for War with Iraq
Point One: There is no doubt that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We therefore have no doubt that they are hiding them effectively from the inspectors and refusing to give them up, which was a condition for ending the war in 1991.
Point Two: History, such as World War II, teaches repeatedly that the longer we wait to deal with rogue and ambitious dictators the more costly it will be. Hitler could have been stopped a number of times at a probable cost of just a few thousand lives instead of the tens of millions it ultimately cost to stop him. With weapons of mass destruction and modern technology, Saddam can do in minutes what it took Hitler years to do.
Point Three: Since the sanctions that are imposed on Iraq until they give up these weapons have cost them between one hundred and two hundred billion dollars, and they are risking a devastating war just to keep them, they obviously value them very highly, which they would not do if they did not have an intended use for them.
The projected uses for which they are willing to pay such a high price ranges from attacking their neighbors, Israel, or selling them to terrorists and other states. This last point could be why they do not seem to care much about lifting the sanctions if they are able to derive enough income from selling these weapons. There also seems to be substantial income coming to Iraq from sources other than oil that the resolutions allow them to sell for food and medicines.
For these reasons it is hard to see any scenario in which allowing Iraq to keep these weapons is not extremely dangerous and a genuine threat to world peace.
Point Four: Iraq is harboring terrorists, terrorist training bases, and is in league with Al Queda and other terrorist organizations that are enemies of the United States, making the present regime a threat to possibly even more devastating attacks on the United States.
Point Five: Sanctions and diplomatic efforts have not accomplished anything with Iraq. Wasting more time and effort with these only gives Saddam more time to develop more weapons of mass destruction, hide them, and/or distribute them.
Arguments Against War with Iraq
Point One: War will destroy many lives and should always be our very last resort.
Point Two: Saddam is not the madman that Western propaganda has made him out to be. No dictator is a nice guy, but he has not done anything worse than other dictators that we are not threatening. Many of the stories of his ruthless acts were obviously fabricated and were later proven to be false. There were atrocities in Kuwait, but it was never reported how Saddam had the responsible officers in charge of the men, punished, and in some cases executed.
Point Three: Contrary to Western propaganda, most Iraqis are loyal to Saddam and it is their will for him to stay in power. Many things which those who live under democracy consider ruthless oppression are still very common policies in most countries of the world. This does not make it right, but the people generally do not know anything different, and Saddam was actually called by one of the major United States news magazines “the Arab leader who cares the most for his people” just six weeks before the same magazine called him “worse than Hitler.” Why the change?
Point Four: Though it is acknowledged that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (almost no one disputes this), there is no specific evidence or intelligence that he has plans to use them against anyone. The same reasons that are used to take them away from him are reasons that could be used to take them away from the United States.
For example, the United States maintains its arsenal for defensive purposes as deterrence against aggressors. It seems that Saddam is doing the same. Saddam used gas against the Kurds, but the United States used nuclear bombs against Japan. Of course the United States did this to save lives on both sides. Saddam can argue that he did the same with the Kurds, using gas against a couple of villages to demonstrate his power and therefore end the conflict that would ultimately kill many more.
Point Five: Never has the United States ever attacked another country first without provocation or being attacked. There is no legal or moral justification for doing this and it will forever ruin the United States’ claim and reputation as a fair and just nation. This will galvanize anti-United States feelings among Islamic people worldwide, as well as many other nations. It will also incite many others to join terrorist groups, and make terrorist attacks against the United States, its citizens and its interests, further destabilizing world politics and the world economy.
Point Six: There is no proof or convincing evidence that Iraq is in league with terrorists, terrorist organizations, and is in fact been one of the strongest bulwarks against Islamic extremism among all of the Islamic states. Colin Powell’s assertion of the terrorist training base on Iraqi soil undermined his own argument, and to some, his credibility. If this was a terrorist base it was in territory controlled by the Kurds, not Saddam. If this was a terrorist training base why haven’t we attacked it as our jets obviously fly over it daily patrolling the “No Fly Zone?”
Point Seven: Just because sanctions and diplomatic efforts have not worked yet, maybe stronger ones would, and we should not give up on them yet.
Point Eight: North Korea is a far more dangerous problem. Al Queda is a more dangerous problem. Our fixation with Iraq is likely consuming many resources that should be used to solve these more important issues.
My Position
Point One: There is merit to both sides of this issue. There is no question that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and that the world would be much safer if Iraq did not have them. Even for those who argue that Saddam’s regime is still a natural enemy of Islamic extremism, who knows what will happen to those weapons if Saddam and his regime are removed? The real point of dispute is not whether Iraq should be made to give up their weapons of mass destruction, but whether a United States led invasion of Iraq is merited in this situation or at this time. I personally do not believe it is merited yet, but we are getting very close to the time when it is.
Point Two: It is possible that stronger sanctions and diplomatic efforts could work, but they would not have a chance without the very real threat of war that is now looming. President Bush’s apparent push for war could very well be the best, most effective, diplomatic scheme of all. I personally believe he is right to be taking the hard line that he is now taking, and that his unyielding resolve and consistency is the best chance for this to be worked out peacefully, even though it may well end up that we must go to war. If that happens it will be a tragedy for both sides, causing far more future problems, but the alternatives would be even worse. There are no easy solutions. I personally think our President’s leadership in this situation has been remarkable, wise, and unwavering, as it had to be. There are no perfect solutions in this imperfect world, and there is no perfect leadership in it either, but in my opinion he has done a great job.
Point Three: The weapons of mass destruction need to be removed from Iraq, but the removal of Saddam should not necessarily be linked with this. If one believes all of the propaganda about Saddam it would seem just and right for us to do whatever it took to get rid of him. I personally do not believe a lot of this propaganda, which has so many obvious and glaring contradictions in it. There is no question that he is a ruthless man—he is a dictator!
I do think he has family members who would be more dangerous in power, and there are some in his regime that would be more dangerous. This could be a good argument for removing him now, as he is getting quite old, and some feel that he is in very poor health. Even so, to leave Saddam in place has two significant advantages that should be considered.
The first is the enemy you know is usually better than the one you do not know. The ultimate replacement of the Hussein regime in Iraq would almost certainly turn out to be far worse in the long term for peace, Western interests, and for the other nations in the region.
Some would argue that this would not be if we put our own man in place, but those who are so placed in power often feel obligated to turn against those who put them in power to legitimize their authority. To establish this situation we will almost certainly have to maintain a long-term occupation of Iraq to some degree, just as we are in Afghanistan. Of course, this may be worth the cost, but there is some point that we are going to have to consider the lessons of “punching the tar baby.” We may think we are effectively hitting the problem while all along we are the ones being tied up, and could quickly find ourselves too tied up to deal with an even more dangerous threat that comes along.
The second is with Saddam in power there remains an excuse for patrolling Iraq to be sure that it does not cause any further problems in the region, an excuse we would not have for long if he were not there.
Point Four: The removal of Saddam from power in Iraq will almost certainly have a negative impact on Christians and those of other religions in Iraq, where they now enjoy the most religious freedom in the Middle East. Saddam himself approved the showing of the movie “Jesus” twice on Iraqi television. It seems that through all of the conflicts with the United States he has maintained his stance on the importance of religious liberty (which is the main reason why he is so hated by the Islamic extremists).
Point Five: North Korea is a far more dangerous threat to the United States and to the world. They are the primary ones exporting weapons to terrorists and other truly dangerous nations. Even if they do not use the nuclear weapons that they have, and are obviously committed to making more of, they are in such desperate need of cash that it is likely they will sell them to others who will use them. North Korea is also not far from having missiles that can hit United States territory. As I have been saying for years, this is one of the most dangerous countries on earth. It will get more dangerous every day if it is not confronted, and it will likely use to the fullest our preoccupation with Iraq.
Point Six: The conflict between India and Pakistan is another one of the most dangerous situations in the world. This conflict is headed toward becoming the first exchange of nuclear weapons in a war between two countries. The whole world will suffer terribly from this.
Point Seven: The best solution to the problem would be if Saddam would give up the “hide and seek,” with his weapons of mass destruction and simply give them up—all of them. This would remove any justification for an invasion, and it would enable the sanctions to be lifted that are still causing terrible suffering in Iraq.
The United States has not been totally just in its dealings with Iraq either. There are things that we need to make right that could again make Iraq the most pro-Western, pro-United States Islamic nation that it once was. If there is going to be a way to turn the tide against the Islamic extremism that threatens the entire modern world, this nation is one of the keys to it. Believe it or not, Saddam can be one of the keys to this. We should remember how the Lord used Nebuchadnezzar, to which Saddam has liked to compare himself. Would that not be the greatest victory of all? Would that not also be the most stunning victory for United States foreign policy?
This remains my prayer, that the Lord would use Saddam as an example of His power of redemption and reconciliation. That may seem naive, but I am convinced this is the Lord’s will in this matter. However, I also believe the Lord gives far more authority to His people than His people even realize, and He will not do this without the prayers of His people.
Other Facts
It seems now that most nations are against the present use of force against Iraq. That is not the case. Most are somewhere in between, and there are actually more nations that firmly back the United States resolution to attack Iraq if it does not disarm. Recently it has appeared that NATO is even turning its back on the United States, but fourteen of the seventeen nations in NATO support the United States position on Iraq rather than the proposal of France and Germany. Some of the nations supporting the United States include Britain, Australia, Italy, most of Eastern Europe and about forty plus other nations.
It is also being argued by the United States that if the U.N, or its resolutions, are to mean anything they must be enforced. The defiance of the U.N. resolutions by Iraq is seen as evidence that the U.N. is powerless to enforce its resolutions, and therefore the U.N. would certainly lose much of its power and influence in future international relations if they are not enforced. That may not be a bad thing.
In the past there have been so many resolutions that were unjust and one sided, especially in relation to Israel and the United States, that it could very well be in the best interest of the United States to see the power and influence of the U.N. radically reduced, or even neutralized completely. It seems that President Bush is close to disregarding the legitimacy of the U.N. and this could be a very good thing.
The conflict with Iraq is almost certain to have a great impact on the U.N. to either be much stronger or much weaker as a real force in international relations. There are other nations that stand to win or lose a great deal from this conflict. Richard Pearle, from the American Enterprise Institute, who was the Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, stated on Fox News that the French have cut a deal with Iraq that would guarantee their own protection from terrorism if they will resist the United States in its threat to invade Iraq. Others have also mentioned this. If this were proven to be true it would cast the present French leadership as one of the most cowardly and despicable in recent times. I personally have a hard time believing that these allegations are true, but if they do prove to be true, I also do not think it should be a reflection on the French people in general, or other French leaders. In spite of much of what the French say about the United States, they have been some of our best friends, and they have some of the best and most courageous fighters in the world. The French are not a cowardly people, and it is probable that they will quickly remove any leaders who have made such a league with evil.
Until the recent Prime Minister, Germany has also been one of our best friends in the world. It is likely that the people of Germany will not long tolerate the government that has so turned against the United States. It is true that both Germany and France now have substantial economic interests in Iraq, and they stand to lose much by a war. They will lose even more if they are not a part of the Alliance that goes in, if that becomes necessary, as they will then have no say in the future government of Iraq.
What I Have Been Shown
All of the above should be placed under the category of my perspective on these matters. I have tried to develop this by putting together what it seemed that the Lord was showing to others, but I still believe there may be many parts to this picture that we do not have. I also am not a politician or secular government authority, and do believe that the Lord shows to them things that pertain to their realm of authority that He does not necessarily show to those who are called to walk in spiritual authority.
There are so many areas that are not black and white in this that I am resolved to acknowledge to not know what I do not know, and pray for our leaders to be given the wisdom to do what needs to be done. Even so, there are no “perfect solutions” in this imperfect world, and sometimes the right thing to do is only slightly better than the wrong thing. This is what compels us to keep seeking the Lord and to implore His intervention.
What I have been shown was shocking to me, and that is the United States is going to become an increasingly oppressive nation. We are going to become more unrelenting in imposing our will internationally, and there is going to be an increasing loss of our liberty at home. What surprised me about this is I was shown that it was right. I can understand anyone who would disagree with this, and I would probably fully agree with you if I had not been shown the alternative.
The lawlessness that is growing throughout the world would result in such chaos and destruction that things would be much worse if the United States does not become much more assertive in its leadership. Now there are also major threats to us that are in the United States that must be found and dealt with, and there is a rising lawlessness in the United States that will be our destruction if not checked.
I will have more to say on this at a later time, but am I sharing this now so we can prepare for it. If we understand what is happening, we will not waste our time and energy fighting things that we should not be fighting, but keep our focus on what we as Christians should be doing—preaching and demonstrating the kingdom of God that alone cannot be shaken. The kingdom is coming, and those who are building their lives on the only foundation that cannot be shaken have nothing to worry about regardless of what happens in the world.
Pray for your leaders.