Armageddon Foreign Policy is Over

The past seven years have attracted a new breed of evangelicals: Armageddon Christians. The neo-conservative foreign policy combined with George Bush’s personal born-again experience has been the perfect combination for Evangelicals, who fell prey to the crusade-like policies of the current presidency.

Since evangelicals in the late 70’s were duped into thinking that born-again Jimmy Carter cared about their concerns, one would think they would learn from their mistakes. However, the most consistent characteristic of Armageddon evangelicals is that they are consistently willing to try the same error more than once. For them, the world divides into two categories: Us vs. Jihadists. There is no attempt to look contextually into the reasons Muslims attack us; there is no attempt to understand the legitimate theory of blowback explained by Chalmers Johnson. Thus saith George Bush. But this is the same George Bush who said that Islam and Christianity pray to the same god. One has to wonder why the evangelical mind is so naive in matters of foreign affairs. After seven years of “holy war” blunders, it is conceivable that some Armageddon evangelicals will abandon their ways and embrace a more sober foreign policy. A sober view of foreign policy means abrogating any dream of managing history through the barrel of a gun.


About Uri Brito

I am the Pastor of Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola, Fl.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Armageddon Foreign Policy is Over

  1. kepha says:

    Maybe they’ll finally become amil!!

  2. Vince says:

    I agree with you in some respects, I hold to a very classic Reformed Theology including Amil Eschatology. But we (The USA) hold many more interests in The Middle East besides what you call “Armageddon Foreign Policy”. As one who has been to The Arab Middle East, and has history dealing with Muslims in business; I would be very careful regarding Muslim Intent and Negotiations… Their mindset and Ideas regarding lying is very different than ours. I am not able to go further into detail in this format.

    Our Middle Eastern Policy is very complex; we have to take into consideration The Oil, which is the Life-Blood of our economy. And we must seriously consider our long standing relationship with Israel. And I mention Israel, not from a Dispensational prospective, but purely from that of a Friendly Democracy in that region of The World who requires our assistance.

    These Arab States actually hate us, but love to sell us their Oil. This should be more than enough impetus to make us become energy independent. But that remains to be seen. If we became Energy Independent, we could divest ourselves from the region except for helping Israel, and allow The Middle East to recede to its’ Dark Ages from whence it came… this is truly the desire of The Muslim Fundementalists. They would love to take their world back to the 10th century anyway.

    I may not agree with George Bush’s policies totally, but I would be very careful in holding out an “Olive Branch” to these Folks who I wouldn’t trust as far as I could spit. We live under a great tension between The Jews of Israel, and The Muslims with The Oil… Then there are our Arab, Persian and Palestinian Christian Brethren living there who have been totally forgotten; and they are in between the warring factions. They have been plundered for years by both sides…! How much assistance have we provided to the Palestinian Christians and our Brethren in Iraq…? None at all…! Where are the Apologists for these our Christian Brethren…?

    This is a dilemma of great magnitude, and I don’t think anyone from a Human Prospective has the answer. Only Christ can change these ancient hatreds and bring peace…! And with The Gospel being Outlawed in both Israel and Muslim Countries, it is very difficult to apply the only healing salve available to such an open wound…!

    So my Friend, it is easy to write your disagreement with “W’s” Foreign Policies on a Blog, but it is much more difficult to implement…

    One Man’s Opinion.

  3. apologus says:

    I assume this is the my brother Vince. I can gladly put a face into my thoughts. Vince, I appreciate your thoughts. I think I can say I know where you are coming from. The first thing to understand is that “Armageddon Foreign Policy” refers to a) Dispensational/Zionistic policy and b) foreign policy of fear, meaning if we don’t bomb A then we will be bombed by B. Many politicians have used this latter tactic successfully. Both theories are false.

    To let you know my presuppositions, I am coming from a Paleo-Conservative philosophy. These are not just thoughts on a blog. This is a fundamental Constitutional position held by Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Judge Andrew Napolitano and the honorable Dr. Ron Paul (many others as well). So this is a sustainable theses held by thinkers who have spent many years in the Middle East and that have studied closely the culture and the political implications of America’s foreign affairs in that part of the world. Chalmers Johnson’s book comes to mind. It is entitled “Blowback.” I highly recommend you read that book. It expresses in detail my own thinking of the consequences (blowback) of America’s policies overseas. Further, Dr. Johnson is a world scholar respected by the left and the right. Andrew Bacevich has also spent a considerable time in his newest book: “The End of American Exceptionalism,” speaking of the negative consequences of America’s interventionist/imperialistic endeavors. overseas. And finally, Robert Pape’s work is revolutionary. He spent over 20 years studying the mind and context of suicide terrorists and concluded that their main form of garnering support is because of American occupation in Middle Eastern countries, since particularly in 1953 with the overthrow of the Shaw. His work has yet to be refuted and in my humble opinion it will not.

    On a theological level, America has no right to support a nation (Israel) that has abandoned in every way their covenantal commitment to their God. But from a policy standpoint, as Michael Scheuer (former head of CIA Bin Laden unit) has noted: “Bin Laden has attacked us because we are over there bombing their people for the last decade.” This comes also from Bin Laden’s letters. My own feeling is we would also bomb them if they had been in our soil killing our people for the last decade.

    The honorable Ron Paul has made an excellent case in his book: ” A Foreign Policy of Freedom” that our support for the nation of Israel (which is defended by Zionists, Neo-Cons, Dispensationalists and Jewish leaders) has made Israel weaker and made other nations even more frustrated with our policies. The solution is not the simplest, but according to many paelo-cons, Israel would be far better without the US meddling in their affairs.

    Another point concerns the intent of our founding fathers who stated unequivocally that we ” are not to entangle ourselves in foreign alliances; we are not pursue dragons to destroy.” Many, including our current president, has mentioned that the constitution is just a piece of paper without modern relevance. I strongly disagree! The Constitution is the law of the land. Without it, we have the Patriot Act (a horrific act opposing our civil liberties), the Fisa Bill, Gitmo, torture chambers and a host of oppressive decisions made by the executive branch: all unconstitutional without a doubt. If our founding fathers must be listened to when speaking of limited government, they ought to be heeded when speaking of war. They knew this subject very well.

    You mention that we should not trust some of these leaders, but Reagan had no problem being diplomatic with Gorbachev. We are all glad he did. This government had no problem supplying weapons to the Iranians against the Iraqis in the 90’s or providing the evil Maliki with 10 million dollars, only to find it has all been spent in vain. If we are to doubt these men, then let us not support terrorists in one year and try to kill them the next.

    Our Christian Brethren in the Middle East have suffered greatly under many regimes, but their situation has only worsened after US wars. In Iraq, Saddam had lenient regulations for Christian missionaries. After the war, Christian missionaries have left almost in their entirety.

    I appreciate your points Vince, but I think your ideas are in direct contradiction with the spirit of the Constitution and the prevalent scholarly work I mentioned.

    Two quick points:
    a) Eschatology may be significant in these matters, but it is not always the point. For instance, my candidate Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party is a Dispensationalist who finds America’s support for Israel abhorrent.
    b) Also, you write that it is easy to blog about my disagreements with W’s foreign policy. Blogging is the tool that has led to many important political decisions. For instance, bloggers on the NRO have influenced some policy makers; bloggers on Huffington Post have influenced liberal politicians. So blogging is not just a insignificant tool, it actually has some affect in the political process. And you write: ” it is much more difficult to implement.” Well, of course it is difficult! That is why Ron Paul ran on his non-interventionist foreign policy. He was ridiculed, mocked, but in the end found vindicated. Implementing a foreign policy of freedom may take many years. I am just an imperfect apologist for the position.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s