A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation - New York Times

A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation - New York Times

I know this may sound heretical to some, but I think this article makes some accurate statements. The journalist believes not that the United States was a Christian nation at its founding but that the United States was a nation of Christians at its founding.

I believe that the distinction is critical. If we believe that the United States was a nation of Christians and was blessed of God for that, then our goal and desire will be to see our nation as 300 million individuals turn back to God. If the nation is predominantly or overwhelmingly Christian, prayer will be returned to our schools, Biblical principles will be upheld in our courts, and godliness will flourish in the town square. We will once again see God's blessing on our families, our churches, our economy, our foreign policy, etc.

However, if we believe that the United States was a Christian nation our goal and desire will be to see laws and rulings that conform with our interpretation of Scripture. If the hearts of citizens, however, remain outside the power of the Holy Spirit how will they keep the laws that a legislature passes. Is not prayer in schools a mockery if the hearts of the children are not participating in a reverent way. Are laws against adultery, homosexuality, and all other perversion a band-aid on the blood-gushing wound of sinfulness and evil unless there is a Holy Spirit to change the hearts of men that are corrupt and deceitful above our imagining?

Our nation will never be one nation under God only because there are certain laws in place. Our nation will be under God when American citizens as individuals are under God. By this I do not mean that we should not try to legislate morality. I think we should. I think murder should be against the law and adultery and theft and perjury (all of which are in the Ten Commandments by the way). But simply having the laws on the books does not make our nation righteous.

Two Biblical examples spring quickly to mind. The first impacts our understanding of what makes a nation righteous. Josiah was very zealous for the LORD God of Israel, and the Bible commends him for it. The story of his reforms is found in I Chronicles 34. Near the end of the chapter God through the prophetess Huldah gives Josiah a very interesting message. Let me quote it for you before I make my observation.

2Ch 34:24-27 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: (25) Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched. (26) And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of the LORD, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel concerning the words which thou hast heard; (27) Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the LORD.

I have highlighted the words that are critical to our understanding of this passage. God contrasts the wickedness of the people with the righteousness of the king. Although Josiah was righteous and very thorough in purging Judah and even Israel, the actions of the people only changed superficially - their hearts remained unrepentant. Consequently, I believe that they chaffed under Josiah's reforms, and the Bible is clear that as soon as the king died they honored his corpse and immediately went back to doing evil.

Laws do not change hearts. In fact, in a society with a representative government like our own, laws reflect the state of society. While there are circumstances where the laws can not reflect society exactly, such as an unusually vocal minority or a swiftly changing society, the laws and judicial processes of our country show what kind of society that we have. What we Christians have failed to come to grips with during the previous decades is that the reason we are losing political and judicial battles is because we have lost the heart of the average American. Even church-going Americans (and by that, I simply mean Christians that attend any church) are often content to let abortion stand, to allow pornography to proliferate, to watch homosexuals join the military, to drive by a bar without praying. In short, we are happy to criticize and complain, but we are not willing to take the steps needed to make a difference.

The second Scripture God reminded me about while recently reading through Ezekiel. God is showing the wickedness of the people of Jerusalem to Ezekiel in a vision. In the vision God calls six men to Himself. All of them have slaughter weapons and one also has an inkhorn. The one with the inkhorn is told to go through the city first and mark those who hate the abominations that God hates. The others are then instructed to go through the city killing old and young, men, women, and children. "And begin at My sanctuary," God commands them (Eze. 9:6). What a reminder that true revival in any country begins in the church! I Peter 4:17 echoes this when it states, "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God."

I think one obstacle to change in American society at large, change that will truly make our great United States a nation of Christians, is churches. By and large, churches think that everything is fine with them, and it is the world that needs our help. This is particularly true of a large number of independent Baptist churches. Our attitude can most often be summed up as, "We're okay - it's everyone else that's messed up."

The truth is that all of us need the help of Jesus Christ. Only through Jesus Christ can Christians live lives that are truly different than the world. All Christians have to offer the world is Jesus Christ. Our job as Christians is to point the way to Jesus Christ.

Over forty years ago a wise preacher said, "To me there is nothing more tragic or shortsighted or lacking in insight than the assumption, made by so many, that [churches are] all right and all [they must] do is to evangelize the world outside. Every revival proves clearly that men who are outside the church always become attracted when [churches begin] to function truly as the Christian Church, and as individual Christians [should act]." This same preacher said, "I am never tired of saying that what the church needs to do is not to organize evangelistic campaigns to attract outside people, but to begin herself to live the Christian life."The moral degradation of our country begins with Christians who look at their neighbors and say, "I am not as bad as they are." We now watch on TV and through the Internet shows and programs that Christians decades ago would have shuddered at. The same movies that made Christians in the 50's boycott movie houses are movies that today Christians consider classics. As a missionary I am often invited into American Christians' homes. I am constantly amazed at the videos that Christians have sitting openly on their shelves - not movies from the 50's either.

Instead we as Christians ought to examine ourselves to see if our lives are reflecting Jesus Christ. Only then as our lives reflect Jesus Christ and our words point to the Savior can we expect true change to begin in America. The great comfort of this truth is that we do not have to vote for a new President or a new Congress. We are not waiting for the pastor to be a better preacher or the Sunday school class to be more interesting. We are not dependent on judges to rule righteously or conditions to change, instead we are focused on changing ourselves to be conformed to the image of God's Son. We can start now to make a better America.

Let me end with one more quote from the same preacher whom I quoted earlier. "The glory of the gospel is that when the Church is absolutely different from the world, she invariably attracts it."

Biblical Living: Following Every Rule for One Year - Newsweek Beliefs - MSNBC.com

Okay, it's not that big of a deal, but in the article to follow you'll notice in the very first question that the fellow admits that he could not live a sin-free life. The (possibly eternal) tragedy is that he never understood that there is forgiveness and righteousness in Jesus Christ!

Biblical Living: Following Every Rule for One Year - Newsweek Beliefs - MSNBC.com

I also thought some of his ideas on living were queer - such as wearing white all the time. I didn't read the whole article (I have more important things to do ...) but that his first answer was instructive.

Does this sound familiar?

In reading my Bible, I came across the following verses. The older I get the more amazed I am at the similarities between Israel and Judah during the time of the prophets and the United States today.

Isa 56:11-12 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. (12) Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

There are three things that are happening in these verses. First, the people are greedy and find that they are never satisfied. Second, everyone can only think in terms of what is good for themselves. They only are concerned about what will bring them personal financial gain. Third, they expect that the economic prosperity will last forever.

You do not have to look far in the United States to see these three things. Much of the worry about the financial markets and the impact of a slowdown from the housing market is because people are greedy, self-centered, and expect economic prosperity to last forever. A little bit of economic belt-tightening would help all of us Americans refocus on what is truly important.

See this article about being a millionaire and not being satisfied.

Earning our right to study

Recently, I was sent the following true story from someone whom I trust. I checked it out with a hoax e-mail site and found out that the story is true. Rather than send it out to scores of e-mail addresses, I've posted it here for those of you who would like to read it. The story follows:

Back in September of 2006, on the first day of school, Martha Cothren, a social studies school teacher at Robinson High School in Little Rock, AK did something not to be forgotten.

On the first day of school, with the permission of the school superintendent, the principal and the building supervisor, she removed all of the desks from her classroom. When the first period kids entered the room they discovered that there were no desks Looking around, confused, they asked, "Ms. Cothren, where are our desks?" She replied, "You can't have a desk until you tell me what you have done to earn the right to sit at a desk."

They thought, "Well, maybe it's our grades." "No," she said. "Maybe it's our behavior." She told them, "No, it's not even your behavior." And so, they came and went, the first period, second period, third period; still no desks in the classroom.

By early afternoon television news crews had started gathering in Ms. Cothren's classroom to report about this crazy teacher who had taken all the desks out of her room.

The final period of the day came and as the puzzled students found seats on the floor of the deskless classroom, Martha Cothren said , "Throughout the day no one has been able to tell me just what he/she has done to earn the right to sit at the desks that are ordinarily found in this classroom. Now I am going to tell you."

At this point, Martha Cothren went over to the door of her classroom and opened it. Twenty-seven (27) U.S. Veterans, all in uniform, walked into that classroom, each one carrying a school desk. The Vets began placing the school desks in rows, and then they would walk over and stand alongside the wall. By the time the last soldier had set the final desk in place those kids started to understand, perhaps for the first time in their lives, just how the right to sit at those desks had been earned.

Martha said, "You didn't earn the right to sit at these desks. These heroes did it for you. They placed the desks here for you. Now, it's up to you to sit in them. It is your responsibility to learn, to be good students, to be good citizens. They paid the price so that you could have the freedom to get an education. Don't ever forget it."

Check this website for confirmation of this story

Economics matters

First that and now this. First the Federal Reserve and now the federal government are taking steps that make it clear that they will not allow the housing market and the U.S. economy to correct itself. Unfortunately, with each row of bricks that raises the dam of the U.S. economy higher bankers and the government increase the economic pain that all will feel when the dam does break.

First, the Federal Reserve Bank sees that the housing market is correcting itself and responds by lowering its interest rate. Yes, it re-assures financial markets but it also sends a subtle but unambiguous message to every American. Borrow all you can because when the time comes to pay the money back the Fed may change the rules. It is no wonder that Americans have a negative savings rate.

Let's think about why Americans choose to borrow rather than save. Lowering the interest rate has two effects. First, lowering the interest rate encourages borrowing and discourages saving. Who wants to save his money at 1 or 2% interest? Much better to borrow at 5 or 6%.

Also, in today's economy lowering the interest rate will increase the rate of inflation. Inflation, of course, is the great adversary of savings. It is bad enough to only receive 1 or 2% on your savings; it is doubly bad when inflation is higher than the interest rate that you are receiving. If we want to raise the amount of savings in the United States, we should encourage savings and discourage borrowing.

The recent move by the Federal Reserve Board and the discussion by the federal government are steps in the opposite direction. By lowering the interest rate, the Fed has just said that it is more important to bail-out borrowers than safeguard savers. The banks will get their money either way. But what about those who have saved for years rather than upgrade to that new and bigger house? What about those who are planning to retire in the next few years rather than those who just got a "great rate" (that is scheduled to increase in the next year) on a new house?

Between the Federal Reserve Board injecting money into the economy and the federal government planning to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, the idea seems to be that Americans should not have to face the consequences of their acts if the consequences would be too painful. Every person who signed a mortgage to buy a home was a legal adult who was aware of the consequences

The real story is the incredible reversal of common sense. To me common sense says that borrowers who over-reached and took out loans that they cannot pay off should face the consequences even if it means moving in with friends or relatives. Savers who socked away money for a rainy day rather than upgrade to a McMansion should be entitled to not worrying. Instead the government is talking about taking taxpayer money and giving it to people who took a risk and lost.

Thinking in terms of real people, we should imagine two imaginary couples. Both couples are within ten years of retirement. As their children leave the house, marry, and move away, both couples consider what their financial goals should be. One couple decides to sell their home, downside to a smaller home, and use the profit to pay down their mortgage so that they can pay their home off by retirement. They also use the smaller mortgage payment to save for retirement.

The other couple decide to upgrade to a newer house in a better neighborhood and take out an ARM with a really low teaser rate. They can just afford the payments but figure that they will continue to get raises and interest rates will stay low. They convince themselves that they will always be able to refinance and if things get really bad they can sell the newer house and downgrade. After all, the loan officer tells them, home prices always rise.

Now think about both these two couples and their respective situation now. The couple that saved has fewer worries; in fact, they are poised for retirement. They have sacrificed their present enjoyment of a bigger and more prestigious house for their future enjoyment of a secure retirement. The second couple, on the other hand, is now in a desperate situation. They face a larger mortgage payment as their ARM is reset. Further, they find that they cannot sell their house at any price. They do not want the bank to foreclose on their house, but they do not have the financial resources to pay the higher payment. They sacrificed their future retirement for the temporary enjoyment of a nicer home.

Now the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates and the government is talking about bailing out overstretched borrowers. If both these things happen, the couple that saved will see their hard-earned tax dollars going to pay for a home that they did not purchase and will not get to enjoy. The couple that saved will see their savings for future retirement diminished in buying power by the ravages of inflation.

What powerful lesson will this teach to the people of my generation? "Don't save, spend! Spend it all and borrow some more!" And some people wonder why the United States is not mentioned in prophecy ...

Don't Move That Office Chair

This article highlights what may be the next OSHA regulation. So be careful ... and move those chairs while you still can!

I will be back

I know that it's been some time since I posted to this blog. I haven't forgotten about it; I've just been off my schedule and unable to give this blog the attention that it deserves. Don't worry, I have several controversial ideas to share with you soon.

Medical costs in America

Americans seem to be shocked that medical costs continue to soar. Many companies are paying almost $1000 each month to pay insurance premiums for each employee. Medical costs have increased faster than inflation for some years now. With the upcoming presidential election, Americans are sure to hear more about medicine's spiraling costs and proposals to solve the problem.

Like everything else, the Bible gives us an explanation of the human reason why medical costs are exploding. In Job 2:4, God records for us that Satan says. "All that a man hath will he give for his life." In other words, when it comes to medical care people do not follow normal economic principles that keep down the cost of other things. Let me explain.

The first principles of economics revolve around supply and demand. When supply is higher than demand, prices fall. When demand is higher than supply, prices rise; and when demand and supply are equal, prices are stable. When this basic understanding of economic principles are applied to Americans' current medical situation, it may seem apparent that the price of medical care has exploded because demand has not kept up with supply.

In reality, it is not a constriction in supply that has raised prices, it is that Americans demand premium health care. Because a man is willing to give everything he has to preserve his life (and his health, if possible), it is not surprise us that medical costs are rising.

Let's take two examples: an older man with good health insurance buying a car and the same man facing cancer treatment. As the man goes out to buy a car, he examines his options and his budget. Even if he is willing to buy his car on credit, his choices are limited by his budget. If he is middle class, it is unlikely that he will try to buy an S-class Mercedes-Benz. He may want one, he may think that it is the best car for his money, but he remains financially constrained by his average budget.

Now let's imagine that his doctor tells him that he has lung cancer. If he has good health insurance, it is unlikely that as he looks at his options that he will consider the costs. Especially if the prognosis is grim, he will expect his insurance to spend any amount of money in an effort to save his life. In fact, one common complaint against medical insurance groups is that they refuse to pay for experimental (and usually expensive) medical treatments. In other words, most Americans do not think that cost should be a factor in choosing medical treatment. So it is now surprising that medical costs continue to increase.

But let's imagine a more interesting scenario. Two brothers both of whom developed diabetes in their late 40's. Both are overweight and do not eat right. Both go to their doctors and receive a prescription for medicine (not insulin) that will help their bodies control their blood sugar. The medicine is expensive (hundreds of dollars a month) but since much of the cost of the prescription is paid for by their insurance, they choose to go ahead and take the medicine. Because they do not lose weight and continue to eat poorly, their diabetes worsens. Eventually, their doctors suggest that they should just begin to take insulin. It is inexpensive and effective in controlling the worst effects of their disease. One begins to take insulin, and his insurance pays for the bulk of the cost. He really does not even consider the cost.

However, his brother does not want to be dependent on insulin for the rest of his life. Also, he is considering leaving his job and realizes that should he decide to buy his own health insurance being an insulin-dependent diabetic will raise his future insurance rates. So he sees a doctor who tells him that through proper diet, losing weight, and exercise, he can control his blood sugar without insulin. The brother makes major diet changes, begins to spend several hours a day walking, loses fifty pounds, and soon has his diabetes under control without drugs or insulin. Since his employer pays his medical insurance premiums, he only sees a small savings in his medical costs. His insurance company, however, will see significant savings over his lifetime - none of which the brother will realize unless he leaves his job and becomes self-insured.

Now imagine that the American government decides to provide universal health care for all of its citizens. The two brothers mentioned in the scenario above would have almost no financial incentive to control their diabetes through diet and exercise.

In such a scenario where the federal government with its supposedly deep pockets is paying for health care and removes most financial incentives to preserve one's health without the use of drugs or invasive surgery, there will be little reason why all Americans will not demand premium health care.

Since this is the case, our government will be faced with two basic choices to keep costs down. One possibility is that the government could try to introduce price controls. Americans do not realize that they subsidize medical research for the rest of the world. Most new drugs and most new medical procedures are developed in the United States. The drug companies, doctors, and hospitals try to recoup the costs of developing the drug or procedure in the United States before exporting it to other countries.

This means that Americans receive premium health care. Yes, other nations may have less disease and better overall health because the focus in those countries is on preventing disease rather than curing it. But when it comes to curing disease, America has the world's best - and most expensive - health care.

This means that American doctors also focus on supplying cures rather than controlling causes. The current system simply does not provide enough incentive to preventing disease. Smoking pay only marginally higher costs for health care, the obese do not have significantly higher costs, people with high cholesterol do not face daunting bills. As long as such a situation continues, Americans will continue to persist in unhealthy lifestyles and expect their doctors to treat their symptoms. While there will always be health conscious people who seek to avoid disease, the current reality is that too many of us expect to eat what we want, do what we want, and live without thinking about our future health. When diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses occur, we expect that our medical system will go to extraordinary lengths to restore our health and prolong our lives.

The second way that the federal government could control costs is through rationing care. This is common in socialist countries where people often have to wait months for common surgical procedures such as hip replacements or heart surgery. While the such governments do not publish ration books or coupons, they ration care by only paying for a certain amount of such procedures.

So there are only three basic solutions to the health care funding crisis in America:

1. Financial incentives and disincentives to cause people to search for non-medical ways such as diet and exercise to preserve their health. I do not think that most Americans are willing to go this route. It seems unjust to Americans that they should have to consider the cost when choosing medical treatments. Should I undergo chemotherapy and spend my life savings or should I die "prematurely"? Such questions seem abhorrent to Americans.


2. Government or insurance company rationing of health care. This was tried back in the early 90's when HMO or health maintanence organizations tried to control costs by preventing illness and restricting patient access to expensive medical drugs and procedures. Americans found this to be "unreasonable" and health care costs soared from there. Some may point out that even during the zenith of HMOs health care costs continued to rise. This is true: but they continued to rise because Americans resisted having their health care rationed. The purpose of this post is not to support HMOs or their practices, but if Americans want cheaper health care they will have to make a decision to increase supply (and decrease quality) or decrease demand (which they have proven unwilling to do.


3. Government intervention to control health care costs. Obviously, as financial incentives for finding new drugs and procedures become more scarce, such research will slow significantly. Are Americans willing to wait decades for research into curing Alzheimers and other diseases to progress.

My advice is for Americans to begin to look for ways to prevent disease and cure causes rather then treat symptoms.

Quit pretending evolution doesn't threaten religion. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

Quit pretending evolution doesn't threaten religion. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

I found this article a long time ago. But recently I was reading Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow. In it he includes a humorous exchange in which an evolutionist and creationist discuss the evidence for evolution. The creationist wants the evolutionist to check out evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory. The evolutionist keeps repeating the mantra that scientists know evolution to be true and that creationists are allowing religion to cloud their thinking.

Intelligent design advocates want the same thing: they want evolution supporters to check out the evidence against evolution. But they want to present that evidence without reference to a mechanism to replace natural selection and random mutation. For this, they get beaten up by the atheist evolutionists and by the creationists. Interestingly, the atheists and creationists both beat them up for not stating what mechanism they think intelligent design uses. By definition, the atheists are looking for answers that exclude God and supernatural intervention. There are not fooled by intelligent design advocates because they know that intelligent design points to an intelligent designer, in other words, a god.

Creationists believe that intelligent design advocates should go farther and state the obvious: God is the intelligent designer. This seems to be exactly what most intelligent design proponents want to avoid - any mention of the word God.

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

A good article to read on the Fourth of July (even if it is July 5 here).

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Here's an article that disagrees with me. But here's my quick critique.

First, I am not suggesting simple partition. I am suggesting that we threaten to partition the current boundaries of Iraq among three neighbors. None of these neighbors are known for tolerating dissent within their borders.

Second, the goal should be to bring all Iraqi groups to the bargaining table. The Iraqis do not see themselves as Iraqis first but as Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. My suggestion is to use the threat of partition to have them understand the situation rationally. Currently, each group has mutually exclusive goals. The Kurds just want to be left alone with their oil wealth. The Sunnis want to re-assert the dominance that they have had in the country for centuries. The Shiites with their numerical superiority see a chance to dominate the whole country. Each of these groups need to realize that they will not reach their goals through force.

Third, the whole point is to turn over the job of keeping the peace to the local nations who do not have the same qualms about using force that we do. I realize that to simply withdraw U.S. troops will leave a vacuum that will be filled by someone. My suggestion is that if the Iraqis will not work together then we should leave behind an Iranian, Saudi, Turkish force that will keep the peace.

Nation building

Nation building is the use of military force to establish a representative government. I am against nation building for two reasons.

The first reason comes from my reading of history. Armies and navies perform at their best when their job is well-defined. It should be obvious that the most important measure of performance for any military should be its ability to kill the enemy and destroy his armaments. The ability to police a country, build schools, establish relationships with local residents - all of these are noble, but they are hardly good measures of an effective army or navy. However, it is for these things that the brave men of the United States military are being praised.

My second reason to oppose the use of military force to establish a representative government stems from my reading of the Bible. Current theory on nation building insists that if you provide the proper environment - schools, jobs, security - that people will naturally want a representative government. This is a fallacy. The Bible teaches us that men and women are naturally and desperately wicked. There is no sense in trying to establish a truly representative government without the moral foundation that the Bible provides. The Father of our nation wisely said, "It is impossible to rightly govern ... without God and the Bible." But that is exactly what we are expecting people to do in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. We provide the soldiers who will provide security, provide the resources to rebuild the infrastructure, provide the guidance to set up a government elected by the people, and then expect that the nationals will want and support a democratically-elected government that governs in a way that Americans approve of.

When George Bush ran for president, it was my understanding that he too did not believe in nation building either. In his debate with Al Gore, he said: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building." I thought to myself, "This man has my vote." Since that time it has become apparent that either he has changed his mind or that we have drastically different definitions of nation building.

It's a fallacy to think that if our troops just stay in Iraq long enough, the Iraqis themselves will "see the light" and decide to act responsibly. As long as Iraqis are without God and without respect for His word, there is little chance that they will change.

Government on brink of collapse as Gaza moves closer to civil war-News-World-Middle East-TimesOnline

Government on brink of collapse as Gaza moves closer to civil war-News-World-Middle East-TimesOnline

I cannot understand how people can insist that the Israelis negotiate with the Palestinians. First of all, the current political group in power in the PA government Hamas will not even recognize the agreements made so far. Secondly, two of the groups Fatah and Hamas are now killing each other. How are the Israelis supposed to negotiate with that? I just don't understand.

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory - New York Times

The trouble in Iraq.

Our problem in Iraq is that two different cultures are colliding: an American culture that values life, individuality, and freedom; and a Iraqi culture that respects victory over life, sectarianism, and fear. The article below illustrates to me the difference clearly.

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory - New York Times

Unfortunately, it seems to me as if America is prosecuting the war as if Iraqis are Americans and that as soon as the Iraqis realize that we Americans have their best interests in mind, they will shape up, form a federal, representative government, and agree to get along. But Iraqis have no history and no preparation for a federal, representative government. They only know autocratic governments that control the people by fear or are overthrown. Since we are not willing (nor would it be appropriate for us) to rule by fear, torture, and sahel, it will be generations before the Iraqis begin to absorb the American mindset.

Now, I have been against the Iraq War from the beginning for three reasons.

1. I am always against the invasion of a sovereign country that has not attacked us first. As an American expatriate residing in a small country surrounded by two massive neighbors, I am especially aware of the precarious position of such nations. Just because a country is small and vulnerable does not mean that its larger and more powerful neighbors have a right to tell the smaller country what to do. There several common arguments for the invasion of Iraq that are often used by conservatives. (I consider myself a conservative). I will try to deal with those in another post.
2. I do not believe that nation building - that is, the invasion and occupation of a country with a goal of establishing a representative government - works. There may have been a few successful examples in history, but American diplomacy is littered with unsuccessful attempts to establish representative governments by force. Besides, isn't establishing a representative government by force a mutual contradiction. If the will of the people is for a representative government than force is not necessary. If force is necessary (as implied by foreign military forces remaining in a country) doesn't that indicate coercion. Coercion is unnecessary if the will of the people demands a representative government. The posted article points out that the Iraqis know nothing of a representative government. There is no history and very little desire for a true republic. What most Iraqis want is a dictator that represents their interests: Sunnis want a Sunni dictator, the Kurds want a Kurdish dictator, and the Shiites want a Shiite dictator.
3. I have always believed that this war has no good objective. In the end, a new dictator will take over the country.

So now that we've knocked Humpty Dumpty off the wall, how do we put him back together again? Our troops could stay in Iraq for a generation and only begin the process of establishing a representative government.

So what are our options. I think as long as we are at it, we should offer/threaten to destabilize the whole region and let the local players sort out the mess we made in Iraq. Here's the plan.

The country of Iraq should be partitioned into three zones: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish zones. Iran would be offered the chance to "police" the Shiite section with the implicit understanding that they could eventually annex the entire section and incorporate it into the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some might argue that we are trying to prevent exactly that: we are trying to save the vast oil reserves and population of southern Iraq from falling into the hands of one of the members of the axis of evil. Perhaps, but giving the Iranians the southern half is better than letting the whole country fall under their control.

The Saudis would be given the opportunity to control the Sunni section, again with the understanding that they are welcome to incorporate their region into Saudi Arabia in the future if they so desire. Sharing a similar religion and not wanting this region to fall under Shiite Iran's control, they would be in little position to protest.

Third, I think we should turn the northern, predominantly Kurdish section of the country back over to its previous overlords: the Turks. The Turks, of all three groups, have the least incentive to accept our offer. However, the region's vast oil reserves (Turkey has little oil) and the chance to disrupt bases for Kurdish rebellion in Anatolia would be difficult for the Turks to pass up.

Instead of a fractious Iraq, there would be an enlarged Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. We could give everyone plenty of notice of our intentions and allow the "Iraqis" one last chance to establish their own government and suppress the terrorists within their midst. Personally, as much as the Iraqi Shiites look to Iran for help, I do not think that they really want to be ruled be Iran. The Kurds have the greatest incentive for working to find a solution to a unified Iraqi government. They absolutely detest the Turks who would certainly repress them as they do the Kurds within Turkey today.

Most likely, all three countries are smarter than we are and will refuse to set foot in a country where sahel is the standard of victory.