NOT RILED UP OVER IRAQ
An article in Saturday's Washington Post notes that many American evangelicals are relatively silent on the possibility of war with Iraq. Ted Olsen, in his Christianity Today Weblog has a good response. "It may not be that evangelicals are being quiet about their position. It may simply be that they, like much of America, are taking a 'wait and see' approach to the situation. Some evangelical leaders are often criticized for hitting the microphones before all the facts are in. Perhaps they should be applauded for not doing so this time."

On a strictly utilitarian level it seems to me that war will do a lot more harm than good. Furthermore, I haven't seen any real evidence to justify it -- even granting the just war premise. To the contrary, the UN inspectors have found no proof that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear arms program.

I'm not sure if the president is hell-bent on going to war with Iraq or if this is really a part of a grand strategy to squeeze Iraq so tightly that Saddam Hussein pops and we can all live happily ever after.

Tomorrow night the president will give the State of Union address and he'll tell us that he has more information than what he can share with us and that we should just trust him. I don't. He will also say that it's up to Iraq to prove its innocence. In this it seems that the president is cutting across the grain of the American judicial fabric – shredding the edges as he goes.

Still, I'm taking a wait and see approach before getting too riled up. And the president would be wise to do the same. I would rather see him adopt a firm but patient strategy with a lot less of the tough-cowboy rhetoric. In the long run he’d get a lot more done.

There, is that opinion enough?