At the outset it is important to note that principled Biblical opposition to the NWO (and all resultant interventionist wars) is not related at all to the wooly-minded leftist pacifism we saw displayed in opposition to Desert Storm. This includes pacifism in all its forms; there is the pacifist extraordinaire, who feels guilty over his body's militarism with regard to infectious bacteria, and then there is the pacifist militant, who wants to beat our heads into plowshares. It is not the use of military force we deplore, but the unbiblical use of military force. Such an abuse will always involve an idolatry of statist power. In brief:
* Interventionist wars simply increase the power of the state. At a time when the power of the state is already overweening, that is the last thing we need. This means that American victories abroad, instead of being a defense of our freedoms, can be a means of eroding them. Query: Is George Bush using his enormous popularity from all this to dismantle Leviathan? We thought not.
* This war has contributed to the ongoing erosion of constitutional government in the United States. For example, the authority to take this action was sought in the U.N., and not from the Congress. The fact that Congress did little more than whine about it illustrates how severe the problem is.
* The Gulf War has accelerated the transition from the American republic to the American empire. We can see it plainly enough: when our Ciceronian National Review is championing the pax Americana, it is time to start wondering who wants to be Caesar.
* This war also shows our continued implicit faith in the power of our government to solve any problem. But although our smart bombs can do a lot, they cannot transform Muslims into free men. Only the Spirit of God can do that.
In the light of all this, we are more than a little suspicious that American conservatives who supported the war are drunk on the dismay of the liberal Democrats. After all the incompetence shown in the Vietnam War, they are heady over the sensation of seeing American technological and military competence in successful action. But competence is a means, not an end. And the legitimate end of foreign policy can only be determined by returning to the law and the testimony.