Peter Beinart's column Morally Correct misses the most salient points about religion and politics. He claims:

...when African Americans and other campus minorities claimed they were victims of racism and demanded greater respect from white students and faculty, conservatives popularized a term for this group whining: political correctness...Not anymore. In the wake of their recent triumph at the polls, conservatives have found their own supposedly disrespected minority: evangelicals. And they are playing victim politics with a gusto that would make campus radicals proud.

There is a tremendous difference here and he should know this. There was a more sinister plot, if you will, at work. There was an attempt to rewrite history, to make our past one of evil, all slavery and no emancipation, all rape, pillage and plunder of Indian lands without perspective. America, they claimed, was a land of hatred, bigotry, sexism, repression, etc. The phrase "dead white male" ought to ring a bell? Does the chant: "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Western Culture's gotta go" sound familiar?

What the Christian Right believes in is the greatness of America. They aren't trying to rewrite, but rather restore, traditional American ideals and values. Included in those values would be a little phrase, something about "In God We Trust". Perhaps Mr. Beinart hasn't seen it recently, as only us common folk, the riff raff, the hoi-paloi, the plebians, the unwashed masses actually deign to use currency. But look hard isr, it's right there, despite the best efforts of Barry Lynn, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and the ACLU.

But Mr. Beinart goes further:

This isn't bigotry. What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christian Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there's something dangerous in that. And they're right. It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological.

Reason and evidence?

"We hold these truths to be self eveident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable right." Sorry TJ, you'll have to do better.

"Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God. Yours truly." Sorry Abe, can't fight a war based on the will of God.

And of course there's this:

Almighty God: our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest - until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home - fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas - whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them - help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too - strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment - let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace - a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. AMEN

The speaker of such dangerous words, such treasonous vemon? President Franklin Delano Roosevelt June 6, 1944, prior to the D-Day landings.

Imagine if President Bush had lead the nation in prayer before the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Imagine if President Bush had asked not for a day of prayer, but that we devote ourselves to continuance of prayer. What would have been the response?

Faith has been an integral part of American history from the inception. It is the basis of our laws, that our rights come from God, not a piece of paper. It was the foundation of the abolition movement and the civil rights movements.

If we must remove all vestiges of religion and God from our civic discourse, what will we have left? Mr. Beinart confuses the theological with the philosophical. You aren't right, that it isn't bigotry. It's far worse. It's ignorance.

While the recent operations in Fallujah have been successful, and the base of operations for the insurgency has been dealt a serious blow, the fighting rages on. Samarra, Ramadi, and Mosul have seen escalating violence. The insurgency is using hit-and-run attacks aimed keeping the coalition continually chasing shadows. They are operating at a pace they can't maintain unless we stop pursuing and pressuring them. However their aim is not to defeat us, but to break our will.

There is a however, better much alternative, and I am sure this option has been floating around the halls of the pentagon for a while. It is time to pick sides.

From the beginning we refused to pick sides, be it Shia, Kurd, or Sunni. We didn't focus rebuilding efforts in any one area, and we tried to show fairness and balance. We were more concerned about offending any one group lest we alienate them.

Great idea, bad results.

In almost every colonial venture, the colonizer picked sides. Usually it was the minority population, who would be oppressed, under-represented, and well motivated. How else could several hundred Spaniards have conquered Tenochtitlan?

Typically the British would seek out the upper classes, whether they be in India or South Africa. The French colonization in North America relied heavily on treaties with Indian tribes, pitting one tribe against another.

This hardly means we are colonizining Iraq. In fact, we are attempting quite the opposite, something historically unique and long overdue. The plan has all along been to transform Iraq into a democracy and promote freedom across the middle east as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. We were only going to stay as long as needed, and not a day longer.

Thomas Friedman writes in Iraq at the Tipping Point:

Every time I visit Iraq, I leave asking myself the same question: If you total up all the positives and negatives, where does the balance come out? I'd say the score is still 4 to 4. We can still emerge with a decent outcome. And the whole thing could still end very badly...
What have we learned from the many insurgents captured in Falluja? A vast majority are Iraqi Sunnis, with only a few foreign fighters. This is an Iraqi Sunni rebellion, but a senior Iraqi official told me that they had discovered Saddam loyalists who were using Aleppo, Syria, to regroup and plan operations.

This is probably the best assessment of the situation to date. So, let's examine the players:

The Kurds: Currently Kurdish areas are relatively safe and in fact, much of the Iraqi forces are Kurds. The Kurds are roughly 20% of the population, have suffered miserably under Sunni-Baathist rule, are very pro-American, and fought well during OIF. Having experienced some degree of autonomy, and now free from the threat of Saddam's reprisals, there is no chance the Sunni will impose their will on Kurds again.

The Shia: Like the Kurdish areas, much of the Shia in Iraq live in relative safety. The Iranian backed Shia cleric Sadr was unable to gain support and his rebellion was handily put down. The Shia comprise about 60% of the Iraqi population, and like the Kurds, suffered terribly at the hands of the Sunni Baathists. Though not overtly pro-American, they are by no means pro-Iranian or pro-jihadist, and certainly they are grateful for the removal of Saddam. The post-Gulf War attacks on Shia villages serve as an ever present reminder of the past.

The Sunni: Having been a minority ruling population for several decades, they are least likely to see any benefits from a democracy. Even thought most Sunni didn't see the benefits of the Baathists, they fear a Shia majority rule. Thus, it is safe to assume that though the majority of the Sunni don't overtly support the insurgency, it is also fair to conclude they don't oppose it either. There is no way that several thousand insurgents could keep control over the several million Sunni without some level of general complicity.

The only solution left in Iraq is for the US to choose sides. And this time, we have a unique opportunity, and that is to side with the majority. What does that mean?

Militarily: We recruit forces composed of Shia and Kurds. Having gained the most from liberation, they have the most to fight for. Plus, they will be the most loyal.

Econically: Most of the oil is in Kurdish and Shia territory. With better security, those areas will become more prosperous and self-sufficient.

Politically: A free and properous Shia population puts even greater pressure on Iran. We can better cordon off the border with Syria and cut off the flow of arms and terrorists into Iraq and isolate the Sunni population to the Sunni Triangle. Iran to the east is highly unlikely to support a Sunni insurgency, and the Saudis to the south are hardly likely to support Baathists.

So now US policy must take a decidely pro-Shia/Kurd position and force the Sunni areas to police themselves. The Sunni had their chance and they passed on it, just the Palestinians did with Arafat. The US could then pursue with much greater might the insurgents and put even greater pressure on the Sunni to come into the fold.

We cannot allow a small minority of the population dictate how and when, or even if there'll be elections. We have stayed neutral for far too long. It's time to pick sides, and this time, we can pick the winner.

Many argue that civil war is the worst possible outcome though this is wrong. If we support the Shia and the Kurds, they will do what we failed to do, defeat the Sunnis. The same thing happened in 1919 when Germany lost the war but wasn't defeated. History reminds of the gruesome results