I've been thinking about this a while. The difference in interpretation, I think, is because I view the cross as an identifying feature of the king and not a symbol of Christ. I ignore the Christ reference because it's the whole chess piece that I consider, and not its details as none of the details are particularly remarkable. What I mean by that is that it's a fine chess piece, but it's not an unusal chess piece so I don't really focus on its details. It may be because I'm a chess player, I'm not sure. You could modify the king, I suppose, to eliminate the cross, place that on Iraq, and show it surrounded by other pieces and perhaps have a bishop putting the king in check. That would satisfy your want to show a religious crusade, but after some thought, that may just be more confusing as the Pope is against the proposed war. You could put US colors on the pieces, but I'm afraid that might cheapen the piece into a silly political cartoon. I think that either suggestion would take from the simplicity in composition and just cause clutter and send more messages than you want to. I like the pieces simplicity. It's very strong in its simplicity. I don't know what to say. I guess I'll just go back to what they taught me in art school and be satisfied with whatever I, the viewer, take from it. The weird thing about art is that you never know how people will interpret your work. If it were my piece, I'd move the map so the king sits on Iraq. I hope that helps. I really just wanted to post the first paragraph explaining why I think the King stronger in symbolism than the Cross that's on it, but I got a little carried away.