Note how an Orthodox leader presumes to speak for all Orthodox.
Institute on Religion and Democracy Alan Wisdom
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil-Delegates representing U.S. denominations at the Ninth Assembly of the World Council of Churches issued a letter February 18 begging God’s forgiveness for their nation’s policies relating to war, the environment, and poverty. “From a place seduced by the lure of empire we come to you in penitence,” they said, “eager for grace, grace sufficient to transform spirits grown weary from the violence, degradation, and poverty our nation has sown, grace sufficient to transform spirits grown heavy with guilt, grace sufficient to transform the world.”
The letter was read aloud to the full Assembly by Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky, chief ecumenical officer of the Orthodox Church in America and a former president of the U.S. National Council of Churches. Besides Kishkovsky, others who spoke at a press conference presenting the letter included John Thomas, President of the United Church of Christ; Sharon Watkins, General Minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Michael Livingston, the current NCC president; and Stanley Noffsinger, General Secretary of the Church of the Brethren. The group asserted that their letter had consensus support among the heads of U.S. denominational delegations at the WCC Assembly. Other prominent U.S. denominations represented at the Assembly include the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Episcopal Church, and various African-American Baptist and Methodist churches.
The letter started on a generous note, thanking sister churches worldwide for their “compassion in the days following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” But it quickly turned grim. It regretted: “[O]ur country responded [after September 11] by seeking to reclaim a privileged and secure place in the world, raining down terror on the truly vulnerable among our global neighbors.”
The U.S. church leaders were particularly rankled that the Bush administration had not taken their political counsel: “Our leaders turned a deaf ear to the voices of church leaders throughout our nation and the world, entering into imperial projects that seek to dominate and control for the sake of our own national interests.” They painted the administration’s motives in the worst possible light: “Nations have been demonized and God has been enlisted in national agendas that are nothing short of idolatrous. We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights.”
The letter was written in the form of a penitential rite, with paragraphs ending in “Lord, have mercy”; “Christ, have mercy”; and “Lord, have mercy.” There was some awkwardness in the fact that the U.S. church leaders were mainly confessing the sins of George W. Bush, rather than their own sins. But they insisted on their own guilt, too, because “we have failed to raise a prophetic voice loud enough and persistent enough to deter our leaders.”
In fact, U.S. church leaders have issued many statements loudly condemning the Bush administration for its policies. But they were not heeded because they lacked the support of their own most active church members. A majority of U.S. mainline Protestants who regularly attend worship voted for the president in the last election. It was not clear why the U.S. denominational officials believed that another, still shriller denunciation, in this latest letter, would make them any more effective in persuading the president or their own church members.
Leonid Kishkovsky (second from right) reads the letter from U.S. churches at press conference. Joining him in presenting the letter are (on his left) Stanley Noffsinger, Sharon Watkins, and John Thomas and (on his right) Michael Livingston.
The letter also confessed environmental sins: “The rivers, oceans, lakes, rainforests, and wetlands that sustain us, even the air we breathe continue to be violated, and global warming goes unchecked while we allow God’s creation to veer toward destruction. Yet our own country refuses to acknowledge its complicity and rejects multilateral agreements aimed at reversing disastrous trends.”
The persistence of poverty evoked still more guilt. “In the face of the earth’s poverty, our wealth condemns us,” the U.S. church leaders said. They spoke of “the grim features of global economic injustice we have too often failed to acknowledge or confront.” Their letter observed that “Hurricane Katrina revealed to the world those left behind in our own nation by the rupture of our social contract.” It added, “As a nation we have refused to confront the racism that exists in our own community and the racism that infects our policies around the world.”
The letter had not a single positive thing to say about America’s role in the world. Its last paragraph projected a tone of pathos: “Sisters and brothers in the ecumenical community, we come to you in this Assembly grateful for hospitality we don’t deserve, for companionship we haven’t earned, for an embrace we don’t merit.” As in the WCC’s February 14 opening litany of “Cries of the World,” it appears that the main contribution of U.S. denominations to the ecumenical council (aside from dollars derived from faithful U.S. church members) is their own self-abasement.
The letter officially came from the U.S. Conference for the World Council of Churches. At the press conference introducing the letter, Michael Livingston explained: “You [WCC delegates from other countries] have challenged us to take responsibility for the role that the United States plays in contributing to and escalating the level of violence in the world.” Livingston said, “It is unthinkable to us that we could come to this Assembly and not make some expression of confession.”
“The United States is increasingly being seen as a dangerous nation,” asserted the UCC’s John Thomas. “To come to a World Council of Churches Assembly is to come to a place of accountability, and this letter is an act of accountability.”
Accountability to their own church members seemed to be a more complicated question. Sharon Watkins of the Disciples admitted: “I do not speak for all Disciples congregations…. Though the majority of Americans now agree that the Iraq War was a mistake, many church members would not agree with the sentiments in this letter.” She insisted, with voice breaking, that “this letter is not an attempt to undermine our American troops.”
Leonid Kishkovsky seconded Watkins’ point: “I can say that in my own church [the Orthodox Church in America] there is some disagreement [about these issues]. There is much internal anguish and division.” Kishkovsky added, “It is entirely possible that, in returning to the U.S., I will be subjected to criticism within my own church.” He indicated that he would defend himself by pointing to all the Orthodox prelates from other nations who share his critique of U.S. policies.
Asked whether there was a consensus among the U.S. church leaders about their letter, Noffsinger at first replied, “There would be some who would have wanted a stronger letter, sooner.” But then he added: “There was enthusiasm all around the table…. There was consensus.”
Pressed as to whether anyone in any of the U.S. church delegations had spoken up for the millions of U.S. church members who support the Bush administration policies, the panel members dodged. Thomas responded curtly that “we listen to all voices in our churches” and then assess what should be said.
One reporter asked whether the church leaders would be able to discuss their letter with President Bush. Kishkovsky answered, “Experience has shown that the White House is not welcoming.”
As Kishkovsky read the letter to the plenary session of the Assembly, the delegates from other countries listened attentively. But their applause was tepid at best. Perhaps even they did not really enjoy this spectacle of self-mortification.
To go off on an unimportant tangent; Was not the F-14 retired a year or two ago? Perhaps it was retired from carrier based operations, but still fly’s from land bases?
Christopher the last two squadrons were retired this week. After flying their last combat missions in February.
The F-14 is being replaced with an updated version of the F-18.
Here’s a story on the topic:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tomcat8mar08,1,641545.story?coll=la-headlines-business
Missourian wrote:
Proxy war has been used in the Middle East for decades. Much of the PLO’s (and the many splinter groups) activies has, and is, financed by Middle Eastern sources (and beyond) to fight a proxy war against Israel.
I’m at work and will respond more later, but the final phaseout of all versions of the F-14 is not until 2008:
Hence versions of the weapons platform are still in operation in the Iraq theater.
JBL wrote:
You should read the post I had earlier about the Emory University study concerning cognative dissonance. You seem unable to actually process data that is in opposition to your pre-conceived world view. As such, your mind seems to respond by throwing up garbage.
Since I have actually participated in Combined Arms Exercises with both Marine, Navy, and Air Force assets, I am familiar with the differences in how slow movers acquire and deal with targets (AC-130, A-10 Warthog) and how fast movers perform. Since I did air assault training and have been on helo ops a good deal, I also am familiar with them.
My point, JBL, which you seem to be missing, either on purpose or because your brain can’t process the data, is that even when a strike is 100% on target, the target itself is not properly checked to minimize loss to civilians, HE rounds or missiles cause damage to surrounding structures which can kill civilians within the blast radius that are unconnected to the current action, and that use of CAS/artillery inside an urban environment is counterproductive to our overall objectives.
The F-14 article was an example of this. The AC-130 is a much slower aircraft, which means, I presume, that you expect civilian casualties to be lower. That is not a given, since 40 MM rounds will still penetrate normal walls and hit structures surrounding the target. Then again, civilians inside the target will also be struck, so that again leads back to my point.
Now, at what point did I say that U.S. military personnel are butchers? I said that I don’t think the ROE is morally acceptable, but I understand why, given their operating parameters, ops level commanders call in the big guns.
I will ask you again (though I don’t expect you to answer) would you support the same ROE is the insurgency were occurring in New York? You seem to be ignoring this question in order to lambast me for saying things which I did not actually say. Put away your moral indignation and respond to the question please.
If you truly believe that using heavy weapons in an urban environment is a moral thing to do, and would support it in suppressing an urban insurgency in your own hometown (for example) or in your own neighborhood, then you will at least be morally consistent.
Now, what am I intentionally trying to deceive on? That part is not clear in my own mind.
As for the terrorists, how can I spell this out clearly? Intentionally targeting civilians is wrong. Those who practice it should be hunted down and punished. Islam is a gutter religion. I support a 100% ban on Muslim immigration to the United States. I would close our border with Mexico in a heartbeat. I would fast track the deportation of all illegal immigrants from the U.S., and make that double quick for Muslims. I would stop trying to force the EU to accept Turkey. I would cut off all funding to all Muslim regimes in the Middle East. Get them off the U.S. taxpayors back immediately. I would close mosques in the U.S. that are linked to Wahhabism.
I do not support our current position of sucking up to the Saudis, and I consider Iran to be a mortal threat to us which we exacerbated by knocking over Saddam.
Leftist? Not hardly. But I will also point out that suspicion and dislike of standing armies and over militarism is not a traditional ‘leftist’ point of view, rather it is a point-of-view espoused by the Founders of the United States and held closely by classical liberals. ‘Leftists’ such as the Jacobins in France were always enthusiastic warmongers and proponents of militarism. The ‘right’ in the U.S. did not fully embrace a highly militaristic view until WWII, and then kept it through the Cold War. Simple criticism of military actions is as American as Apple Pie.
JBL and Christopher,
The LA Times article was different info than I had. But as the last combat missions were flown in February, and the weapons platform was in action last year when the article I referenced was published, then I am not sure what we are arguing about.
The F/A 18 is a good platform, the MAW’s have been using them for years. They were already in service in the early 90’s when I was in.
Missourian and Christopher –
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not targeted at military infrastructure. The intent was to kill a massive number of civilians to break the enemy’s will to resist.
The same tactic was tried by firebombing Dresden in Germany.
That is the tactic that RC and Orthodox Theologians have frequently renounced. It is not incidental killing of civilians as part of a bombing raid on military installations or on factories producing war materiel. The killing of civilians en mass was the point of the exercise.
That is what is being objected to. In Christopher’s example, it would be akin to taking an unarmed city and butchering the inhabitants as a message to their king not to mess with you.
No moral Theologian worth anything is going to support this. The typical response is to say that it was worth it, because more lives were saved in the long run by turning those cities to ash.
The response to that is that it is immoral to take one life to save another. No one can be sacrificed for someone else against their will. If it were moral to do this, then we could not oppose embryonic stem cell research. We could also not oppose harvesting organs from babies grown in labs, for example. In either of those cases, you would be sacrificing the lives of a few for the ‘greater good.’
This is essentially philosophical utilitarian consequentialism, which is rejected by the Church. It is not right to pursue worthwhile objectives by immoral means.
Now, I have no problem with conventional engagements in which civilians are killed as part of the normal conduct of ops. German civilians who died while Allied armies fought to dislodge the German armies entrenched in their cities are an unfortunate by-product of war.
That is a far cry from intentionally bombing civilian targets en mass to try and break enemy resistance through mass death. It is also a far cry from the use of heavy weapons in surpressing an urban insurgency that is hiding among civilians whom the occuppying power has a duty to protect.
What is happening is that we are lumping all kinds of issues together.
Killing civilians in an attack on a fortified town that is offering resistance is a regrettable fact of military operations. Under Just War, this is an accepted fact, as long as you are doing the best that you can to minimize civilian casualties. By the way, the behavior of the enemy has no bearing on your own moral obligations. If it did, then all of Christianity is out the window, as we would not love our enemies.
Deliberately killing civilians as a way of ‘sending a message’ is terrorism, whether conducted by B-21’s or via an IED. This is morally wrong.
Employing HE weapons in civilian areas to combat an urban insurgency is also, in my opinion, morally wrong and also bad policy if you are trying to win people over to our side. If you are the occupying power, you should not employ tactics that you wouldn’t employ if combating a domestic insurgency.
Is this clear or am I in danger of being misunderstood yet again?
Christopher writes: “One thing I find is a common thread among those who argue against ‘modern’ war is the belief that war has become something different in quality as well as quantity . . . in support of this conclusion an ideal past is often pointed to where our ancestors fought on battlefields and civilian casualties were rare . . . Yet, in the Roman and middle ages seize warfare on walled cities was quite common. The civilian populations would slowly starve or die from exposure/disease.”
It certainly is possible to target non-combatants even with primitive weapons. I think the point that Glen makes is that most modern weapons are by their very nature so destructive that to use them in civilian areas is in effect to target civilians, whether or not you want to. The natural result of dropping a 500 lb “smart bomb” in a civilian area is dead civilians, along with whatever combatants are killed. The dead civilians are an unintended, though predictable and natural consequence.
As a result of conventional warfare, such casualties would be regrettable. The problem now is that they are occurring in the context of an occupation. One of the goals of the occupation is that we win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. This is hard to do when we’re killing them at the same time. Here it is not our perceptions that are important, but the perceptions of the Iraqis.
Christopher: “Does loving our enemy really entail sacrificing our fighting men and women in house to house combat when our enemy intentionally – purposefully – hides himself among the innocent and we have means (in modern weapons) to NOT fall on his sword?”
While Glen’s argument certainly has a moral component, I see his argument as being extremely practical as well. I think what Glen has tried to point out throughout a number a posts is that the very nature of the invasion and occupation undermines the goals that we had hoped to accomplish through the invasion and occupation — and indeed, that it sometimes brings about the opposite results. When we’re killing civilians and destroying their homes and property, we are alienating the very people whose support is necessary to achieve the goals of the occupation. You can change tactics so as to minimize civilian casualties, but the new tactics virtually guarantee more American casualties, thus undermining support for the occupation at home.
Glen
Do you believe it is God’s will to have order or anarchy in society?
Is it a righteous government to allow disorder and destruction?
You should also study US history closer. Using military weapons against civilians by the government has already happened.
11 million “alienated” Iraqi voters
Jim, if America had alienated Iraqis, why did 11 million go out to vote? It is the “insurgents” that have “alienated” Iraqis.
Iraqis are capable of distinguishing between accidental damage during battle and the INTENTIONAL AND PURPOSEFUL targeting of unarmed school teachers, unarmed army cadets standing in lines, mourners at funerals and countless other ordinary Iraqis. Iraqis have no trouble distinguishing between these things.
Glen
Several reputable historians quoted on a History Channel program on Hiroshima stated that military depots were dotted around and through Hiroshima. The status as military vs. civilians was fairly blurred near the end of the war when much of the population was drafted into civilian support of the war effort.
As to Japan, what alternative would NOT have involved heavy civilian casualties. Japan was, and is, one of the most densely populated places on the planet. The population would have been catastrophically affected by a land invasion.
Are you able to posit an effective strategy to obtain unconditional surrender that did not involve heavy civilian casaulties?
Glen,
I have to agree with you that targeting cities/civilians en masse “…is the tactic that RC and Orthodox Theologians have frequently renounced.” This to me is not evidence that the atomic bombings where not justified, rather it is evidence of the poor reasoning of modern theologians. They seemed overwhelmed by the power of modern weapons/tactics, and seem unwilling to grapple with the fact that whole populations will suffer when they and their leaders attack their neighbors. Again, to come back to my rather simple questions, why is it Christianly necessary for my grandfather to have died in a mass invasion of Japan? The civilian casualties may have been the same or worse than with our aerial bombardments/atomic attacks. Let’s assume the best case scenario, where not a single unarmed civilian would have died in an invasion, and “only” 500,000 Americans killed subduing Japan. What moral reasoning accepts this outcome – one where the Just defender (i.e. America) has to sacrifice 500,000 lives on this bloody altar these “theologians” put in place? How is this not “utilitarian consequentialism”, yet the use of atomic weapons is? Particularly in a conflict like the one with Japan, where most of our soldiers are citizen soldiers?
Perhaps what these theologians fail to see is that much of modern warfare (e.g. WWII) is “total war”. If your enemy bring “total war” to you, you might not be able to respond with the rather narrow and simple view of warfare these theologians would have us use. If you do, you simply lose – and the evil of the enemy is visited upon your family, friends, and neighbors. If this is the case, the enemy has defined for you by the nature of his actions that your response will always be evil. This is a logical quandary that is a product of faulty reasoning, not the atomic attacks themselves.
In Japan’s case, the “King” and the “citizens of the city” more or less agreed. The “message” of the atomic attacks was not killing for it’s own sake – it was Justly defending our lives against the tyrannical and evil actions of a whole state of Japan. They were going to lose, even if we had to turn ALL their cities to ash. Throwing my grandfather into the breach based on the reasoning of these ‘theologians’ is what would have been fundamentally unjust. It would have been a sacrifice to idols. This is one reason I have always had respect for the privileged place of the name “Theologian” in the Orthodox Church. In the interest of accuracy, I always refer to these modern ‘theologians’ as what they in fact are: seminary professionals.
Also, I must point out that your statement “…it is immoral to take one life to save another.” is sometimes true, sometimes false. It would be true for the example you used, the creation of humans for harvesting. It is NOT true if for example a police officer uses deadly force against one person to save the life of another. Otherwise, the police officer would be committing a vice and not a virtue. Interestingly, this is exactly what the proponents of the “lesser evil” philosophy are saying. This “evil” may be modified by “lesser”, but it is still an evil. This is why their thinking (if honestly assessed) always leads to the same place: pacifism.
Finally, I believe you are being clear. I also believe your distinctions (civilian casualties being acceptable in conventional attack on fortified town vs. atomic attack on Japan) are differences in quantity, not quality…
Does Anyone Know?
Does anyone know whether the WCC has condemned Sudan, North Korea, China, North Viet Nam, Hamas, Al Quaeda, etc? Seems they hit the United States quite consistently.
Did WCC exist during the Cold War, has WCC ever acknowledge thed existence of gulags behind the Iron Curtain?
It seems to me that if the WCC is going to function as a moral judge of international relations that it had better become more “inclusive.”
Have you noticed the use of the terms “inclusive” or “dialogue” are nearly always a red flag warning of bad logic? Or am I alone in this conclusion?
JBL wrote:
God instituted order and raised up rulers to prevent anarchy. As such we observe order and obey laws that do not conflict with our higher duty to our faith. I am not sure to what that question relates. Are you asking should all methods of re-establishing order be assumed valid, if undertaken by competent legal authority? I would say no. I don’t think that a state of disorder (rioting in LA, for example) would justify aerial attacks on the neighborhoods in which the rioting occurred. You’d clear the streets, but the human toll of innocent people in their homes would be unjustified. Now if you were clearing the streets using police or military forces, and rioters resisted, it is quite possible that stray shots will kill civilians, even those hiding in their homes. That is regrettable, but such things happen.
Bombing a neighborhood in LA in which rioting occurs would be a shocking disregard for innocent human life. Hitting civilians in accidental cross-fire while clearing the streets using cops and police on foot and while exercising due care, that is a regrettable by-product of the actions of lawless men behaving immorally.
I am well aware that the U.S. Federal government has employed excessive and immoral force against U.S. citizens at times in the past. One of those times, of course, was during the War Between the States, in which President Lincoln authorized the army of Sherman to rape, kill, pillage, and burn. This was wholly immoral, and was merely the 19th Century equivelant of what today would be done with bombs, missiles, and artillery.
I didn’t ask you if the Federal Government of the United States had behaved immorally, or if it were likely to do so again. The answer to both questions is clearly ‘yes,’ which is one reason that I long for a return to strict construction of the Constitution in order to limit the chances for such tyranny being visited upon us again by a too-powerful central state, particularly a state headed by Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I asked you whether or not you would be willing to live with the current ROE regime in Iraq being applied to a domestic insurgency. I also, if you recall, predicted you would not answer the question. What are you afraid to face? That you would not want a domestic insurgency combatted with AC-130’s, especially if they were going to be used in your hometown? But, that you are clearly willing to allow the U.S. military to risk Iraqi women and children by hitting targets with heavy weapons in Iraq?
Missourian wrote,
Seriously, Missourian, you don’t actually believe that Hiroshima was hit with a nuke to strike military targets?
Isn’t it interesting how some people are chosen to die, and others to live? Because a man in power had a close connection to one city, but not another, those people live and the others die. And people think wars are conducted logically!
At any rate, whether there were incidental targets of a military nature, Hiroshima was hit primarily to break the will of the Japanese. If done by non-state actors, the use of force directed at civilians in order to affect the will of the political leaders is called ‘terrorism.’
At any rate, what would my resolution be?
Well, was unconditional surrender really necessary? Such an ending to a war was largely a 19th Century invention. Did we really need to insist on that? Since we left the emperor at the top Japanese society, could we have reached a less than unconditional surrender agreement earlier without an invasion?
As for a conventional invasion, the estimates put forward for U.S. casualties are believed by everyone, including Eisenhower, to be inflated. The question comes down to immoral means versus ends. If the only way you can get the result you want is to vaporize tens of thousands of women and children, should you change the result you want or should you go ahead and do it?
If you think that this is justified, then so be it. Eisenhower and multiple military leaders disagreed. So do a great deal of Christian thinkers, including the priest who was closest to the action itself.
I don’t agree, but I doubt that I will ever persuade you or even more than a small percentage of Americans likewise.
Which means, for example, that if the President orders a nuclear strike on Iran to stop their weapons program, you will (most likely) say that it was justified given the nature of the threat. Thousands will die as a result of the action, many of them women and children who have done no damage to anyone, but I am certain that the vast majority of my fellow citizens will proclaim the righteousness of that decision.
Christopher wrote,
Okay, let’s also assume that the after WWII reports are accurate, and that the invasion of Japan would not have cost nearly that much. The high-end casualty figures were Trumanese propaganda to jusitify his decision.
Let’s also assume that since we had Japan over a barrell and the Soviets entering the war, that we had freedom of action to a) wait them out, b) change our surrender terms to meet the Japanese half-way, c) share the burden of invading the home islands with the Soviets, or d) some combination of the above.
Were any of these better alternatives than dropping the bombs? As I said to Missourian, if the only way to get what you want is vaporizing women and children, then you need to give serious consideration to whether or not you should change what you want.
Christopher wrote,
Actually, it is exactly the concept of ‘total war’ that Just War Theory repudiates. War, if governed by the rules laid down by the Church, is not ‘total war’ at all. What you are basically arguing, in a sense, is that if your opponent has no moral scruples than you also can have none. If he hits your civilians, then you have carte blanche to hit back at his.
In other words, if you opponent is Satanic, then you can be as well. Look, you can argue that all day long, but to make a case that it is Christian is absolutely wrong. Among the Theologians to comment on this was John Paul II, who as you might recall, lived through the wrong-end of the NAZI occupation of Poland. He had a familiarity with having his nation raped and murdered, but he emerged to be a champion of peace and love.
If an army is attacking you, then defend yourself. Take the fight to your enemy. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem lies not in fighting, but in that not all means of fighting a war are licit according to the historic teachings of the church. If you don’t agree, then that is fine, but your problem is with the teaching of the Church and not with me.
Try taking it up with your bishop. He’s responsible for your soul, not me. You can also reference the official teaching of the Orthodox Church of Russia on this point, if you don’t believe me. If you don’t accept such teaching, then perhaps you should be an Evangelical, not an Orthodox Christian?
Christopher wrote, “
Were we in danger of being overrun by Japanese troops if we didn’t bomb Hiroshima? No. Was the UK in danger of being overrun when the decision was made to firebomb Dresden? No. If you can point me in the direction of a historical example in which mass slaughter of civilians was necessary to avert military loss, then I would be happy to examine it. This is known as ‘hyperbole.’
Christopher wrote,
I thought Japan was a dictatorship, not a democracy, prior to WWII. Therefore, I didn’t know that conscripts had much of a choice. Did Pope Benedict have a choice in WWII when he was conscripted to fight for the NAZIs? I wasn’t aware that women and children were much consulted in this. If this makes you feel better to say, then so be it.
Christopher wrote, “
Well in the case above, the dead man isn’t innocent, is he? Police analogies only work so far. The point I was making is primarily a reference to ‘humanitarian wars’ which don’t have a real correlation in police work. In a ‘humanitarian war’ you undertake military action that is not defensive for the sake of ‘saving lives.’ Usually there is a purpoted genocide of some type taking place, and you have chosen to bomb and kill an unknowable number of people in order to save the lives of some unknowable number of people. See the Balkans and Iraq for examples of this. In such a case, you are choosing to kill an unknowable quantity of innocents in order to save an unknowable quantity of innocents. Rather than leaving such things in God’s hands, you choose to become an avenging angel, killing people that the displaced regime would probably never have touched, in order to possibly save others that might die in the war anyway.
In another corrollary, the use of heavy weapons kills civilians so as to not risk the lives of your soldiers. Again, the use of heavy weapons in conventional situations is justified. To increase the likelihood of civilian casualties in an occupation because you want to engage in the highest possible level of force protection is not going to pass moral muster. It is understandable at the level of the grunts, but the military is primarily a political tool. As Clausewitz said, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” The strategic and tactical options available to commanders are set by politicians. Always have been, always will be.
Christopher said, “
Incidental civilian deaths versus deliberate mass murder. You can’t see a difference? Well, God have mercy on you anyway.
Glen
Your statements have this assumption that the US military is purposefully targeting women and children when it engages insurgents. It is not. You continually ignore the evidence that insurgents and terrorists have intentionally placed themselves within civilians to ensure that as much international propaganda can be gained through civilian deaths. You condemn the so-called “immorality of the US” by their actions. Yet, justify the insurgents’ immorality by your silence concerning their actions.
That has been the issue underlying your argument. That is why I pointed out you portrayal of American servicemembers as butchers. Your argument hinges on the belief that when servicemember enter a combat zone they intentionally target civilians. It’s lie that you continue to perpetuate by your moralizing that the tactics and weapon systems being used in Iraq wouldn’t be used in the US.
So yes (duh), anybody would condemn targeting of civilians in the US if civilians were intentional targets. But that’s what is not going on. It’s a leftist propaganda myth without fact. It is the proof of why you’ve aligned yourself to the left when you regurgitate the old leftist lie that servicemembers are baby killers.
Glen,
“Actually, it is exactly the concept of ‘total war’ that Just War Theory repudiates.”
If it can not account for a Just response to an aggressor like Japan, then “Just War Theory” is an abstraction used by those who would have us fight an abstraction. As a Christian, I would reject it as an idol. I don’t think it does of course, but I do reject your argument 😉
“What you are basically arguing, in a sense, is that if your opponent has no moral scruples than you also can have none. “
Glen, that is a bit of a stretch is it not. What I am arguing is that the atomic attacks were justified. You reject this, and argue that Just War Theory fits your rejection. You reduce the obscene loss of American life on Iwo Jima and Okinawa as “Trumanese propaganda”. What happen to your earlier sober analysis?
“not all means of fighting a war are licit according to the historic teachings of the church”
We agree. We obviously disagree in the application of these teachings…
“Were we in danger of being overrun by Japanese troops if we didn’t bomb Hiroshima? No. Was the UK in danger of being overrun when the decision was made to firebomb Dresden?’”
This might be a main source of our disagreement. I judge the aggression and simple lunacy of Germany and Japan to be immanent until their total defeat. The risk of “containment” was too high. Justice demanded total defeat. Interestingly, many opponents of the Iraqi conflict also were willing to contain Iraq/Saddam and believe the Just War conditions were not met. The fact that they argue so vehemently against “pre-emptive” strikes reveals IMO a fundamental lack in their theorizing. I think a correct reaction to the power of modern weaponry is that you can’t always wait until your enemy uses them on you. I am all for pre-emptive strikes 😉
I can see we have disagreements that will not be resolved here, so this will be my last post on this subject. One thing is for certain, the application of Christian principles to war is not as simple as it is often suggested. The fact that Glen and I disagree so fundamentally in this area where we would likely be quite close on politics, etc. shows me that this is not always a mere symptom of the conservative/liberal divide. I also would like to have better guidance from the Church than we have had. I am personally unimpressed with what Father Webster rightly calls the “lesser morality” of the lesser evil philosophy. Thank you Glen for talking this over with me, and may God have Mercy on us and His Holy Church!
Glen: Unconditional surrender, yes, necessary
As to unconditional surrender, yes, it was necessary in my judgment. Japan has built up a intensely militarized society and had been rampaging around Asia inflicting terrible suffering on millions for years before WWII broke out.
It was critical that the Japanese war machine be totally smashed. Smashed beyond any revival. Allowing even a tiny vestige of the Japanese government to remain (other than the Emperor as MacArthur skillfully recognized) would have allowed the cancer to regrow. Note I am referring to smashing the government, not the people. The defiance of the Japanese government was proven by the lapse of six days (I believe working from memory) between the first bomb and the second.
Yes, unconditional surrender was called for after the deaths of so many in China, Southeast Asia, Korea, various pacific islands and in America.
We should be very slow to go to war, but, once we go nothing should stop us from total unconditional victory. If we have to sacrifice the lives of our servicemen we owe them and the world that.
JBL said,
JBL, are you actually reading what I write or are you shadow boxing with someone else on ‘dailykos’ or something?
I actually said things like,
At no time have I ever stated that in Iraq the U.S military has deliberately targeted civilians. Never. I would never say that, because I don’t believe it. I have said that our broad use of sight unseen aerial attacks, use of CAS and HE artillery rounds have created an unacceptable risk to Iraqi civilians.
You aren’t arguing with me JBL, you are fighting with an imaginary leftist, 60’s holdover who is protesting the Vietnam War by calling returning draftees (most of whom were good, working class boys) ‘baby killers.’ Sorry, I have no idea where you are getting that from. How many times I have said that I understand why the operational commanders are doing what they are doing? I feel for the position they are in.
Do not confuse my objections to the Iraqi War to the other discussion on the atomic bomb. That is mixing two different lines of thought that only intersect in the fact that Americans tend to write-off casualties that are inflicted using distance and technology.
As for the terrorists, I said this earlier,
What do you want me to say? Absolutely, conducting guerilla ops while hiding behind a civilian shield is wrong. Blowing up civilians is wrong. Blowing up houses of worship is wrong. Launching attacks in order to draw fire onto civilians is wrong. Kidnapping people is wrong. Killing journalists is wrong. It’s all wrong and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. If anybody on this site were defending the insurgents, then I would of course remind them that the insurgents are committing atrocities for which there is no excuse.
Is that good enough? What more do you want me to say?
Once again, I asked you a question, and you duck it by launching an attack against not me, but someone who isn’t even part of this conversation. Why are you ducking the question I asked? Why are you so afraid of it that you keep slinging mud?
JBL writes: “Your [Glen’s] argument hinges on the belief that when servicemember enter a combat zone they intentionally target civilians.”
That’s not Glen’s argument. As I read him his argument is that the force used against the combatants causes very serious civilian casualties (the ones we as occupiers are supposed to protect) — casualties that would be utterly unacceptable here in the U.S.
A Gallup poll conducted in Iraq in 2004 found that
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0429/dailyUpdate.html
There’s the “hearts and minds” thing for you.
Now Missourian asks “If the Iraqi people thought that American’s brough terror why would they turn out and vote in the face of death threats.”
They voted because of the reality of the situation. The vote wasn’t a referendum on the occupation. Surveys have been done on that, and the vast majority of Iraqis wish we would leave. In addition, something close to 50 percent of Iraqis say that it’s Ok to kill Americans. Again, there’s the heart and minds thing.
Missourian: “Iraqis are capable of distinguishing between accidental damage during battle and the INTENTIONAL AND PURPOSEFUL targeting of unarmed school teachers. ” & etc.
Perhaps some day a band of heavily armed criminals will take refuge in your neighborhood, and in response the police, judging that it’s too dangerous to go in there and take them out, will have the local National Guard unit flatten most of your neighborhood with artillery fire. After you crawl out of the wreckage of what used to be your house, I’ll drop by and explain to you how that was Ok, because they didn’t intend to destroy your neighborhood; they were just after the bad guys. The fact that your house was destroyed, your neighborhood destroyed, and many of your neighbors dead and injured — well, things like that can happen. Fortunately, no police were injured and most of the bad guys were eliminated. I’m sure you’ll understand, and even vote in the next election as a sign of your approval.
Missourian: “The inversion of common sense when it comes to Iraq is almost beyond belief.”
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Christopher –
This is from the Basic Social Concept of the Orthodox Church, published by the Moscow Patriarchate:
It is not that Just War can not handle an aggressor such as Japan. You oversimplify. Within the teaching of the Church, there is repeated caution against the ends not justifying the means. If you recognize any limits on warfare, I can not discern them in your posts. An embrace of ‘total war’ anything goes is clearly not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
No one said it was wrong to fight the Japanese or to roll back their empire. I disagree with the atomic bombs, not the fight against Japan. You keep trying to make adherents of Just War into pacifists. That is clearly not the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church, within whose jurisdiction I worship. Just War and pacifism are not the same thing. Recognizing limits on military action is not the same thing as foreswearing self-defense.
As for “You reduce the obscene loss of American life on Iwo Jima and Okinawa as “Trumanese propaganda”. What happen to your earlier sober analysis?”
The million casualty estimate has been endlessly debated. I consider it a grossly high estimate, considering that 12,000 KIA was the total that it took to take Okinawa. The largest popularizer of this figure was Truman himself. But again, you are arguing that you can do the unthinkable if you can balance the scales with some kind of good. If you kill enough kids and women to provoke a surrender, then it is worth it.
Would you excuse this if the U.S. military had shot 100,000 people in the back of the head, even if the result had been the same?
Likely, you wouldn’t. But, you will excuse it because the killing was done from distance using technology. This is a moral blindspot for Americans. The point of Christian teaching on war, is that some things are simply to wrong to contemplate. That was why this bothered Eisenhower throughout his entire life.
That point hasn’t changed simply because of modern weapons. You could kill thousands by hand just as you can kill them with a bomb. The need to terrorize opponents is no different today than in the 10th Century. The development of the aircraft has not somehow completely abrogated Christian teaching.
Christopher said,
You can think what you like, but does it fit the facts? I asked you to name me a single occasion in world history in which a military defeat was only staved off by the massive killing of opposing civilians. I said that I would be willing to examine the case. I’m still waiting.
As for pre-emptive strikes, exactly what is that? How do you decide what is and what is not a threat that should be intercepted years or decades in advance? The criteria are so open-ended as to be self-serving. Any nation can be a potential threat if the scenarios are spun out into infinity. I am much more concerned about China and Iran, but if you feel like we got our $300 billion dollars worth by attacking Saddam, then who am I to argue?
This is not to say that I dismiss the concept of ‘pre-emptive’ outright. I would certainly say that an attack by France and the UK on Germany after the re-occupation of the Rhineland would have been entirely in order. A U.S. assault on Japan in defense of China, would also have been in order. However, it is not always 1939 and not all threats are Hitlerian in stature.
America has power, but lacks prudence. We have cleverness, but no discernment.
On final notes, I have no respect for Father Websters teaching on this topic. Also, you are correct, our disagreement does not represent a liberal/conservative divide. You and I represent a divide inside conservatism.
Missourian –
Not every war has to be a fight-to-the-death. Americans have fought wars with a lot of powers from the British to the Iraqis. All but three of them ended in some kind of negotiated settlement. One was against ourselves from 1861 to 1865. The other was WWII, and of course, our ongoing troubles in Iraq.
What I fear is that our fixation on WWII has somehow made us think that every war is a fight against Hitler, that a war isn’t ‘over’ unless we occupy the other guy’s territory and fully subject him to our will.
We can go on and on about the atomic bomb, but that is one major and crucial concern of mine. After the first Gulf War, President Bush I got all kinds of flack because he didn’t ‘finish the job.’ He did the job, Saddam was ejected from Kuwait and his military was destroyed. It was a victory, but it wasn’t a WWII-style victory.
I often feel like the sanctions, the ‘No Fly Zone’ policy, and our current war in Iraq is tied to that public perception that we didn’t finish the job in 1992. In other words, we didn’t prosecute the war until ‘unconditional surrender.’
Whether this was an acceptable policy towards Japan is debatable, but what is not debatable is that wars usually don’t end that way. It may play well for the cameras to capture the capital and round up the leaders, but it usually isn’t practical or even desirable. Most wars between states are fought over issues that can be settled after the armies have cleared the way to negotiations by demonstrating which side has the most bargaining chips.
After all, did the UK invade Argentina? Did the U.S. seize all of Mexico and rule it? Did we occupy Spain?
Somehow, justifications for government encroachment into civil liberties always come back to Lincoln and Habea Corpus. Lincoln did it, so it must be okay in extreme circumstances. For civil liberties, it is always 1861. For foreign wars, it is always WWII and we always come back around to discussions of the dropping of the Atomic Bomb. It seems to be that if even that horrendous act could be justified, then anything can be justified.
Or so it seems. Perhaps those two horrific acts can be justified on some level that could be morally acceptable, but applying their precedent over and over again for other acts seems to be straining the template, so to speak.
Glen: In this to the end, whether we want to be or not, IMHO
You state:
.
Even if this is historically true, we have a NEW situation. There is no bargaining with Islamofascists. There is nothing comparable in the examples that you mention to what we are dealing with in this war.
This is a 1400 year old war. Mohammed started it. A good share (10 – 15%) of the world’s Muslims will kill themselves to achieve the caliphate. Another 80% of the world’s Muslims applaud the shahid. They aren’t stopping until everyone in the West is a Muslim, a slave or dead. The pulled off 9/11 and they have every reason to believe they can do it again and shatter our economy and civil order.
Respectfully Glen, we are in this to the end whether we want to be or not. Just my opinion.
Virtues of Unconditional Surrender
Compare today’s Japan
today’s Germany
today’s Korea
Again, I don’t think we have a choice, they are in it to the end and we will have to be also.
Judgment Call
Glen, your arguments are not without merit. Oddly enough I think I am just the more realistic of the two of us on the issue of unconditional surrender.
I have concluded that this is a true civilizational struggle of epochal scope. In the end, I don’t think it is fully containable. I think it will blow in the next couple of years.
Again, you argue your position well and have brought up many valid points.
Missiourian –
The clash of civilizations is something altogether different than a conflict between two nation states. The major dilemma with our current conflict with the Muslim world is precisely that we are conducting it as if it were a normal war, as opposed to a different struggle entirely.
To whit, we focused on attacking Iraq but have done nothing about immigration to the United States. We have been too soft on Saudi Arabia, which promotes extremism, and too hard on Egypt in that we have pried open an electoral opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas – well that just speaks for itself.
The major goal I would have for the Muslim world right now is to keep it contained and promote secularism. At the same time, keep the Muslims out of Western Democracies where their large families are quickly providing them with a lot of new voters. In Democracies, numbers rule.
My point was not about the conflict with Muslims so much as the localized issue of Saddam, who posed as a Muslim for the cameras only. That was a localized dispute that was settled by force of arms and that we should have put behind us and focused on the major problem – Iran and its amazing, wind-up Jihad machine.
I have no problem taking the steps necessary to oppose both Islam and Islamic terror, as long as the proffered solution is not a genocide of some massive scale. Like it or not, Christ died for the Muslims also. But that doesn’t stop me from advocating self-defense when necessary. I just want to be smart about it.
Iran is a festering sore of a problem. Their tentacles are spread all over the Middle East, giving them massive power in Lebanon, the PA, and now in Iraq. While I can’t advocate a tactical nuke strike, we certainly need to get serious. That is a regime whose goals are not limited, and who seem to be gearing up for the Apocalypse.
I recognize that we made mistakes in the past with dealing with Iran, but their current regime is using that as a crutch to beat us with. I wish someone could come up with a strategy for connecting to those Iranians who have seem Islamic rule and wish to move past it, but right now any attempt by us to ‘bolster’ the opposition only discredits it. Perhaps a stand-down would be tactically beneficial? This is, unfortunately, a judgement call that is easily blown.
As I’ve said before, I would much rather be facing them without being attached to this Iraqi tar baby.
China worries me as well, perhaps even more so. We aren’t even beginning to be serious about them. The Bush clan is completely asleep at the switch on this while we spend billions trying to pacify Iraq.
Oh well, at least the House is getting ready to kill the Dubai ports thing. That is good news.
Note 63. Glen said “God instituted order and raised up rulers to prevent anarchy. As such we observe order and obey laws that do not conflict with our higher duty to our faith.”
This statement I agree with wholehartedly. And I would posit that based on this statement the idea of a more individual response to war would not be that far off.
I also want to make one other thing clear: the statements I make I do not make lightly and they come from two years of thought prayer and writing on them. I also know that I do not have all the answers. I will endevor to answer any question that is asked about my statements.
Glen: the general overview of war and the start into how Christians should aproach war that you provide I would tend to agree with. And I realize and assent to the fact that you have more experience on the ground than I will ever have. However, I believe that Christians must be warriors. Now first and foremost I believe that Christians should be peacemakers. For Christians in the military they must add to that foundation of peacemaking what I believe to be the physical dimension to the confrontaion of Satan. Please do not think that I am calling for a Christian holy war. Because I am not. Christian warriors in the military must be warriors not soldiers. Because I belive that a soldier runs the risk of not being an individual anymore but simply another tool to be used without even realizing it. Christian warriors in the military should take on to the outward apperance a soldier another member of the unit. However, the Christian warrior must maintain his Christianity.
I said I was done with this tread, but it irks me when folks quote St. Paul’s words in Roman’s 12 out of context. This is most often done by pacifists and/or proponents of the lesser evil philosophy. The more you read these folks, the more their view of war/corporate conflict becomes an unreal abstraction, and the thinner their moral indignation becomes. I quote more of St. Paul to and emphasize the words these folks conveniently ignore or simply pay lip service to:
Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[a] says the Lord. 20 Therefore
“ If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”[b]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
NKJV
Thank you Christopher.
Christopher,
I don’t follow. Who was quoting or paraphrasing St. Paul out of context? I’m sorry to keep coming back to this, but it seems that you are really upset by the whole ‘pacifist/lessor evil’ sort of teaching. I can certainly understand why that would upset you, because I concur that it is an unworkable philosophical position, and one I don’t think is supported by the scriptures.
On the other hand, I find the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church which is reflective of the Western Tradition of ‘Just War’ to be an extremely cogent and nuanced view that is indicative of the Russian Church’s role as spiritual treasury of a Great Power. Things are different if you are Russia or the United States than if you are Serbia, and the role of the church in a Great Power will be different as well. Part of our Theological confusion in this regard may stem from the fact that our Theologians are not called upon to actually lead the nation, given that we are majority Protestant. That, necessarily, allows for a more ‘pie-in-the-sky’ approach.
That is not to say that they can be discounted, but as I said, I tend to get my Theological direction more from Russian sources, as there Theologians have to grapple with real-life issues of how a major Orthodox Church in a Great Power must deal with modernity.
That, obviously, can still lead me to certain moral conclusions that you may not share, but it will always steer away from pacifism as a Christian imperative. (Outside the ranks of clergy, of course, who can not bear arms in either the RC or Orthodox Communions.)
Again, while I am sensitive to your concerns about Father Webster or Father Harakas’ teaching, I really don’t think that many Orthodox in the laity really share that. Rather, I think it is more of a challenge to raise their consciousness as to the limits or war, as many are converted Evangelicals who were raised with aboslutely no Just War tradition whatsoever.
Missourian –
The Republican blogs are loving this story:
This was considered so important that a lot of blogs had it as frontpage news, even though it is only a State Senate race. She’s mixed race and Muslim, the new Republican dream candidate. She proves, by her very existance, that the Republican Party is not racist or Islamophobic.
If you are expecting the Republican Party to somehow come out against Islam, then are going to be waiting a long, long time. The Republicans think Muslim candidates are a whiz-bang idea, since American Muslims are not at all like their nasty co-religionists in Europe who burn things down in France.
Doubt it? Log in to a Republican blog, criticize the uncritical acceptance of this candidate, and see how fast you get banned.
She may be a really, really nice person and well-qualified. Since I don’t live in her district, I really don’t have any reason to investigate this further. I just find it interesting how the Republican Party plays the PC multi-cultural game, especially with Islam.
Glen, Point Taken
You are right.
Look at the Dubai deal itself. The American people luckily knew about this one and rose up, but, what about all the other one’s we don’t know about.
Karen Hughes is learning about Islam from John Esposito. Esposito is the leading apologist for Islam in America. He actually wrote a book just a year or two before 9/11 with a title like “The Myth of Islamic Terror.” Some myth, John. This is proof positive that the White House is clueless at this point.
Look at the questions about Grover Norquist ( I think that is his name) who is married to muslimah but who refuses to state whether he converted to Islam. It is a rare mulimah who marries a non-Muslim because she risks death from a relative. So chances are he’s converted.
Normally I don’t concern myself with the religious beliefs of those around me, I really am a “live and let live person” like most Americans. But, to my knowledge Islam is the only “religion” that teaches that God allows men four wives and that men may beat women. For some reason, I just don’t warm up to that.
In order to be a Muslim you must accept the Koran as divine and perfect and unchangeable. You must also accept Mohammed as the “perfect man.” A man who’s conduct cannot be criticized and who conduct is always worthy of imitation. So, I have a hard time opening up my heart to people like this.
I have worked with Muslims and through the use of extreme courtesy on both sides we have gotten along. However, I find it odd to look someone in the eye and realize that here in America, someone voluntarily signs on to Islam. In an Islamic country you pretty much have no choice, you will get killed if you leave Islam after having been born into an Islamic family, but, here in America, you have choices.
Bad days ahead, my friend. I will get through it O.K., but I have younger members of my family that will be facing a tough time after I am gone, I fear.
Some in Republican Party are Informed
Some Republicans are informed about Islam, but, they are pretty much frozen out by Bush’s approach. There are more informed persons in the Republican party than the Democrats I would think, however, I don’t really have any reliable data on that.
Wonder what the next big shakeup will be.
Glen, Nationally Muslims Not Really a Voting Bloc, But in Michigan they are
In Michigan, Muslims are sufficiently concentrated geographically that they are beginning to become a voting block in their own right. [Oh, happy day]. The City of Hamtranck is being transformed by it.
We will have to see whether this particular minority is going to grow much across the country. If it does watch Karl Rove go after it.
On the national level, it seems that many U.S. Government agencies actually treat CAIR as if it was a legitimate public interest group and not a front for Islamism.
Heaven help us.
How the U.S. betrays the Copts to maintain relations with Egypt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F10%2F25%2Fwcopt25.html
Things haven’te changed much, Karen Hughes is reading Esposito. Heaven help us.
Note 83. Frankly, I think the Republicans and Democrats are both paralyzed regarding Islam in America. Some of this is due to the American trait of not attributing any intention of malfeasance to malefactors short of rock solid proof.
The Communists used to counsel American Communists differently than the British when a comrade was caught in a crime. The British Communists were told to admit their crime outright since the Brits found it easier to forgive. In America, the Communists were to deny any complicity in crime to their dying day (think Alger Hiss or Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg) because Americans would always presume innocence short of conclusive proof. Once found guilty however, the Americans never forget.
This is one reason why CAIR, which is merely a front group for Islamic radicalism as Missourian correctly points out, is not seen as such by many Americans.
Father –
I couldn’t agree more. Sometimes it appears that I am extremely hard on Republicans. And that is true, I suppose that I am. This is for two reasons, however. The first is that Republicans are the party in power. For all practical intents and purposes, the Dems are out in the cold. Criticizing them for being losers is just gratituitous bashing at this point. They can accomplish nothing. If Republicans weren’t busy not taking care of their base, then the Dems would never be a threat to win anything.
But reason two is that the Republican rank and file refuses to see how handicapped by collectivist, PC-thinking the party really is. I read other Republicans and their take on what they think is happening, and then contrast that with the behavior of the President and other party leaders, and I just shake my head. The disconnect is so glaring as to make my head swim.
If I point out how hobbled the Republican response to Islam really is, then I get a lecture on John Kerry. Yeah, Kerry was a horrible candidate with no ideas to run on.
Now that we all agree on that, I’d like to move on and deal with the PC mentality that allows Norm Mineta to stay on through two Bush terms. A PC mentality that is so pervasive, that Democratic governors in two states are moving the right of a Republican president on border security.
I’d really, really like to focus on Islam and the issues that it presents. I know that you and many other Republicans would as well. But it is as if the party leadership is simply unable to do so. Whether because they are just that PC-blinded, or from some other reason, I really can’t say.
Ask yourselves if an aggressive and overtly confrontational approach towards Islam as a faith has yielded positive results to date.
There is no question that parts of the Islamic world are afflicted by many serious disorders and dangerous pathologies. These include: misogeny and cultural intolerance, a psychology of victimhood, a cultivation of hate and anger, and a shocking acceptance of violence and murder as tools to further their objectives.
The question is how to deal with this situation, and I believe the short answer is carefully and not clumsily.
All evidence indicates that pronouncements by Christians denouncing Islam as a faith have been eagerly awaited and quickly used by Islamic fundamentalists to discredit Islamic moderates and fan the flames of sectarian hatred. No sooner are the words condemning Muslims out of the mouths of the Christian fundamentalists who spoke them than they are distributed by Al Qaeda and other Islamic radicals with the following interpretation, “See we told you so. You can’t deal with the West, they hate all of us Muslims and want to destroy us. That’s why all of the things that we do, that they call terrorism, are really acts of self-defense.”
If we want to diminish the dangerous pathologies within Islam and not inflame them further, we need to support moderate Muslims around the world and strengthen their hand to deal with the militants in their midst. This begins with showing them a little respect and not attacking their faith indiscriminatly. This doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to attrocities and oppression committed by Muslims – but it does mean that we address our comments towards those specific acts and refrain from turning them into a sweeping condemnation of an entire faith.
For years Israel did all it could to weaken and discredit the more moderate elements in Palestine willing to coexist with Israel as a separate state. Then this year we were all surprised and shocked when those more moderate elements failed in the recent Palestinian elections and the more radical hamas movement prevailed. It should have been no surprise at all.
During the late nineties a growing disenchantment with the theocratic clergy in Iran and growing pro-western movement among youth seemed to herald positive changes in that country. It was snuffed out however when George W Bush added Iran to the “Axis of Evil” and the entire nation of Iran was made to feel under threat by America. Just as President Bush’s approval rating soared after September 11th, the popularity of the mullahs also skyrocketed as Iranians closed ranks in response to a perceived foreign threat.
This reckless and irresponsible “bring it on” attitude of those eager for a clash of civilizations really scares me, because there are warmongers eager for a clash of civilizations on the other side who are all too happy to oblige. The result will be death and suffering for millions.
Wisdom and Discretion is Always Beneficial
Dean, wisdom and discretion is always beneficial and approaches to Islam are difficult to generalize about. In a previous note, I discussed the special roles of U.S. government officials, Church leaders and intellectuals. Each has a different role and each has responsibility to interact with Muslims in different situations.
I have no disagreement with the general premise that we need to use discretion and avoid unnecessary offense, that is a truism in nearly all situations.
I do not agree that we permit wishful thinking to substitute for serious analysis of the real facts.
I do not agree in allowing Muslim apologists to deny the violent aspects of Islamic history. The West is not innocent of atrocities but, by and large, the West is not in denial of the ugly parts of its past.
I do not agree with allowing Westernizers to ignore the very deep and very real conflicts between the two cultures. A culture which has always combined religion and politics is very, very different from one in which they have been separated. A culture in which companionate marriage is the norm is very different in which polygamous marriage is the norm.
I don’t agree with the policy of the British police in allowing Hamza to function unimpeded in Britain for years without arrest.
I do not agree with ignoring the development of ungovernable Muslim enclaves in Europe, in Muslim violence against Jews and other disastrous developments arising from a heavy Muslim influx. These issues need to be discussed and the facts need to be taken into account.
Here are some difficult facts we need to face:
The London Telegraph reported in February that its ICM poll showed 40 per cent of of British Muslims in its sample favor applying sharia law in predominately Muslim areas of the country.
There is no easy answer her
Here’s some timely news. I have a friend who is currently serving in the Peace Corps in Bangladesh. He sent a message today that all Peace Corps volunteers are being evacuated from the country.
He didn’t know why, but I found an article that explains the situation:
http://www.newagebd.com/2006/mar/14/front.html#17
News from Pym Fortuyn Conference: Conversation with Danish Immigration Official
Source: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13187
recently spoke at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague, which focused on Europe’s growing immigration crisis and imminent Islamization; Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, Daniel Pipes and others were also featured speakers.
The first night we were in The Hague there was a reception for us at the American Embassy. There I met an official of the Dutch Ministry of Integration, who spends her days in dialogue with Dutch imams and other Muslim leaders. I asked her how many Muslim leaders she encountered who were ready to lay aside attachment to the Sharia, accept the Dutch governmental and societal structure and the parameters of Dutch pluralism, and be willing to live in Dutch society as equals to, not superiors of, non-Muslims indefinitely.
She told me that there were few, but insisted that we had to work with those few, and indeed had to place our faith and hope in them, for otherwise the future was impossibly bleak. I asked her if she had read the Qur’an. She told me no, she hadn’t, and wouldn’t, because she didn’t want to lose all hope — and because whatever was in it, she still had to work to find some accord with the Muslim leaders, no matter what.
I urged her to ask the imams with whom she spoke questions that made their loyalties clear, insofar as they would answer them honestly. I urged her to ask them whether they would like to see Sharia implemented in the Netherlands at any time in the future, and whether they were working toward that end in any way, peaceful as well as violent. I asked her to ask them whether they would be content to live as equals with non-Muslims indefinitely in a Dutch pluralistic society, or whether they would ultimately hope to institute Islamic supremacy and the subjugation of non-Muslims.
She couldn’t ask them those questions, she told me. Such questions would immediately put their relationship on a confrontational plane, when cooperation was what they wanted, not confrontation. But, I sputtered, you’re not getting cooperation as it is. The confrontation is already upon us. What is to be gained by pretending that it isn’t happening?
We need to stop deceiving ourselves and allowing ourselves to be deceived. The young lady in the Dutch Ministry of Integration, despite her best efforts to ignore or deny reality, kept coming up against it. Eventually the Dutch Ministry of Integration and other administrative bodies in the Western world are going to have to come to grips with the implications of facts about Islamic jihad that so far they have preferred to pretend did not exist.
The President should acknowledge these realities. He could then address the nation and the world, and tell them that the United States is going to lead the resistance to jihad and Sharia supremacism in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples. That any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights will receive no American aid. That any state that allows the idea that Muslims must make war against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or submit to the Islamic social order will be no friend of the United States. That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or non-violent means, will be understood within the United States as seditious.
The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference was one small effort to bring Dutch officials, and ultimately the West at large, to confront the realities of our world that the world is doing all it can to deny. Bat Ye’or spoke about how European officials themselves had brought Eurabia into being by encouraging immigration while eschewing assimilation at the insistence of the Arab League. Only now are Europeans realizing that their culture, their soul, has been sold by their leaders for oil, and the jihad is upon them.
It is a reality so bleak that it’s no wonder that most officials prefer fantasy. But they won’t be able to maintain their comfortable illusions much longer.
Peace Corps in Bangladesh
Bangladesh is one of the most concentrated strongholds of jihadis, those Peace Corps people should be pulled they are too vulnerable.
Missourian – the sentiments in Post 91 are my own. Which is why, after 9/11, we went into Afghanistan I thought that was a good thing. I expected a lot of other actions, however, such as turning up the heat on Turkey, rethinking our alliances in the Middle East, working on immigration restrictions, forcing Muslim countries to respect Christian rights, re-aligning borders in places like Sudan and Nigeria to free Christians from Muslim control.
Those are the kind of policies I expected. I also sent off the paperwork to be re-evaluated for a return to active duty as an officer in the Army, this time. I didn’t have the physique after 10+ years of civilian life to hack the Marines again, but the Army has a lot of jobs that appealed to me.
But – we didn’t do any of that. Instead, we went after Saddam and placated a bunch of Islamic tyrants to help us. So I stayed home and designed software instead of going. No sense going on a crusade that isn’t really a crusade.
I was ready, willing, and able to fight, if it was the right fight. It wasn’t, and isn’t, so here I sit at this keyboard instead.
Foir a change of pace, take a look at The People’s Cube. I liked the People’s Glossary and the “You might be guilty of thougthcrime if …” section. I think it’s actually quite related to the topic at hand.
Glen
I am sure that I join your wife and family in my gratitude that you are not going to the Middle East to fight again for your country. I know you exert a very beneficial effect right here.
#94. WARNING – this post is a bit gross.
Augie, I had food poisoning two nights ago and my rib cage is extremely sore from… um… convulsive throwing up. (Okay, the gross part is over.) I clicked over just now to the People’s Cube and discovered not just an uproariously funny site, but also a whole new level of pain.
Thanks for the reference. I’ll be going back in a week or two, when my intercostals are feeling better.