The day before the president’s speech, I got email from some people asking me why I’m such an idiot, how I can reconcile Christianity with war, how I could reconcile the present engagement with the “Just War” musings of Aquinas, etc.
The day after the speech, I had a friend urge me to perform an exercise of “reassessment” regarding my views.
I found myself writing essentially the same response to several of those folk – the ones worth answering (here’s a hint, if you want me to respond to an email of yours, don’t call me names or wish my kids dead.)
The response is this: When did Jesus say there should be no war? Jesus recognised that some things simply were what they were. He was, in some ways, the ultimate pragmatist; “render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21) and “”A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master.” (Matthew 10:24) Scripture says “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven/A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant./A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.” (Eccl 3;1-3)
No sane person likes war. But war sometimes comes. And the “Just War” theology is very clear that war may be Just when it is waged to ultimately spare more lives than it takes, to stop an inexorable advancement of evil.
There is some indication, given the behavior of the Islamofascists since the 1970′s that their advancement is inexorable. And to my way of thinking, when that advancement is indiscriminate about who it kills or maims, when it oppresses women, hangs gays and talks about exterminating Jews – or any sort of genocide – well…I’ll call it evil and answer to God as to whether I got that call right.
Here’s the thing. Do you folks urging me to “reassess” things really think I haven’t thought about it and prayed hard about it and wondered if my thoughts and feelings (and for that matter, my stubborn loyalty to the vision I see within it) were not two parts knee-jerk reaction to the naysayers and one part la-laland? Good lord. Of course I’ve rethought my take on the war – many times. I can see where the damn mistakes have been made, particularly in the past year. I don’t think this president has been faultless – in some ways he’s been stunningly inept, and (as I’ve written somewhere on my blog) my feeling is that both Cheney and Rumsfeld should have asked to resign right after the ’04 elections. And I think the WH in general has been a communications nightmare.
I also think this is a WH under seige in an unprecedented way. Imagine a corporation or a network trying to improve or contain a situation while its members are leaking everything to the press, and then consider how much more difficult it would be for them to take constructive action in the face of that. I do think this WH has allowed itself to be distracted in its management of the war by a lot of pissant ankle biters who are not serious about anything at all beyond politicizing things and acquiring power.
Whenever I think about how I feel about the war and where it’s going – and remember, I have a kid who may be welcomed into these troop numbers before this is all over, so I have some skin in this game – I come down to the realization that this is not a war like any other because this is not an enemy like any other. This is an enemy that does not wear a uniform, it hides in the crowd, it fights with no code and concurs with no convention. It doesn’t mind hiding behind women and children or storing arms in churches. If this enemy takes a prisoner it slaughters him on camera, and with great glee.
Their battlefield is literally EVERYWHERE. What do they want? They don’t want land – even giving them Israel would not appease them, because all of this is not about Israel. This is an enemy that says, “you love Pepsi, we love death. And we are happy to die as long as we are killing you, too.” It is an unconventional enemy, and unconventional war, and we have absolutely nothing to offer within a diplomatic solution. This is an enemy that will take your diplomatic solution and use it against you, because it is not fighting out of loyalty to a king who may be appeased…they’re fighting and using terrorism as a means of movement, to advance an idea the bottom line of which is “Die. Or, you know, convert. But mostly die.”
Europe won’t fight this enemy – can’t fight it and doesn’t wish to. She is already defeated demographically and I remember the quote from the Dutch fellow who said, “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
When Islamofascism rolls in to occupy Paris (it is very nearly there) it will not do so with tanks. It will do so with burquas for the women, swords for the gays and calls for prayer for everyone. What do you think France will do? What is it doing, already?
Who will fight, then? Just us…and the UK for a little while longer, and the Aussies. We have one last great hope to defeat this advancing ideology and that hope is to give the non-fascists a taste of liberty and democratic process, and an oppotunity to enter into the marketplace of goods and ideas. Yes, ugly materialism and ugly capitalism go bad eventually, but we can worry about that later. Right now…if we can whip a little industry onto folks who are not currently allowed to dream or design or discuss…maybe they will stop raising kids who feel like the only way they can be important and successful is by the measure of the mullah and the martyr.
What is the alternative? No one ever tells me what the alternative is. It can’t be more ducking heads in the sand and hoping things level off to some sort of “managable chaos.” That was the ninties. It’s a new century and it demands a willingness to do more than invite terrorists into the WH to “talk” only to find them walking away when they’re offered 95% of what they “said” they wanted, utterly belying any stated willingness to seek “diplomatic solutions.”
What is the solution? If Bush fails in going “all in” and we pull out, okay…we’ve brought our sons and daughters home and basically rendered meaningless our 3000 honorable military deaths. Iraq will immediately fall and the 21century killing fields will commence.
And what, then, is the solution for dealing with worldwide terror? Until someone can tell me what is the workable alternative to war, can tell me how to keep our children from having to live in a world where free speech is lost to intimidation, cathedral crosses are replaced with minarets, women are stoned to death for the crime of being raped, gays are hung for being gay and jews are simply left for slaughter, I simply can’t find the answer.
So, there you go. I assess and reassess and in the end, I see an enemy that cannot be fought conventionally, and I see a vision that maybe is foolish, maybe is impossible. But maybe, just maybe, if it works, if Iraq – in the center of the Middle East – can sustain its incipient democracy and flourish…then the whole world changes, for the better. We have to dare to dream it. We have to dare to believe it.
Supporting the war is not about “giving Bush a win” and decrying it is not about “giving Bush a loss.” It’s about all of us.
With only two alternatives on the table — fight or flight — the debate really comes down to questions of context. One is geopolitical: Just how important is this war beyond Iraq? Another is political in the domestic sense: Is this just George W. Bush’s war, or is it a war in which the whole nation has a stake?
If we go down, we all go down together, the president will not “fail” in a vacuum.
We we have to figure out what happens if we surrender, and what happens if we win. Because all of this does not “go away” in two years when Bush leaves office. Islamofascist terrorism was already business-as-usual before Bush came into office. It will be there when he leaves, and for a very, very long time after, unless we hold fast now, and see this thing through.
Here I stand; I can do no other.
Meanwhile Siggy has a long, thoughtful look at what we’re really trying to do for Iraq, and for ourselves, at this point.
The President’s ‘team’ isn’t America or the Coalition forces. The team Mr Bush refers to are the Iraqis themselves. The last quarter of this last game being played will determine the outcome for the Iraqis- and not for the Americans or Coalition partners. Regardless of the outcome, America and her Coalition partners have given Iraq and the Arab world a once in a generation opportunity to rewrite their own destinies and the destinies of their children. The choices they make are their own.
We are giving the Iraqis a final chance to take control of their lives. If they choose to remain immobilized or only half committed, we can go home with a clear conscience. We offered them a Marshall Plan and long term commitment of partnership and opportunity. We offered them a future.
Meanwhile, Dr Sanity is angry as hell. And worth reading.
Lamb & Dragon, Counter Terrorism w/ Love
WELCOME: Michelle Malkin readers (and thanks for the link, Seedubya). While you’re here look around. Today we’ve also discussed those son-less presidents who had no worries about immediately family “paying a price,” ala Sen. Boxer to Sec’y Rice. We’ve wondered about how stability of family and community touches everything, and we’re very happy to hear that Sen. Johnson is improving and that Deborah Voigt and Bryn Terfel will be belting out Brünnhilde and Wotan! And here are 10 things to ponder for 2007.
I have heard people say tha we are too evolved for war. Well maybe we are, but the enemy is not. In fact the enemy is proud of the fact that he is not “evolved”.
If Saddam had been allowed to sidestep the UN resolutions the time would have come when he would have been free to do whatever he wanted to anyone he wanted to do it too. And anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive or uninformed or both.
We have laws, we have police and sometimes those police have to use deadly force. That is why they carry guns.
So the alternative for these people seems to be to let Saddam wipe out the Kurds and then talk about how awful it is. The alternative seems to be to let jihadis intimidate and terrorize and murder whoever they want and talk about how awful it is.
I don’t think Jesus would have wanted us to allow Christianity to vanish from the earth, but if these people have their way that is exactly what will happen.
But even if you are not a Christian, removing Saddam from power and trying to help rebuild Iraq is no more unjust than nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki or firebombing Dresden. In fact I think it is worth noting that we have lost people in this war because we did not want to do something like fire bomb Sadr city. And yet how many of these people would wonder if fighting Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany was just?
I have heard people say tha we are too evolved for war. Well maybe we are, but the enemy is not. In fact the enemy is proud of the fact that he is not “evolved”.
If Saddam had been allowed to sidestep the UN resolutions the time would have come when he would have been free to do whatever he wanted to anyone he wanted to do it too. And anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive or uninformed or both.
We have laws, we have police and sometimes those police have to use deadly force. That is why they carry guns.
So the alternative for these people seems to be to let Saddam wipe out the Kurds and then talk about how awful it is. The alternative seems to be to let jihadis intimidate and terrorize and murder whoever they want and talk about how awful it is.
I don’t think Jesus would have wanted us to allow Christianity to vanish from the earth, but if these people have their way that is exactly what will happen.
But even if you are not a Christian, removing Saddam from power and trying to help rebuild Iraq is no more unjust than nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki or firebombing Dresden. In fact I think it is worth noting that we have lost people in this war because we did not want to do something like fire bomb Sadr city. And yet how many of these people would wonder if fighting Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany was just?
I’m not a Christian, but it seems to me that Jesus’s thoughts on war–and on everything else–are closely linked to his clear belief in the transitoriness of this world and the overwhelming importance of the next.
In my neighborhood, I frequently see expensive cars with bumper stickers: “Who would Jesus bomb?” It is possible that Jesus wouldn’t bomb anyone…but it is almost certain that Jesus wouldn’t devote his life to making senior partner at the law firm, or tenured professor at the university, or whatever these individuals did in order to be able to afford their cars and houses.
I’m not a Christian, but it seems to me that Jesus’s thoughts on war–and on everything else–are closely linked to his clear belief in the transitoriness of this world and the overwhelming importance of the next.
In my neighborhood, I frequently see expensive cars with bumper stickers: “Who would Jesus bomb?” It is possible that Jesus wouldn’t bomb anyone…but it is almost certain that Jesus wouldn’t devote his life to making senior partner at the law firm, or tenured professor at the university, or whatever these individuals did in order to be able to afford their cars and houses.
We are not fighting this war “against” Iraq. We are fighting this war “in” Iraq.
What we are fighting against is terrorism sponsored by Isalmo-Fascism and Middle Eastern/Muslim Imperialism.
Just as in most wars that the USA has been involved. We usually do not fight against a country; we usually fight against an ideological movement encroaching on our sovereignty or the sovereignty of our Allies.
WWII is a great example. We were fighting against Fascism, not specifically against Germany or Italy. We were fighting against Imperialism, not specifically against Japan.
>>>>>
War is a necessary evil, not because we choose to defend ourselves, but because others choose to attack us.
If we are not willing to defend our country and our ideology, then our country and our ideology isn’t really worth very much to begin with.
Those who choose pacifism at any cost, doom themselves to defeat at the hands of their enemies.
We are not fighting this war “against” Iraq. We are fighting this war “in” Iraq.
What we are fighting against is terrorism sponsored by Isalmo-Fascism and Middle Eastern/Muslim Imperialism.
Just as in most wars that the USA has been involved. We usually do not fight against a country; we usually fight against an ideological movement encroaching on our sovereignty or the sovereignty of our Allies.
WWII is a great example. We were fighting against Fascism, not specifically against Germany or Italy. We were fighting against Imperialism, not specifically against Japan.
>>>>>
War is a necessary evil, not because we choose to defend ourselves, but because others choose to attack us.
If we are not willing to defend our country and our ideology, then our country and our ideology isn’t really worth very much to begin with.
Those who choose pacifism at any cost, doom themselves to defeat at the hands of their enemies.
“it seems to me that Jesus’s thoughts on war–and on everything else–are closely linked to his clear belief in the transitoriness of this world”
Jesus thoughts and purpose are based on the fact that creation has fallen into sin. Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, is our salvation from our inherent human self-destruction.
War is nothing more, and nothing less, than another manifestation of fallen creation from which Jesus gives us escape/salvation.
Christians do not support war for the purpose of fighting, but for the simply fact that defense of Right-Thinking ideology is an unavoidable consequence of our fallen human condition.
“it seems to me that Jesus’s thoughts on war–and on everything else–are closely linked to his clear belief in the transitoriness of this world”
Jesus thoughts and purpose are based on the fact that creation has fallen into sin. Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah, is our salvation from our inherent human self-destruction.
War is nothing more, and nothing less, than another manifestation of fallen creation from which Jesus gives us escape/salvation.
Christians do not support war for the purpose of fighting, but for the simply fact that defense of Right-Thinking ideology is an unavoidable consequence of our fallen human condition.
First off, I am not a Christian so I have no religious hang-ups about war.
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen and I say give them all they want until they unconditionally surrender and we dictate terms.
They have declared war against the non-Muslim world, understanding it is Allah’s will that they conquer the world. Their motivation is strong, their reward for doing so is intoxicating. Their methods know no mercy, no compassion, no sympathy, no quarter and no restraint. They know no inoccent, in their thinking all non-Muslims are guilty. We cannot reason with them.
And they will follow us to our homes, slay our families, kill our loved ones. They will destroy everything good and green in this world.
I feel that our only hope is to fight them with such courage and with such strength of arms that they cannot stand against us. To go into their counties and humble their pride. To visit such devastation on them that it makes them think.
And if need be, to dismantle every Mosque, every institution of Islamic Religion, every Madrasah, even raise Mecca and Medina to the ground and toss every bit of the city into the sea.
Perhaps, doing so will cause an Islamic Enlightenemnt, where their hearts guide them instead of literalist religious interpretation of a book written for a different age of humanity.
First off, I am not a Christian so I have no religious hang-ups about war.
War is the remedy our enemies have chosen and I say give them all they want until they unconditionally surrender and we dictate terms.
They have declared war against the non-Muslim world, understanding it is Allah’s will that they conquer the world. Their motivation is strong, their reward for doing so is intoxicating. Their methods know no mercy, no compassion, no sympathy, no quarter and no restraint. They know no inoccent, in their thinking all non-Muslims are guilty. We cannot reason with them.
And they will follow us to our homes, slay our families, kill our loved ones. They will destroy everything good and green in this world.
I feel that our only hope is to fight them with such courage and with such strength of arms that they cannot stand against us. To go into their counties and humble their pride. To visit such devastation on them that it makes them think.
And if need be, to dismantle every Mosque, every institution of Islamic Religion, every Madrasah, even raise Mecca and Medina to the ground and toss every bit of the city into the sea.
Perhaps, doing so will cause an Islamic Enlightenemnt, where their hearts guide them instead of literalist religious interpretation of a book written for a different age of humanity.
“What is the alternative? No one ever tells me what the alternative is. It can’t be more ducking heads in the sand and hoping things level off to some sort of “managable chaos.” That was the ninties. It’s a new century and it demands a willingness to do more than invite terrorists into the WH to “talk” only to find them walking away when they’re offered 95% of what they “said” they wanted, utterly belying any stated willingness to seek “diplomatic solutions.””
…
Terrific post, as usual. Re your above comment, I wish the Traditional Media were as honest about the failures of the other side as they are about the failures of the U.S. The same solutions –e.g., talk–are presented over and over again with no discussion of what happened the last time the U.S. “talked” with an enemy. What do the current politicians plan to do differently so the outcome will not be a rehash of Arafat rejecting an agreement that would have given him 97% of what he claimed he wanted? When are the senior level executives at the UN going to be held to the same level of accountability as the POTUS? I need a Press that will ask the tough questions, that will use sources that are verifiable. I’m tired of “fake but accurate.” I want Real.
“What is the alternative? No one ever tells me what the alternative is. It can’t be more ducking heads in the sand and hoping things level off to some sort of “managable chaos.” That was the ninties. It’s a new century and it demands a willingness to do more than invite terrorists into the WH to “talk” only to find them walking away when they’re offered 95% of what they “said” they wanted, utterly belying any stated willingness to seek “diplomatic solutions.””
…
Terrific post, as usual. Re your above comment, I wish the Traditional Media were as honest about the failures of the other side as they are about the failures of the U.S. The same solutions –e.g., talk–are presented over and over again with no discussion of what happened the last time the U.S. “talked” with an enemy. What do the current politicians plan to do differently so the outcome will not be a rehash of Arafat rejecting an agreement that would have given him 97% of what he claimed he wanted? When are the senior level executives at the UN going to be held to the same level of accountability as the POTUS? I need a Press that will ask the tough questions, that will use sources that are verifiable. I’m tired of “fake but accurate.” I want Real.
Possibly my personal experiences with survival and war distort my perception, but debating the theological and/or academic theses of war does little but delay the inevitable …..
The harsh reality is that Islamofascism represents a viable threat to our very existence.
Until (as March Hare suggests) our media and political elitists get REAL about Islamofacism — we will continue to hurry up and wait. No amount of discourse or prayer will change that reality, either.
Possibly my personal experiences with survival and war distort my perception, but debating the theological and/or academic theses of war does little but delay the inevitable …..
The harsh reality is that Islamofascism represents a viable threat to our very existence.
Until (as March Hare suggests) our media and political elitists get REAL about Islamofacism — we will continue to hurry up and wait. No amount of discourse or prayer will change that reality, either.
When did Jesus say there should be no war? Jesus recognised that some things simply were what they were.
.
Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” He did not say, “Do not have enemies.”
.
When people focus on Jesus telling Peter to put away his sword, they miss entirely the question of why did Jesus allow Peter to carry a sword in the first place???
When did Jesus say there should be no war? Jesus recognised that some things simply were what they were.
.
Jesus said, “Love your enemies.” He did not say, “Do not have enemies.”
.
When people focus on Jesus telling Peter to put away his sword, they miss entirely the question of why did Jesus allow Peter to carry a sword in the first place???
The attempt to rationalize that Jesus might have supported this war, to me, expresses a gravely deep misunderstanding of who Jesus was and what he stood for. St. Thomas Aquinas may have talked about a “just war” but Jesus did not:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Matthew 5:38-42.
One of the most remarkable things about Jesus, in the context of which he lived, was that he stood up and asked people to step away from the world’s history of barbarism and war.
If you think that’s pollyanna and doesn’t apply to today’s world, that’s fine. But please don’t try to pretend that Jesus would have ever supported any war.
The attempt to rationalize that Jesus might have supported this war, to me, expresses a gravely deep misunderstanding of who Jesus was and what he stood for. St. Thomas Aquinas may have talked about a “just war” but Jesus did not:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Matthew 5:38-42.
One of the most remarkable things about Jesus, in the context of which he lived, was that he stood up and asked people to step away from the world’s history of barbarism and war.
If you think that’s pollyanna and doesn’t apply to today’s world, that’s fine. But please don’t try to pretend that Jesus would have ever supported any war.
This “war” has been with us for 1,400 years. It has waxed and waned dependent only on the capabilities of the Muslims. Whilst the Christian world has evolved through the Reformation and the Enlightenment the Muslim world is frozen in the savagery of eighth century tribalism. “We hold these truths to be self evident…” as opposed to “my brother, my cousin, my clan and death to those who disagree”.
There is no basis for reconciliation, just as there was no hope for accomodation with Hitler or Tojo. This war will be with us for another 1,000 years. We can’t wipe them out – because of who we are. Just be assured that the barbarians will always be at the gates and much ugliness will entail.
This “war” has been with us for 1,400 years. It has waxed and waned dependent only on the capabilities of the Muslims. Whilst the Christian world has evolved through the Reformation and the Enlightenment the Muslim world is frozen in the savagery of eighth century tribalism. “We hold these truths to be self evident…” as opposed to “my brother, my cousin, my clan and death to those who disagree”.
There is no basis for reconciliation, just as there was no hope for accomodation with Hitler or Tojo. This war will be with us for another 1,000 years. We can’t wipe them out – because of who we are. Just be assured that the barbarians will always be at the gates and much ugliness will entail.
You do have a wonderful way with words. You have said what I have thought and felt for a long time but haven’t been able to express it the way you do. thank-you and God bless you and your family.
You do have a wonderful way with words. You have said what I have thought and felt for a long time but haven’t been able to express it the way you do. thank-you and God bless you and your family.
I have tried a hundred times to say what you said. And not once came near putting it as you did. There were other speakers the day Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address. But we only remember Lincoln’s, the one that hit the mark. Thank you.
Chris
I have tried a hundred times to say what you said. And not once came near putting it as you did. There were other speakers the day Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address. But we only remember Lincoln’s, the one that hit the mark. Thank you.
Chris
Does it matter in the end? Does the West as we know it now really have a chance of survival? Ihate to admit it, but think the answer is no. I give Europe one more generation, us 3. Then that’s it.
Does it matter in the end? Does the West as we know it now really have a chance of survival? Ihate to admit it, but think the answer is no. I give Europe one more generation, us 3. Then that’s it.
Outstanding post, as usual, dear Anchoress. Our children and grandchildren, forced to fight a wider and more vicious war in the future, will curse our generation if we do what we must do now.
Outstanding post, as usual, dear Anchoress. Our children and grandchildren, forced to fight a wider and more vicious war in the future, will curse our generation if we do what we must do now.
Jesus was Lord of the Sabboth. Non-Christians continually use our Lord’s name to pervert their twisted agendas. First, they must confess their sins, then open their ears and eyes, then they will understand.
Jesus was Lord of the Sabboth. Non-Christians continually use our Lord’s name to pervert their twisted agendas. First, they must confess their sins, then open their ears and eyes, then they will understand.
We are in a Global War on Terrorism that has been finally exposed after 9/11/01.
We are in a Global War on Terrorism that has been finally exposed after 9/11/01.
please don’t try to pretend that Jesus would have ever supported any war.
.
Would somebody please explain whether or not Jesus is Himself engaged in a war — a very real war — with Satan and his minions? And that men and angels have and are experiencing death and destruction — a death and destruction more real than we have ever seen or experienced — as a result of that war?
.
Please let us not pretend that Jesus was/is some simplistic pacifist spouting silly words like “make love, not war.” There is “a time to every purpose,” including, sadly, war.
please don’t try to pretend that Jesus would have ever supported any war.
.
Would somebody please explain whether or not Jesus is Himself engaged in a war — a very real war — with Satan and his minions? And that men and angels have and are experiencing death and destruction — a death and destruction more real than we have ever seen or experienced — as a result of that war?
.
Please let us not pretend that Jesus was/is some simplistic pacifist spouting silly words like “make love, not war.” There is “a time to every purpose,” including, sadly, war.
well stated…
thank you…
so many of the Democrat partisans, who profess to be enlightened, seem so ugly, hostile in their expression.
truly sad…
well stated…
thank you…
so many of the Democrat partisans, who profess to be enlightened, seem so ugly, hostile in their expression.
truly sad…
I agree with you about the danger from the Islamofascists. The war in Iraq was an unnecessary diversion from the war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The war in Iraq was sabotaged by the decision to send too few American troops into Iraq. This point is no longer controversial because President Bush admitted this, years too late, last week. In that same speech, Bush outlined his newest plan for Iraq. That plan will not succeed because too few troops will be sent to Iraq and because it relies on Iraqi leadership that is under the control of a terrorist named Sadr. The alternative is to leave Iraq as close to immediately as possible. In World War II, British forces left Dunkirk but they later joined in the invasion of mainland Europe that won the war. We should leave Iraq because that war has been lost. An alternative is to send some troops into Iraqi Kurdistan to maintain stability among the Kurds who want our troops to remain there. Many of our other troops should be sent to Afghanistan before that war, too, is lost. We can and will keep fighting, but only where there is a good chance of success.
I agree with you about the danger from the Islamofascists. The war in Iraq was an unnecessary diversion from the war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The war in Iraq was sabotaged by the decision to send too few American troops into Iraq. This point is no longer controversial because President Bush admitted this, years too late, last week. In that same speech, Bush outlined his newest plan for Iraq. That plan will not succeed because too few troops will be sent to Iraq and because it relies on Iraqi leadership that is under the control of a terrorist named Sadr. The alternative is to leave Iraq as close to immediately as possible. In World War II, British forces left Dunkirk but they later joined in the invasion of mainland Europe that won the war. We should leave Iraq because that war has been lost. An alternative is to send some troops into Iraqi Kurdistan to maintain stability among the Kurds who want our troops to remain there. Many of our other troops should be sent to Afghanistan before that war, too, is lost. We can and will keep fighting, but only where there is a good chance of success.
A couple of points…
First, as I understand the whole “Just War” theory, it’s about when you can’t fight a war, not when you can. If it’s not just, you can’t.
This is an extremely important difference. It means it’s not okay to fight the war in Iraq, even if it can be called just… it’s merely not forbidden. How the was is fought, and how much damage is done, against how much harm can be avoided (or how much good can be accomplished) are still questions that a moral person must answer.
As for what Jesus would have to say about this war, well… he just so happened to believe that his message, and his mission, were bigger and more powerful than death itself… and with good reason. He would demand love, and courage. Love, to consider each of the people in Iraq to be important, and courage, to accept a reasonable risk, rather than to allow others to be harmed out of fear.
As for this:
First, very few people – less than a single percent – of folks in the Middle East are even remotely close to feeling that way. If 1% of Iraq felt that way, there would be two suicide bombers for each and every one of our soldiers. I won’t predict whether our military would be wiped out, or merely take extremely heavy losses, but we wouldn’t be mourning fewer than 4,000 soldiers.
The other 99% of the people can be influenced by our actions. They can either be influenced towards wanting the terrorists to be caught and punished, or they can be influenced towards not caring about that (or worse). Insofar as we can convince the common folk that we are a kindly friend, a completely neutral acquaintance, and a frightful enemy, and that it’s easy to be our friend or acquaintance, we can influence the war on terror… and do it in a way that would make Jesus proud, though love of others, even our enemies, and faith that doing the right thing will be sufficient to win the day.
A couple of points…
First, as I understand the whole “Just War” theory, it’s about when you can’t fight a war, not when you can. If it’s not just, you can’t.
This is an extremely important difference. It means it’s not okay to fight the war in Iraq, even if it can be called just… it’s merely not forbidden. How the was is fought, and how much damage is done, against how much harm can be avoided (or how much good can be accomplished) are still questions that a moral person must answer.
As for what Jesus would have to say about this war, well… he just so happened to believe that his message, and his mission, were bigger and more powerful than death itself… and with good reason. He would demand love, and courage. Love, to consider each of the people in Iraq to be important, and courage, to accept a reasonable risk, rather than to allow others to be harmed out of fear.
As for this:
First, very few people – less than a single percent – of folks in the Middle East are even remotely close to feeling that way. If 1% of Iraq felt that way, there would be two suicide bombers for each and every one of our soldiers. I won’t predict whether our military would be wiped out, or merely take extremely heavy losses, but we wouldn’t be mourning fewer than 4,000 soldiers.
The other 99% of the people can be influenced by our actions. They can either be influenced towards wanting the terrorists to be caught and punished, or they can be influenced towards not caring about that (or worse). Insofar as we can convince the common folk that we are a kindly friend, a completely neutral acquaintance, and a frightful enemy, and that it’s easy to be our friend or acquaintance, we can influence the war on terror… and do it in a way that would make Jesus proud, though love of others, even our enemies, and faith that doing the right thing will be sufficient to win the day.
What happened to ‘Obey’?.
I guess, since you get to have a different take on ‘just war’…..
“In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a “preemptive” or “preventive” strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war.”
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
….you’ll withhold judging others when they also disagree with Catholic teaching (on contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc, etc…) , right?
Yeah, right.
What happened to ‘Obey’?.
I guess, since you get to have a different take on ‘just war’…..
“In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a “preemptive” or “preventive” strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war.”
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
….you’ll withhold judging others when they also disagree with Catholic teaching (on contraception, abortion, euthanasia, etc, etc…) , right?
Yeah, right.
I don’t know how well or often you read me to make the “judgement” you’ve not withheld from me, but if you read me a while you’ll see I’m not much for finger wagging and judging individuals,…I tend to think we all walk our road to God and answer for ourselves….but I don’t hesitate to take on “movements,” i.e. euthanasia, etc.
As to John Paul’s statements on Iraq…they’re rather nebulous, in reality.
I don’t know how well or often you read me to make the “judgement” you’ve not withheld from me, but if you read me a while you’ll see I’m not much for finger wagging and judging individuals,…I tend to think we all walk our road to God and answer for ourselves….but I don’t hesitate to take on “movements,” i.e. euthanasia, etc.
As to John Paul’s statements on Iraq…they’re rather nebulous, in reality.
The Iraq War is just. The fight against the Left will be holy.
The Iraq War is just. The fight against the Left will be holy.