T's Reply:
[ya'll will have to excuse my friend T. he's beginning his dissertation, so he currently lacks the ability to be succinct. - or perhaps this discussion warrants a long response. in either case, make a cup of hot tea and then sit down to read . . .]
Thanks to all for continuing the discussion. I’ve been aching for one that goes beyond the talking-head media flotsam. Matt & anyone else, please take me to task on whatever Tim posts on this blog. The implication of me agreeing that he could post our discussion is that it’s out there for all to debate. There’s something in the OT about harsh words from a friend being better than flattery by an enemy. So be a friend.
This discussion started about the big round number 600,000, so maybe it’s best to bring it back to that. Tim’s post cited Jim Wallis’ article, an article that erroneously cites 600,000 Iraqi deaths as the beginning and ending of any discussion about the war. His error was not in bring this to the fore of the discussion, but with the number itself. It needs to be clarified again and again that 600,000 deaths in Iraq are NOT civilian deaths. They are Iraqi deaths. The study does not attempt to distinguish civilians from combatants. The study doesn’t even venture a guess as to how many were civilians and how many combatants killed in action against U.S. troops.
Why is that important? Because every discussion about 600,000 deaths is framed by the supposition that they are civilian deaths. Some even imply that these deaths came at the hands of U.S. soldiers. They did not. They study itself estimated that only 1/3 of the 600,000 were at the hands of U.S. soldiers. The rest came at the hands of Iraqis, mostly from car bombings and gunfire. That sounds an awful lot like Iraqi on Iraqi crime. It fits the M.O. of the Iraqi death squads and other internal factions who mercilessly slaughter each other over tribal and religious differences. So, if we’re talking about deaths at the hands of the U.S., we’re talking about an estimated 200,000. That’s still about ¼ of a million people, a huge and tragic number. But that’s also still an estimate from a study whose criteria for “citizenship” was that someone only live in Iraq for 3 months or more. Any household who agreed to partake in the survey only had to live there for 3 months. Is it possible that some of these “citizens” were foreign fighters who were sent to Iraq to gain real-life training in fighting the U.S. troops? The study did not even mention this possibility, even though no one denies that this is taking place.
Furthermore, the study’s “control” death-rate began during the 1 year run-up to the war, when it was clear to anyone paying attention that the U.S. was going to take out Saddam. It was also a year of close scrutiny of Iraq, when the whole world was watching, looking for evidence of WMDs and other activity (such as his daily shooting at U.N. sanctioned jets who were patrolling the Iraq no-fly zone, an act which itself was an act of war). Do you suppose that during this time, Saddam’s brutalizing of his civilians was curtailed? Maybe Saddam played nice (or relatively nice) with his population while preparing for a U.S. invasion and putting together a bogus Declaration of Armaments? The study of civilian deaths should have gone back at least to the end of the first Gulf War in order to look for what a “normal” civilian death rate would be. But for some reason this methodological problem was also not mentioned in the study. It also failed to mention when the bodies in the numerous mass-graves were originally filled. That would certainly be relevant in any discussion of Iraqi civilian deaths. I’m not suggesting that Saddam was constantly using WMD’s against his people, even though he had used them in the past. I’m suggesting that he didn’t need WMDs to kill civilians and brutalize his people. He could take them to any of the ubiquitous rape rooms and “jails”, then dump the bodies with the rest of the slaughtered Iraqis at the hand of Saddam’s “bad” regime. If we’re going to talk about Iraqi deaths, let’s include statistics from this time period in our discussion. But again, no one does this. Too bad, because a stronger control rate would lend more credibility to the study.
Am I suggesting the war is right for humanitarian reasons, that war was necessary because Saddam killed a lot of people? Nope. How many are slaughtered, even as you read this, in Darfur? South Africa? Kenya? Indonesia? Cambodia? North Korea? How many people, do you suppose, have died as the result of corruption, internal strife, starvation as a means of population control, or simple homicidal tendencies? But do we invade those countries? Does anyone intervene in those countries? (That’s maybe a discussion for another thread) Why, then, would it be a good idea to target Iraq because of the war Saddam treated his people? It wasn’t. I think Bush envisioned a democratic, stable Middle East. Iraq would be the cornerstone because of its strategic location, its resources (yes, oil), and because if a country like Iraq can do it, its example would spread, domino-like, across the Middle East. The Middle East, of course, is the clumsy way to refer to the provenance of the jihadists who attacked on the U.S. 2001 and earlier, and who vowed to continue to attack us. And that threat is what changed a presidential candidate from being against “nation building” into the president we have today. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that was the reason why we invaded Iraq. We went in on the technical violation of Iraq’s bogus weapons declaration to the U.N., (even the U.N. said it was bogus), we went in because Saddam had been in violation of the Gulf War treaty for 16 years, and we have what we have in Iraq today as a result of that decision. That decision and that plan should be the focus of discussion. It should have been discussed in the beginning, but our wussy Congress and Executive Branch didn’t require a declaration of war, because that would have required this type of analysis, and because it would have put everyone on the hook for the way the war turned out.
Back to the numbers. This latest report about 600,000 is important, but it is not where the discussion of Iraq should begin and end. The discussion of Iraq should also not begin with the Monday morning quarterback syndrome into which many have fallen. The Iraq discussion should begin with why we went to war and whether we agreed with those reasons (not, agree-now-that-we-know-how-things-turned-out). Any discussion of war should factor, at the beginning, how many civilians are likely to die as a result, decide on an acceptable number (tragic and tough as that discussion is), then figure out the cost-benefit ratio before going to war. When the bodies pile up, it’ll feel “icky”, but if it’s within the agreed-upon range, then get on with it and pursue the goal. We don’t get to pull out early just because things don’t feel right. As cold-hearted as this type of analysis it, it is a very real part of war. If we can’t stomach this type of discussion, then don’t go to war, & don’t support the war. But, if the goal is worthwhile, then go to war and live with it.
As for the number 600,000, (or more properly, 200,000), how many of these were insurgents, freedom-fighters/terrorists/jihadists/whatever, and how many were civilians. I’d feel a lot worse about non-combatant civilian death then I would about people who are living by the sword. We could estimate what percent of Iraq’s population is fighting against the U.S., then, somehow, transfer that percentage to the 200,000 deaths from this study, and then have a better picture of civilian from combatant. I don’t know what that percentage is, and I don’t know the methodological nuances for translating that into an estimate of Iraqi casualties. But one would think that a study, whose purpose is to discuss how many more Iraqis died during the war, would at least address the issue. One would think.
One might argue that we’re responsible for all 600,000 of the deaths, because we removed the iron fist that prevented the Iraqi infighting which caused it. Would you also argue that car companies are responsible for vehicular deaths because they allow their cars to move faster than the speed limit, or because cars does not require a breathalyzer before being able to be turned on? Maybe we should hold rape victims responsible for the crime because they weren’t wearing a burka? I’m suggesting that people are responsible for their own actions, the street-racer, the drunkard, the rapist, and the murderer alike. We don’t encourage Iraqis to murder other Iraqis. We don’t arm the citizens so they can go shoot their neighbor. We “created an environment” where laws are not enforced during reconstruction, but that only means that people no longer have an external threat to keep them in check. They still have their conscience. They still have their humanity. They could also love their families more than they hate other tribes. Unless, that is, we’re suggesting that the U.S. is responsible because it is the nature of Persians and Arabs to act like savages, as if they’ll kill each other the first chance they get. Maybe what we’re saying is that we’re responsible for all 600,000 Iraqi deaths because they just can’t help themselves, those uncivilized beasts have a bloodlust that overwhelms any shred of humanity they Saddam might have enforced. Is that what we’re saying?
Look, I know Baghdad and central Iraq are a mess right now. Hundreds of thousands have died, countless more were maimed, and these numbers will continue to climb. I wish we’d conducted the war and reconstruction differently, and maybe that’s what we should champion, a strategy change in Iraq. But what is the goal and how best ought we pursue it? Not just with Iraq, but with the idea of national security in general? How should America conduct itself against the current threat of guerilla warfare by terrorist groups who target the civilian population? Because that’s the context of the 600,000; that’s the subtext of this whole discussion. To what end is America using its force against a perceived enemy? And how ought we conduct ourselves as Americans and as Christians?
24 comments:
Nothing to add, T. Just wanted to say great points and wow. Ra Ra sis boom bah. Goooo T!
T.,
First of all - I agree that the focus should be on why we got into the war in the first place and on how do we move forward from where we find ourselves. I have attempted to address the problem of why we got into the war in the first place - in this post: http://slowdownholdstill.blogspot.com/2006/09/war-in-iraq-creates-more-terrorists.html#links. The discussion was continued a few days later in another post.
The # of 600,000 is not helpful in and of itself. Where I find it useful is in the fact that most people have no idea that that many people have died. My use of the # was for shock value, certainly - but in the sense that the truth is shocking. While you make good points about who the 600,000 people may or may not be - the fact remains that there are 600,000 people that have died. I belive we took our decision to enter the war way too lightly, which I think you perhaps agree with. People did not really consider that the result would be that well over half a million people would die in only a few years time. And I think that most people have still not stepped back and considered that well over half a million people have died. That was my purpose in using the 600,000 #. I believe the conversation needs such gravitas. My purpose was that this # would be entered into the conversation - no matter where you come down on whose fault it is or any thing like that, the starkness of the # is significant from any angle.
Secondly, you write, "Maybe what we’re saying is that we’re responsible for all 600,000 Iraqi deaths because they just can’t help themselves, those uncivilized beasts have a bloodlust that overwhelms any shred of humanity they Saddam might have enforced. Is that what we’re saying?"
This is not what I was saying, but it did seem to be what you were saying to a degree (but obviously not in such crude terms) in your first post when you noted that a lot of these deaths that are occurring now are the result of the removal of Saddam from power, because Saddam held these warring factions in check. My point in countering you was that you cannot argue that we were responsible to help free the people under Saddam's cruel regime (which was part of your argument for why we should have entered the war in the first place), and argue that we are not responsible for what you have stated is the result of removing Saddam from power (the deaths of all these people due to the pre-existing war between the factions).
It seems to me that the sectarian violence was not what first erupted, but the insurgency was initially the primary problem. However, when we did not deal effectively with the insurgency, I think they eventually became desperate and cold-blooded enough to target the two primary sectarian groups to provoke hostilities against each other.
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm
Also, please check out the above web site for some perspective on death totals from the war.
On why we got into the war in the first place....
Question: If they had found large stock piles of WMD's, would your thoughts about Bush have been any different, Tim?
Would you have felt differently about the war effort in general?
"If war is ever to be relegated to the limbo of outgrown barbarism, we must shake off its magic. When we comprehend how few wars have ever been fought for the sake of justice or the people; how personal spite, the ambition of military professionals, and the protection of capitalistic ventures are the real moving powers; how the governing classes pour out the blood and wealth of nations for private ends and exude patriotic enthusiasm like a squid secreting ink to hide its retreat – then the mythology of war will no longer bring us to our knees, and we shall fail to get drunk with the rest when martial intoxication sweeps the people off their feet." -- Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crisis, p. 351
Magic = WMD's as a true causal force.
Dennis-
Yes, my thoughts about Bush would be different. I now question how much he knew beforehand and how much he pushed the war in places where the hard evidence didn't stand up. I question how selective he was in considering different information. I would like it if I did not have to view him that way.
Also, if we had found a stock pile of WMD's it would change my view of the war, but it would not have changed my view of whether or not we should have gone in. I argued at the time that we went to war, knowing that the Bush administration was arguing that they had WMD's, that we should not go to war. That view would not have changed even if they found WMD's.
Certainly there are circumstances under which I can imagine that the war would have been just, but the fact is that those criteria were in no way met for me. The fact that they did not have WMD's certainly boisters my argument, but my argument in no way rests upon that possibility alone.
Let me ask you this - Would it be ok for another country to invade us on the basis of what they thought was true about us, but had no difinitive proof for?
Dennis -
I fail to see how the death tolls in the website you listed give any perspective to this war. They did not do so for me.
For that to give me perspective I would have to in some way equate what we are doing in Iraq to our fighting Hitler in WWII, and although Bush has made many, many statements that attempt to equate the Iraq war with our war against Nazi Germany, those statements don't fly for me. And once we take the further step of separating terrorists from the sovereign country of Iraq, those statements really don't make any sense.
There is perhaps some perspective to be gained, I think, in relating this war with Vietnam, but the website you shared did not say anything about our present war - so it's actually hard to gain any perspective at all in relation to the current war.
And to Tim I would add, we actually do have weapons of mass destruction. We just insist that the world rely on the goodness of our hearts to not use it on them. Yet we did use WMD on Iraq in the war. Ironic, yes? Also, many would not, but I would consider this WMD because of its known effect on civilians (and we still use it).
This is an excerpt from Bush's state of the union address in January of 2003. "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."
Either these stats were true or they weren't. You can toss the words fear mongering and other such language around, but the United Nations was responsible for this estimate. Either it was a lie (by the U.N.) or complete incompetence(by the U.N.) or Saddam destroyed them without any proof to offer whatsoever or he destroyed them after we invaded to make Bush look bad or they were shipped elsewhere before we made it in...... or I suppose there is always the Matt option....magic.
Would it be alright for another country to invade us if we had signed a ceasefire 12 years earlier aggreeing to certain conditions that we (and we of course being the psycho dictator and his fam) were not living up to and having shown a willingness to be aggressive and reckless with our power? I don't know, I guess.
...or without the overdose of sarcasm (sorry about that). I do not believe the two (the Iraq war and your hypothetical one) can be compared in any kind of coherent way.
Next questions..
Do you agree with an immediate withdrawal of our troops?
Do you agree with a draw down of our troops based on an announced timeline over the next year?
If yes, to either of these, how do you see Iraq playing out in the coming two years?
I believe the focus has been about whether we violated international law, but I have to tell you that I think "international law" is itself generally a joke of a concept. I do not argue that we are free of wrong motivations in some cases, or wrong actions by some specific soldiers, or possibly even "spin" by some leaders, but in comparison to the countries that are out there screaming about our "immoral" war, I think we are on relatively solid ground in regards to our methods of conducting the war, our reasons for conducting the war, and our goals.
Those quotes by Bush concerning the UN estimates have very little substance in my mind. They both hinge on the idea that Saddam had weapons or materials "sufficient to produce" wmd's. That does not even mean that he had wmd's. Many, many nations have enough materials sufficient to produce a whole lot of anthrax. Along with those estimates, the UN was attempting to finish their inspections at the time when we started the war. Iraq had been allwoing, in that last year, the inspectors to go to places they had not been allowed to before. And the UN inspectors were urging us to hold off and allow them to finish their jobs, because they had found nothing at that time and they were not finished looking.
Dennis, referring to other countries "screaming about our immoral war" gives the mental picture of lunatics using emotional screaming as their only weapon because they have no reasonable explanations. Simply put, this is a bit of demonization that I think anyone who wants to give a reasonable objection to the war would take offense at, myself included.
I agree with you that to attempt to compare the Iraq war with a hypothetical war agains the US due to the breaking of treaties and such is quite preposterous. My point, however, was not to compare two wars. Rather, it was to bring up the question of whether the breaking of a treaty is sufficient cause to make a war just (as you seemed to imply in an earlier response). I don't think the issue is that black and white. Countries around the world break such treaties all the time, and the US is guilty of it as well. If you take that line of reasoning, for example, the US would need to invade Israel because of the ridiculous amount of times and ways in which Israel has broken the Oslo Accords, or you would at least have to support Palestinian suicide-bombers in their right to rise up in rebellion against the nation of Israel that has continuously broken such treaties with them.
Concerning troop withdrawal - My argument all along has not had to do with this. What I have argued is that the war was not just in the first place - that we never should have gone into Iraq, especially not in the fashion that we did.
I will, however, give some thoughts on what we should do now. A warning, however, that this is not my best area of thinking. I am learning to be a theologian with some ethical training, so where my opinion (I think) has weight is in the field of the morality of the war on a large scale.
I do not think we should have an immediate withdrawal of our troops. I do not think that would be in any way just to the people of Iraq. I would like to see a timeline of withdrawal (probably about 2 years). The best solution (which is a mournful one, in my opinion, mournful because we should not be in the place we are currently in having to choose between two great evils), the best solution is to perhaps allow the country to be divided into three parts along ethnic lines. This would allow for the greatest sense of present security. It would help stop the current violence. For now, these divisions should not be separate states, though that may end up being an appropriate long-term solution. The road ahead from that point would be very bleak, with the threat of civil war on every side. However, time and negotiations could overcome a great deal of the potential problems. Then education, both academic and cultural, would be key factors to maintaining peace in the country between the different sections. The goal would be a tolerant country where different groups were allowed to hold onto their identities without feeling the need to impose that identinty on other groups.
Tim, nice suggestions about what to do about Iraq. Not bad for a military layman.
I've been following along and would at this point just like to comment on one of the points of discussion. The idea of Saddam breaking a cease-fire for 12 years, IN CONJUNCTION with his unwillingness to declare his weapons stockpile, seem to be very good reason to suspect that he was a threat. The WMD argument is that we don't know what he has, he is not telling us what he has, but he has the capacity, and history, of manufacturing them. God forbit he use other people, such as rogue organizations such as Al Quaeda, as proxies for use of his weapons. There are tapes where he outright says this. I've heard a translator speak about this on the air, and I'm sure a Google of "Saddam tapes" or "transcripts" would quickly yield them.
But Saddam had 12 years to comply, and as I've said earlier, even the U.N. said that his last declaration was bunk. The inspectors, meanwhile, were inspecting, but they're really not detectives. They are best called "verifiers," as in verifying the evidence that Saddam himself was supposed to prodcuce. But his "unprecedented access" in the run up to war was still a far cry from him complying with the cease-fire. The onus was on him, not the "inspectors," to find out and tell the U.N. the state of his stockpile of weaponry. If one of my kids, for example, was hiding something potentially dangerous behind his back, and I tell him to show it to me, but he takes 12 full minutes to do so, that's not complying. If, after 12 full minutes, he only shows me bacuase he know's he's in for a time out or whatever, that's not obedience to the father-son agreement. If, after 12 full minutes, he shows me closed one hand, then the other closed hand, and then opens one hand at a time, finger by finger, that's not compliance. If, meanwhile, he's kicking at my shins, or at the old family jewels, or shooting at my planes patrolling the no fly-zone, that's not cool. Especially if he's signed an agreement to comply with my discipline or else.
I know I said I'd comment on one thing, so forgive me for what follows.
Is there a difference between pushing beyond the evidence, or lying about the evidence, or misleading the public, and simply acting on erroneous evidence? Or do we judge all our decisions based not on what we knew at the time, but on how things turned out? Didn't every major politician in America and every country in the world think Saddam had WMDs? If not, then who, specifically, was screaming, "He doesn't have any WMDs! Here's the proof!" Because it seems that the burden of proof was on Saddam showing that he had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and not on the U.N. or the U.S. proving that he did.
Also, is the number of dead Iraqis still relevant (God rest their souls)? Because comparing the death toll of this war to death tolls of other wars seems entirely relevant, even though Iraq is not Nazi Germany. It's relevant because the original use of the number didn't account for any kind of context. It was just presented by everyone as, "Hey, that's a lot of dead people! This war isn't cool anymore." War is never cool, but people always die. So if we're going to introduce a death toll as part of the discussion, how is it okay to move away from the death toll when it no longer packs the pucnch it initially did? Given the dissection of the number 600,000, and given the death rates of other wars, maybe America at least gets credit for tryong to minimize casualties? For spending thousands on "dumb bombs" to make them guidable so they're more accurate, for prosecuting American soldiers who are discovered to have committed crimes againt civilians, and for holding back on places such as Sadr city so civilians can leave before we go door-to-door (which greatly increases danger to U.S. troops)? What is a more acceptable civilian death toll, and does it matter if the civilians are targeted or not? The suicide-bombers mentioned above specifically target civilians. What makes a terrorist a terrorist and not a freedom fighter is that he or she targets civilians, not military targets. When Americans find out about civilians who were targeted by the U.S., we're outraged. We're even outraged when prisoners (enemy combatants nonetheless, not even a member of state military who was just "following orders") are mistreated. When certain people in certain other countries see "enemy" civilians splattered in pieces by a bomb, they rejoice, do they not, especially when they're Jews or Americans? Not everyone, but enough rejoice where there is a stark contrast between how we treat civilian casualties and how certain other people treat civilian casualites. Again, the big difference is who's targeted? Is it the policy of America to push Iran to the ocean, or to make the ground drink the blood of every last Iraqi? Does the U.S. target civilians as a matter of policy and tacticts? Shouldn't that have significant bearing on any discussion of "civilian" casualties, much less how America conducts its war?
Fine points, T.
Let me explain my concern. Jesus says, "You've heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Mt. 5:38). This is what I hear when I read what you write about justification for the war. You continually try to make some equation about what is just.
Jesus goes on to say, "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil" (Mt. 5:39). We've generally understood Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom, the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount in particular, as being a two-fold antithesis with this "but I say to you" being the second part. We've thought of Jesus' teachings as being unrealistic. There are (must be) times when it is appropriate to resist evil. You can't "not be angry" (5:22) at times. Ultimately, we cannot "be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect" (5:48).
However, Jesus does not stop there. The imperative in the Greek comes after these two-fold antithesis. The imperative comes and gives a peace-making action that creates reconciliation. It is the reconciling act of Christ. God sends Christ to the world while we are still sinners, while we are still angry, while we are enemies. God takes the initiative in Christ, and we are called to participate in that act of salvation and reconciliation. God reconciles us to God's self through Christ, and we are to reconcile others to us through Christ, and thereby reconcile others to God.
So - Jesus tells us what to do.
You've heard it said "Do not commit murder" (5:21)
"But I say to you, everyone who is angry" shall be guilty" (5:22).
[Now here is the third part of the triad and where the imperative comes-] When you remember that your brother has something against you, "leave your offerring there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. Make friends quickly with your opponent . . ." (5:23-25).
Jesus gives us an actual practice, not just a high ideal. High ideals turn us into "white-washed tomb stones." Jesus calls us to something else - participation in reconciliation.
Most everything you've said makes sense to me on a purely rational level. However, I believe Jesus has called us as Christians to be different. The actions Jesus calls us to are not pie-in-the-sky ideals. They are actions that actually affect others and reconcile people, which is why I had a whole post about how the Muslim extremists might have responded if we had done peaceful initiatives in the first place, instead of being so concerned with protecting our selves.
The point of the middle part of the triad (which is the structure of all the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, in my opinion)is that Jesus is pointing to a cycle of violence. Jesus is saying, "You've heard it said do not kill, but I tell you that when you are angry you are participating in the cycle of violence that leads to killing." Jesus is not saying, "Do not be angry." Rather, he is saying, "When you are angry, go and be reconciled." Go and do something about it. Don't just sit there and justify in your mind why you have a right to be angry. Notice that Jesus does not even address who is at fault in this matter. It doesn't matter who is at fault. The point is that you go and reconcile with the other person, even if that is an enemy. This is the power of the gospel.
And this is not just teaching that applies within the Christian community. Jesus also says to love your enemy. This is the reconciling power of God's work in Christ, the work we are called to participate in. We are to go to others, while they are still our enemies - just in the way Christ came to us, while we were still God's enemies. And we are to lay down our lives for the enemy, if necessary - in the same way Christ laid down his life for us.
That, I believe, is the power of the good news. It is not limited. It is not weak. Turning the other cheek does not mean we roll over, play dead, and allow the enemy to take whatever they want. The call is not to be dove like in our lack of anger. The call is to transform our anger into an opportunity for reconciliation. It is only in the brokenness of humanity, in our barrenness, that God's power can be revealed. If we are not honest about our brokenness, if we think we can overcome th enemy through powerful means, we are participating in the cycle of violence and there WILL NOT be any reconciliation.
Now - the challenge for me is how to work that out in actual events in our history. But I find my arguing with you (and Dennis) over the issue of working it out keeps coming back to the fact that I feel we are starting at different points. I do not agree that we will have any power to overcome the enemy by our own strength. I feel it is un-Christianly for me to think that our own powers are capable of overcoming the enemy. In fact, my reading of scripture tells me that when we attempt to do it by our own power, we are merely participating in a cycle of violence that will only escalate. This is a huge part of my concern that our bad image around the world, and our war with Iraq, is actually fueling terrorism - creating more terrorism because it is creating more people who hate us more and more and more.
If we reached out to Islamic extremists and listened to their concerns and fought for their concerns where it was just (and I think there are plenty of places it would be perfectly just), instead of presenting the self-righteousness of a battle between good and evil with us obviously on the side of good - then I believe there would be steps we could take to reconcile terrorists to ourselves. And that would be the power of the gospel at work, in action. For example, we could have listend long ago to the complaint that our hollywood films were corrupting their society, and we could have placed an imbargo on selling our films to countries whose governments did not want them in their country. Our cultural idol, however, is freedom of speech and a free market, so this option has been unimaginable to us. I believe, however, that it would be a form of reconciliation that could still be used today. Similarly, we could listen to the complaint of terrorists that we blindly support Israel's persecution of the Palestinians, and we could pressure Israel to treat Palestinians with some level of human dignity. When you first began hearing about terrorists, who were they - what were their concerns? Often their primary problem was the situation of the Palestinians. Well, if we would have listened and acted justly, we would have put out a lot of fires of anger. Instead we ignored, and those fires burned brighter and hotter until they brought the message to our doorstep where we could no longer ignore them (9/11). Yet - we continue to ignore their cries of injustice against us.
I'm not saying the terrorists are fully right in their complaints. I am saying that we are not right in our ignoring them and their crying out against us.
If when we made our offering to God we remembered that our brothers were angry with us over something (and the two things I've listed are the two things that I have understood are the two major coomplaints of terrorists against he US), then we should have gone and sought to be reconciled.
And it is not just past-tense. We should be seeking the same now.
Nice job. I'm glad that you're able, like always, to see through the discussion and bring it to the most fundamental level. In this case, it is our starting points, and, I have to agree with you on reconciliation. It is much better to "wage reconciliation" rather than war. If America at least made the attempt to hear the complaints of the Muslim right, we might be in a better situation than we are in now. We certainly would have more global support in our effort, and who knows, that may actually have worked (as it may be working with N. Korea and Iran, but we'll have to wait and see). I would certainly prefer that to war.
You bring up the issue of Christian ethics on a national level, and you rightly counter the church/state argument with the assertion that in a democracy, all voices need to be heard, even Christian ones. And if the Christian ethic wins the democratic race, then it is legitimate for a nation to act as a Christian theocracy, ethics and all. That makes me nervous, however, in that no Christian theocracy has ever doen the right thing in history, and I simply don't trust a government who thinks it speaks and acts for God. Yet maybe you're saying that we don't vote in a theocracy, we keep the freedom of the church from the state and visa versa, but we instill Christian ethics on a case by case basis. That seems reasonable. How do we prevent Christian justice in terms of dealing with enemies from bleeing into Christian justice controlling one's bedroom? How do we reject "Christian" arguments againt homosexuality, or powerful women in public, or about mixing races in marriage, all of which have their staunch "Christian" supporters, even today? How do we one the one hand prevent "Christian" ethics from spiraling out of control into an oppressive and dictatorial regime?
What I also wonder is whether Jesus' version of "eye for an eye" requires two rational parties. At what point are we throwing our pearls before swine? Or does that even matter? Is it enough that we attempt peacemaking, whether we are dealing with rational or irrational people. If the peacemaking attempts fail, what then? What happens when Israel completely withdraws from a section of Palestine, figuring that if Palestine can prove to be responsible with a little bit then maybe it can be responsible with a bigger piece of land? What happens when, after the complete withdrawal, Palestinians vote in a party whose platform centers on pushing Israel to the ocean? Or if another country, such as Iran, seeks nuclear arms so that it can destroy Israel, knowing full well that it will itself be nuked in retaliation? How does one deal with such irrational face-slappers?
As to the second biggest Muslim complaint, at what point is it incumbent on the population not to imbibe corrupt Western ways? I've lived next to drug dealers for most of my upbringing, but not once did I try their drugs. Similarly, for all the discussion about how the West is corrupting other parts of the world, you can't make someone an alcoholic if he won't drink.
In spite of this, I agree that we should do something like the embargo you suggested, if for nothing else than for the symbolic value. But what can we do for a fanatical enemy to show that we're listening to them, but not to show that we're inviting more terror because it worked in the first place to change our minds? That seems to be the other consideration in people's hawkish ways. Does giving into terror (i.e., those who target civilians as a matter of police)invite more terrorism? How do we wage reconciliation without falling into the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy (his Munich Agreement with Hitler & Mussolini in 1938 is a perfect parallel for today.)? I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, because I believe that peace is not absence of war, but a quality of life, and that working towards reconciliation is the best way to work towards it. I am in complete harmony with you on that goal. What I wonder is how we work towards reconciliation in an effective manner, not just a symbolic one. Hitler had a good point about how Germany had been mistreated after WWI, but wasn't that a smokescreen to support his rise to power?
If I may offer a suggestion that I once heard. Maybe we offer to remove a U.S. presence from Saudi Arabia if Bin Laden turns himself in. Maybe we offer to embargo Western corruption if other terrorist leaders agree to turn themselves in, or dismantle their networks. Maybe Israel agrees to remove itself from parts of Palestine if Palestinians and the Arab world agrees to let Israel live in peace. That seems to be the type of thing you're suggesting as alternatives to war. What happens when, in spite of such cheek-turning, the other side tramples all over our pearls? Does a nation surrender its life and the lives of its citizens for the sake of an ethic that Jesus ordered Christian individuals (not nation-states) to follow? If there's a time for everything, when is the time for a non-theocratic nation to go to war?
T.
Thank you for this very pleasant response. I was afraid that my last comment sounded a bit too - I've figured out Jesus' way and you need to get with it. I apologize for any manner in which it may have come across that way. From your gracious response, it is obvious that we are beginning from a similar page.
Primarily my response to your last post is that I was very happy with it. I am content that the questions you are asking are the correct questions. They are the ones we should be trying to answer.
You are right that I do not envision a theocracy produced by democracy. Just because Christians get in charge in no way means they are listening to God. In fact, for me, there is no disconect between what I would want to do personally (as a Christian that "Jesus ordered") and what I would want the nation state to do, which is why I am comfortable taking my Christian worldview and applying it to the global picture of reality. I think you make a mistake in assuming that Jesus was giving orders to "Christians" in the Sermon on the Mount. Rather, he was talking into the marketplace of his day, talking to everyone - not just those who had decided they would follow him to death. And let's remember that none of them actually followed him to his death. In that sense, they were not quite so transformed as we imagine them to be, at least not before the sending of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Beside that point, I think that the commands given to Christians can be applied to a nation-state. AND THAT IS BECAUSE - I TRY MY BEST TO NOT SPIRITUALIZE JESUS' TEACHINGS. Jesus' teachings are practical. They work becuase that is the way the world is set up, even though it absolutely against our human nature. We always think force wins. But it doesn't. MLK,jr. is the prime example of this. The Black Panters and their more militaristic version of civil rights did not win the day. MLK's non-violence, which he firmly grounded in Jesus' teachings, won the day. And he did not understand it as an ethic that could only be practised by Christians. It was (and is) a principle of truth. Hate cannot be overcome with hate. Love embraces the enemy and transforms both parties. MLK reached out to his enemies while standing for truth and not budging from it. He didn't lay over and just allow himself and his followers to be trampled upon. He made initiatives.
Two more points:
1)Jesus was asked how many times we should forgive our neighbor. Jesus replied - 70 times 7. Asking how many times is asking the wrong question. It is the beginnings of giving into the cycle of hate.
2) Your misuse of scripture in your last sentence/question is disappointing, T. Me thinks you know better than that. That's akin to saying, "If the Bible says there's a time for everything, then when is it time for me to murder my boss because she is annoying me?"
I don't think Eccliastes says there is a time for murder. In fact, there are many injunctions against it, not least of which is in the 10 commandments. And there is says "don't murder," not "don't kill." There a significance difference in the Hebrew as well as in proper translations in English.
And in Ecclesiastes 3, it actually does say there's a time for war, (as well as a time for peace). It even says there's a time to "kill," but it doesn't say there's a time for "murder." The bigger question is, what is the context of Eccleisates 3, how does that fit the genre of Ecclesiates, and how did that speak to a Middle-Eastern/Mediterranean worldview from a few thousand years ago. Only then can we attemt to see what it is saying to a thousands-of-years-later, Western worldview.
I'm glad you called me on the verse because you're making my very point. There is a complex process from applying text written over 2,000 years ago in a comletely different worldiew and culture, to a modern, English-speaking Western worldview. It is not as simple as saying "'love your enemey', see the Bible says it right here." What is the context of the verse? A sermon on the mount? Jesus addressed people who followed him and were there to listen to him. He was not addressing heads of state. He did, in fact, address individuals, who were following him, nonetheless, and rarely spoke of what a state should do. The sermon on the mount is told in one other gospel,and there it is a sermon on a plane. In neither case was it a sermon in the agora (marketplace) or sermon in the city, and certainly not a sermon to the heads of state to inform national policy. When given the chance to overthrow the Roman empire, which was occupying Palestine at the time, he didn't do it, in fact saying render to Caesar what is Caesar's. What I'm saying is not that we spiritualize everything, but we don't likewise make the simplistic application of an English translaiton of one Gospel author's version of what Jesus said, into modern praxis, without giving voice to the complex process of translation from one culture to another, separated by thousands of years. While Stassen and the Just-Peacemaking arguments are correct in what they're trying to do, they often err in improper exegesis of ancient texts, scripture, often acting as if it were written in America in English to a democratic and freedom-loving worldview. So, if we're going to speak of how scripture should inform contemporary praxis, we should allow the complex issue of translation across language, culture, and time barriers to inform our discussion. Which is what I am getting at when I ask about the proper application and limits of cheek-turning. But going with your clarification, which I appreciate, does one forgive one's neighbor to the point of allowing the neighbor to extinguish one's own life? If yes, then do we also translate this to national action, allowing the Christian segment of the population to speak for everyone, allowing our leaders to sacrifice the life of all our citizens, because we're forgiving our neighbor's race for nuclear arms, or nuclears strikes on our country?
What you're saying, I think, is that we need to change our starting place from hitting back to trying to make peace. I agree with that. What I ask is how do we make peace with our various "enemies" on a national level? While I agree that we should imbue Jesus' ethic into our decision making process in a concrete manner, I'm also saying that it's not as simple as reading and English translation of the Bible and then doing it, ignoring issues of context.
Again, I'm glad for this discussion becuase it is helping me think through the problem and not retreat to cliches. I'm glad for your position because, like iron sharpening iron, I'm glad for the discussion and its results. I'm also grateful for the opportunity you are affording all of us on this blog, and I look forward to further discussion.
Well-worded. Well-put.
I agree with you that my interpretation has too easily attempted to make a direct link from Jesus' words to the present situation - an attempt that is ultimately a failure. My purpose, though, is to show you where I'm coming from - to show what my moral basis is for my position. This is the teaching as I understand it, and so this is how I feel I must live it out. I cannot in this space make all the cultural arguments that need to be made to go along with what I'm saying to make it flawless (not do I know them or have the ability to present them all, for it is a journey of discovery that I am on).
I don't have an answer for where we might draw a line. To be honest, I think we need both of us. I think we need the witness that the non-violent Amish provided in response to the killing of their children this summer. We need that voice on a national level. However, I'm not at that place, at least not yet - that we should never use force under any circumstances. I think you make a very good argument, one worth listening to and arguing against. One that has very good basis, that wrestles deeply with the fallenness of humanity.
But I really don't know where the line is for what would be a correct use of force or an incorrect one. My hunch is that all use of force is wrong. To call any use of force just is in a way to put ourselves in the place of God, choosing life and death. To say a killing is just is to become the judge, which I have problems with. And I can see more clearly how calling a killing just feeds the cycle of violence than I can see how it helps curb the cycle of violence.
And it seems to me that Jesus attempts to give us a way out of that cycle of violence, and so we must live in a way that is ALWAYS looking for reconciliation. I would argue that there is a line that has to do with defending ourselves that is in some way justifiable, but I would be quick to add that pre-emptive violence has only a tiny fraction of a chance to be justified.
Good call.
One minor point. The cycle of violence was stopped with "eye for an eye." Called "Lex Talionis," it was meant to stop blood feuds. As in ONLY one eye for one eye, no more, no less. Then, it's over. Hammurabi's code lead with this principle, as did many other Ancient Near Easter societies, including the one that produced Torah (OT). Jesus' model in his sermon was not to STOP the cycle of violence, which Lex Talionis already did, but to offer an ALTERNATIVE to the violence at all. He was arguing for a higher ethic, an alternative to Lex Talionis' "measured response" of just ONE eye for ONE eye.
So maybe the question is not how to live that higher level in our own lives, which seems pretty clear, but how to transfer it to a national level. That may be implied by the text, maybe not, or maybe we just have to find a way to apply it that is consisent with the entire witness of scripture, while recognizing that we are breaking new ground in terms of applying Christianity to a Nation-State such as the U.S.A. Which is what I think you're saying, so, kudos to you.
No, no.
Kudos to you!
Kudos to our friendship for surviving disagreement - perhaps doing more than just surviving, perhaps embracing.
Uncle! I am sorry guys but I am not currently able to read the last 6 or so responses. I've read up to Tim's responses to me and T's follow up to that. Tim's points way back yonder is what I'm about to respond to.
1. My point is not simply some ceasefire agreement that was mistreated. The treaty was the legalese used to "officially" justify the war in regards to "international law" which I've already stated I believe to be a joke of a concept. The real decision making process is one of underlying realities. The scales should tip when the leadership genuinely believes it is just and necessary to go to war. I can assure you that in spite of the beacon of human rights that China is and the under the table arms deals of Russia and Germany with Iraq and the oil for food scandal of the U.N. do not encourage me to care all that much what international opinions are of us considering what their source is. This is what I was referring to in regards to "NATIONS screaming about our immoral war." It was not intended to squelch genuine concerns from those within our nation but to put the criticism of those without into this perspective.
Sorry, last comments got a bit jumbled in the middle. Hope you got the point. Also, why'd I number them when there was only 1?
Post a Comment