I am definitely straying outside my area of expertise here. Foreign policy is complicated today. It was always complicated, but our modern world with all the wars and rumors of wars that abound is a minefield to negotiate. I do not pretend to have an authoritative word to end debate but an opinion to open the floor for your discussion.
Among many of my friends, it is almost a given that the US’ tendency toward intervention is a disaster. The gulf wars and Afghanistan would be exhibit A in their theory that we have caused more trouble than we have solved with our tendencies to send troops around the world to try to set things right.
I’d like to tell two transparently obvious stories that illustrate two ends of the spectrum of this debate.
Story 1 – A Mr. Murrica lived on main street in his town. He was a strong and powerful man – the biggest and strongest around. He was also the wealthiest man around. One day, as he was walking down the street he looked across the street and saw a man severely beating a child. The child was crying out for help but no one came. Mr. Murrica was horrified at what he saw. He shouted across at the man to stop but the man ignored him and kept beating the child. Finally, he grabbed the child’s hair and started dragging the child into a dark alley out of view.
What should Mr. Murrica do? Several times in the past he had tried to intervene in situations like this, but he was roundly criticized by others for being a bully, for sticking his nose in to other people’s private business, and for trying to impose his beliefs, will and ways on others. So, he shouted over at the man that what he was doing was wrong and he should stop, he shook his head sadly, and walked home with a heavy heart.
Story 2 – After the incident with the child on the street, Mr. Murrica felt so guilty he determined that he would never again stand by and watch someone treating another person badly, regardless of what anyone thought. So, he took to walking up and down the streets of the town looking for anyone he thought was mistreating someone else. Once, he found the man who has mistreated the child repeating his evil act. He gave him a sound beating. He broke up several other fights, stopped a robbery and helped a woman who was being picked on by a group of men. But it all seemed to go to his head. He started inserting himself into every discussion, every argument, every little spat between anyone on the public streets. He actually began to go from home to home asking if there were any problems that needed solving. People really began to hate Mr. Murrica because he interjected himself into their lives in an unacceptable way.
Subtle, eh?
These silly little caricatures illustrate what I believe are two very important principles that ought to guide our foreign policy.
1) The Necessity of Intervention – God has placed America in a unique position in this world. We are truly the only military superpower left after the collapse of the Soviet Union (though there are signs that perhaps Putin wants to revive the Cold War era). We have a military capability no other nation can come close to matching. When there is a great evil going on in the world, when Saddam invades Kuwait, when global jihad produces Al-Qaeda and ISIS, when tyrants oppress the innocent, we cannot simply sit by and watch. We cannot shake our heads, give stern warnings, then retreat inside our relatively safe borders. That is, to me, immoral. No other nation on earth has the potential to do as much good as does the USA and we ought to do it when we can, and under the right circumstances.
It is not just acceptable, but in my mind, a moral imperative that we use the national power and strength we are blessed with to fight evil in this world, to protect the oppressed from their oppressors, to intervene in world affairs – under the right circumstances.
2) The Limits of Intervention – We ought not, on the other hand, be bullies and insert ourselves into every international or intra-national spat going on. When we intervene without proper justification, we arouse anger and cause a backlash. We cannot fix all of the world problems and we should not try.
Obviously, we must balance these two competing influences. Intervention, under certain circumstances, is a moral imperative. Under other circumstances it becomes a violation of justice. Finding that perfect balance is not easy and there are always going to be pendulum swings of public opinion. After 9/11, there was a “let’s go over there and take ’em out” mentality that led to two rather messy wars. We “won” both wars fairly easily but didn’t have a sufficient plan to “win the peace” and both Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be political quagmires and breeding grounds for terrorism.
The pendulum has certainly swung back in the other direction now. It seems to be a truism among some that American intervention in the foreign affairs of other nations is wrong.
There has always been a bit of an isolationist tendency among Americans. Prior to Pearl Harbor, public opinion was that we should stay out of Europe’s war and not get involved. It seems unthinkable now, but many thought that the threat of Hitler and Naziism was not worth our intervention in a foreign war. Within hours of the Pearl Harbor tragedy opinion had changed.
My premise is that military intervention is a moral necessity under certain circumstances and a moral offense in others.
NOTE: to say that military intervention is often a moral necessity is not to say that the WAY we do it is always right. I am specific
The Question
The question is pretty simply – when is intervention in international affairs justified and when is it not? Most of us would agree with my theory that sometimes intervention is necessary and just, while in other circumstances it is not. The problem is drawing that line. I tend to draw it more on the interventionist side than many of my friends do. In think intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan was necessary. The possibility of failures in the conduct of the wars do not the fact that the motivation of them was just and good. If I were in Congress (heaven help us!) I would advocate for a military response to IS/ISIS/ISIL.
But where do we draw the line? On that we will not likely agree. But here are some of the things that might help us draw the line.
1. When we are defending our vital national interests.
That term is nebulous, like reasonable doubt or probable cause. Does America have a vital national interest in intervening in global jihad/terrorism? I certainly think so. Doe we have a vital national interest in the problems that have plagued many of the African nations? I’m not sure. Is oil a vital national interest? My truck thinks it is.
2. When there is beyond the internal affairs of another nation.
We ought not get involved when the only issues are internal national issues. We’ve been at odds with Cuba since Castro came to power, but after the Bay of Pigs have never tried military intervention. Of course, we have covert operatives at work in other nations, but I am talking bout military intervention.
As Mr. Murrica was not justified going house to house trying to solve family matters, we ought not flex our muscles to threaten other nations or direct their affairs.
3. When the innocent are abused.
If there had been no other military justification, would not the holocaust of the Jews in Europe been reason enough for the USA to get involved? We cannot stand by and watch bully and tyrants oppress powerless people on a large scale. ISIS is going through Iraq and Syria committing atrocities. We cannot just sit back and say, “wow, that is terrible,” when we have the power to act. We ought to coordinate with other governments, support their efforts and work with them in partnership as much as possible, but we must act.
When ethnic cleansing is taking place in Africa or parts of Europe or wherever, we have some responsibility to intervene. We cannot just sit idly by and watch tyrants oppress innocents or terrorists brutalize them.
4. When our allies need us.
If one of our international friends needs us, we need to do what we can to help.
5. When we can produce something better.
In the 20th Century we defeated Germany twice and conquered Japan once. We did not occupy or subjugate these nations, we rebuilt them and now they are healthy, independent nations who are our allies in international affairs.
Our failures in the Middle East have not primarily been military. When we have gone over there, we have defeated the armies we faced. I remember during the first Gulf War how opponents of the war warned of Saddam’s army and predicted tens of thousands of body bags coming home from Kuwait. That is not what happened.
Our problem today is making sure that when we take down one regime, the one that replaces it is not worse. Many rejoiced during the so-called “Arab Spring.” The problem was that some of these who overthrew governments were not moderates seeking peace but extremists seeking to impose Sharia and establish Muslim states.
Our military has been very effective, but too often we have failed in “nation-building.” If we are going to intervene, we need to make sure that what is left after our intervention will be superior to what was there before. That is what makes the Mid East so difficult. Groups like Al-Qaeda and their progeny are relentless. We just about destroyed the Taliban, but they are making a comeback. We had Al-Qaeda pretty well beaten, but they have rebounded. Intervention in Islamic countries is always going to be difficult because of the presence of radicalized groups and their willingness to fight dirty.
I’m not sure we will ever perfectly draw the line, but we must work on it. I am not defending everything America has done in the conduct of our wars; we’ve made plenty of mistakes. But I think the current chorus calling for non-intervention in international affairs has at times gone too far. We need to seek to find a balanced approach to military intervention. We will never reach that balance.
But God has put this nation in a unique position at this time in history. We have the power to set some things right, to fight tyrants and terrorists and prevail. We ought to use that power wisely, justly and faithfully.
So, was I too subtle with the “Mr. Murrica” thing?
No. I have an Uncle named Sam Andrew with that name:
Uncle Sam A. Murrica…
“My premise is that military intervention is a moral necessity under certain circumstances and a moral offense in others.”
I agree with this statement 100%. ISIS must be dealt with militarily. We cannot turn a blind eye to the atrocities they are committing against the helpless.
It is extremely difficult to make blanket statements that will address every possible situation that may come up. You have done a good job of suggestion some broad principles for making such decisions. While my principles may look a little different, I think this is a good starting point.
I’d love to hear suggestions on some other.
In fact, if I see a good one, I might edit my article and pretend I said it in the first place!!
Tell the DBBC folks congratulations on their 115th anniversary.
“We cannot turn a blind eye to the atrocities they are committing against the helpless.”
Adam, the U.S. has turned a blind eye to atrocities against the helpless since we became a nation. Just since the end of WWII we could name, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, atrocities in Africa galore. Just out of curiosity, why do you think ISIS needs to be put down by the U.S.? Turkey has a huge army, Syria has a large army. Why is it our responsibility? Iraq has an army that could (and has recently) dealt with them.
Is America unique among the nations? You decide.
Name another nation that in 100 years conquered as many other nations as we did, and then instead of absorbing them or occupying them, we freed them, rebuilt them and then befriended them.
Anyone remember the great old satire called “The Mouse that Roared”? Peter Sellers played pretty much every part. It is based on the idea that the best way to rebuild your nation is to get defeated by the USA in battle.
About what other nation in history could such a farce have been written?
America is unique.
Dave,
you said above: “Name another nation that in 100 years conquered as many other nations as we did, and then instead of absorbing them or occupying them, we freed them, rebuilt them and then befriended them.”
Thank you for putting this in print the way you did! This is a most incredible point. America, throughout history, has done what NO other nation in history would do!
Great statement!
But before we pat ourselves on the back too much, let’s remember something else: America has also learned the lesson of other nations about the cost of being occupiers. It generally does not work out well for the occupying force. And while our time occupying Iraq and Afghanistan were limited, it was nonetheless an occupation. We saw how well that worked out for us, even along limited timespans.
Chris, The problem in Iraq is we did not finish the job! In Afghanistan, we did what needed to be done and got out. And I will be the first to say that in both situations, the problems will NEVER totally go away. But, they cannot be ignored and thus we will continually be required to do. It is what it is and no ideology will change that at all. The Bible speaks of such as we approach the return of Christ. So as we know what is taking place, we must maintain our involvement. I am just thankful that… Read more »
What would “finishing the job” have looked like in Iraq?
It would have meant staying longer to rebuild and hold back other developing threats. We have done this in other places.
Tim,
What other places? Details, man!
Chris,
Basic history man – Korea, Vietnam, Europe. We still have presence in all.
Tim,
You might want to re-think how well we “finished the job” in those examples. The only one that might qualify is WWII (after not doing so well following WWI) and that was a coalition of nations in a war to which we were the latecomers.
Chris,
My point was we had a staying presence. As for finishing the job, that was dealing with Iraq.
What kind of “presence” is still in Vietnam? McDonalds?
Adam,
There was an extended presence!
Yeah, lol, all the way up until 1975 when we had to evacuate the embassy. Basic history…
Adam G,
And your point is?
Adam,
Basic history shows we were able to slow the progression of history when we have had a staying force.
As for Iraq, we did not finish and we pulled back our numbers on the ground too quickly-just like Vietnam. You made my point.
My point was to show that your statement that we “still have a presence” in Vietnam was false. 1975 does not equal “still there”. That is all.
Tim,
We should have never invaded Iraq and we should have never fought in Vietnam. And how does a Christian minister take a pro war stance in every circumstance?
John,
War is inevitable. As to where we should and should not be, this thread is not conducive to a discussion on each situation. And please note, I said nothing about condoning war every time. Those words were yours only.
Yet, I will say, I do hold to the just war theory and believe scripture allows it.
Tim, I guess I hold to the absolute last resort theory and I believe that neither Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan were necessary.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to know if Korea or Vietnam were justified. I think Afghanistan was justified. Iraq certainly wasn’t in my opinion.
Bill Mac,
The reason I don’t think that Vietnam or Korea were justified is because there were over political ideology.
I personally find it disconcerting when Baptist pastors are pro war. Are some military actions necessary? Unfortunately yes. Are all military actions necessary? No, not even most. When President Bush was getting ready to invade Iraq one of the things I found to be shameful is that a number of our well known SBC pastors wrote the President encouraging him to invade. It is beyond me why an emissary of peace would support such a senseless war. Before I get accused of being a lib, I am a bonefide conservative, I voted for President Bush twice and I would do… Read more »
John: I’m forced to agree. I’m not a pacifist, but that so many Christians are pro-war is unsettling.
Thanks Bill Mac,
I always appreciate your comments. They are complex instead of one dimensional. I think that it would behoove us all to be more complex and tow the party line less. I’m considering writing a blog post about the subject.
There has never been a time in the history of America wherein Americans were not fighting real enemies of freedom on domestic soil or on foreign soil in some kind of war. Were that not the case there would be no America at this present time. Hard men will stand watch tonight in some hellish places as we sleep. I thank God for every last one of them. My only regret is that most of them do not know Jesus as Savior and Lord. Therefore, if they have to die tonight they will die lost and go to hell. However,… Read more »
CB: I agree. My brothers have served in the military, and I have had and still have students who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I spoke with a student today who did 2 tours in Afghanistan. I had the privilege to be invited to Fort Lewis to observe Army ROTC graduation. I appreciate their service and tell them so. I am thankful for the men and women who serve. But I acknowledge that those who send our soldiers into harm’s way may not always do so with wisdom or prudence. Neither do civilians who beat the drums of war.… Read more »
War is Hell, or so it is reported that Sherman said and he made believers out of a lot of Southerners. I had a number of relatives in that war, including, at least, two great great grandfathers, one of whom was captured outside of Vicksburg and exchanged back to the Confederacy before Christmas of ’63. Prior to that I had any number of relatives in the American Revolution, but I only know the name of one for sure. In the wars of the 20th century I have several relatives, and I have conducted funerals for veterans of WWII, Korea, and… Read more »
Bill Mac,
I agree about politicians and prudence. My comment was about the reality of war and those who fight wars and thanking God for those who do. I stand by my comment because my comment is correct. I would appreciate it if you don’t read into it what is not there.
CB, thankful for soldiers-of-fortune?
CB: I agree fully with your comment. I don’t know you well but can’t imagine you are pro-war. I just wanted to clarify my statement.
Bill Mac,
Thank you for the clarification. In the interest of clarity on my part on such a serious subject as war, let me state this:
I am for war, armed conflict, or the use of lethal force if it is truly justifiable.
Let me illustrate my position with something recent within our culture. I believe George Zimmerman should be in prison. His killing of Travon Martin was not justifiable. His is the kind of personality that should not be permitted to carry a concealed weapon.
CB: Agreed on all points.
Adam G. in NC,
I thought I made my position clear in my first comment. However, to clarify my position, persuasion, and absolute conviction I shall answer your question with a question of my own for you to ponder if you will.
If they are fighting for freedom of the downtrodden, or to keep evil people from that of which they are bent on doing or protecting American interests and personnel on foreign soil, what does it matter if they fight as conventional American Armed Forces or paid Contractors?
IMO, mercenaries/soldiers-of-fortuen/contractors do not fight for ideals, but for monetary gain. If one is led to fight by patriotic sentiment, then enlist.
I’m not pragmatic about this. If I didn’t have a problem with this (which I do), then I would possibly be for our nations armed forces being dissolved and conflicts being fought by private armies paid by the highest bidder.
IMO, mercenaries/soldiers-of-fortuen/contractors do not fight for ideals, but for monetary gain. Adam G. in NC, OK. That is your position and I respect your right to hold that position. And, I must admit, a great number of people who will sleep free in their beds tonight hold that same position. However, I do have a question for you. How many Contractors (SoFs, Operators, Mercenaries, etc.) do you personally know well enough that you to know why they work as Professional Soldiers? BTW, “conflicts being fought by private armies paid by the highest bidder” would constitute chaos, anarchy, and social disorder… Read more »
CB,
I appreciate your comment brother, but I just cannot see where a pro war stance fits into the Christian ethic. As do you, I believe that some wars are necessary, but I believe that most wars are unnecessary. Brother, we had no business going into Iraq, Korea, or Vietnam, these were monumental wastes of lives on both sides. Brother, it is estimated that over 100,000 civilians were killed in the Iraq war, I don’t want to engage in such activities. The Christian ethic is the ethic of peace.
John Wylie, I think that one’s definition of “pro war” is worthy of definition here. if you read my comment here, I have spoken of being willing to fight a war only if the cause is “justifiable.” I there are times when war is justifiable. Only a sociopath would be for war without justification. John Wylie, if you remember, I wrote a post for Memorial Day. In that post I stated that war is in no way glorious. War is terrible. War actually demands the killing of men by other men. Such a thing is very serious and in no… Read more »
John Wylie,
It is a bad thing for me to keep my glasses on when I type. I make a million errors. Forgive me.
My last statement should have been rendered as follows:
“Personally, I will be glad when both are cast into the Lake of Fire forever and the memories of both are no more.”
“The Christian ethic is the ethic of peace.”
John Wylie,
I agree that peace is firmly entrenched in the a biblical worldview and is the ethical high ground.
However, peace at any cost is not the ethical high ground and is not within the parameters of a true biblical worldview.
Adam G., “IMO, mercenaries/soldiers-of-fortuen/contractors do not fight for ideals, but for monetary gain.” I would echo CB’s questions and add one of my own… Have you seen the interview with 3 contractors who bravely and with honor and distinction fought terrorists in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012? I would hardly call into question their ideals and principles. It is my observation that many of the people you speak of are retired Navy SEALS, Army special forces, Marines, etc…who fight for the same principles as an independent contractor for the US govt. Are there scumbag among them – to quote Sarah… Read more »
Hey, I’m not “impugning” anyone here. Not calling anyone a scumbag at all. Just clarifying motive.
I’ve known several, and they all went because their pay was about 5-10 times what they would have gotten as an enlisted soldier. They no doubt had strong patriotic beliefs, which they retained, but they were there to do a “job” they could do well and get paid very handsomely for it…not because of patriotic duty. If so, they would have volunteered or re-enlisted. I don’t know a one who wouldnt be willing to admit that.
So you’re saying that if a person is paid handsomely for the job that they do they must be doing it for money?
I personally do not see anything wrong with someone being paid well for doing these types of things. If a patriotic Navy seal can make five times as much money doing the same things – for the same people -so often under the command of the same leaders – without as much political handcuffs – why wouldn’t he?
By the way it seems that Implying that someone’s motives are simply money (greed) rather than principle is certainly impugning someone.
“So you’re saying that if a person is paid handsomely for the job that they do they must be doing it for money?” If they had the option to do it on principle and passed, then yes. I’m not saying it’s wrong to get paid well. I’m saying that using the resources that are provided by those that have chosen money as their primary motive, over principle (not saying that principle doesnt exist, but that it lost the internal argument) is very dangerous and probably anti-gospel. We are muddying the truth when we claim that mercenaries fight out of patriotic… Read more »
That’s the point…many (most) of them did not pass….these contractors are SEALS/marines/etc. Who served thier time in the military. And are now doing the same thing in the private sector.
Suggesting that one must be an agent at the government in the form of a military “GI Joe” to be principled?
I would disagree.
anti gospel? Automatically? Accross the board?
Also, I’m talking about contractors who work under contracts with the US govt….not some sort of killer simply going to tge highest bidder.
I’m talking about guys like the contractors that fought to the death at Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.
We may be talking about two different types of private sector folk.
Approximately 1,210,000 murders of the innocent last year in the USA. Thousands being killed in Iraq, maybe 10.000. Where should our thoughts and efforts be as Christians? Both places? Maybe. Certainly we can pray for both. But what can we do about those millions killed right here at home? Our we raising up enough noise? What if our Mr. Murrica was abusing his family at home? Should he then be out bringing justice to the outside ‘streets’? It is horrible and evil what ISIS is doing over there. It is horrible and evil what we are doing here. Just a… Read more »
Apples and oranges, Mike. First, where did you get your stats? My research (ie – googling “how many murders in USA?” yielded the number 14827 murders in the USA in 2013. Not sure where you come up with 1.2 million. I hope you weren’t talking about abortion. I am totally anti-abortion, but I am weary of the tendency of Christians to bring up abortion in every discussion. Yes, abortion is evil but we can’t suspend everything else we do until we solve the problem of abortion. We have a police force and a legal system that are designed to deal… Read more »
Yeah, kinda of apples and oranges there Mike. The evil of killing innocent unborn here at home is far worse than the ethnic/religious fighting in Irag and Syria. Sorry Dave dismissed your point so out of hand.
I’m also sorry Dave is weary of the abortion subject being brought up. Maybe that weariness is part of our problem.
Other than that, Really good blog Dave! 😉
Good point, Parson, good point. I mean the deaths in America in particular. We get all excited about the folks overseas (and they certainly deserve our sympathy and support, and we forget all about the multitudes dying here. O yes, and please consider the number of veterans who have died from neglect in the VA hospitals. And you should hear what the Veterans have told me, of doctors who told them to go ahead and die, of food being served in plastic so tough only a knife could cut it, of patients unable to feed themselves, of a doctor who… Read more »
“In the 20th Century we defeated Germany twice and conquered Japan once. We did not occupy or subjugate these nations, we rebuilt them and now they are healthy, independent nations who are our allies in international affairs.” Dave, by the way, we have had an entire division (or more) in Germany since the end of WWII, so I think we are occupying them. We don’t have any other nations with a full division in our country (or even a platoon). Name any involvement since WWII where we actually defeated the enemy. Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Yugoslavia (and other NATO involvements),… Read more »
Nate,
1) We do not occupy Germany. We do have a base there, but they elect their own leaders and we are guests.
2) I understand the power of China. They are an economic super-power, undoubtedly.
3) I agree with the Reagan doctrine – never enter a war you don’t intend to win.
I would assert that we most definitely did win the WARS in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan. But we failed in the political process thereafter.
Dave, I understand what you are saying about Germany, but an entire division (30,000 men) is a sizeable population. How did we win in Kuwait? Hussein didn’t unconditionally surrender. We had to go back and destroy him later. We didn’t even go to war with Afghanistan, we went to war in Afghanistan aginst the terrorists, and we didn’t utterly destroy them and force them into an unconditional surrender. We didn’t go to war against Iraq, per se, we went to free Iraq from Hussein, and now the country is in utter chaos, Christians have been dispossessed, and the list goes… Read more »
The war in Kuwait was fought using the rules of engagement agreement with the Saudis. They wanted and needed Hussein to be a barrier against the even more menacing Iran.
This is not going to be popular, but I’m coming to believe that some countries need dictators. What I’m saying is that just because a country is ruled by a dictator doesn’t mean that we should attempt to overthrow him (sorry, it’s always a him). Some countries simply aren’t ready, willing, or able to be democracies. Iraq is one. I’m not anti-intervention, but lately we seem to be naive as to whether our intervention leaves a country better off than before we stepped in. When we defeated Saddam the first time, we thought surely the Iraqi people would rise up… Read more »
Bill, if people are upset, they are upset at both of us, because I agree with most of what you said. It is very hard to build democracies without some of the cultural influences of the Christian west. There is difference between a dictator and a tyrant or a terrorist. I think America did the world a great service by getting rid of Saddam. But we ought not remove every dictator. Even ones that do bad things. That is the problem. When to intervene and when not to. And, to finalize this discussion, remember that the kingdom of God is… Read more »
I’m not sure I agree about Hussein. He fully deserved what he got, but Iraq didn’t deserve what it got.
Most dictators are concerned primarily about their own power and position (sound familiar, Congress?). As such, they are absolutely a threat to their own people but seldom, I think, a threat to us. Let’s face it, threatening the US is a death sentence (either politically or really). Most dictators are smarter than that.
Add to that, the U.S. propped up and supported some of these dictators (during the Cold War) and then left them high and dry after the fall of the Soviet Empire.
Bill, Iraq got [at least] some of what it deserved. They persecuted the church there long ago and also recently. Most every one of these countries could have turned to the Gospel but instead turned away. They allowed the doctrines of evil to rule them individually and corporately and so they deserve dictators and despots. The Christians in those countries deserve everlasting hell [like you and i do as well] but God has rescued them form that fate. Their countries are now not worthy of them and the Lord is their Help and their Shield. But I agree with you… Read more »
The discussion is kinda making my point. We tend to agree that the US should intervene under certain circumstances.
Why, when and how – that is the sticky point.
Dave, I think you have identified the dilemma (trilemma): why, when, and how. I doubt many disagree with the angst and ambiguity of going to war. Philosophers distinguish between “reasonable” arguments and “compelling” arguments. It is easy to “reason” about going to war, but if you have loved ones in the military, those reasons may not be compelling. I personally find it distasteful that my son’s Commander in Chief has not even passed the most elementary of military requirements. Beyond that, he doesn’t seem to have much respect for men with military degrees, decorations, and years of experience. I put… Read more »
Jack,
Thank you for your service to our country.
Tarheel, Thank you for your “Thank You.” It does mean something to most vets to know that their service was appreciated.
I enlisted the month after Viet Nam ended. I had it much easier than most of those just a bit older.
So, again, I want you to know that when you thank a vet, they really appreciate it.
I like that term ‘de-grade’ that is used by the military to describe taking down the power that an opponent has built up . . . our military technology is able to pin point areas where the ‘enemy’ (ISIS) is collecting in strength and to ‘de-grade’ with the use of drone attacks and military fighter jet attacks . . . this is something that would have to be done anyway before more ‘hands-on’ involvement (boots on the ground) would occur soon, my nephew will go with a battle group to ‘an undisclosed location’ . . . he’s a flight surgeon… Read more »
I won’t be around for a while, so discuss amongst yourselves. I appreciate the lively and cordial debate so far.
Just to clarify, those who disagree with me are either communists or fascists.
On a more serious note (and as if I have any control over it) I’d love to see insights on the issue of my post – when should America intervene in foreign affairs. Why? How? Under what circumstances?
Big subject Dave,…. Here may be a good beginning point. And some of this is being done today. But maybe we should be more focused on the emphasis of “what to attack” and “expose”. Matthew 12 is a good starting point to apply wisdom to this situation. Jesus gave the ultimate wisdom that mirrors the effects we see today. The United States can heed the truth of this warning, which is universal and not impugned by time. “The evil” will not stay away, but is destined to return. Impinging the capability of the return is the key for the United… Read more »
I am only for a limited effort at ISIL. I do not believe we should intervene at all in Sunni areas that do not want to be liberated (and that is far more areas than we are led to believe. They were welcomed by many sunni communities.) An effort to go into areas where they have been welcomed by a high percentage of the population will inevitably lead to more of what we went through before pulling out. I believe we should take away oil field and financial assets. I believe we should track down and destroy any military hardware… Read more »
What about a conspiracy and political manipulation? In 1983 when our son was 11, he had a two week scholarship to a school of math and science for bright kids (I once checked and found about 12 states have established these schools). He was mentored on the use of a computer by a 20 year old African American college student. One day he had a question on the computer which stated: “If you were an official in a world government and had an over population problem with a country in Africa, how would you handle it? a. Have a war… Read more »
Does anyone on here believe that the wars of the last decade have actually slowed the expansion of Islamic fanaticism and not thrown has on the fire that was once just a flame?
*gas
Francis Schaeffer (a favorite Christian thinker of mind) once made a critique about our interventionism in this way. He pointed out that in almost every country that our state department, CIA, and military have gone into trying to set up democracies, they have resulted not in democracies but in dictatorships and tyrants. Our top down approach does not work because true republics with freedom can not be set up in countries with cultures that never would have created them in the first place. We can’t expect Islamic culture to take hold of and instill republican (not the political party) values.… Read more »
Or the neighboring countries who are really in the direct sights of ISIS (but tell us we are so we will fight their battles) could form a coalition to stamp it out. But then they would be the ones fighting a popular revolt and not us…
Does anyone else agree that there is a difference between “non-intervention” and “isolation”?
IMO, “isolationist” is the term used by the neocon/libs when they want to ostracize an opinion that runs contrary to their own philosphy. No one who believes in free trade is an isolationist (not even a libertarian).
Seems that I read somewhere that Washington was an isolationist who believed in free trade also. He said something to the effect about not getting involved in entangling alliances, especially in Europe. What if some folks are in position to use those entangling alliances already and will use them to drag us into a war which will eventually lead to the one world government that they so much desire?
Dr.J, did Washington endorse trade with other nations? If so, he wasn’t an “isolationist”.
Dear Adam: Perhaps you might want to read what Washington had to say about getting involved in the entangling alliances of Europe. Can’t give you reference, but probably googling might help.
Dr.J, I am familiar with that. It’s his farewell address. Political and military alliances are one thing…trade is another. Washington didnt try to stop trading with Europe, just political and military matters. He may have been a non-entangler, but he wasnt an “isolationist”. You follow?
War is a necessary evil. So long as we live in this fallen world we will have to engage in it. It is when we forget that it is necessary that we become overly isolationist in our policies. It is when we forget that it is evil that we become overly interventionist in our policies. As such my principles for when military intervention should be used are generally as follows: 1) When every other reasonable alternative has been expended: War should always be our last option. As stated above it is a necessary evil, and even when executed with noble… Read more »
I would like to point out the war in Iraq was not about people being killed in Kuwait or chemical weapons used on Hussein’s own people. Documents have proven the reason we went to war with Iraq was 100% oil. Oil was more important to our government than 911. Oil was the reason we fought in Iraq first instead of Afghanistan first. Am I saying that our precious troops died because of oil? Yes, I am. The facts doesn’t lie. Contrary to popular opinion, ISIL is not a well oiled machine. ISIL are just a bunch of thugs. I think… Read more »
I would like to add one more tidbit, for the first time in many years we have a President with an actual functioning, working, thinking brain. I think the President will do what is right for the safety of our country. Congress doesn’t know how to act when the President doesn’t play ball according to the way they want to play the game.
Jess, I really see our current president much differently than you, at least what you’ve implied. I do think he has a “functioning, working, thinking brain.” But I think his leftist leanings lead him to use his mental abilities to not help this country, but to actually hurt it.
Reagan was by far the best president in the last century. Bush II wasn’t great, wasn’t terrible. These days I even look back on Clinton’s presidency with a little fondness.
I do owe Carter an apology for saying he was the worst president ever.
Blessings brother.
Les, I respect your right to have an opinion, although I disagree with it. You do know the Republicans are why we have abortion in this country. Let me tell you why Kentucky now has to accept gay marriages from other states. Mitch McConnell, recommended John G. Heyburn to George H.W. Bush for the judiciary committee. John Heyburn was the judge that presided over the case to allow gay marriages from other states to have the same rights as traditional marriages. It was his ruling. We can talk about leftist all day but the fact is the Republican party is… Read more »
I found these statements in the same post to be interesting:
“””Democrats only abide by the law.”””
“””Many preachers comment on politics, now knowing the facts. I think it is a shame.”””
“Democrats only abide by the law.” That has to be one of the most astonishingly laughable comments ever on SBC Voices, and having been here for several years (and maybe even contributing one or two of my own), given some of the things that have been said here, that is saying something. Now even if we assume, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you were making a generalized comment, as in “Democrats (as a whole) only abide by the law”, that still is laughable. For every George Ryan there is a Rod Blagojevich. For every Eisenhower, there… Read more »
Jess, First of all I am not a Republican. I’m a conservative. There are very few in DC anymore. “Democrats only abide by the law.” Now I’m suspecting you’re not even trying to be serious because I really don’t know how anyone who has pretty decent thinking abilities could say that in a serious way. No offense intended, as I think you’re not being serious. “I never have seen so much hatred for a president in my life as the hatred for President Obama. There are things beginning to come to light as part of the reason for so much… Read more »
Les, again I respect your opinion although I disagree with it. You are saying a lot with no facts to back what you say. The facts are six Republican appointed Supreme court judges and three Democrat appointed judges agreed with Roe along with a Republican President. This is where abortion came from. Les, you have no facts. You are just talking politics with a spin. We have to accept gay marriages into our state because of a Republican. Roe vs. Wade will never be overturned. We live in a nation that the law is not what says the Lord but… Read more »
Jess, “You are saying a lot with no facts to back what you say. The facts are six Republican appointed Supreme court judges and three Democrat appointed judges agreed with Roe along with a Republican President. This is where abortion came from. Les, you have no facts. You are just talking politics with a spin.” What did I say about which party was responsible for abortion? Right. I said nothing. What I *did* say was that I’m not a Republican. Also what I also said was about the current President and his advocacy of the slaughter of babies. All that… Read more »
Jess, Ok, so you say the war in Iraq was about oil. I think I could believe that. Where is your evidence? Why aren’t our gas prices lower? Is your intention to praise Democrats and demonize Republicans or some form of saying “Republicans are not as good as you think they are”? So Republicans may have put in a bad judge. Their general feeling would be “Oops” but Democrats rejoice at these sinful judicial decisions. Also, I understand that some people may be pushed in part by racism, but let’s be honest about the way Republicans have always felt about… Read more »
Chris Griffin, The documents I speak of have made the news and were read word for word. Recordings were made and played on the news that the war in Iraq was about oil. It’s so strange none of these tapes or documents were on Fox news. Go figure. Never watch one news channel and expect the truth. Wendy Davis a woman running for Governor in Texas, she has had two abortions. In her first pregnancy the baby was deformed so badly the doctors said the fetus is suffering terrible pain. Wendy and her family didn’t come to an easy decision… Read more »
Jess, you might try reading my article about fake news.
Just because someone reports something negative about Republicans doesn’t make it true.
You might try exercising some discernment about some of the left-wing propaganda you’ve evidently bought into.
Dave, I was expecting you to come on here, and I’ve been waiting. I’ve researched diligently, Every thing I’ve pointed out is true. You can even find it on line. I was expecting your comment to be what it was because of your political persuasion. You believe what you want to believe I prefer just the facts. I respect your opinion and you are entitled to it but you can not force someone to believe your way just because it’s your opinion. I’m not trying to force anyone to believe my way even though I have the facts. I think… Read more »
Jess, I’ve written about 5 comments, then deleted them. There’s just little point.
You are hardened in your support of abortion and homosexuality in America. You don’t support them theoretically, but you DO support them practically, but supporting a party that is devoted to them.
You cannot say “I’m against abortion” and vote for abortion-loving candidates.
If your vote does not reflect your conscience, then politics, not conviction is driving you.
But I’m out of this as well. I know you won’t listen to truth or deal with reality. There’s not much point.
Jess, You throw a few ‘facts’ in on some subjects, then you make wholesale comments on other things with no facts at all. Are you an expert on prejudice? You start that last paragraph on prejudice saying that some say prejudice has improved in this country. You later say, “If anyone don’t believe there is prejudice in our country, my friend you don’t get out enough.” Which point are you arguing? They are not the same. The prejudice in this country is better than it was 50 years ago. You see, I can actually remember 50 years ago (in spite… Read more »
Dave, I have to make one last comment because you are making accusations toward me that is totally false. It’s wrong for you to do that to try to prove your point. I’ve discovered you are notorious for that. Here is what it boils down to. You have one party (Democrats), who say they support abortion and gay marriage. You have another party (Republicans), say they are against abortion and gay marriage and yet support it by their actions. I have already mentioned Roe vs. Wade, but lets look at 1962 and 1963 where the Republicans voted with the Democrats… Read more »
Wow…Only Republicans say one thing and do another? Democrats do not? Are you seriously saying that? Are you seriously saying that Democrats as a whole are honest and always tell the truth to their voting constituents? If you are then perhaps you would like to buy this bridge I recently acquired.
Svm,
I suggest you look again at what I said. I stand by it.
Jess, To say that judges appointed by Republicans have been pro-abortion is not the same thing as proving those Republicans or even less that all Republicans in office are pro-abortion. Prove to me that any Republican in office has intentionally forced gay marriage in Kentucky or anywhere else. You cannot. Who said that the morning after pill does not cause abortion? Who is disagreeing with that? Who said that prejudice no longer existed? It seems as though you are arguing past people instead of actually dealing with what they are saying. Finally, it seems like your position on Republicans and… Read more »
Chris,
I laid out the facts, do with them what you wish. My conscious is clear. I’m done. The judge that Mitch McConnell recommended to George H.W. Bush is the one ruled that Ky. had to accept gay marriages from other states. Mitch is a Republican. There, I proved it.
So Mitch McConnell perhaps made a bad recommendation – I’m not sure that “proves” anything. Also, if you were to speak to any real conservative “Republican ” they would most likely tell you that George HW Bush is a patriot, a fateful public servant, and I had honorable man in many ways, but a true conservative republican he is not… Never was. he was more like a Texas Democrat. HW ran against Mike Dukakis for goodness sakes…. A guy so far to the left that made him look like Mr. Conservative. We’ve had dema-lites running the GOP for the last… Read more »
Tarheel, I would add that I have never knowingly voted for a candidate for any office who supported the killing of babies. If I had done such, I would be guilty of their unjust killing (Ex. 21:28-32). On the other hand, if somene *knowingly* assists a person’s election by voting for that person, and such voter knows full well the candidate’s support for and advocacy for the unjust killing us babies, that voter has babies’ blood on his or her hands. Said voter was warned and yet went ahead and helped put into office a candidate who he or she… Read more »
Les, Tarheel,
I’m assuming you guys are, or have been married. I’m assuming your wives have taken birth control. I rest my case.
I think Dave would appreciate it if we got back to the subject of this post.
You would be assuming wrongly, Jess…my wife does not have take birth control. Has never taken it as a means of “birth control”.
So now your case (whatever it was) is, as it relates to that issue, shall we say – “unrested”.
Tarheel,
I wish everyone could say the same thing. God bless you and your wife.
Jess,
You would be assuming incorrectly.
Your case is far from rested.