Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift.
Sometime next week, our Congress will vote on whether or not to give President Obama the authorization to attack Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. Britain had a similar vote last week and their Parliament voted to sit this one out. Is there a Christian position on this? Should we get involved? First, let’s look at St. Augustine’s Just War Doctrine as a guide.
Just War Doctrine/Theory basically states that if a nation goes to war, it needs to have really good reasons to do so and it should engage in war in as ethical a way as possible. St. Augustine developed this perspective as the Roman Empire was crumbling, but it has served to guide the Christian influenced nations of the West for the past 1500 years. Here is a summary (thanks to Oregon State for putting this together).
The right to go to war concerns the justification that a nation must give in order for it to have a moral right to wage war on another. Augustine laid the basis for four main criteria:
1. Just Authority – is the decision to go to war based on a legitimate political and legal process?2. Just Cause – has a wrong been committed to which war is the appropriate response?3. Right Intention – is the response proportional to the cause? i.e. is the war action limited to righting the wrong, and no further. When people speak of “mission creep,” this condition is the relevant concern.4. Last Resort – has every other means of righting the wrong been attempted sincerely so that no other option but war remains?The conduct of war is clearly a matter of moral concern. Even when a nation is justified in waging war on another, there are moral limits on what it may do in prosecuting the war. Defining and enforcing such limits has been a long a concern for international agreement and law.1. Proportionality – The proportionality of the use of force in a war. The degree of allowable force used in the war must be measured against the force required to correct the Just cause and limited by Just Intention (see Jus Ad Bellum).2. Discrimination -The combatants discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Innocent, nonmilitary people should never be made the target of attacks.3. Responsibility – A country is not responsible for unexpected side effects of its military activity as long as the following three conditions are met:(a) The action must carry the intention to produce good consequences.(b) The bad effects were not intended.(c) The good of the war must outweigh the damage done by it.
So, how does an attack on Syria at this stage line up with Just War Theory? Fairly well, on the surface. If President Obama gets authorization from Congress and the UN, he will cover the “Just Authority” clause. He is appealing to “Just Cause” on the basis of the chemical weapons attacks on civilians. He exhibits “Right Intention” by saying that the attacks will be surgical and limited. He is claiming “Last Resort” because the Civil War has been going on for two years and he has warned Assad repeatedly not to use chemical weapons. It seems that Proportionality, Discrimination, and Responsibility are also being taken into account, at least according to what is being said.
But, does this settle it? Have these qualifications really been met or has the argument for war with Syria been framed in a way that answers all of the pertinent questions without exposing what is really going on? We don’t really know. It comes down to a few basic questions.
- Do we believe our leaders and our intelligence community to be trustworthy?
- Do we believe that these attacks will accomplish their designed goal? What is the goal? What is the end game?
- Have we really thought through the consequences of tipping the scales of the war in the favor of the Rebels (who are allied with Al Qaeda)?
- What happens if Syria defends themselves and attacks us back or attacks Israel? What will we do then?
- What happens if Iran and/or Russia get involved? How far are we willing to go? What are the consequences? Could this lead to World War III?
- If it was Assad who used the chemical weapons, what will we do if he uses them again? What if we later find out it was the Rebels who did it?
- What happens if the Rebels are strengthened through this and they move into Damascus and house-to-house fighting occurs and Assad gets desperate and another 100,000+ are killed?
- What is our overall strategy in the Middle East? We have been fighting for over a decade in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and now Syria. For what purpose? What are we trying to accomplish?
- Do we believe that peace will ultimately come from fighting war? Is there actually any such thing as a “Just War” and if not, should we just dispense with the illusion and accept reality, that wars and rumors of wars will be the norm until Christ returns?
- What will happen to the Syrian Christians and other religious minorities if Assad is toppled and the Rebels gain control? There is little doubt that the government that the Rebels will usher in will be of the militant Islamic fundamentalist flavor. Christians have been tolerated in Syria up till now. What about them? Philip Jenkins writes on this very convincingly.
Assad is a brutal dictator just like Saddam Hussein was. But, what is the result of toppling him (as our attacks on his military capabilities could lead to)? Who fills the void? The Rebels seem to be no better. Should we get involved in a Civil War with apparent evil on both sides? America has decisions to make here and our country will make the decisions that are in America’s best interests.
As I was thinking about this, I was reminded of the story in Joshua 5:13-15 where Joshua meets the commander of the Army of the Lord before the attack on Jericho. It goes like this:
13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.
The commander was neither for Joshua nor for his enemies. He was for God and God’s purposes. God is not on one side or the other. God is on His side and He is most concerned with His own purposes being carried out. If that is the case, then I think about the Christians in Syria who are being attacked, the weak and the defenseless, children, and the elderly. I think about those who do not want this war but this violence has been unleashed on them anyway. I think about what God wants to do here in the midst of geopolitical meltdown in the Middle East from Libya to Egypt to Syria to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Praying for peace right now.
Perhaps the position of Christians when asked whose side we are on should be the same as the commander of the Army of the Lord. Neither. We are wanting to see God glorified and His will be done. We want peace and justice and the innocent to be protected, but we do not see a way through this mess, so we pray. We are citizens of a different Kingdom and are aliens and strangers in this world. As for me, in my American citizenship, I am not in favor of striking Syria at this time based on what we know. The Rebels that will be emboldened and empowered by an attack on Assad seem to be just as bad as he is. The whole situation seems like the worst kind of quicksand and the unintended consequences of effectively throwing our lot in with the Rebels concerns me greatly. Civil Wars are always incredibly complicated and this one seems to be more complicated than most.
But, as a Christian, I believe that neutrality is called for – not neutrality when it comes to dealing with evil, but when one side is just as bad as the other, I am not sure that we should be on either side. Protecting civilians? Yes. Aiding and abetting the Rebels? Not so much.
Prayer for our leaders to have wisdom and to act with justice needs to come from the Church to God. Prayer for the helpless and the refugees in Syria. Prayer for those being killed in the horror of war. We follow the Prince of Peace. We should pray and work for peace. When peace is not possible, we should pray that whatever course of action that is taken should be done with the utmost integrity and desire for justice. But, our main goal should be peace. On the surface, it appears that the boxes on Augustine’s Just War Doctrine can be checked off by what President Obama is proposing. But, what lies under the surface of the hearts of men? What are the real motives? Is there any such thing as a “good war”? Who gains from this and what drives this push for war? We can make judgments, but at the end of the day, only God knows. We do what others cannot or will not do when we cry out to God and put this in His hands. We pray and trust what is said in Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
Scripture says that the state was established to bear the sword to punish wrongdoing (Romans 13:1-5). I am not a strict pacifist. There is a role for the state to protect its people and the weak and to punish evil. I do not deny that. If we get involved in this, there should be a stated goal/purpose and we should act decisively and quickly and the blowback could be severe. If we sit it out, the carnage will likely continue. But, the future loss of life from the toppling of Assad including the rise of Al Qaeda in Syria causes me to be against this.
What do you think?
Excellent thoughts, Alan.
I think most of us are making our decisions not based on Just War Theory, but on something much simpler – Just Oppose Obama!
He’s for it. I’m agin it. That settles it.
Very informative article.
My sense has always been that we in America can and should use our immense might to protect those who need to be protected. But in these countries, the lines are so blurred, it is hard to tell who the good guys are!
Dave and I were communicating to revise this article up until the last minute. I was revising over on my blog and I think he missed the last revision. So, add to the end of the last paragraph my conclusion, which is: “But, the future loss of life from the toppling of Assad including the rise of Al Quaeda in Syria causes me to be against this.”
I made the edit – I think.
Yep. Thanks!
I’m with the idea that we ought to protect, but I think that a few missiles at a distance isn’t going to accomplish that here. Which means, in the long run, putting Americans on the ground in the middle of this, and I would think we could look at the last ten years and realize that it doesn’t work as simply as we would like to do that. If there is an actual plan that provides security for the civilian population and does not make the US a permanent occupier, and does not result in more death and chaos than… Read more »
I’m not sure the value of Just War Theory anymore. Look at how JWT was used in the lead up to the Iraq War. Folks on both sides were using JWT and reaching very different conclusions. I think we have a responsibility to –at least — try to protect. And that’s not a responsibility to aid the “good guys” (because, like has been said here, who is the good guy?) but a responsibility to protect the innocent — future children from being the victims of chemical weapons. I just don’t think civilized societies can tolerate that type of warfare and… Read more »
Aaron, we don’t often agree, but I find you candid, at least. Here’s what I’m noticing. With a different party in the White House, roles seem to be reversing somewhat. The GOP was waving the flag and calling for war when GWB was in the Oval Office and the Dems (after initially voting to support the war) were questioning its value. I know all that changed by 2008, but that was what was going on in the early days – in my failing memory. Now, many Dems are supporting the war because they trust Obama’s leadership and call to do… Read more »
To be completely honest, I was against the war in 2003 because I was not convinced that Iraq was a threat to us. But, we had FAR more reason to go into Iraq (based on something like 26 UN resolutions, the no-fly zones, Saddam throwing out weapons inspectors, and over 40 nations joining together in a coalition). Still, I felt that containment was the best strategy. At the time, I was 27 years old and an associate pastor in a military town and I was not sure if I was right or not. It did not really matter what I… Read more »
Dave, I’m not seeing the role-reversal. Obviously, there are Democrats who are going to back the president. But, even as I was watching MSNBC tonight, I heard very few voices backing military intervention. Rev. Al and Ed were defending the president against unwarranted criticisms, but Ed said we need to “help the President” by telling Congress to vote “no.” Chris Matthews is against the war. And I’d be shocked if Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow were for it. Of course, MSNBC is not the Democratic Party – but the lack of support among their leading personalities certainly says something. But,… Read more »
Dave, I do think the “I hate Obama” factor plays a role, but I think its much less than you have expressed. The last couple of years has really seen the rise of a libertarian vein inside the Republican Party. More mindful of civil liberties, government intrusion, and anti-interventionism (not “isolationism”) are much more commonly heard within the party ranks than ten years ago when the “hawks” ruled the roost. I’m not saying its the only reason many Republicans are opposing this war, I just think it should at least be considered as a factor instead of just calling it… Read more »
How many civilians are we willing to kill to prevent Assad from killing civilians? Why is killing with gas worse than killing with bombs? Why are we willing to go to war to protect innocents in the middle east but not in Africa?
A president who gasses his own people versus an opposition backed by those who blow up our people. This one is pretty simple: we should stay out of it.
That is exactly right, Chris. Both sides are made up of evil tyrants. Let them fight it out…cause we are going to have to deal with whichever side wins turning on us at some point, I’m afraid.
I have heard congress people say that the intelligence presented was not collected by our people, but by the rebels in Syria. If that is true….wow. just wow…this administration are the same people who accused President Bush of ‘cooking the books”? wow. Why are other crisis around the world going unabated? Chemical weapons are arguably one of the worst forms of atrocities….but let’s not pretend that mass genocides, religious persecution, rapes, kidnappings, beheadings, the eating of body parts, etc…are not happening on both sides of this civil war…there are no good guys. None of them are our friends. Neither side… Read more »
As long as the mission involves destroying or limiting the ability to use poison chemicals on Syria’s innocent civilians, I am in support of military action. I think that is the stated mission as presented to Congress today. Using this situation to stick it to Obama is foolish for one reason: internationally, only two individuals have ever used these types of weapons against innocent people: Sadam Hussein and Hitler. If the use of these weapons is ignored by the world and by the United States THIS time, are we opening up a can of worms that will someday impact our… Read more »
I’d consider Grotius’ advice on war here: “If, from the moral point of view at any rate, the matter under consideration seems to have an equal effectiveness for good and for evil, it is to be chosen only if the good has somewhat more of good than the evil has of evil. That is what Aristides states thus: ‘When the good is less than the evil, it is better to give up the good.’ In his description of a large-souled man, Andronicus of Rhodes says that he will not incur dangers for any and every cause, but only for causes… Read more »
Good point, Alan. I didn’t think about that and that is worth looking into. Of course, our own nation was formed via rebellion, but how much of that do we support now and to what end? There must be really good reason for it and the ones rebellion must be considered to be markedly better than the ones they are rebelling against, otherwise it is just a reshuffling of the deck.
In the various media I have seen related to this (including a lot of average people’s opinions via social media), it seems like about the only ones really supporting military intervention are politicians. Perhaps I am just not exposing myself to a broad enough swath of media opinions.
In any case, it all makes me wonder just what is going on.
By the way, Alan, I pretty much agree with everything you have written here.
Here is a link to another article I found helpful that makes some similar points:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2013/09/paleo-evangelicals-and-syria/
Brother Alan, I definitely agree with your last paragraph…. The baby gets cut either way, just war or no just war. What is America’s leverage? Obama is trying to diplomatically and politically position the strike. There is little doubt that he will have to strike. The reasons of course have little to do with “gas”, but more to do with “arms”. Unfortunately everyone stands to gain from a strike on this country of Muslim extremists. Syria just happens to be one of the last girls left at the dance or pawn on the board. The US is definitely still the… Read more »
To me, it just seems wrong that as we approach another anniversary of Al Queada attack on 9/11, we will fight on their side in Syria.
I do think Dave is right when he said that we are against it because the President is for it. But not because we are against him. But because we have seen what his disastrous foreign policy has become. He takes sides when he ought to stay out, witness the debacle in Egypt.
I’m not well-schooled in Just War Theory.
But this much I know. I’m going to Israel on October 3. Whatever we do, we must wait until after October 11 when I return.
Put on your boots and get some more life insurance.
Most life insurance policies are null and void in the case of a breakout of war.
While I agree with the Just War philosophical process, I want to offer that it is an abstraction and as an abstraction it causes people to not stay viscerally in contact with the real reasons for going to war. To paraphrase Von Clausewitz, military action is an alternative to diplomatic action in order to cause an opponent to return to diplomatic action. So what are the national interests of the United States in the Middle East? 1. Support for Israel. I won’t digress to discuss this as evangelicals generally view the modern state of Israel as at least a partial… Read more »
1.”…the typical Southern Baptist understands and agrees with the basic concept that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.”
…unless you believe that the Church is “Israel” and Jews are lost like everyone else.
Also, the “wipe Israel off the map” line is getting a little tired as well. This was said by a radical politician trying to fire up his base. Israel is way too powerful and everyone (except billion-dollar lobbyists) know it. Iran would never try to destroy Israel. They dont want to die.
I have a colleague who is Iranian and he pointed out that it is really suspicious that Assad would use poison gas when things were going better for him, and not awhile ago when things were looking really bad for him. Do we really think it is inconceivable that the rebels used the gas to force our hand?
I think that’s exactly what happened.
Although I think that’s what happened here…maybe who knows….Asaad is no saint.
Neither side is. They’re both (Asaads admin. and the rebels) Islamic jihadists – just of variant factions.
Like someone said….entering a fight (even with intents of bringing peace) between siblings make YOU the common enemy.
I’m going to take a CB stance here and argue from a “wisdom” pov. We have nothing to gain from entering this and nothing to lose from staying out. That makes good sense (wisdom). If your (they are not mine) idiots in charge of this country just have to have another one of these never ending battles then the motto needs to be a quote from General Curtis E. LeMay from circa 1958 regarding the soon to explode SE Asian “conflict”, “nuke them all and let God sort them out”. It cannot be a bad thing when a people who… Read more »
so you would not worry about the gassing of children, as long as they are of another ethnic group ?
what does that make you?
He didn’t say that. He specifically only addressed Jihadists fighting other Jihadists.
Will there be collateral damage in war? Yes. Of course. Will children die if the U.S. bombs Syria? Yes. Most likely if we can judge based on past conflicts.
Thus, the question becomes what yields the greater good. Leaving the Jihadists alone to sort out their own war, or intervening in the war. Children die either way. What is the correct criteria to judge right? Fewer deaths? Saving the most lives? What?
Of the same mind as Jehovah God when he ordered the Israelites to kill all inhabitants (including women and children) of the land that he gave to the children of Israel for as long as this earth exists.
And you?
My above reply is addressed to Christiane BTW.
JAKE, I am of this mind: ‘The heresy of Marcionism taught that the Old Testament was the revelation of a pathetic demigod marked by pettiness, jealousy and violence. This ancient heresy portrays the God of the Old Testament as a morally offensive, vain, psychotic and violent God, who commands that a ban be put on cities, who orders genocide so that his people can take possession of the Promised Land, who commands that children’s heads be dashed against stones. Traditionally, Christians have read the entire Bible in the light of Christ crucified and risen from the dead. They cannot believe… Read more »
It would seem that your solution to difficult scriptures is just to ignore them and allegorize them. If your theology requires you to pretend that what the Bible says it does not really say, then the problem is with your theology. You want a god who is squishy and lovey-dovey – one who is unholy, caring little about sin, one who would NEVER send anyone to hell. The problem is that the god you want is one of your own creation – not the God of the Bible, the God of Israel. He did things we do not understand –… Read more »
Hi DAVID, thank you for responding . . . the portrayal of God as revealed by Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation of ‘Who God Is’ according to sacred Scripture: “Jesus replied. “If you knew Me, you would know my Father also.” My faith looks at Christ as the fullness of revelation about God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not as just another witness whose testament is equal with those of all others in sacred Scripture. My Church DOES give priority to Christ in the sacred Scriptures because He IS the Lamb of God Who will… Read more »
Thanks Dave, you are a lot more of a huggy bear than I am…..my response to her is that if one does not believe both the old covenant and the new covenant then that one is headed to the same hell that the muslims are headed for. And BTW Christiane, I have read both covenants and most of the commentary books explaining them…..it still appears to me that you are on a fast track to hell….yet you still will not repent of your stand for abortion?
No, it is not just that we have differing views of God. It is that you have a view of a God not revealed AT ALL in scripture – not from Genesis to Revelation. And your view of Jesus is no more factual than your view of God. Our theology must root in revelation, not in fantasy or human desire. I understand why someone would want the God you have created in your mind – the God lacking in holiness and absent of wrath against sin. Sinners want a God who doesn’t care about sin, don’t we? But the view… Read more »
Christiane,
How many civilians are you willing to kill to stop the killing of civilians?
if the attacks begin against the arsenals of poisoned gas and chemical weapons, I hope that any civilians guarding those arsenals have the good sense to abandon their posts and get out of the target areas . . . I’m hopeful that the hideous weapons used on civilians in Syria will be destroyed, or at least greatly impacted by an American strike. I have every faith in our military’s ability to perform surgical strikes without putting ‘boots’ on the ground. I want those weapons destroyed so that no more civilians can be killed in that terrible way. It would be… Read more »
Which of course does not answer my question.
You think bombing from the air kills fewer civilians than infantry?
How many civilians are you willing to let die?
Anyone wanna take bets on how long before John McCain and Lindsey Graham grow long beards and start flippantly saying “Allah Akbar” instead of “Thank God”?
I would not support a war though scripture tells me to do so if my government decides to move forward. If this administration chooses to go to war based upon the innocent being killed, then we must also look around and compare it with other parts of the world that are killing the innocent. Also, it would be hypocritical to choose the innocent because this administration’s platform supports late term abortions of American babies. I do not see much information on what is happening in Syria now. Is there a cease fire? I don’t think so. I think the news… Read more »
Before we, as a country, aim our weapons at the current evil rulers of Syria, even the New York Times is expressing caution at painting one side as the perpetrators of evil. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0
I learned a long time ago not to step into a fight between brothers, they’ll both turn on you.
The rebels could end this today. In fact they could have not started the whole thing but did so as they sensed implicit approval and approval from America. Assad was generally a benevolent dictator. Removing him from power wasn’t worth 100 lives much less 100,000 even if we didn’t like those who he allied himself with. The world told him early on that he has one choice, surrender and be charged as a war criminal or die fighting. What do they expect him to do? When he goes he’ll be replaced with a worse son of hell than he was.… Read more »
1000 Syrians killed by nerve gas…..1 million Americans killed legally through abortions by highly educated professionals(ie physicians)….Seems kind of difficult for the US to take the high ground here…..just a thought
I’m just curious: are you claiming that “he who has no sin” is the only nation qualified “morally” to protect national interests through military expeditions? Because I would offer that’s just silly.
Greg,
I certainly agree with the sentiments of your comment, but what does this Syria thing have to do with us protecting any of our national interests? In my view, any involvement in Syria will work against our national interests.
My earlier, vastly long and detailed comment–not this short one–covers that question, John. It’s a rhetorical position statement so I don’t necessarily everyone to agree with me, but it’s detailed and extensive.
Greg,
I was only thinking how hypocritical it is to show concern for one group of lives (Syrians some hundreds and thousands of miles away) while not even protecting the most innocent of lives in our own backyard due to abortion…..Not really commenting of pros or cons of military intervention.
Fair enough. I’m not a fan of the abortion issue as a litmus test myself and especially not as a filter for all other issues. And, yes, I’m very much pro-life and anti-abortion.
I’m with you on neutrality. There are three groups of people we are dealing with in Syria: 1. Assad and his group is a part of a Shia sect. The Shia are only a small percentage of the Muslim population of Syria. They tend to be more moderate regarding getting along with people from other religions. In fact, we have Christian friends who are still ministering in Syria although since this present conflict, they have had to move their base of operations outside the country. While they were in country, they enjoyed open Christian ministry approved of and facilitated by… Read more »
the plan is to destroy or degrade the use of poisoned gas chemical weapons, the kind that have already been used on innocent civilian men, women, children and infants . . . not to get ‘involved’ in a civil war you’ve seen the pictures of the dead children . . . one was an infant three weeks old, unclaimed . . . likely because her family was also dead if we can halt this slaughter or ‘degrade’ the ability to murder the innocent, and we don’t, is that not a decision we will regret ? When all the great powers… Read more »
Sure is curious, you all up and ready to go to battle over “retro-active abortion” and all in favor of abortion here in our own country. You are indeed a contradiction in terms.
I have to note that Syrian Christians don’t want us fighting Assad, and they have good reasons. I can speak from having spoken to the Syrian Christians I know. But Mark Movsesian pointed this out in his article posted on St John’s University School of Law as well.
When you oppose the slaughter of innocents in this country over abortion, which you liberals will give your life’s blood to “Keep it legal, keep it safe”, then you have standing to justify the use of force over what happened in Syria. Until then, it’s hypocricy to get all worked up over any deaths in Syria.
I think the hypocrisy of not being consistent on pro-life issues–such as opposing use of poison gas against one’s own population–is just as despicable as politically favoring abortion myself. Though I do not necessarily think that is by itself an adequate reason for a military intervention. For instance: if the state of California were to execute someone today with toxic gas as they used to do in order to administer the death penalty for a capital crime, I would applaud them. Some think THAT is an example of hypocrisy regarding the pro-life position and I understand why it can cause… Read more »
one has little choice but to conclude that God holds us responsible for bad actors who take actions against others. I can’t respond to this comment the way I’d like, because the comment would never be published (and rightly so). Therefore, I’ll just say that asserting something is not the same thing as proving something. So you can assert that the verse means that governments are responsible for punishing other governments for doing wrong until you sneeze lighting, but until you prove it it doesn’t mean anything. Also, if what you say about that verse is true, then your side… Read more »
So it’s OK to intervene when it is poison gas but not when it is bombs, or guns, or machetes?
And why are you certain it was Assad who used the gas?
While the current rulers in Syria are not friends of the Christians in Syria, they are not the enemies of believers that the Muslim Bortherhood will be if they take over. Muslim Brotherhood army units have already attacked Christian villages in Syria.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/05/syrian-rebels-attack-christian-village-n1691989?utm_source=TopBreakingNewsCarousel&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingNewsCarousel
Honestly, no argument can be made against attacking Syria that could not have been used against attacking Iraq. (Please, no claims that Iraq was ever a threat to us.) Even the claim that we now know that attacking Syria is unwise because of what we have now learned from the negative consequences of attacking Iraq is specious. Why? Because the evangelical leaders that supported the Iraq War never actually publicly came out and recanted their support for the Iraq War. For example, the “Land Letter” was never retracted or apologized for. The many other evangelical leaders who preached sermons urging… Read more »
Job,
Makes sense to me.
Dave Miller,
I wouldn’t mind seeing Job do some posts of his own here.
I take submissions.
Your write, “So a Biblical argument for military force really can’t go beyond joining a collective effort to defend yourself and others, and the Bible does not condemn taking just actions to defend yourself and others.” And this was the justification for the Crusades–helping others. Or more specifically, helping the brethren of the eastern churches under persecution and attack. Without Augustine and Grotius’ respective works things get out of balance. Both laid the foundation of international law balancing the commands of our Lord to help others with admonitions to justice. There is significant teachings of both Old and New Testaments… Read more »
Interesting thoughts.
Job, Good comment. I did not support the Iraq War at the time. My reservations were internal and I did not speak up, though – not that it would have mattered. The whole nation minus some anti-war protestors seemed to be all for it. It was hard to know and at the time, we just had to trust our leaders. That was a mistake that I hope we don’t make again. Going to war is a huge deal and the bar to attack another sovereign nation should be very, very high. We had Saddam contained and we should have worked… Read more »
Job, “For the record, I supported the Iraq War…I supported it because the U.N. sanctions against Iraq that were intended to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military capabilities (and hopefully provoke enough internal pressure to get Saddam removed from power) caused scores of innocent Iraqis, many of them children, to die for want of food and medicine. The sanctions had little effect on Saddam and those connected to him, but were wreaking havoc on almost everybody else. So I felt that the quick war that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us (Rumsfeld claimed “It could last six days, six weeks.… Read more »
First of all, I love Democrats. Secondly, it’s interesting that the Dems are all for war because Obama is for it. But, when W. was leading us to fight Iraq, they cried foul as loudly as they could. Okay, Assad is gassing his own people. That’s terrible. But also, Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurds. I mean, he was wiping them off the face of the planet. Not to mention, his goon squads were going out, and murdering anyone, who opposed Saddam. They would murder the men, and rape the women….many times while they laid there looking at the… Read more »
I wasn’t in favor of the Iraq war, but I agree, the hypocrisy is stunning.
Did you read Tarheel’s comment? Based on your comment either you did not or you think he is not correct.