July 30, 2006
-
"the professionalization of war"
The "professionalization of war"... very thought provoking... - "What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?"
Also relevant are the obvious questions for Christians... we know that Christ's kingdom is "not of this world", and we are citizens of that heavenly kingdom... but we are still called to "honor the king", "pay taxes", and perhaps even to fight for peace and freedom. Granted, "fighting for peace" sounds strange, especially to our MSM-conditioned ears. But it is a historical reality... a harsh worst-case option which is sometimes a "tactical necessity" (a poignant phrase from Canadian/UN soldier Paeta Hess-von Kruedener about the reason Israel dropped bombs close to UN positions -- because Hezbollah was using the UN observers as human shields -- just a day or two after he emailed his report, Hess-von Kreudener was killed).
There really is a time for war and a time for peace. As we evaluate this as Christians, it is essential to make sure that our actions are concerned solely for justice and not tainted by greed. And it's essential to remember our true citizenship.
Would you say that enlisting in the military could be just as God-glorifying of a vocation as becoming a pastor or a missionary? What do you think?
'Why have we fasted and You do not see?
Why have we humbled ourselves and You do not notice?'
Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire,
And drive hard all your workers.
Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist
You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high.
Is it a fast like this which I choose, a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it for bowing one's head like a reed
And for spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed?
Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the LORD?
Is this not the fast which I choose,
To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the bands of the yoke,
And to let the oppressed go free
And break every yoke?
Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry
And bring the homeless poor into the house;
When you see the naked, to cover him;
And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then your light will break out like the dawn,
And your recovery will speedily spring forth;
And your righteousness will go before you;
The glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am '
If you remove the yoke from your midst,
The pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness,
And if you give yourself to the hungry
And satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
Then your light will rise in darkness
And your gloom will become like midday.
And the LORD will continually guide you,
And satisfy your desire in scorched places,
And give strength to your bones;
And you will be like a watered garden,
And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.
Those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins;
You will raise up the age-old foundations;
And you will be called the repairer of the breach,
The restorer of the streets in which to dwell.
Comments (7)
do you consider Israel's current war a just war?
Is any war a 'just war'? What do you think?
...it's also fascinating to see how different portrayals of the same event can foster radically different views. for example, let's say that you lived in Chicago. One could ask "how would you like it if the Canadians just happened to start bombing Chicago to bits and sending in helicopters and troops, to "eliminate terror" within the city?"
or one could ask: "How would you like it if the Canadians suddenly started shooting hundreds of rockets willy nilly into Chicago so that you couldn't go outside or do anything all day long without the fear that a rocket might arrive at any moment and blow the building you're in to dust?"
Those two questions are the type of polarized question that the two sides would typically ask. (i.e. Arabs and Israelis). And of course the answer to each would be "I wouldn't like it."
But the reality is more complicated, and when you begin to see through the propaganda, a view emerges that is more accurate, but so so heartrending. I weep for the world, not only for their spiritual darkness, but the pain/war that comes along with it... Questions that perhaps more accurately summarize this might be - "How would you like it if you were a Lebanese mother living in Qana and your uncles and aunts and everyone in your family hated the Jews and stored up rockets and machine guns to try to "kill as many jews as they could".... and a horde of hezbollah thugs came roaring into your village one day and began launching rockets toward the Jews deliberately from the neighborhood in which your own little children play, knowing that the Jews would respond with bombs that would kill your own children... ?" Or, "How would you like it if you were living in Haifa and your neice had been killed just last year by a suicide bomber as she got on the bus to go to her college classes... and lately one of the nations that surrounds your country on all sides and hates your ethnicity and wants every one of your family members to die has begun shooting rockets into your home town, and you went to the store to buy some milk, and when you came back, your house was just a smoking pile of debris... ?"
Believe me when I say that in my own mind it's much more complicated than simply which side is "just"... actually it's probably more accurate to respond to that question with "There is no one righteous, no not one." (Psalm 14)
interesting to note that there has never been a war between two major democratic nations. the reason is that the people will not stand for it. the citizens have no interest in increasing borders at the cost of their own lives, or any other pursuit that would necessitate war, and therefore the leaders can take no action without provocation. this provocation has always been in the form of a military threat to the democratic nation--nothing else is enough to mobilize the citizens sufficiently to declare war. and democratic nations do not generally threaten the security of other nations because the people with the most to lose are the ones making the decisions, as opposed to lords of the middle ages or current dictators who have the most to gain from going to war and almost no risk of losing their own lives. with all this in mind, is the u.s. justified in "exporting democracy" to achieve lasting peace, at the cost of some internal conflict?
I like you way you deliberately focused (positive) attention on what the MSM admits but perjoratively slurs - the "exporting of democracy." They say it as a negative thing, but you stated it like a positive thing...
And that's an interesting point about dictatorships versus democracies in history...
if what Israel is doing was stopping rocket attacks and solving a problem, I would probably be very supportive. But, it's not. The rocket attacks have continued at about the same pace, if not faster. Israel is trying to win a guerilla war by bombing civilian areas. Regardless of whether Hezbollah is or was there, it won't solve the problem to bomb the civilian areas, because it just makes people more mad and more likely to support Hezbollah. If this really is an insidious and well planned attack from an entrenched guerilla enemy, only nasty hand to hand combat will the battle. Vietnam is a good example. It's easy to talk about justification to respond in an abstract sense, but HOW one responds matters.
And I do think that scope of response needs to be considered... fifty or so Israelis have died, including soldiers in combat, whereas over 500 Lebanese have died, mostly civilians. Is Israel justified in responding quickly and efficaciously to kidnapping and shelling in its territory? Certainly. But is it justified in launching attacks everywhere in southern Lebannon to disrupt infrastructure, and thereby also killing hundreds of civilians... and not even stop the rocket attacks, nor get their soldiers back? If they don't accomplish their stated aim, what is their justification for all the "collateral damage"?
Sobering, Brian... it sounds like you're saying "don't fight unless you have some chance of winning" and/or "though Israel might be 'justified', they're going about it the wrong way - too much 'at-a-distance' fighting and not enough 'hand-to-hand' fighting"...
some thoughts: much of the high 'civilian body count' in Lebanon comes from the Hezbollah's usage of civilian human shields... ...and some of the avoidance of hand-to-hand fighting comes from the high intolerance of the Israeli population (voters) to any casualties at all (reminds me of 'three-pointer' basketball players as opposed to 'layup' bb players)
Yes... basically, I'm saying, "if you're the vastly superior military power, don't start a heavy aerial bombing campaign without good chance of accomplishing something substantive."
And yes, I agree on the reasons for the civilian body count and aerial campaign -- but those are still reasons, and not justifications. It's the politicians JOB to figure out what the right/efficacious thing to do is, and convince the populace of it. If they are unsuccessful at either one, they have a good chance of getting voted out. But I'd much rather get voted out and know that I did the right thing/accomplished something meaningful than to stay in office and have been ineffective.
But, consider also this report: Hizbullah has few launchers left
It will be interesting to see what happens during this 48 hour cessation (which Hezbullah has largely observed as well). Pray for wisdom among the leaders of all parties!
Comments are closed.