I am abondoning writing about pacifism due to beginning grad school. My new topic is on pain and exercise. The blog for this topic is:
http://themboneshurt.blogspot.com/
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
a premature ending to some expansive thoughts...
Working as hard as a dog allows no time for writing. I decided that this morning. No sense in me keeping hope alive for further writing on pacifism Vs. aggression. I am a full-time married man, part-time house maintenance man, full-time physical therapist and part-time student.
So it ends here. My rambling writing on pacifism and aggression is over for now. No doubt I will continue to think on the matter much. For now I end off prematurely with some personal conclusions and determinations: POLITICS, MORALITY, THEOLOGY, LIFESTYLE.
POLITICS: American politics are ramping up for November presidential elections. One presidential candidate held up liberty as a virtue and peace as a plan more than any other; that was Ron Paul. Rep Paul is now out of the republican campaign and I am now unsure if any other candidate would represent my values to any great extent.
McCain has made strong overtures toward continuing American military heavy-handedness in Iraq, Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and... well the list goes on. Not to mention that he took an apparently strong stand against employing "harsh" interrogation techniques with detainees only to quietly negotiate with the President a legal clause in S.3930 that says "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." So, torture is illegal, but the president has legal wiggle-room to authorize "harsh" techniques as long as they fall outside his interpretation of the definition of torture. Wow, that is tremendous; it sounds like the sort of self-justification the Soviets would have employed back in the 1980's. (Remember the Soviets, those damn enemies of freedom?) This is not to mention that McCain's bill denied habeas corpus rights to the hundreds of detainees that America is holding for not all together certain reasons. McCain is not the one America needs right now.
Barrack Obama has made speeches in the Senate expressing opposition to torture and suspending habeas corpus rights. He voted against the above bill. Disturbingly, though, Obama said that if elected in November he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government. How does that work? As a general principal is it right for one sovereign nation to attack within another sovereign nation without approval from that nation? I think not. America would not react ambivalently to Russian strikes against Chechens on American soil. Such a scenario would mean war between Russia and America. Why should we think any differently about Pakistan. Diplomacy is not an option when dealing with sovereign nations, it is a rule. With Obama's comments one thinks back to President William Clinton's decision to launch a cruise missile strike at a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. We wonder now why Khartoum is unwilling to truly cooperate with the US with regard to Darfur. The America with which they are acquainted is a country that lacks diplomatic will power. America needs a president who will not be like a bull in the international china shop. I am concerned that Obama would be a very well meaning but disastrously spirited bull in the Southeast Asian china shop.
That leaves me with Hillary Clinton. Honestly, I have not given her policies much thought. She is hardly an international libertarian like Paul, but I do think that she may exhibit more international restraint than the other two candidates. I am just beginning to scrutinize her platform, but right now she is the front runner in my mind...however reluctant I might be to say that given America's violent international actions during her husband's White House tenure (remember Khartoum, Kosovo and Somalia?).
MORALITY: A large percentages of the American GDP is spent on keeping people alive. In fact, so much money is spent on health and life that one might be tempted to conclude that America views life as a precious gift, and disease and death as twin monsters. On the contrary, second glances at American activity reveal cavalier attitudes toward abortion and warfare. Perhaps disease and death are only monsters when they offend our highest convenience. Public laws and personal actions at times place utility way up high in the sky as the one transcendent rule of law. "What benefit will this be to us?" has become the litmus question. And without a doubt this has been the main thrust of my own thoughts on pacifism. My question has become this: "What functional outcome will benefit us best with concern to international action?" However, I make a stark departure from strict utilitarian thought by framing my functional equation within a matrix of morality. Two questions must be asked: "What is right?" and "What is most beneficial to everyone?" Unlike what the utilitarian might say, moral right is not determined by the benefits any rule or value yields to a group. Moral right is given to us by God and does not bend from age to age to meet the needs of any particular group. A group might have no other choice than to bend away from moral right to meet its needs, but this is the group bending not moral law. The moral matrix within which I place utilitarian thought is this: killing is evil. In the end a society that bends away from this moral matrix is committing evil, whether it be Germany killing Jews or America killing Bosnians or China killing Tibetans. Death is a monster and war is the result of a decision by countries to unleash a flurry of evils into the world. I am not saying that these evils are always unnecessary, sometimes they are necessary (e.g.: America entering the war against the Nazi's). However, I am saying that these evils are evil. Naming an evil as something other than an evil is a worse sin than committing that evil because it opens a fountain from which flow myriad other evils. It is a turning away from moral understanding that throws groups and nations into a spiral of wicked action. America committed evil when under Roosevelt's direction it entered into war against Germany, Italy and Japan; we should not cower away from saying this. In the end of time Roosevelt will stand trembling before the Almighty and he will answer for the Dresden fire bombings; I believe God does not play favorites with people because they used evil for a beneficial end (e.g.: ending Nazi atrocities). War is always a crime. Evil is called evil because it is repulsive to God.
With this final judgment in mind I say with a trembling heart that violence is sometimes necessary to protect the weak and oppressed. Even so, a country fighting on behalf of the weak must keep in mind that in the end we are all oppressors and ruthless killers (to some degree) who plead at the mercy seat for grace and transformation. I would go so far to say of myself that even I (a supposed pacifist) am a killer.
THEOLOGY: God created out of his limitless inspiration and God will justly destroy any critter that maligns his good creation. God exists in perfect righteousness. Right action continually emanates from His holy character. Evil cannot begin to get near to God without being justly destroyed. Paradoxically, though, God is not absent from this thoroughly evil world. Understanding this paradox from a reformed line of thought has been my passion for three or four years now. Mentally enter the old Greek pagan shrines, Jewish temple courts, ancient family lives, Roman legal systems and markets and you have in mind the images Saint Paul conjured up when reckoning with the reality of a holy God acting in love to an evil world. God lovingly incarnated into the world and bore the penalty of evil to reconcile the world to Himself. In so doing God did not condone wickedness but rather objectively dealt with it and demonstrated holy wrath against such wickedness through the death of Christ on the Cross. A world which had stolen from God's good creation beginning in the Garden of Eden had been ransomed by Christ. The debt of death owed by humanity to God was paid by God. Christ willingly bore humanities wickedness and received the full measure of God's wrath in our place. Conversely, the moral righteousness of God was placed on those obedient to God by Christ. God's long divorced family was reconciled through the Good Friday work of Christ.
And yet evil remained evil. Righteousness remained righteousness. In other words, when living became right for humans, killing did not become right. The moral law remained unchanged. Please toss aside any idea of a morally superior nation justly waging war against a morally inferior nation. Christ went to the cross because of all-pervasive wickedness; there was no such thing as a righteous remnant. This is not to say that God does not execute righteous judgement through one nation directed at another nation. However, one look at ancient Hebrew national history reveals that YHWH would at times direct His wrath through the Hebrews against pagan nations and at other times through a pagan nation against the Hebrews. At times the Hebrews were used to execute YHWH's judgment on another nation when it was the Hebrews themselves were deserving of the judgment they were dishing out. God was just in so acting, the Hebrew nation was not. All nations are wicked and consequently unjustified in any war.
LIFESTYLE: How should I live then? I have not ever physically killed any person. As a child I did used to torture my brothers. From time to time I did kill various animals ranging from ants to toads to crabs. That is the closest I have come to actual, personal violence and killing.
So what do my thoughts on pacifism mean for me, then. First of all I need to recognize that if ever I am in a situation where I am physically malnourished, physically unsafe and emotionally anguished I will be severely tempted to use violence. A disciplined reliance on the spiritual sustenance of Christ would be an anchor for me in such a crisis. Regimined time with the Lamb of God would remind me how to chose to live as He chose to live...a man for others.
Secondly, I need to practice habits of verbal conflict resolution. The alternative to the sword is the tongue. All too often the words I do not use are words of honesty which, when conveyed lovingly across time, speak to my personal disaffections toward people. Only after speaking specifically to a rupture in a relationship can reconciliation occur. For me, this requires honesty about my feelings and particular concerns about the history within that relationship. It also requires a good deal of active listening when emotions run high. Walking away in anger is the fighters response. Day in and day out I find myself repressing my true thoughts and feelings. Just yesterday I walked away from a nurse who I felt was disrespectful to me. I then proceeded to talk about her to all my co-workers; that was the wicked fighter in me, not the peace maker. Verbal conflict resolution means engaging in conflict verbally. God, help me here.
Thirdly, I need to specifically recognize my own moral corruption. There can be no healthier practice for this Christian than to invite the Spirit to search my insides for wickedness. The temptation arises in a conflict to search my "adversary's" character for easy-to-find flaws. What I need is to see my short comings, my wickedness, my guilt before the Almighty and my "adversary." Self-searching creates a genuine humility which is the breading ground for peace making. After internal and external confession of transgression against my adversary I can confidently speak my complaint without internally being a self-righteous, arrogant man.
Fourthly, as a citizen of Heaven I am an ambassador for Christ. This citizenship trumps my American citizenship. When enemies strike America my regular discipline needs to be that I revisit Good Friday. St. Paul said it well, "While we were still enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." God's Son died for God's enemies. This is a powerfully provocative picture for the Christian residing in a country at war. My personal conviction is that my role as Christ's ambassador is not to die for my country or my family but rather to live for them. If I must die, my dying should be a dying for my enemy. This is real love: to die for an enemy while engaging him in the ministry of reconciliation. Reciprocal altruism be damned. The most pressing question now is do I really mean that? Time tells all.
Now that I put all those thoughts out there I can end my writing on the topic (for now, anyway). I will not stop writing, though. My next project is to get a graduate degree in physical therapy. This will involve lots of writing and eventually publishing research. If I have any readers remaining I would direct them to my new blog: http://themboneshurt.blogspot.com/
So it ends here. My rambling writing on pacifism and aggression is over for now. No doubt I will continue to think on the matter much. For now I end off prematurely with some personal conclusions and determinations: POLITICS, MORALITY, THEOLOGY, LIFESTYLE.
POLITICS: American politics are ramping up for November presidential elections. One presidential candidate held up liberty as a virtue and peace as a plan more than any other; that was Ron Paul. Rep Paul is now out of the republican campaign and I am now unsure if any other candidate would represent my values to any great extent.
McCain has made strong overtures toward continuing American military heavy-handedness in Iraq, Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and... well the list goes on. Not to mention that he took an apparently strong stand against employing "harsh" interrogation techniques with detainees only to quietly negotiate with the President a legal clause in S.3930 that says "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." So, torture is illegal, but the president has legal wiggle-room to authorize "harsh" techniques as long as they fall outside his interpretation of the definition of torture. Wow, that is tremendous; it sounds like the sort of self-justification the Soviets would have employed back in the 1980's. (Remember the Soviets, those damn enemies of freedom?) This is not to mention that McCain's bill denied habeas corpus rights to the hundreds of detainees that America is holding for not all together certain reasons. McCain is not the one America needs right now.
Barrack Obama has made speeches in the Senate expressing opposition to torture and suspending habeas corpus rights. He voted against the above bill. Disturbingly, though, Obama said that if elected in November he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government. How does that work? As a general principal is it right for one sovereign nation to attack within another sovereign nation without approval from that nation? I think not. America would not react ambivalently to Russian strikes against Chechens on American soil. Such a scenario would mean war between Russia and America. Why should we think any differently about Pakistan. Diplomacy is not an option when dealing with sovereign nations, it is a rule. With Obama's comments one thinks back to President William Clinton's decision to launch a cruise missile strike at a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. We wonder now why Khartoum is unwilling to truly cooperate with the US with regard to Darfur. The America with which they are acquainted is a country that lacks diplomatic will power. America needs a president who will not be like a bull in the international china shop. I am concerned that Obama would be a very well meaning but disastrously spirited bull in the Southeast Asian china shop.
That leaves me with Hillary Clinton. Honestly, I have not given her policies much thought. She is hardly an international libertarian like Paul, but I do think that she may exhibit more international restraint than the other two candidates. I am just beginning to scrutinize her platform, but right now she is the front runner in my mind...however reluctant I might be to say that given America's violent international actions during her husband's White House tenure (remember Khartoum, Kosovo and Somalia?).
MORALITY: A large percentages of the American GDP is spent on keeping people alive. In fact, so much money is spent on health and life that one might be tempted to conclude that America views life as a precious gift, and disease and death as twin monsters. On the contrary, second glances at American activity reveal cavalier attitudes toward abortion and warfare. Perhaps disease and death are only monsters when they offend our highest convenience. Public laws and personal actions at times place utility way up high in the sky as the one transcendent rule of law. "What benefit will this be to us?" has become the litmus question. And without a doubt this has been the main thrust of my own thoughts on pacifism. My question has become this: "What functional outcome will benefit us best with concern to international action?" However, I make a stark departure from strict utilitarian thought by framing my functional equation within a matrix of morality. Two questions must be asked: "What is right?" and "What is most beneficial to everyone?" Unlike what the utilitarian might say, moral right is not determined by the benefits any rule or value yields to a group. Moral right is given to us by God and does not bend from age to age to meet the needs of any particular group. A group might have no other choice than to bend away from moral right to meet its needs, but this is the group bending not moral law. The moral matrix within which I place utilitarian thought is this: killing is evil. In the end a society that bends away from this moral matrix is committing evil, whether it be Germany killing Jews or America killing Bosnians or China killing Tibetans. Death is a monster and war is the result of a decision by countries to unleash a flurry of evils into the world. I am not saying that these evils are always unnecessary, sometimes they are necessary (e.g.: America entering the war against the Nazi's). However, I am saying that these evils are evil. Naming an evil as something other than an evil is a worse sin than committing that evil because it opens a fountain from which flow myriad other evils. It is a turning away from moral understanding that throws groups and nations into a spiral of wicked action. America committed evil when under Roosevelt's direction it entered into war against Germany, Italy and Japan; we should not cower away from saying this. In the end of time Roosevelt will stand trembling before the Almighty and he will answer for the Dresden fire bombings; I believe God does not play favorites with people because they used evil for a beneficial end (e.g.: ending Nazi atrocities). War is always a crime. Evil is called evil because it is repulsive to God.
With this final judgment in mind I say with a trembling heart that violence is sometimes necessary to protect the weak and oppressed. Even so, a country fighting on behalf of the weak must keep in mind that in the end we are all oppressors and ruthless killers (to some degree) who plead at the mercy seat for grace and transformation. I would go so far to say of myself that even I (a supposed pacifist) am a killer.
THEOLOGY: God created out of his limitless inspiration and God will justly destroy any critter that maligns his good creation. God exists in perfect righteousness. Right action continually emanates from His holy character. Evil cannot begin to get near to God without being justly destroyed. Paradoxically, though, God is not absent from this thoroughly evil world. Understanding this paradox from a reformed line of thought has been my passion for three or four years now. Mentally enter the old Greek pagan shrines, Jewish temple courts, ancient family lives, Roman legal systems and markets and you have in mind the images Saint Paul conjured up when reckoning with the reality of a holy God acting in love to an evil world. God lovingly incarnated into the world and bore the penalty of evil to reconcile the world to Himself. In so doing God did not condone wickedness but rather objectively dealt with it and demonstrated holy wrath against such wickedness through the death of Christ on the Cross. A world which had stolen from God's good creation beginning in the Garden of Eden had been ransomed by Christ. The debt of death owed by humanity to God was paid by God. Christ willingly bore humanities wickedness and received the full measure of God's wrath in our place. Conversely, the moral righteousness of God was placed on those obedient to God by Christ. God's long divorced family was reconciled through the Good Friday work of Christ.
And yet evil remained evil. Righteousness remained righteousness. In other words, when living became right for humans, killing did not become right. The moral law remained unchanged. Please toss aside any idea of a morally superior nation justly waging war against a morally inferior nation. Christ went to the cross because of all-pervasive wickedness; there was no such thing as a righteous remnant. This is not to say that God does not execute righteous judgement through one nation directed at another nation. However, one look at ancient Hebrew national history reveals that YHWH would at times direct His wrath through the Hebrews against pagan nations and at other times through a pagan nation against the Hebrews. At times the Hebrews were used to execute YHWH's judgment on another nation when it was the Hebrews themselves were deserving of the judgment they were dishing out. God was just in so acting, the Hebrew nation was not. All nations are wicked and consequently unjustified in any war.
LIFESTYLE: How should I live then? I have not ever physically killed any person. As a child I did used to torture my brothers. From time to time I did kill various animals ranging from ants to toads to crabs. That is the closest I have come to actual, personal violence and killing.
So what do my thoughts on pacifism mean for me, then. First of all I need to recognize that if ever I am in a situation where I am physically malnourished, physically unsafe and emotionally anguished I will be severely tempted to use violence. A disciplined reliance on the spiritual sustenance of Christ would be an anchor for me in such a crisis. Regimined time with the Lamb of God would remind me how to chose to live as He chose to live...a man for others.
Secondly, I need to practice habits of verbal conflict resolution. The alternative to the sword is the tongue. All too often the words I do not use are words of honesty which, when conveyed lovingly across time, speak to my personal disaffections toward people. Only after speaking specifically to a rupture in a relationship can reconciliation occur. For me, this requires honesty about my feelings and particular concerns about the history within that relationship. It also requires a good deal of active listening when emotions run high. Walking away in anger is the fighters response. Day in and day out I find myself repressing my true thoughts and feelings. Just yesterday I walked away from a nurse who I felt was disrespectful to me. I then proceeded to talk about her to all my co-workers; that was the wicked fighter in me, not the peace maker. Verbal conflict resolution means engaging in conflict verbally. God, help me here.
Thirdly, I need to specifically recognize my own moral corruption. There can be no healthier practice for this Christian than to invite the Spirit to search my insides for wickedness. The temptation arises in a conflict to search my "adversary's" character for easy-to-find flaws. What I need is to see my short comings, my wickedness, my guilt before the Almighty and my "adversary." Self-searching creates a genuine humility which is the breading ground for peace making. After internal and external confession of transgression against my adversary I can confidently speak my complaint without internally being a self-righteous, arrogant man.
Fourthly, as a citizen of Heaven I am an ambassador for Christ. This citizenship trumps my American citizenship. When enemies strike America my regular discipline needs to be that I revisit Good Friday. St. Paul said it well, "While we were still enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." God's Son died for God's enemies. This is a powerfully provocative picture for the Christian residing in a country at war. My personal conviction is that my role as Christ's ambassador is not to die for my country or my family but rather to live for them. If I must die, my dying should be a dying for my enemy. This is real love: to die for an enemy while engaging him in the ministry of reconciliation. Reciprocal altruism be damned. The most pressing question now is do I really mean that? Time tells all.
Now that I put all those thoughts out there I can end my writing on the topic (for now, anyway). I will not stop writing, though. My next project is to get a graduate degree in physical therapy. This will involve lots of writing and eventually publishing research. If I have any readers remaining I would direct them to my new blog: http://themboneshurt.blogspot.com/
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Wall...
We have all heard the expression 'It's just a matter of time.' Well, time has caught up with me on this particular intellectual challenge. Ten months ago I started strong, steadily writing my thoughts on this subject of pacifism and world events. Now I fear that I have hit the wall, my friends. I sit down to begin research on US-Japanese diplomatic relations in the 1930's and 1940's, but am only able to think about the chocolate in the pantry or the next household chore that needs to be completed.
I am wondering how I ever had the drive to write on a research oriented topic in the first place. So much reading; so much analysis; so much questioning and re-positing. Quite frankly I find even the thought of doing more research to be tiring. How will I keep going? How will I keep my research fire stoked? Perhaps a little break from the research end of things is in order. Maybe then I will gain a little strength to scale the wall.
Over Christmas I had an extraordinary opportunity to interview Papa Jack (Kristin's father's father) about his experiences as a B-24 bomber pilot over the Pacific. Papa Jack shared stories about training and combat that transported me back in time to America and the Pacific Theatre during the mid-1940's. Watching Papa Jack mentally re-live his war life I felt my own mind overwhelmed with the prospects of living a life where anti-aircraft fire daily threatened to extinguish my own life. A life where small mistakes made in the air meant life changing injury or even death. From where does the strength and courage come to live this kind of self-sacrificial life? I never did ask Papa Jack that, but I imagine he would say that he did what he had to. Perhaps an even more poignant question would be how did he find the strength to move on with life after his war experience?
Papa Jack gave me the contact name of his bombardier who lives in Columbus. I would very much like to visit him in Columbus and learn more about his experience with Papa Jack and his military career after the war ended. This continued personal look into WWII bomber life might be the right rabbit trail to briefly lead me away from and then back into my current diplomatic policy questions about the war.
I am wondering how I ever had the drive to write on a research oriented topic in the first place. So much reading; so much analysis; so much questioning and re-positing. Quite frankly I find even the thought of doing more research to be tiring. How will I keep going? How will I keep my research fire stoked? Perhaps a little break from the research end of things is in order. Maybe then I will gain a little strength to scale the wall.
Over Christmas I had an extraordinary opportunity to interview Papa Jack (Kristin's father's father) about his experiences as a B-24 bomber pilot over the Pacific. Papa Jack shared stories about training and combat that transported me back in time to America and the Pacific Theatre during the mid-1940's. Watching Papa Jack mentally re-live his war life I felt my own mind overwhelmed with the prospects of living a life where anti-aircraft fire daily threatened to extinguish my own life. A life where small mistakes made in the air meant life changing injury or even death. From where does the strength and courage come to live this kind of self-sacrificial life? I never did ask Papa Jack that, but I imagine he would say that he did what he had to. Perhaps an even more poignant question would be how did he find the strength to move on with life after his war experience?
Papa Jack gave me the contact name of his bombardier who lives in Columbus. I would very much like to visit him in Columbus and learn more about his experience with Papa Jack and his military career after the war ended. This continued personal look into WWII bomber life might be the right rabbit trail to briefly lead me away from and then back into my current diplomatic policy questions about the war.
Monday, December 17, 2007
a note from the wife
Hello, Paul's readers! If you've been eagerly anticipating another intellectual, compelling post (which, I suppose, is not an oxymoron) then come back later. I’m used to writing the occasionally witty but almost always fluffy and crafty entry on my own blog. Why did I venture over here? Well, today’s advent calendar assignment was to write posts each other’s blogs. So, here I am.
I suppose I should be writing something about aggression, pacifism, or the love of humankind. So...let’s go with aggression. You know what aggravates me? And is really something completely beyond my comprehension? Self-checkout lines. Paul is forever dragging me through them, always to my annoyance and chagrin. Paul thinks they’re faster. My sister thinks they’re novel entertainment. But I totally don’t get the appeal. You wait in a long line just to have to scan your own merchandise (several times, usually), inevitably having to stop and go up to the real-live person for help, push a bunch of extra buttons in an effort to swipe your debit card, meanwhile trying to pack the bags and load the cart. I mean, I already have to drive to the store and walk aimlessly up and down the aisles in search of my things, why do I want to do the work of checking out when there are people there to do it for me? To each is own I guess. In an effort to be more passive, I will at least refrain from incessantly sighing the next time Paul and I go grocery shopping.
Peace,
Kristin
I suppose I should be writing something about aggression, pacifism, or the love of humankind. So...let’s go with aggression. You know what aggravates me? And is really something completely beyond my comprehension? Self-checkout lines. Paul is forever dragging me through them, always to my annoyance and chagrin. Paul thinks they’re faster. My sister thinks they’re novel entertainment. But I totally don’t get the appeal. You wait in a long line just to have to scan your own merchandise (several times, usually), inevitably having to stop and go up to the real-live person for help, push a bunch of extra buttons in an effort to swipe your debit card, meanwhile trying to pack the bags and load the cart. I mean, I already have to drive to the store and walk aimlessly up and down the aisles in search of my things, why do I want to do the work of checking out when there are people there to do it for me? To each is own I guess. In an effort to be more passive, I will at least refrain from incessantly sighing the next time Paul and I go grocery shopping.
Peace,
Kristin
Saturday, December 15, 2007
A farewell prayer for Darfur...
Months ago I started writing on this blog with the intent of probing my own thoughts. Since then the states of Kosovo, Darfur and Somalia have been on my mind while I research past and present violent conflicts there. Places like these are so far from my daily life and yet as I have researched each conflict I have felt a growing empathy in my heart for the people of each state. My heart longs for the day when Christ will return and heal these states.
March of 2007 was the month that I began this intellectual journey. Today I read through my past posts and was a little excited to see how much I have learned and how my thoughts have developed through the course of exploring this topic. However, I feel that there is much missing from my current line of thinking. Nowhere in my reading of past posts have I found a particularly thorough expression of the possible infeasibility of state aggression in the nuclear age. In fact my very first post in March of 2007 said that the general thrust of the blog was to explore this infeasibility. Whoops. I guess I had better get moving on this whole nuclear age examination thing. Of course I have not examined the Japanese-American conflict in WWII yet either...I believe that an examination of this conflict would provide serious answers to my questions about the infeasibility of aggression in the nuclear age. Also present on my docket for exploration, but left out of my current discussion is the issue of Joseph Kony and the people of Northern Uganda. I will at this time skip over the topic of Joseph Kony in favor of beginning the topic of Japanese-American diplomacy leading up to American involvement in WWII.
So I am leaving the topic of international policing with regard to Darfur and Khartoum. For ten months I have been writing in my little peaceful nook of University Heights. Meanwhile thousands of women and girls in Darfur have been raped and/or beaten. Thousands of Darfurians have died hungry and aching deaths. Hundreds of thousands of people have continued to live in meager IDP camps where neither food, water nor security are common. Hundreds of thousands of men have chosen violence; by joining active armies and rebel groups they have chosen to witness first hand the loss of friends, family members and sometimes even their own souls. All of Sudan has reeled back and forth in a fit of violent chaos as Khartoum, America, China and the UN all vie for power positions within northern Africa. Needless to say I am saddened that ten months have gone by and yet people continue to suffer so much in Darfur. The only fitting way I know to close my discussion on Darfur is with a prayer to the Almighty that His peace would come to the country of Sudan:
Father in Heaven, Your name is revered all across the earth. And yet there are places on this globe where Your glory seems absent. In particular the nation of Sudan is controlled by men and governments who love violence. I pray that Your kingdom would invade this great land. I pray that Your will would be done in the nation of Sudan just as it is in Heaven. Give the hungry people of Sudan food for the day. Forgive folks in Sudan for their sins: specifically bring Bashir to a place of repentance, bring him trembling face to face with your perfect glory
and reconcile him to Yourself through Christ. Teach mothers and fathers and children in Sudan to forgive their offenders: specifically bring the Christians of southern Sudan into a state of forgiveness toward the Khartoum regime knowing that you have likewise forgiven them. Do not lead the people of Darfur into temptation, but deliver them from the evil one who would destroy not only their state but their souls. Father, although it seems to me that presidents and generals of this day and age are ruling the situation in Sudan I know that this is a lie. Sudan is Your kingdom. All of the power rests in Your hands. All of the glory is Yours forever. Amen.
March of 2007 was the month that I began this intellectual journey. Today I read through my past posts and was a little excited to see how much I have learned and how my thoughts have developed through the course of exploring this topic. However, I feel that there is much missing from my current line of thinking. Nowhere in my reading of past posts have I found a particularly thorough expression of the possible infeasibility of state aggression in the nuclear age. In fact my very first post in March of 2007 said that the general thrust of the blog was to explore this infeasibility. Whoops. I guess I had better get moving on this whole nuclear age examination thing. Of course I have not examined the Japanese-American conflict in WWII yet either...I believe that an examination of this conflict would provide serious answers to my questions about the infeasibility of aggression in the nuclear age. Also present on my docket for exploration, but left out of my current discussion is the issue of Joseph Kony and the people of Northern Uganda. I will at this time skip over the topic of Joseph Kony in favor of beginning the topic of Japanese-American diplomacy leading up to American involvement in WWII.
So I am leaving the topic of international policing with regard to Darfur and Khartoum. For ten months I have been writing in my little peaceful nook of University Heights. Meanwhile thousands of women and girls in Darfur have been raped and/or beaten. Thousands of Darfurians have died hungry and aching deaths. Hundreds of thousands of people have continued to live in meager IDP camps where neither food, water nor security are common. Hundreds of thousands of men have chosen violence; by joining active armies and rebel groups they have chosen to witness first hand the loss of friends, family members and sometimes even their own souls. All of Sudan has reeled back and forth in a fit of violent chaos as Khartoum, America, China and the UN all vie for power positions within northern Africa. Needless to say I am saddened that ten months have gone by and yet people continue to suffer so much in Darfur. The only fitting way I know to close my discussion on Darfur is with a prayer to the Almighty that His peace would come to the country of Sudan:
Father in Heaven, Your name is revered all across the earth. And yet there are places on this globe where Your glory seems absent. In particular the nation of Sudan is controlled by men and governments who love violence. I pray that Your kingdom would invade this great land. I pray that Your will would be done in the nation of Sudan just as it is in Heaven. Give the hungry people of Sudan food for the day. Forgive folks in Sudan for their sins: specifically bring Bashir to a place of repentance, bring him trembling face to face with your perfect glory
and reconcile him to Yourself through Christ. Teach mothers and fathers and children in Sudan to forgive their offenders: specifically bring the Christians of southern Sudan into a state of forgiveness toward the Khartoum regime knowing that you have likewise forgiven them. Do not lead the people of Darfur into temptation, but deliver them from the evil one who would destroy not only their state but their souls. Father, although it seems to me that presidents and generals of this day and age are ruling the situation in Sudan I know that this is a lie. Sudan is Your kingdom. All of the power rests in Your hands. All of the glory is Yours forever. Amen.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Crafting foreign policy that helps the weak.
How does a nation help the weak with its foreign policy? Foreign policy is a high wire balancing act. One slight shift to the left and a nation can isolate itself thereby turning a blind eye to international injustices. One slight shift to the right and a nation can imperialistically dominate another nation under the guise of 'liberating' oppressed peoples.
Consider Sudan with me. The foreign policy options basically boil down to either using diplomacy or violent force. Violent force has been approved at the UN mediated level and is in the process of being implemented to protect internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. There is no doubt that this UN force alone would not enough to end the violence in Sudan. Consequently a foreign policy is needed to add pressure on the Khartoum regime. Many people in America are in favor of employing divestment strategies to financially punish the regime until they stop the genocide in Darfur. In this post I will question the efficacy of such a foreign policy tactic.
Most recently the House passed the Sudan Divestment Act of 2007 (HR180) and passed it onto the Senate for approval. Basically this act would allow state governments, municipalities and universities to divest their retirement funds from companies with: a) any investment in the Sudanese government or weaponry; b) more than 10% of their investments in Sudanese oil, minerals or power generation. Additionally the act would prohibit the US government from contracting for goods and services with any such company described above. Currently the Bush administration is opposed to the legislation stating that it would handcuff its diplomatic options to utilize Lybia in helping end the violence in Darfur. I am unsure to what extent that is true, but if Lybian companies stand to loose significant revenue through the act I could imagine how the act would prove to be a diplomatic obstacle for the administration to overcome.
Folks in the Divest Sudan camp often cite South Africa as their example of successful sanctioning. While sanctions worked very well in South Africa during the 1980's I have my reservations about employing them in this situation. As long as sanctions remain unilateral or lightly multilateral, the Khartoum regime will find ways to utilize the trade embargo as a way to impoverish the oppressed in Sudan and continue to enjoy an affluent lifestyle via the financial support of others countries like China. This thought about unilateral sanctions bears out well in research published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "...unilateral U.S. sanctions in place from 1970-2000 were effective only 19 percent of the time" (Taken from the testimony of William A. Reinsch before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs).
That being said, then, what options are left for US foreign policy? I would suggest that the Bush administration and Congress work toward building an internationally viable sanction of the Khartoum regime. Even if the scope of this sanction is smaller than the proposed Divestment Act it would provide the basis for future collaboration between nations on the Darfur crisis. With coordinated sanctions, Khartoum will also have less wiggle room to avoid the effects of those sanctions.
As a side thought I wonder if it might not be a productive activity for the diplomatic wing of the Bush administration to pause for a moment and consider Khartoum to be a legitimate sovereign government with legitimate political concerns about its own survival. Threatened by 'domestic terrorists' (the Justice and Equality Movement & the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army) from within who frequently attack military equipment and personnel. Facing outright civil war as the South threatens to take up military action through its own rebel forces. Threatened to the west by Chad who's government has been at odds with Khartoum all along and medals in the Darfur conflict by equipping and funding Darfurian rebels. Threatened to the east by Africa's largest army, the Ethiopian army which has been building up for years and most recently has invaded Somalia. Perhaps it would be good for those who will perform face-to-face diplomacy with Bashir to consider for a moment that he is a bit like a scared animal who fearing for its life thrashes out at all who come near to his place of power. Perhaps with this mentality diplomats might be able to set out a couple of carrots to motivate Bashir and his government to move in the right direction. Carrots like the offer of Lybian protection against Chad and US diplomatic protection from Ethiopia. Just a thought from a humble American worker who doesn't really know anything about diplomacy.
Consider Sudan with me. The foreign policy options basically boil down to either using diplomacy or violent force. Violent force has been approved at the UN mediated level and is in the process of being implemented to protect internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. There is no doubt that this UN force alone would not enough to end the violence in Sudan. Consequently a foreign policy is needed to add pressure on the Khartoum regime. Many people in America are in favor of employing divestment strategies to financially punish the regime until they stop the genocide in Darfur. In this post I will question the efficacy of such a foreign policy tactic.
Most recently the House passed the Sudan Divestment Act of 2007 (HR180) and passed it onto the Senate for approval. Basically this act would allow state governments, municipalities and universities to divest their retirement funds from companies with: a) any investment in the Sudanese government or weaponry; b) more than 10% of their investments in Sudanese oil, minerals or power generation. Additionally the act would prohibit the US government from contracting for goods and services with any such company described above. Currently the Bush administration is opposed to the legislation stating that it would handcuff its diplomatic options to utilize Lybia in helping end the violence in Darfur. I am unsure to what extent that is true, but if Lybian companies stand to loose significant revenue through the act I could imagine how the act would prove to be a diplomatic obstacle for the administration to overcome.
Folks in the Divest Sudan camp often cite South Africa as their example of successful sanctioning. While sanctions worked very well in South Africa during the 1980's I have my reservations about employing them in this situation. As long as sanctions remain unilateral or lightly multilateral, the Khartoum regime will find ways to utilize the trade embargo as a way to impoverish the oppressed in Sudan and continue to enjoy an affluent lifestyle via the financial support of others countries like China. This thought about unilateral sanctions bears out well in research published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "...unilateral U.S. sanctions in place from 1970-2000 were effective only 19 percent of the time" (Taken from the testimony of William A. Reinsch before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs).
That being said, then, what options are left for US foreign policy? I would suggest that the Bush administration and Congress work toward building an internationally viable sanction of the Khartoum regime. Even if the scope of this sanction is smaller than the proposed Divestment Act it would provide the basis for future collaboration between nations on the Darfur crisis. With coordinated sanctions, Khartoum will also have less wiggle room to avoid the effects of those sanctions.
As a side thought I wonder if it might not be a productive activity for the diplomatic wing of the Bush administration to pause for a moment and consider Khartoum to be a legitimate sovereign government with legitimate political concerns about its own survival. Threatened by 'domestic terrorists' (the Justice and Equality Movement & the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army) from within who frequently attack military equipment and personnel. Facing outright civil war as the South threatens to take up military action through its own rebel forces. Threatened to the west by Chad who's government has been at odds with Khartoum all along and medals in the Darfur conflict by equipping and funding Darfurian rebels. Threatened to the east by Africa's largest army, the Ethiopian army which has been building up for years and most recently has invaded Somalia. Perhaps it would be good for those who will perform face-to-face diplomacy with Bashir to consider for a moment that he is a bit like a scared animal who fearing for its life thrashes out at all who come near to his place of power. Perhaps with this mentality diplomats might be able to set out a couple of carrots to motivate Bashir and his government to move in the right direction. Carrots like the offer of Lybian protection against Chad and US diplomatic protection from Ethiopia. Just a thought from a humble American worker who doesn't really know anything about diplomacy.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Darfur: Two Ways Forward...revisited
Previously (23 April 2007) I posted a list of two broad categories of interventions available with regard to Darfur: violent or non-violent.
The list of violent interventions follows:
1) unilateral national aggression
2) multilateral international aggression
3) UN mediated international aggression
4) proxy aggression
The lists of non-violent interventions follows:
1) international diplomacy
2) sanctions
3) incentives
A decision to utilize any of the above four violent interventions would be a decision to act wickedly. I hope that I have made this position clear through my thoughts in past posts. This statement does not rule out the use of violent intervention as a necessary evil, but it does rule out the idea of justifying such an intervention. Such an intervention might be a good faith effort to protect the weak, but should go down in the history annals as a wicked action performed on behalf of the weak.The remaining question with regard to Darfur is this: is violent intervention a necessary evil? My answer to this question is no. My criterion for deciding on necessity is a utilitarian one. Will violent action be useful for accomplishing a good which functionally outweighs the evil of violent intervention? Notice this is not an 'ends justifies the means' sort of utilitarian thought; the end does not make the means right. Rather it is an 'ends functionally outweighs the means' utilitarian thought; the end works functionally better with the means than without the means. Here the means remain outside of the moral right but within optimal outcome. By optimal outcome I mean a system of action useful for providing good for the most number of people. The violent option may be recommended but not lauded. Lauding is reserved for righteous action not wicked action.
Specifically with regard to Darfur, violent intervention would do harm to more Darfurians than non-violent intervention. The options of unilateral national aggression, multilateral aggression and proxy aggression are currently not under consideration by the United States government. However, UN-mediated violent intervention has been possibly urged by the US Senate under Senate Resolution 276 (http://clinton.senate.gov/features/darfur/documents/2007_08_02_s_res_276.pdf), a resolution produced largely from the guidance of Senators Lugar and Biden. The Sudanese government is a sovereign government which rules over the territory of Sudan. Any violent action against Sudanese military personnel or equipment would provoke Khartoum to immediately withhold aid to the people of Darfur (such violent action is encouraged by the no-fly zone sentence in the resolution). Such a response by Khartoum would be devastating and would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of Darfurians. This is not to mention that the peace between the "North" and the "South" brokered by President Bush in 2004 is already tenuous as the South is complaining of inequality in oil profit sharing and national governmental power sharing with Khartoum. UN mediated violence against Sudanese military personnel or equipment would encourage the Sudanses Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A), the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel forces to act violently against the Sudanese military. Under attack in the west by Darfurian rebels and in the south by Southern Rebels, Khartoum would respond violently with military action to preserve its governmental authority over all of Sudan. Further complications from violent intervention could occur if rebel forces in Chad cross the border to launch attacks in Darfur against Janjaweed or others. This would further inflame the situation toward an international skirmish between Darfur and Chad.
UN presence would be a welcome thing for the residents of Darfur only if they do not actively engage in attacks on Sudanese military personnel or equipment as would be the case with a mandate to enact a no-fly-zone. A mandate to protect residents of Internally Displaced Persons camps and surviving Fur villages is all that is required.
In the next post I will examine the use of non-violent intervention and will offer an assessment of Save Darfur's (www.savedarfur.org) encouragement of unilateral sanctions via lobbying on the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007 (HR180).
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Three weeks from today...
In three weeks I will be marrying Kristin. Recently I have been feeling somewhat of a frenzy to get everything done now. I guess I feel this because the 'Big Day' that I have for so long thought of as 'that day way off' is now 'that day next month.'
So I'm getting this sense that I need to accomplish everything yesterday. I mean everything. Get the house painted and the floors polyurethaned; move Kristin's stuff in; finalize the ceremony; finalize honeymoon arrangements; figure out how to transition from celibacy to physical intimacy; find a new church home; solve the crisis in Darfur; discern the societal forces behind the trend of increased ice cream consumption in February; etc. And this is not to mention keeping up a blog.
I am resorting to 'to-do' lists these days. One of my lists is entitled, "Things that I need to get done before October 6th so that I don't alienate Kristin before the honeymoon even starts." Unfortunately this blog is not on that list. I am taking a one month sabbatical from the blog. Much to every one's disappointment there will be no abstract yet exciting posts on current events and aggression.
To keep everyone's mind busy, though, I will leave you with a parting question:
Can a hearse (occupied solely by a driver and a corpse) legally drive in the car pool lane? Please leave your insights; feel free to reference court rulings or your own imagination.
So I'm getting this sense that I need to accomplish everything yesterday. I mean everything. Get the house painted and the floors polyurethaned; move Kristin's stuff in; finalize the ceremony; finalize honeymoon arrangements; figure out how to transition from celibacy to physical intimacy; find a new church home; solve the crisis in Darfur; discern the societal forces behind the trend of increased ice cream consumption in February; etc. And this is not to mention keeping up a blog.
I am resorting to 'to-do' lists these days. One of my lists is entitled, "Things that I need to get done before October 6th so that I don't alienate Kristin before the honeymoon even starts." Unfortunately this blog is not on that list. I am taking a one month sabbatical from the blog. Much to every one's disappointment there will be no abstract yet exciting posts on current events and aggression.
To keep everyone's mind busy, though, I will leave you with a parting question:
Can a hearse (occupied solely by a driver and a corpse) legally drive in the car pool lane? Please leave your insights; feel free to reference court rulings or your own imagination.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Pick your Poison: Violence or Cowardice?
Matt posed a hard question to me in my last blog:
"...you mentioned that we all sin even in doing good. Assuming that pacifism is the moral alternative to war, doesn't it follow that pacifists will be judged as well for alterior motives in their pacifism?"
Let me elucidate some of my reasoning to date as well as some of the tacit reasoning within Matt's question and show its logical end before I address the question in full.
Proposition in question: Pacifists are morally superior to aggressors.
Premise 1: Every non divine person sins to some extent, even when doing good.
Premise 2: Pacifists are non divine.
Conclusion 1: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.
Premise 1: In any given moment of time when a person sins he is incapable of being morally superior to other people.
Premise 2: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.
Conclusion 2: When Pacifists do good they are not morally superior to other people.
Defeater: Pacifists are not morally superior to aggressors, even when they do good.
This is sound logic. However, one might object and say that while the pacifist is not morally superior, pacifism is a morally superior action compared to aggression. The premise here is that pacifism is morally superior in that it does not take human life, liberty, or health. On the other hand, aggression ends life and ruins limb without the ability to restore such things. (As a side note pertaining to YHWH and His action in the world, this objection does not rule out the idea that a morally perfect being could justifiably carry out aggression or that an omnipotent being could carry out aggression with the ability of future restoration. ) The objection points to the reality that pacifism can be a morally good option available to morally imperfect people. While the pacifist will no doubt sin while carrying out his pacifist actions, his sin will have not been pacifism. It will have been some vice such as cowardice or negligence. On the other hand, the violent aggressor will no doubt sin while carrying out his actions; his sin will have been violent aggression.
Matt has shown that unless the action of violent human aggression is innately evil, then pacifism cannot be a morally commendable course of action when compared to aggression. As Matt also pointed out, a pacifist is not exempt from judgment for moral wrong doing while she is partaking in a morally good pacifist action.
"...you mentioned that we all sin even in doing good. Assuming that pacifism is the moral alternative to war, doesn't it follow that pacifists will be judged as well for alterior motives in their pacifism?"
Let me elucidate some of my reasoning to date as well as some of the tacit reasoning within Matt's question and show its logical end before I address the question in full.
Proposition in question: Pacifists are morally superior to aggressors.
Premise 1: Every non divine person sins to some extent, even when doing good.
Premise 2: Pacifists are non divine.
Conclusion 1: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.
Premise 1: In any given moment of time when a person sins he is incapable of being morally superior to other people.
Premise 2: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.
Conclusion 2: When Pacifists do good they are not morally superior to other people.
Defeater: Pacifists are not morally superior to aggressors, even when they do good.
This is sound logic. However, one might object and say that while the pacifist is not morally superior, pacifism is a morally superior action compared to aggression. The premise here is that pacifism is morally superior in that it does not take human life, liberty, or health. On the other hand, aggression ends life and ruins limb without the ability to restore such things. (As a side note pertaining to YHWH and His action in the world, this objection does not rule out the idea that a morally perfect being could justifiably carry out aggression or that an omnipotent being could carry out aggression with the ability of future restoration. ) The objection points to the reality that pacifism can be a morally good option available to morally imperfect people. While the pacifist will no doubt sin while carrying out his pacifist actions, his sin will have not been pacifism. It will have been some vice such as cowardice or negligence. On the other hand, the violent aggressor will no doubt sin while carrying out his actions; his sin will have been violent aggression.
Matt has shown that unless the action of violent human aggression is innately evil, then pacifism cannot be a morally commendable course of action when compared to aggression. As Matt also pointed out, a pacifist is not exempt from judgment for moral wrong doing while she is partaking in a morally good pacifist action.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Darfur: Proxy Aggression as a Way Forward
Interesting news today in the New York Times article entitled, "Chaos in Darfur Rises as Arabs Fight With Arabs." Apparently the Arabs who had previously been pillaging the Fur tribes people are now assaulting each other in a clash over who will dominate the land stolen from the Fur. The two tribes are the Terjem and the Mahria.
According to the article, the Terfem are cattle herders and farmers who lived closely with the Fur. The Mahria are nomadic camel herders who have a knack for fighting. Together they worked as the Janjaweed; the Terjem located the Fur and the Mahria attacked them. In December the Mahria and Terjem began skirmishing as the Mahria were migrating south and trampled on Terjem land. The skirmishing happened again in July as Mahria migrated back north through the same land. Unlike past skirmishes between the two tribes, this last period of summer fighting is persisting, perhaps due to a drive to seize land before a hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force arrives in Darfur.
Regardless, this goes to show the complexity of the crisis. Proxy aggression might utilize Chad or the Fur or now even the Mahria or Terjem. But, with such factious conditions abounding, I am dubious about the outcome of any such meddling.
More later...
According to the article, the Terfem are cattle herders and farmers who lived closely with the Fur. The Mahria are nomadic camel herders who have a knack for fighting. Together they worked as the Janjaweed; the Terjem located the Fur and the Mahria attacked them. In December the Mahria and Terjem began skirmishing as the Mahria were migrating south and trampled on Terjem land. The skirmishing happened again in July as Mahria migrated back north through the same land. Unlike past skirmishes between the two tribes, this last period of summer fighting is persisting, perhaps due to a drive to seize land before a hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force arrives in Darfur.
Regardless, this goes to show the complexity of the crisis. Proxy aggression might utilize Chad or the Fur or now even the Mahria or Terjem. But, with such factious conditions abounding, I am dubious about the outcome of any such meddling.
More later...
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Romans 13 in the context of Israel and YHWH: Part II
Can there be such a thing as just war? Can war be justified? Can a warring nation be held innocent when it is violent? I believe that the notions of just war or a nation justifying its motives for war are possible only in the world of ideals. In theory, a nation can act violently with pure motives on behalf of the weak, the poor, the oppressed and against the corrupt, the abusive, the oppressors. In reality, no nation has entirely pure motives. A nation will always seek its own preservation and will, to some degree, do this to the detriment of other nations or peoples. If a nation could be morally perfect, then its wars could be just. No such perfect nation exists. War is always unjust to some degree or another by the standards of YHWH's righteousness.
This bears itself out well in the Old Testament. YHWH called Israel out to be His special people. He commanded Moses to lead Israel into the Promised Land and slaughter the inhabitants there. Joshua led a bloody march into Canaan and Israel took up residence. During that bloody march and immediately after that Israel was already falling away from YHWH's standards of holiness. Idolatry, intermarriage with Canaanites, fornication, refusing to tear down the high places, pillaging idols, and much more were all a part of Israel's short comings in the post Exodus period.
YHWH had told Moses that if Israel did not keep His commands, then they would be utterly destroyed. By the end of the period of kingly reign in Israel, YHWH was preparing to follow through on his promise to judge Israel for its wickedness. Observe in II Kings 21:9-16:
But they did not listen, and Manasseh seduced them to do evil more than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the sons of Israel. Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, "Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 'I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 'I will abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they will become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.'" Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD.
Israel was in for destruction. God's chosen nation, the people He chose to dish out His vengeance on the Canaanites, was about to be on the receiving end of His wrath. Notice that Israel had been provoking YHWH's wrath since the day they left Egypt. Even when Israel was carrying out its war campaigns it was unrighteous and deserving of judgment. YHWH had motive to destroy them just as much as He had motive to destroy the Canaanites. While we can definitely say that during Israel's wars it was carrying out the will of YHWH, we cannot say that Israel was righteous in carrying out the will of YHWH. Israel was sinful and deserving of YHWH's wrath. It was only by the LORD's grace that she received promised land instead of desolation.
In Romans 13 Paul says that government is from God's authority and that it bears the sword for the purpose of avenging the one who practices evil. In context of Israel and YHWH we can interpret that rulers bear the sword not only to avenge individuals, but also nations. One might say that the reason China is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on America's sinfulness. Likewise, one might say that the reason why India is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on China's sinfulness. And so on. What cannot be said is that any attack by China on America (or India on China) is justifiable. Such attacks are carried out by sinful nations that have corrupt morals and corrupt motives. Only YHWH is perfect and only He is just in every way. The rest of us sin even in doing good (e.g.: defending the weak, the poor, the oppressed). To find just war we must fast forward to the culmination of all history when the One who is called Faithful and True rides in on a white horse and wages a war in righteousness.
In summary, Romans 13 describes God's sovereign use of rulers that war. However, Romans 13 does not support the idea of just human actors in war. A warring nation is never innocent when it is violent; such a nation is in the wrong and will be judged for shedding blood.
This bears itself out well in the Old Testament. YHWH called Israel out to be His special people. He commanded Moses to lead Israel into the Promised Land and slaughter the inhabitants there. Joshua led a bloody march into Canaan and Israel took up residence. During that bloody march and immediately after that Israel was already falling away from YHWH's standards of holiness. Idolatry, intermarriage with Canaanites, fornication, refusing to tear down the high places, pillaging idols, and much more were all a part of Israel's short comings in the post Exodus period.
YHWH had told Moses that if Israel did not keep His commands, then they would be utterly destroyed. By the end of the period of kingly reign in Israel, YHWH was preparing to follow through on his promise to judge Israel for its wickedness. Observe in II Kings 21:9-16:
But they did not listen, and Manasseh seduced them to do evil more than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the sons of Israel. Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, "Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 'I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 'I will abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they will become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.'" Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD.
Israel was in for destruction. God's chosen nation, the people He chose to dish out His vengeance on the Canaanites, was about to be on the receiving end of His wrath. Notice that Israel had been provoking YHWH's wrath since the day they left Egypt. Even when Israel was carrying out its war campaigns it was unrighteous and deserving of judgment. YHWH had motive to destroy them just as much as He had motive to destroy the Canaanites. While we can definitely say that during Israel's wars it was carrying out the will of YHWH, we cannot say that Israel was righteous in carrying out the will of YHWH. Israel was sinful and deserving of YHWH's wrath. It was only by the LORD's grace that she received promised land instead of desolation.
In Romans 13 Paul says that government is from God's authority and that it bears the sword for the purpose of avenging the one who practices evil. In context of Israel and YHWH we can interpret that rulers bear the sword not only to avenge individuals, but also nations. One might say that the reason China is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on America's sinfulness. Likewise, one might say that the reason why India is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on China's sinfulness. And so on. What cannot be said is that any attack by China on America (or India on China) is justifiable. Such attacks are carried out by sinful nations that have corrupt morals and corrupt motives. Only YHWH is perfect and only He is just in every way. The rest of us sin even in doing good (e.g.: defending the weak, the poor, the oppressed). To find just war we must fast forward to the culmination of all history when the One who is called Faithful and True rides in on a white horse and wages a war in righteousness.
In summary, Romans 13 describes God's sovereign use of rulers that war. However, Romans 13 does not support the idea of just human actors in war. A warring nation is never innocent when it is violent; such a nation is in the wrong and will be judged for shedding blood.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Romans 13 in the context of Israel and YHWH.
Christians have approved of government waged war throughout the ages. Romans 13 contains the words Christians have traditionally used to warrant the idea of just war. It runs like this in verse four:
For it (the government) is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Here Paul urges Christian folks in Rome to be obedient to the Roman emperor, a man who was not friendly to the Christian cause.
Further Scriptural warrant for national violence can be obtained in Peters first epistle, chapter 2. Verses 13-14 run like this:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
In the old Covenant the Scriptural warrant for war is even more plain within the Pentateuch. In Deuteronomy 20:10-18 we have the record of YHWH commanding Moses to destroy men in villages that would not agree to become slaves to the Hebrews; in the cities of Canaan YHWH commands Moses to kill man, woman, child and animal. Nothing living is to be spared. The reason given by YHWH is that Israel would learn the detestable practices of the Canaanite inhabitants if they were not completely destroyed.
Maybe this still is not enough scriptural warrant. We might think that this record of the invasion of the Holy Land is a special exemption to the way that YHWH acts; He is just making His Covenant clear to the world before revealing His heart of mercy to the world through the likes of David and his lineage. But, the man after YHWH's own heart, the man of mercy, was commanded by the God of justice to go slaughter a people. In second Samuel chapter five we have the record of God actually telling David to go to war:
Then David did so, just as the LORD had commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba as far as Gezer.
Mercy was no doubt revealed through David; he was a man in need of forgiveness and he found it in the sight of YHWH. Yet mercy was not borne out upon David's enemies. Observe Psalm 110:1;5-6:
The LORD says to my Lord:
Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.
The Lord is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
He will judge among the nations,
He will fill them with corpses,
He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
Granted, this Psalm is about YHWH speaking to the Messiah and it is the Psalmists description of the Messianic rule over kings and nations. But it shows us David's understanding of YHWH's attitude toward warfare; it was not just he who was warring against the nations. The LORD was with him, helping him kill the enemy. David had a clear perspective of YHWH's wrath and impending judgment of the nations. Pacifism was not a virtue well esteemed by the man after YHWH's own heart.
Next blog...
a look at God's warriors as they are slaughtered by the nations. What does this mean for the idea of justification? Can a warring nation be justified in its violence? Or putting the question of justification more poignantly, can a warring nation be held innocent when it is violent?
For it (the government) is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
Here Paul urges Christian folks in Rome to be obedient to the Roman emperor, a man who was not friendly to the Christian cause.
Further Scriptural warrant for national violence can be obtained in Peters first epistle, chapter 2. Verses 13-14 run like this:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
In the old Covenant the Scriptural warrant for war is even more plain within the Pentateuch. In Deuteronomy 20:10-18 we have the record of YHWH commanding Moses to destroy men in villages that would not agree to become slaves to the Hebrews; in the cities of Canaan YHWH commands Moses to kill man, woman, child and animal. Nothing living is to be spared. The reason given by YHWH is that Israel would learn the detestable practices of the Canaanite inhabitants if they were not completely destroyed.
Maybe this still is not enough scriptural warrant. We might think that this record of the invasion of the Holy Land is a special exemption to the way that YHWH acts; He is just making His Covenant clear to the world before revealing His heart of mercy to the world through the likes of David and his lineage. But, the man after YHWH's own heart, the man of mercy, was commanded by the God of justice to go slaughter a people. In second Samuel chapter five we have the record of God actually telling David to go to war:
Then David did so, just as the LORD had commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba as far as Gezer.
Mercy was no doubt revealed through David; he was a man in need of forgiveness and he found it in the sight of YHWH. Yet mercy was not borne out upon David's enemies. Observe Psalm 110:1;5-6:
The LORD says to my Lord:
Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.
The Lord is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
He will judge among the nations,
He will fill them with corpses,
He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
Granted, this Psalm is about YHWH speaking to the Messiah and it is the Psalmists description of the Messianic rule over kings and nations. But it shows us David's understanding of YHWH's attitude toward warfare; it was not just he who was warring against the nations. The LORD was with him, helping him kill the enemy. David had a clear perspective of YHWH's wrath and impending judgment of the nations. Pacifism was not a virtue well esteemed by the man after YHWH's own heart.
Next blog...
a look at God's warriors as they are slaughtered by the nations. What does this mean for the idea of justification? Can a warring nation be justified in its violence? Or putting the question of justification more poignantly, can a warring nation be held innocent when it is violent?
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Back in the swing.
For months I have been stumbling through a dark night of literary isolation. No longer, though. The published pending website is back up and running and I am connected to my writing comrades once again. Praise be to our wonderful web manager for he has delivered us from the demons that cleverly work internet destruction! How I have missed the blog. And by 'missed' I mean 'been thankful not to have had one more thing to get done.'
Unfortunately I have written nothing since the last post. Since I am out of the habit of writing, I thought a personal post about my topic would help get me back in the swing of things. Here goes:
Reconciliation was nailed hard up against my heart muscles years ago when my college dating relationship ended. Those painful nails entered my heart and gathered the heat of my memory to forge a weapon of bitter un-forgetfulness. The memory of these hurts was like yesterday's large helping of chocolate Moose Tracks ice cream slowly creeping back up my throat in the form of hungry fire ants. Deep and visceral, these hurtful memories initially wakened mighty feelings of righteous vengeance and an infantile desire to strike out against my 'old flame'. I was a righteous man internally working out justice for the wounds of my heart, only offering lip service to my own transgressions. For months, my rightness in the relational break-up lay uncritically examined by myself; and so I acted like the myopic old man who blames all the words in books for being 'so fuzzy these days'.
My righteousness never demanded I open up my memories to scrutiny, mostly because I fabricated this story about how I took the moral high road in the relationship. Every time I rehearsed this story my heart was filled with resentment about how she wronged me. Regular baths of bitterness cleansed my heart from all personal wrong doing and gently nourished an outwardly projected judgment. Today as I reflect about my inner monologues of that bitter time I realize that the meaning of the word 'I' took on the general sense of 'morally good person.' In my dating relationship I was patient in communicating, I was a true lover, I was concerned about her well-bing. Likewise, the word 'she' was used as a synonym for 'morally flawed person.' In my dating relationship she was uncommitted, she was unwilling to talk, she was selfish. In philosophical terms she became my evil other; the one upon whom I projected all evil with regards to our relational break up. She was evil and I was good. She was condemned in my thinking, and I was justified.
Fortunately I was righteous to this extent for only a period in my life. Time passed and the LORD called me behind the water shed for a whipping, as my brother-in-law would say. In fact I was reading Romans 12 when I came across the passage that reads:
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,' says the Lord. 'BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
In a moment, in the twitch of an eyelid my bitter self-justification was demolished. Wrecking balls have never brought down walls as quickly as this Scripture brought down my own righteousness. The standards are high. How could I escape the fact that I had come nowhere close to feeding my enemy? I was repaying evil for evil in the inner chambers of my heart. I was being overcome by evil.
Like the Psalmist, I was hemmed in behind and in front by the righteousness of YHWH; I had no where to turn that did not remind me of my own vile heart. A confession spewed out of my insides, "My born-again, sanctified heart is evil and in desperate need of salvation." At the moment of this confession my heart was liberated from a cold and slimy prison of bitter memories. I believe it was the same LORD who hung on the cross forgiving His enemies that also swept through my heart and set it free. This liberation was powerful and transformative enough to in time subvert my bitter memories with a new spirit of reconciliation. At the heart of this spirit was a realization that I was never and never will be a morally right person as long as I live on this green earth. I could see that I was not right by the standards of Romans 12 because, ironically, I was stuck on rehearsing my own rightness and was forgetting to take care of my 'enemy'.
Not long after the LORD gave me this spirit of reconciliation He began to bolster it further with another work. He was pointing out the thoroughly depraved state of my heart. This happened as I became deeply convicted of my inward sins of lust and anger and greed. YHWH looked at my heart from afar and with holy wrath pronounced it unclean. As I reflected back upon my dating relationship I realized that while I was pointing out my lover's external flaws I was ignoring my own internal flaws. Like Jesus' hypocrite with the log hanging from his cornea, I was attempting to surgically remove the splinter from my lover's moral soul without worrying about my dirty hands and contagious diseases. Once again the LORD'S spirit of reconciliation was at work in my heart teaching me that I could never consider myself to be right.
I have learned that I am always and unconditionally wrong. And I do not mean this in the sense of being wrong in a logical argument (although I am usually not a very thorough logician and am frequently wrong in the arena of logic). Morally flawed is what I mean when I use the word 'wrong' here. Never am I morally superior to another person. Try as I might to justify myself and put myself in the right, I am always wrong.
If you have read my blog at all this far you will know that my interest is international politics. At the root of this interest is this same spirit of reconciliation. The LORD has given me a spirit of reconciliation and this spirit does not cease to be active when I think about nations and governments. I continue to anchor myself in the fact that American is not right. Terrorists (eg: AlQueda) who kill 'infidel' civilians are not justified in doing so because the terrorists themselves are evil. Likewise, a government which kills terrorists (eg: the US) is not justified in doing so because the government itself is evil. When history comes to its climax and the Word of God will slay the nations with a sword will the American government appear right before YHWH'S righteousness? Absolutely not.
And so you can see that my thinking has its origins in Romans 12 and has progressed from there to Romans 13 as I have broadened my thoughts to the world level. So I have moved into the territory of Romans 13 and should probably write a post working within this text, a text that has been used throughout Christian times to justify war. I will begin my next post by highlighting the history of Israel's wars. First, I will look into the Old Covenant where God used Israel to destroy nations with violence and then used these same nations to destroy Israel.
Unfortunately I have written nothing since the last post. Since I am out of the habit of writing, I thought a personal post about my topic would help get me back in the swing of things. Here goes:
Reconciliation was nailed hard up against my heart muscles years ago when my college dating relationship ended. Those painful nails entered my heart and gathered the heat of my memory to forge a weapon of bitter un-forgetfulness. The memory of these hurts was like yesterday's large helping of chocolate Moose Tracks ice cream slowly creeping back up my throat in the form of hungry fire ants. Deep and visceral, these hurtful memories initially wakened mighty feelings of righteous vengeance and an infantile desire to strike out against my 'old flame'. I was a righteous man internally working out justice for the wounds of my heart, only offering lip service to my own transgressions. For months, my rightness in the relational break-up lay uncritically examined by myself; and so I acted like the myopic old man who blames all the words in books for being 'so fuzzy these days'.
My righteousness never demanded I open up my memories to scrutiny, mostly because I fabricated this story about how I took the moral high road in the relationship. Every time I rehearsed this story my heart was filled with resentment about how she wronged me. Regular baths of bitterness cleansed my heart from all personal wrong doing and gently nourished an outwardly projected judgment. Today as I reflect about my inner monologues of that bitter time I realize that the meaning of the word 'I' took on the general sense of 'morally good person.' In my dating relationship I was patient in communicating, I was a true lover, I was concerned about her well-bing. Likewise, the word 'she' was used as a synonym for 'morally flawed person.' In my dating relationship she was uncommitted, she was unwilling to talk, she was selfish. In philosophical terms she became my evil other; the one upon whom I projected all evil with regards to our relational break up. She was evil and I was good. She was condemned in my thinking, and I was justified.
Fortunately I was righteous to this extent for only a period in my life. Time passed and the LORD called me behind the water shed for a whipping, as my brother-in-law would say. In fact I was reading Romans 12 when I came across the passage that reads:
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,' says the Lord. 'BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
In a moment, in the twitch of an eyelid my bitter self-justification was demolished. Wrecking balls have never brought down walls as quickly as this Scripture brought down my own righteousness. The standards are high. How could I escape the fact that I had come nowhere close to feeding my enemy? I was repaying evil for evil in the inner chambers of my heart. I was being overcome by evil.
Like the Psalmist, I was hemmed in behind and in front by the righteousness of YHWH; I had no where to turn that did not remind me of my own vile heart. A confession spewed out of my insides, "My born-again, sanctified heart is evil and in desperate need of salvation." At the moment of this confession my heart was liberated from a cold and slimy prison of bitter memories. I believe it was the same LORD who hung on the cross forgiving His enemies that also swept through my heart and set it free. This liberation was powerful and transformative enough to in time subvert my bitter memories with a new spirit of reconciliation. At the heart of this spirit was a realization that I was never and never will be a morally right person as long as I live on this green earth. I could see that I was not right by the standards of Romans 12 because, ironically, I was stuck on rehearsing my own rightness and was forgetting to take care of my 'enemy'.
Not long after the LORD gave me this spirit of reconciliation He began to bolster it further with another work. He was pointing out the thoroughly depraved state of my heart. This happened as I became deeply convicted of my inward sins of lust and anger and greed. YHWH looked at my heart from afar and with holy wrath pronounced it unclean. As I reflected back upon my dating relationship I realized that while I was pointing out my lover's external flaws I was ignoring my own internal flaws. Like Jesus' hypocrite with the log hanging from his cornea, I was attempting to surgically remove the splinter from my lover's moral soul without worrying about my dirty hands and contagious diseases. Once again the LORD'S spirit of reconciliation was at work in my heart teaching me that I could never consider myself to be right.
I have learned that I am always and unconditionally wrong. And I do not mean this in the sense of being wrong in a logical argument (although I am usually not a very thorough logician and am frequently wrong in the arena of logic). Morally flawed is what I mean when I use the word 'wrong' here. Never am I morally superior to another person. Try as I might to justify myself and put myself in the right, I am always wrong.
If you have read my blog at all this far you will know that my interest is international politics. At the root of this interest is this same spirit of reconciliation. The LORD has given me a spirit of reconciliation and this spirit does not cease to be active when I think about nations and governments. I continue to anchor myself in the fact that American is not right. Terrorists (eg: AlQueda) who kill 'infidel' civilians are not justified in doing so because the terrorists themselves are evil. Likewise, a government which kills terrorists (eg: the US) is not justified in doing so because the government itself is evil. When history comes to its climax and the Word of God will slay the nations with a sword will the American government appear right before YHWH'S righteousness? Absolutely not.
And so you can see that my thinking has its origins in Romans 12 and has progressed from there to Romans 13 as I have broadened my thoughts to the world level. So I have moved into the territory of Romans 13 and should probably write a post working within this text, a text that has been used throughout Christian times to justify war. I will begin my next post by highlighting the history of Israel's wars. First, I will look into the Old Covenant where God used Israel to destroy nations with violence and then used these same nations to destroy Israel.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Afghanistan: Proxy Aggression as a Way Forward
So I have been dreadfully short on time here recently. Subsequently I have been unable to thoroughly research the information on US proxy intervention in Afghanistan. However, for the sake of continuing to write I am going to proceed without all the data I need.
The United States of America conducted covert operations in Afghanistan from 1979 until 1992 (Pike, John E. "Covert Operations." 2 May 2007. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/covert-ops.htm). Why? The US government was firmly entrenched with the USSR in the Cold War. Afghanistan was just one other US country used to strategically weaken the USSR. One question I have is regarding the sequence of events. Had the Russians invaded Afghanistan already or did the US proxy strategy entice the Russians into Afghanistan? Regardless, the US government covertly supported the Mujahideen via the CIA. During the Carter and Reagan administrations the radical Jihadists (Mujahideen) were funded and trained by the CIA so that they could undermine the 'atheistic' communist government.
The Russians were unsuccessful in their battles for Afghanistan largely due to CIA covert operations with the Mujahideen. Due to the huge cost of operations in Afghanistan the Russians left the country in 1989. The CIA then stopped its Afghanistan involvement in 1992. From that time until 1996 power struggles ensued between conflicting Mujahideen groups. In 1996 the Taliban seized control of Kabul and began its rule of the country. It was also in 1996 that the Taliban invited Osama Bin Laden to stay in their country. Osama Bin Laden had been trained by the CIA as a part of the Mujahideen. He came to Afghanistan from Sudan where he was being hunted by none other than the US government for his role in the US embassy bombings and the bombing of the US Cole.
On September 11th of 2001 a handful of radical Muslim men flew planes into two New York skyscrapers and the Pentagon. These men were trained by Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Anticipating the Al Qaeda success in September one Shaykh said this, “There will be a great hit and people will go out by hundreds to Afghanistan” (Shaykh Salih Al-Shuaybi as quoted by an unnamed Shaykh in a November, 2001 video with Usama Bin Laden.). Al Qaeda had been training for years with this plot and its success startled the Bush administration as well as the entire US population.
One of the Al Qaeda training manuals found in Afghanistan contains this quote:
"These young men realized that an Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief.,. but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the canon and the machine-gun." (Al-Qaeda training manual).
The result of US proxy intervention in Afghanistan from 1979-1992 was the decline of the USSR and the rise of Al Qaeda.
The United States of America conducted covert operations in Afghanistan from 1979 until 1992 (Pike, John E. "Covert Operations." 2 May 2007. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/covert-ops.htm). Why? The US government was firmly entrenched with the USSR in the Cold War. Afghanistan was just one other US country used to strategically weaken the USSR. One question I have is regarding the sequence of events. Had the Russians invaded Afghanistan already or did the US proxy strategy entice the Russians into Afghanistan? Regardless, the US government covertly supported the Mujahideen via the CIA. During the Carter and Reagan administrations the radical Jihadists (Mujahideen) were funded and trained by the CIA so that they could undermine the 'atheistic' communist government.
The Russians were unsuccessful in their battles for Afghanistan largely due to CIA covert operations with the Mujahideen. Due to the huge cost of operations in Afghanistan the Russians left the country in 1989. The CIA then stopped its Afghanistan involvement in 1992. From that time until 1996 power struggles ensued between conflicting Mujahideen groups. In 1996 the Taliban seized control of Kabul and began its rule of the country. It was also in 1996 that the Taliban invited Osama Bin Laden to stay in their country. Osama Bin Laden had been trained by the CIA as a part of the Mujahideen. He came to Afghanistan from Sudan where he was being hunted by none other than the US government for his role in the US embassy bombings and the bombing of the US Cole.
On September 11th of 2001 a handful of radical Muslim men flew planes into two New York skyscrapers and the Pentagon. These men were trained by Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Anticipating the Al Qaeda success in September one Shaykh said this, “There will be a great hit and people will go out by hundreds to Afghanistan” (Shaykh Salih Al-Shuaybi as quoted by an unnamed Shaykh in a November, 2001 video with Usama Bin Laden.). Al Qaeda had been training for years with this plot and its success startled the Bush administration as well as the entire US population.
One of the Al Qaeda training manuals found in Afghanistan contains this quote:
"These young men realized that an Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief.,. but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the canon and the machine-gun." (Al-Qaeda training manual).
The result of US proxy intervention in Afghanistan from 1979-1992 was the decline of the USSR and the rise of Al Qaeda.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Somalia: Some Specifics on US Proxy Intervention
Here are some quotes regarding the US proxy intervention in Somalia post 9/11.
"The US viewed the Islamists' rise with alarm, fearing the emergence of a Taliban-style haven for al-Qa'ida and other Islamist extremists. Its fears were stoked by jihadist elements in the courts and credible reports that they were harbouring known al-Qa'ida operatives. It responded by cobbling together a coalition of Somali warlords, funded by the CIA. But the alliance was short-lived and its collapse at the hands of the courts only increased the latter's legitimacy."
-Grono, Nick. "Somalia: Nation on the Cusp of Chaos or Resurrection." 8 January 2007. The Australian.
"It’s a well-established fact for the last few years that U.S. counterterrorism officials and other intelligence officials have been working through Somali partners to fight extremists. From the little we know, the U.S. is not supporting the warlords with arms, per se. Instead American operatives were paying the warlords to help track down and apprehend those in Somalia suspected of being members of Al Qaeda."
-Suliman Baldo, director for Africa policy at the International Crisis Group
"The full deployment of AMISOM (African Union mission to Somalia) will facilitate a more rapid departure of Ethiopian forces from Somalia. To achieve this objective, the United States is providing technical assistance and funding, approximately $19.6 million, to support the deployment of AMISOM, enabling the mission to provide security to the TFIs and allow the peace process to move forward with the visible support of the international community."
-James Swan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs US State Dept.: 21 April 2007
"The US viewed the Islamists' rise with alarm, fearing the emergence of a Taliban-style haven for al-Qa'ida and other Islamist extremists. Its fears were stoked by jihadist elements in the courts and credible reports that they were harbouring known al-Qa'ida operatives. It responded by cobbling together a coalition of Somali warlords, funded by the CIA. But the alliance was short-lived and its collapse at the hands of the courts only increased the latter's legitimacy."
-Grono, Nick. "Somalia: Nation on the Cusp of Chaos or Resurrection." 8 January 2007. The Australian.
"It’s a well-established fact for the last few years that U.S. counterterrorism officials and other intelligence officials have been working through Somali partners to fight extremists. From the little we know, the U.S. is not supporting the warlords with arms, per se. Instead American operatives were paying the warlords to help track down and apprehend those in Somalia suspected of being members of Al Qaeda."
-Suliman Baldo, director for Africa policy at the International Crisis Group
"The full deployment of AMISOM (African Union mission to Somalia) will facilitate a more rapid departure of Ethiopian forces from Somalia. To achieve this objective, the United States is providing technical assistance and funding, approximately $19.6 million, to support the deployment of AMISOM, enabling the mission to provide security to the TFIs and allow the peace process to move forward with the visible support of the international community."
-James Swan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs US State Dept.: 21 April 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Somalia: Proxy Aggression as a Way Forward
In this post I am going to begin considering proxy aggression as an option for resolving the current Darfur humanitarian crisis. As a part of this consideration I will briefly review two other situations where proxy intervention has been utilized: Somalia (thank you Brandon) and Afghanistan. Then, I will examine the options available in Darfur for proxy aggression and offer some correlations from Somalia and Afghanistan. Today's post will focus on Somalia.
Moving from west to east across the entirety of the African continent, beginning in Nigeria, one can travel through as few as 5 countries (Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia). As of today, April 26, three of these countries are suffering terrible internal violence, one (Ethiopia) is fueling the violence in its neighboring country (Somalia), and the fifth country (Nigeria) is on the verge of political upheaval due to dishonest elections. Among all of this violence and broken government I choose to focus today on Somalia. My information is taken from three sources: 1) UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's April 17th report regarding the situation in Somalia; 2) various articles from the International Herald Tribune; 3) various articles from the New York Times.
Until the 18th century Somalia had been traditionally governed by clan elders. In the 18th century the Italians governed southern Somalia and created an Italian-speaking administration to help build the economy. This style of rule resulted in a weakening of the traditional systems of Somalian authority (Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Somaliland is an overlooked African success story." International Herald Tribune. 7 March 2007). This weakening of authority had its tragic outcome years and years later after the fall of the Somalian dictator in January of 1991. The dictator of Somalia was overthrown and warlords were then able to out muscle clan elders, plunging the country into a period of violent anarchy. Warlords in plenty operated within the country stealing, raping and destroying.
In August of 1992 George H. Bush agreed to send food aide to Somalia to feed the hundreds of thousands of starving. Food had been delivered in the past, however warlords had intercepted the shipments and sold them for more guns and munitions. Bush's plan was to not only provide food, but a means for ensuring their delivery to the starving of Somalia. An international group was dispatched (mostly from Pakistan) but was not enough to fend off the Somali warlords. By December of 1992 one thousand or more people per day were dying in Somalia. President Bush submitted a plan to send as many as 20,000 US troops to Somalia as a part of a UN rescue mission (Editorial. "Dot It Right in Somalia." 1 December 1992. New York Times). The troops were sent and experienced success in delivering food to the hungry.
In January of 2003 Bill Clinton became the US president and shortly thereafter the mission changed from one of humanitarian aide to one of nation building in which the goals was to build a democratic government in Somalia. President Clinton expressed a desire to decrease the amount of US troops and hand over control of the nation building project to the UN. US Troop levels were diminished to about 1,000 by June of 1993. However, on June 5th of 1993 over twenty Pakistani troops were ambushed and killed. Aidid and his followers were assumed to be responsible for this attack and orders were given to capture him. On July 12th a US Cobra helicopter attacked a house in Mogadishu were clan leaders were meeting. Many clan elders were killed and this proved to be the turning point where Somalians led an insurgency against UN and US forces. As attacks on UN and US troops increased a task force of 440 elite US military was dispatched to Somalia. Their mission was to capture Aidid who was believed to be responsible for the increased violence. In October of 1993 a Black Hawk helicopter full of elite US forces was shot down and the US military was humiliated. On October 7th president Clinton withdrew all US forces from Somalia. By late spring of 1994 all UN troops were withdrawn from Somalia. (Information taken from http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/Somalia93/Somalia93.html).
So the current state of affairs in Somalia is poor at best. US Proxy intervention has been pursued through covert support of Somalian war lords, aerial bombing by US planes and ground support from Ethiopian forces. The result has been a disruption of the Islamic militias rule and a return to anarchy in southern Somalia.
Moving from west to east across the entirety of the African continent, beginning in Nigeria, one can travel through as few as 5 countries (Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia). As of today, April 26, three of these countries are suffering terrible internal violence, one (Ethiopia) is fueling the violence in its neighboring country (Somalia), and the fifth country (Nigeria) is on the verge of political upheaval due to dishonest elections. Among all of this violence and broken government I choose to focus today on Somalia. My information is taken from three sources: 1) UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's April 17th report regarding the situation in Somalia; 2) various articles from the International Herald Tribune; 3) various articles from the New York Times.
Until the 18th century Somalia had been traditionally governed by clan elders. In the 18th century the Italians governed southern Somalia and created an Italian-speaking administration to help build the economy. This style of rule resulted in a weakening of the traditional systems of Somalian authority (Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Somaliland is an overlooked African success story." International Herald Tribune. 7 March 2007). This weakening of authority had its tragic outcome years and years later after the fall of the Somalian dictator in January of 1991. The dictator of Somalia was overthrown and warlords were then able to out muscle clan elders, plunging the country into a period of violent anarchy. Warlords in plenty operated within the country stealing, raping and destroying.
In August of 1992 George H. Bush agreed to send food aide to Somalia to feed the hundreds of thousands of starving. Food had been delivered in the past, however warlords had intercepted the shipments and sold them for more guns and munitions. Bush's plan was to not only provide food, but a means for ensuring their delivery to the starving of Somalia. An international group was dispatched (mostly from Pakistan) but was not enough to fend off the Somali warlords. By December of 1992 one thousand or more people per day were dying in Somalia. President Bush submitted a plan to send as many as 20,000 US troops to Somalia as a part of a UN rescue mission (Editorial. "Dot It Right in Somalia." 1 December 1992. New York Times). The troops were sent and experienced success in delivering food to the hungry.
In January of 2003 Bill Clinton became the US president and shortly thereafter the mission changed from one of humanitarian aide to one of nation building in which the goals was to build a democratic government in Somalia. President Clinton expressed a desire to decrease the amount of US troops and hand over control of the nation building project to the UN. US Troop levels were diminished to about 1,000 by June of 1993. However, on June 5th of 1993 over twenty Pakistani troops were ambushed and killed. Aidid and his followers were assumed to be responsible for this attack and orders were given to capture him. On July 12th a US Cobra helicopter attacked a house in Mogadishu were clan leaders were meeting. Many clan elders were killed and this proved to be the turning point where Somalians led an insurgency against UN and US forces. As attacks on UN and US troops increased a task force of 440 elite US military was dispatched to Somalia. Their mission was to capture Aidid who was believed to be responsible for the increased violence. In October of 1993 a Black Hawk helicopter full of elite US forces was shot down and the US military was humiliated. On October 7th president Clinton withdrew all US forces from Somalia. By late spring of 1994 all UN troops were withdrawn from Somalia. (Information taken from http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/Somalia93/Somalia93.html).
Since the failed UN intervention in Somalia anarchy has been the basic state of the country until June of last year. Islamic militias backed by local business men gained control of Mogadishu in June of 2006. An article from the New York times dated June 6th, 2006 describes how the Islamic militias gained control of Mogadishu:
"After months of fierce fighting, Islamic militias declared Monday that they had taken control of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, defeating the warlords widely believed to be backed by the United States and raising questions about whether the country would head down an extremist path. The battle for Mogadishu has been a proxy war, of sorts, in the Bush administration's campaign against terrorism, with the warlords echoing Washington's goal of rooting out radical Islam and the presence of Al Qaeda in the region" (Lacey, Marc. "Somali Islamists Declare Victory; Warlords on Run." The New York Times. 6 June 2006).
The Islamic militia's motivation behind the June battle in Mogadishu was a desire to neutralize the warlords and improve business prospects. After setting up power in Mogadishu the Islamic militants provided security in the area for the first time in years. This in combination with the fact that they did not levy heavy taxes created a good economic atmosphere which lasted until the radical Islamic wing took over the government and declared war on Ethiopia. "The US viewed the Islamists' rise with alarm, fearing the emergence of a Taliban-style haven for al-Qa'ida and other Islamist extremists. Its fears were stoked by jihadist elements in the courts and credible reports that they were harbouring known al-Qa'ida operatives. It responded by cobbling together a coalition of Somali warlords, funded by the CIA. But the alliance was short-lived and its collapse at the hands of the courts only increased the latter's legitimacy." (Grono, Nick. "Somalia: Nation on the Cusp of Chaos or Resurrection." 8 January 2007. The Australian.)
In December of 2006 Ethiopia, with covert help from the US, crushed the Islamic militia (Mohammed Ibrahim and Yuusuf Maxamuud. "In Somalia, Those Who Feed Off Of Anarchy Fuel It." 25 April 2007. The New York Times). Since then Mogadishu has been a broiling pot of violence. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's April report on Somalia stated that 124,000 people have fled Mogadishu since February of this year. He also offers this information regarding violence in Mogadishu:
So the current state of affairs in Somalia is poor at best. US Proxy intervention has been pursued through covert support of Somalian war lords, aerial bombing by US planes and ground support from Ethiopian forces. The result has been a disruption of the Islamic militias rule and a return to anarchy in southern Somalia.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Right ways trump expediate ways...
Psalm 125
A Psalm of Ascent
For the scepter of wickedness shall not rest upon the land of the righteous,
So that the righteous will not put forth their hands to do wrong.
Do good, O LORD, to those who are good
And to those who are upright in their hearts.
But as for those who turn aside to their crooked ways,
The LORD will lead them away with the doers of iniquity
Peace be upon Israel.
A Psalm of Ascent
For the scepter of wickedness shall not rest upon the land of the righteous,
So that the righteous will not put forth their hands to do wrong.
Do good, O LORD, to those who are good
And to those who are upright in their hearts.
But as for those who turn aside to their crooked ways,
The LORD will lead them away with the doers of iniquity
Peace be upon Israel.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Darfur: Two Ways Forward.
To the humanitarian crisis in Darfur nations can intervene in two general sorts of ways: violently or non-violently. Of course there is a third way forward which is the passive non-intervention method; I am excluding this option from consideration in this post under the assumption that the crisis in Darfur requires intervention. So here I will briefly list the American government's options under both the violent and non-violent interventions. In a later post I will explore these options further.
Violent Intervention:
1) Unilateral Aggression (the US forcibly intervenes without the consent of any other sate).
2) Multilateral Aggression (the US forcibly intervenes with several states without the consent of some other states).
3) UN Mediated Aggression (UN security counsel approves intervention by force).
4) Proxy Aggression (a state(s) provides the guns/munitions, intelligence, military training and/or money to rebel forces).
Non-Violent Intervention:
1) International Diplomacy (the US government applies pressure on the Chinese government to in turn apply pressure on the Khartoum government).
2) Sanctions (the US government enforces trade embargoes against Sudan).
3) Incentives (the US government promises aide relief or financial assistance to Darfur if all the rebel groups engage in peace talks with Khartoum).
Violent Intervention:
1) Unilateral Aggression (the US forcibly intervenes without the consent of any other sate).
2) Multilateral Aggression (the US forcibly intervenes with several states without the consent of some other states).
3) UN Mediated Aggression (UN security counsel approves intervention by force).
4) Proxy Aggression (a state(s) provides the guns/munitions, intelligence, military training and/or money to rebel forces).
Non-Violent Intervention:
1) International Diplomacy (the US government applies pressure on the Chinese government to in turn apply pressure on the Khartoum government).
2) Sanctions (the US government enforces trade embargoes against Sudan).
3) Incentives (the US government promises aide relief or financial assistance to Darfur if all the rebel groups engage in peace talks with Khartoum).
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Those wicked barbarians...Part II
I believe their is a kernal of truth in Foucault's idea that there is an exclusionary shadow that stubbornly trails modernity's history of inclusion. He carries his line of thought from Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra) who in his reading of the gospels makes the point that it was the "good and just" who murdered Jesus not the "wicked." The "good and just" could not understand Jesus because their "spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience" and they crucified him because they construed as evil his rejection of their notions of good. Foucault lifts up "the rational" and "the civilized" (Madness and Civilization) in much the same light as Nietzsche's "good and just." For Foucault "civilization" is a smooth destroyer of those things inside and outside of itself that it construes as "immoral" and "barbarous."
Think what you might about Nietzsche and Foucault, they raise a good point here that the "moral" and "civilized" self all too often relies on the exclusion of the "barberous" and "immoral" other. The "moral" and "civilized" self looks upon the "barberous" Muslims that suicidally killed Americans and says "You are wrong" from an imiplied position of "I am right."
As Jesus so prophetically asked in front of his audience, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"
PS: I borrowed this strand of thought from Miroslav Volf.
Think what you might about Nietzsche and Foucault, they raise a good point here that the "moral" and "civilized" self all too often relies on the exclusion of the "barberous" and "immoral" other. The "moral" and "civilized" self looks upon the "barberous" Muslims that suicidally killed Americans and says "You are wrong" from an imiplied position of "I am right."
As Jesus so prophetically asked in front of his audience, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"
PS: I borrowed this strand of thought from Miroslav Volf.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Those wicked barbarians.
Here is an excerpt from the most recent UN report on Darfur:
"The HLM has also received credible information of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment by National Security and Military Intelligence during attacks and in the treatment of detainees. The methods used include beatings with whips, sticks and gun butts, prolonged sun exposure, starvation, electrocution, and burning with hot candle wax or molten plastic. Many detainees are held incommunicado without charge or access to a lawyer."
Does this sort of treatment of 'enemies' remind you of any particular Western democratic government?
"The HLM has also received credible information of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment by National Security and Military Intelligence during attacks and in the treatment of detainees. The methods used include beatings with whips, sticks and gun butts, prolonged sun exposure, starvation, electrocution, and burning with hot candle wax or molten plastic. Many detainees are held incommunicado without charge or access to a lawyer."
Does this sort of treatment of 'enemies' remind you of any particular Western democratic government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
