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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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).

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:

"Since early January 2007, there have been frequent attacks on Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government troops in Mogadishu, either against convoys travelling on key routes in the city or against troop locations and official residences, including hotels. There has been an increase in targeted assassinations of persons, including those suspected of being informers or supporters of the Government, and prominent figures. Buildings that house Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government troops have been subjected to mortar attacks, as have the Mogadishu airport, the main seaport and Villa Somalia, the official State House in the capital. There has been a resurgence of inter- and intra-clan fighting in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia."

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

Psalm 120

In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me.
Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.
What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?
Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper.
Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar!
My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.
I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.

Darfur: A Brief History of the Crisis.

I would like to begin surveying the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Eventually I will explore the possibilities of both aggressive and pacifistic interventions in Darfur. Today, however, I will offer a brief history of the crisis.

This post is an excerpt taken from the 2007 UN report on the Darfur crisis (released in March 2007). Full text is available at:

www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/4session/A-HRC-4-80.doc

A - Brief history and causes of the conflict

The causes of conflict in Darfur are complex. Historically, tribal groups have come into conflict over land, water or livestock, but such disputes were settled through traditional tribal mechanisms. But in the 1970s, in part in an effort to modernize, Khartoum introduced a number of administrative changes that began to erode those mechanisms. First Darfur was divided into three states, fragmenting the collective power of tribal groups. Khartoum then appointed new officials with both executive and judicial powers at the state level, and appointed leaders at the local level based upon loyalty to the central government, without regard to the traditional leadership recognized by the communities. While traditional mechanisms were still sought out, those structures were severely weakened, just as power relations between groups were being distorted.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, increased desertification and drought resulted in significant movements of people, with nomadic groups moving deeper into southern areas as well as “newcomers” entering from Chad, Libya Arab Jamahiriya and Mauritania. With Darfur’s own issues of scarce water and other resources, relations became increasingly contentious. The intensity of conflicts increased significantly with the formation of village defense groups and militias and the influx of small arms and light weapons into the region. By the end of the 1980s most conflict was between the Fur and nomadic tribes.

In addition to the struggles around land and resources, the peoples of Darfur have felt discriminated against and marginalized by the central Government. Generally excluded from social services normally provided by the State such as education and basic medical care, they have had no significant political voice in Khartoum. Attempts by the Government to mediate ongoing tribal conflicts produced no long-term results, fueling the perception that Khartoum was unwilling or unable to protect Darfurians or to address their broader needs. Quite to the contrary, as fighting intensified between 1995-1998, the Government began its recruitment of militias, further aggravating divisions.

Against this backdrop of conflict and marginalization, two rebel groups began to organize in 2001/02 – the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) – drawing their members primarily from village defense groups. Most rebels were from the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa tribes. Interestingly, they were calling for equality and justice for all Sudanese and not just redress of more narrow tribal interests. The rebel forces began attacking Government police and military targets in late 2002, and those attacks accelerated in 2003.

B- Nature of the Government’s response

The Government was not prepared either for the intensity or the successes of the rebel attacks. With many of its forces engaged in its long war with the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan, Khartoum was also concerned because many rank and file soldiers in the Sudanese military were from Darfur. The Government significantly picked up its recruitment of proxy militias, continuing to exploit the existing and ongoing tensions between tribal groups. Those members of Arab tribes recruited to fight in Government-backed counterinsurgency operations became known as “Janjaweed,” which is a term used in Darfur for an armed man on horse or camel.

Janjaweed attacks, sometimes in concert with Government land and air forces have been and continue to be primarily directed against the civilian population of Darfur, and focused especially on the tribal groups from which most of the rebels have been drawn. In both refugee camps, and in our discussions with a number of observers, we were told of such joint attacks on civilians. Women, children and men have been killed indiscriminately. Villages have been razed, livestock stolen or killed, and crops destroyed, and whole populations forcefully displaced, in part in an attempt to deprive rebel groups of support and resources. In particular, rape and sexual assault have been widespread and systematic, terrorizing women and breaking down families and communities.

III- The Darfur Peace Agreement, the ensuing violence and the responsibility to protect

Attempts to resolve the conflict began in 2003, and a ceasefire between the Government and the SLM/A was signed on 3 September of that year. A report to the AU Peace and Security Council read, “Following the September Ceasefire Agreement, fighting largely stopped between the Government and the SLM/A. However violence intensified against the civilian population. A militia group called ‘DJanjaweed’ deliberately targeted civilians viewed as providing support to the SLM/A and the JEM.”

As violence and violations of human rights continued, so did attempts to stop the conflict. On 8 April 2004, the Government, the SLM/A, and JEM signed a humanitarian ceasefire agreement and protocols on establishing humanitarian assistance in Darfur. The ceasefire agreement called for the establishment of a Ceasefire Commission (CFC) to monitor the cessation of hostilities, supported by an AU Observer Mission. Appeals were made to the United Nations and the international community to support the CFC, to “ensure the scrupulous compliance” of warring parties to the ceasefire.

Subsequent efforts for peace in Darfur took place in Addis Ababa and in Abuja mediated by the African Union and with all parties to the conflict participating. But against this backdrop, violence was again on the rise in Darfur as all parties sought military gains to advantage them in the talks. At the seventh round of negotiations, the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed on 5 May 2006, but only by the Government and by one faction of the SLM (that of Mini Minawi, SLM/MM). The SLA faction led by Abdul Wahid (SLM/AW) did not sign, nor did the JEM.

Since the signing of the DPA, the security situation in the region has deteriorated. Non-signatory rebel factions have splintered. Though hostilities have been significantly reduced between the two signatories to the DPA, fighting between signatories and those opposed to the DPA escalated in violation of the ceasefire agreements. Attempts by these factions to meet and develop common positions for renewed efforts to open the DPA to new negotiations have been attacked and bombed by Government forces. Violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have increased by all parties to the conflict since the signing of the DPA. Armed banditry and other criminal activity have also increased.

People began to flee the fighting that erupted in Sudan’s western region of Darfur in early 2003. By the end of 2004, some 200,000 Sudanese had fled across the border to neighboring Chad and an estimated 1.6 million were displaced within Darfur. The deteriorating security situation since the DPA has resulted in tens of thousands of newly displaced – now totaling well over two million displaced people in Darfur -- and 30,000 more refugees in the camps in Chad, with new arrivals daily.

Cross-border attacks into Chad by Janjaweed and retaliations by rebels and Chadian forces have resulted in a dramatic increase in Chadian IDPs – from about 30,000 in June of 2006 to over 113,000 by the end of that year. Today, the conflict is also having a growing impact in the Central African Republic. If the conflict in Darfur is not meaningfully and equitably resolved, bringing peace and security to its people, it could increasingly engulf the region. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a peace-keeping force along both borders.

Humanitarian aid has, since the beginning of the conflict, consistently been restricted by the Government with delays in the issuing of visas, travel permits to go to Darfur, daily travel permits to leave the capitals in Darfur, and fuel permits to travel around Darfur. But with the spiraling of violence since the DPA, humanitarian access to populations in dire need has been increasingly strangled and in some areas it has ceased entirely. Action by rebel groups has also impacted humanitarian access in recent months.

Attacks on humanitarian agencies have increased dramatically over the past months. On 17 January 2007, in an unprecedented initiative, 14 UN agencies with operations in Darfur issued a Joint Statement on the urgency of the situation. They noted that: 12 aid workers have been killed in the past 6 months -- more than in the previous 2 years; 30 NGO and UN compounds were directly attacked by armed groups; and more than 400 aid workers were forced to relocate 31 times from different locations throughout the 3 Darfur states in both government and rebel controlled areas There have also been three sexual assaults on relief workers in the previous five months – the first in September 2006 by Janjaweed /militia, the second in December 2006 by SLA/MM forces, and the third on 19 January 2007 by Government police and National Security agents.

IV - Sudan’s actions regarding the Responsibility to Protect

The witnesses, victims and observers with whom we spoke, and the UN and other documentation consulted underscore that the killing of civilians in Darfur remains widespread. Violence has increased since late 2005 and has continued unabated into 2007. There were numerous large scale attacks on civilian communities during this period. Descriptions of these attacks indicate that tactics used have been very similar to those used during the height of the war in Darfur in late 2003 and 2004, characterized by (1) coordination of operations between the Sudanese armed forces and government-supported militia, (2) failure to respect the principles of distinction and proportionality, and (3) grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. While precise figures are not available, the UN estimates that 200,000 civilians have been killed as a direct result of the conflict or due to its devastating impact on access to health care, food and other life essentials.

Rape and sexual violence are widespread across Darfur, including cases of gang-rape. Since May 2006 sexual violence has also been reported in intra-tribal attacks. Despite the well-known patterns of rape of women around IDP camps, the authorities have done little to diminish the threat or investigate cases reported. Monitoring of the criminal justice system over the last two years has shown that very few cases of rape are investigated or prosecuted relative to the number of incidents that occur. Access to justice and prosecution of rape is further complicated both by cultural and by institutional factors, including the provisions of the criminal law combining rape and adultery in the same article. Women are also attacked in and around refugee camps in Chad.

Arbitrary arrest and detention in Darfur by government security forces continue. Individuals reportedly targeted include lawyers, community leaders and others who work on human rights, Sudanese who work for international organizations or who are perceived as cooperating too closely with the international community, individuals who share the predominant ethnicities of various rebel groups, and Sudanese who display opposition political views. Since May 2006 security forces have also targeted individuals who openly oppose the DPA. Sudanese who work closely with IDPs are also targeted, often on the basis of accusations that they encourage popular discontent and anti-government sentiment.

Since September 2006 there has been a wave of arrests of Darfurians in Khartoum. The arrests of over 30 Darfurian teachers, businessmen, journalists and university students predominately from the Fur, Masaalit and Zaghawa tribes have been carried out by the police and National Security, purportedly in furtherance of the investigation into the murder of Mohamed Taha, a prominent editor. Former detainees suggest that the murder investigation is being used as a pretext to arrest those with perceived links to rebel movements in Darfur. To date 13 detainees have been released due to lack of evidence, with three released as recently as 29 January 2007. Another three continue to be held without charge while 19 others have been charged with murder.

Arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly are widespread. Human rights defenders, lawyers, local leaders and political opponents voicing concerns or expressing views that are critical, of the Government, continue to be particularly vulnerable to abuses by state security agencies. The UN has documented numerous cases of people being harassed, arrested, detained and physically abused for voicing their human rights concerns. The victims include members of NGOs, journalists, and people who file complaints with the police or other government officials.

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.

Leahy for President in 2008?

How does one vote in the upcoming presidential elections for 2008? I realize that there is no perfect way to research for the elections, but I thought I would share my own own limited method for those interested. The method I use is to choose two or three realms that I believe to be paramount in our nations future, then research how the candidates have acted/voted/preached on issues related to those realms.

In this years election one issue I am focusing on is international diplomacy: in particular non-proliferation as it pertains to Iran and North Korea. Over one year ago the US Senate decided to approve the sale of nuclear material and reactors to India with the passage of bill HR 5682 entitled the `United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006'. In this legislation the US Government reversed its history of abstaining from sharing nuclear material/technology with India. Why has America abstained from trading nuclear abilities with India in the past? Well, in 1954 the US government passed the Atomic Energy Act. One of the relevant statement from this act is as follows: "No nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology shall be exported to any non-nuclear-weapon state that is found by the President to have, at any time after the effective date of this section, detonated a nuclear explosive device..." (Section 129). India tested its first nuclear bomb on May 18th, 1974--roughly 20 years after the Atomic Energy Act was passed in Congress. Consequently, the US government has been legally unable to trade nuclear technology to India.

Then, why has the US government created new legislation (HR 5682) to begin trading nuclear technology with India? The recently passed legislation which exempts India from the 1954 Nuclear Energy Act lists several rational for trading with India. One is that "commerce in civil nuclear materials between India and the US and other countries has the potential to benefit people of all countries." This is a not so obvious way of saying that the growing Indian economy desperately needs energy. Another rationale listed in the legislation is that "strong bilateral relations with India are in the national interests of the United States." In other words, the current world is an incubator for two growing powers, India and China. We might as well make fast friends with one of them.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing phrases in the legislation is this: "such commerce (with India) also represents a significant change in United States policy regarding commerce with countries not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which remains the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime..."

What is this Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and why is it disturbing that the United States policy is changing regarding countries not parties to it? The NPT was signed by countries to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the thin hope that we might not blow this earth to bits. Article I of the NPT reads: "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes...not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices." Language from HR 5682 includes this same word "encourage" when speaking of the US duty to avoid encouraging India from "in any way" increasing their fissile material for non-civilian purposes (Sec. 103.9). My take is that the inclusion of this word is an attempt to overtly endorse the NPT while winking coyly at India. After all, in what way does the American deal to send nuclear material to India not encourage production of fissile material for non-civilian purposes? Especially given the lack of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to monitor India's current nuclear weapons program. Allow me to ask this, if we are providing energy for civilian purposes does this not allow India to devote more of their indigenous nuclear material for weapons production?

My answer to the above question is, "It is probable and plausible that America is indirectly encouraging India to develop weapons." The one factor that would change this plausibility is if India would allow monitoring of all its nuclear facilities. As my Indian patient commented, the odds of a national power allowing access to its military facilities are slim to non. And yet without IAEA monitors at all of India's reactors (both military and civilian) there is no assurance that India is not increasing its nuclear arsenal.

India is one of a handful of nations (Israel, Pakistan, North Korea) who have not signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and one of several countries who flaunt their nuclear weapons program. "Who else flaunts their programs as overtly as India?" you might ask. Pakistan for one; and North Korea for a second; and Iran for a third. If we are indirectly encouraging India to produce nuclear weapons, then what becomes of our moral credibility as we continue to discourage Iran and North Korea from developing/enhancing nuclear weapons programs? With this recent legislation the United States government has unfortunately injured its credibility with regards to non-proliferation. I believe that this will in turn harm the US strategy to illicit multilateral pressure upon North Korea and Iran to halt their respective nuclear programs.


The United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 was passed in congress last year. In the House the vote was 330 in favor and 59 against. In the Senate the vote was 85 in favor and 12 against. Here are the names of the Senators who voted against HR 5682:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)


From this list I recognize only two names: Kennedy and Leahy. For various reasons I would abhor having Kennedy as president. On the other hand, I know nothing about Leahy. Maybe I will write him in in the 2008 presidential election. Hmmm.

Synopsis of the last post in 110 words or less...

My last post addressed the question, “Is national aggression an unjustifiable, but necessary thing?”

The pacifist answers this question in the negative and might provide two arguments to explain this answer. First, the end does not justify the means. While the supposed end of aggression is the defense of the weak, the means (violent destruction) are not justified by such a defense. Second, theistic justification for aggression adds evidence to the atheistic assertion that morals originate solely from a drive to survive. While the 'aggressive theist' points to God, his morals point to Darwin. It is the pacifist's morals that have the potential to point to a god beyond nature.

Anyone need some violence?

If you are in accord with the general thrust of this blog up to now you agree that human violence is not justifiable. The notion of just war is fine in theory only. In reality it is an idealist pipe dream. War is never just, given the destruction it yields and given the wicked men who pursue it. War could be just only if it could be conducted by a morally pure person (or nation) who had the power of restoring everyone after that war. Unfortunately, no human (or nation) fits this description.

But viewing war as unjustifiable does not exclude a view of war as a necessary evil. Allow me to return to quote form a past post (March 2, 2007):

"Let us say, then, that national aggression is not justifiable. We may still decide that it is a necessary evil. For instance, how can one say that national aggression should not be pursued when such wickedly violent acts are being perpetrated upon vulnerable people? To make this question even more vivid we could consider the story of a Muslim woman in Bosnia. She says, "My student, Zoran, the only son of my neighbor, urinated into my mouth. As the bearded hooligans standing around laughed, he told me: 'You are good for nothing else, you stinking Muslim woman...' I do not know whether I first heard the cry or felt the blow. My former colleague, a teacher of physics, was yelling like mad, 'Ustasha, ustasha....' and kept hitting me. Wherever he could. I have become insensitive to pain. But my soul? It hurts." (The Killing of Sarajevo, Vukovic).

What are we to do with this woman? Sit around and pretend nothing is happening? Allow her tormentors to take advantage? Is it not right to flex a little muscle on behalf of the weak?"

Perhaps aggression is a necessary evil. Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed something along those lines. He wrote, "How should the Christian act in war? There is no plain commandment of God on this point. The church can never bless war or weapons. The Christian can never take part in an unjust war. If a Christian takes to the sword he will daily pray to God for forgiveness of the sin and pray for peace" (Bethge 188). Bonhoeffer would later say that there can be no justification for war, even a defensive war (Bethge 386). What is truly remarkable about him is that years after expressing these views he decided to aid in an assassination plan to kill Hitler. Additionally, he began an elaborate lie in which he attempted to deceive the Nazi authorities about his complicity in the assassination attempt. (He viewed it as a worse sin for a lover of lies to tell the truth than for a lover of truth to tell a lie.) Bonhoeffer never sought to justify his actions, but rather accepted Christ's words, 'They that take the sword shall parish with the sword.' In the mind of Bonhoeffer he drew no solace by pretending that God was justifying his plans for violence. Bonhoeffer pursued injustice (murder) with the hopes of obtaining some future justice (an end to Nazi oppression); he believed in doing this he was sinning and in need of God's forgiveness.

So is this the way for a Christian to act on behalf of the weak (e.g.: children, enslaved persons, conquered folk)? For the Christian pacifist the answer to this question is an unqualified no. If violence is not justifiable then it should not be pursued. For the pacifist the end does not justify the means (this is similar reasoning to the means/end argument against abortion for the sake of preventing the birth of a child with catastrophic defects). Life is sacred and cannot be crunched in some casualty computation in which this many lives lost is on one side and this many lives saved is on the other side.


How does the intellectual Christian pacifist answer the question of violence as necessary evil? Well, she might engage in an evolutionary argument against naturalistically derived morals. (I have never heard or read of this argument being employed by a pacifist. Here I have whimsically adapted this argument from arguments made by some atheists; it is also of note that I have taken considerable inspiration from the analytic theist Alvin Plantinga. I am obviously not a logician so my apologies for the crassness of this argument.) The argument goes something like this: The probability of pacifistic practices being preserved is low, given the rule of reciprocal altruism and the ubiquitous presence of violent conflict; yet pacifism exists. This is represented as such:

P(Pa/A & V) is low and yet Pa,

where 'Pa' is the proposition that pacifistic beliefs are preserved and practiced, 'A' the proposition that morals have evolved naturalistically based on current theories of reciprocal altruism, and 'V' the proposition that violence is ubiquitous within society.

All atheists claim that societal morals have their origin naturally without the strong arm of God delivering them to the world. Some atheists invoke Darwin's theory of natural selection to postulate the specific mechanics of how morals originate apart from God. They say that morals are rules accepted by a society for the purpose of self preservation. Moral rules which survive the test of time are the ones which give certain societies the upper hand among societies with radically different morals. For instance, the society which morally embraces strict homosexuality as a normative practice for all men will have a shrinking population; the society which morally embraces infant sacrifice will have ever decreasing descendants; the society which morally embraces recreation above industry will slip into economic depression. On the contrary, the society which embraces reciprocal altruism (something like, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you') builds a sense of trust and cooperation. In this society people do not have to spend as much energy on discerning whether or not to trust their neighbors. Instead they can put time and energy into cooperating in building families, businesses and governments. Simply put morality is not from God, rather it is a mechanism for survival. All morals serve to increase survivability (see Michael Shermer in The Science of Good and Evil).

Of course this is true of almost all morals. We embrace the practice of reciprocal altruism as long as it protects us, our kin, or our nation. However, when survival is at stake we have a different set of morals governed by the principal of protection at the expense of the competition (aggression). Aggression is pursued for the sake of survival. Once the competition is either eliminated or co-opted into the victorious society a return to the practice of reciprocal altruism occurs.

Here the naturalistic philosophers have made headway in explaining the possible natural origins of morality. However, what is to be said of renegade morals such as unconditional altruism? When a sub-society embraces the moral of unconditional altruism how does it continue to survive? Such a question is relevant to any pacifist culture. Here the culture embraces a moral which commits altruism even when others do not reciprocate. Is such a society evolutionarily disadvantaged? Likewise, we should ask about the society which embraces conditional reciprocal altruism (e.g.: the aggressive nation). Is such a society merely serving the purpose of its own survival?

In my next post I will turn this question of aggression as a necessary evil toward the current Darfur crisis. I will begin by reviewing the history of the conflict and assessing some of the possible causes of the violence. Then, I will build on previous posts to assess the possibility of both violent and non-violent interventions in the crisis.

No Joke

To the idea of pacifism there exist a gamut of responses from reverence to avoidance to mockery. I would like to briefly comment on the response of mockery.

The mocker is a person who finds special joy in exulting over others through demeaning language. The mocker does not pause to consider the complexities of life, but rather rapidly moves to an ignorant commentary with a sneer on the face. When the mocker hears the word 'pacifism' he goes to his work without heed to the depths of the idea. "Look where Gandhi's pacifism got him. Isn't it ironic that he was trying to end violence when he was violently killed?" Such a sentence is usually followed by cackles.

Now there is nothing wrong about having fun with a poor idea. Poor ideas deserve to be shown for what they are. But, this is not what the mocker is doing. The mocker reverts to second grade. He sets up his straw man and gets a thrill out of knocking it down time and time again. Should the mocker be interested, he might examine the idea thoroughly for all that it is worth. Perhaps then he would have something of real humor to offer on the subject. I predict that his humor would have a bit more respect though.

Gandhi preached the virtue of courage. To him courage was a more elementary and more weighty virtue than any other. He once said that people who lack courage should not be pacifists. To him it was better that they commit violence and thereby prove their courage versus avoiding violence as a matter of cowardice. A pacifist need be ready to lose his life to the violent for the sake of peace. Additionally, according to Gandhi not only is the person who hides behind pacifism a coward, but also the person who gives intellectual assent to just war but avoids active duty in that war.

To the mocker I say, 'What's to laugh at here? Should we poke fun at courage?' Perhaps the mocker mocks because he lacks the kind of courage needed.

The mocker who scorns pacifists for not achieving 'their goal' of world peace is an ignorant man. The goal of a pacifist is not necessarily to bring global harmony. At the root of the sort of pacifism which I am examining is a refusal to respond violently to violence. Christ on the cross did not pray, "Father help them to follow my example and put an end to violent reprisal. Amen." Nor did He pray like the fundamentalist, "Father, smite them in Thy holy vengeance for what they have done unto Thy faithful servant." No, no, no, no. His prayer was, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Listen to that. This is no silly John Lennon idea of the whole world getting caught up in a global hug. Nor is there any cry for retaliation. This sort of pacifism is courageously reckoning with the world as it is and refusing to be conformed to it even to the point of death. This sort of pacifism is about paving the path for future reconciliation, even if it means that the pacifist must lay down his life as the first step in that path.

Kosovo Revisited

Before moving on to discuss the Darfur crisis of today I would like to reflect on the Kosovo humanitarian crisis of 1999. This brief reflection will put us in good stead to consider Darfur.

During the 1990’s we in America had encountered countless news stories of unrest in the former Yugoslav states. Seemingly, state after state succeeded from Yugoslavia in bloody battles between ethnic groups we had never heard of. By 1999 the reports on western TV had become climactic: CNN reported mass graves in Kosovo and displayed grim looking pictures of the tyrannical Milosevic. According to the media, the Serbs were the bad guys and the Kosovar Albanians were the helpless oppressed.

The West decided to take action in Kosovo through a NATO bombing campaign, relegating the UN to pointless arguments over what qualifies as genocide.

When Bill Clinton gave US sanction to the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo I remember how morally gratified I felt. “Finally, someone is standing up and taking action to combat Serbian oppression,” I thought to myself. No more stalling with foolish diplomacy and no more fruitless debates while thousands in Kosovo are ruthlessly raped, tortured and executed. It was time for NATO to bring justice down on the head of Milosevic and his genocidal maniac comrades.

Over two months later the NATO bombing campaign ended with ‘victory.’ Serbia withdrew from Kosovo and ethnic Albanians were going to be able to return home. Again, I remember how morally gratified I felt that the West had finally stood up and taken action.

And this was the way I continued to feel until recently when I listened to Noam Chomsky’s Gifford Lecture series, “Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times.” During his lecture Noam points out that the vast majority of Serbian atrocities were committed after the NATO bombing campaign began. Noam’s point is simple, military aggression did not prevent the genocide in Kosovo. In fact, the bombings exacerbated the violence. One retired UN Force Commander (Lt Gen Satish Nambiar) very prophetically noted during the second week of NATO’s bombing campaign that the intervention was fatally flawed. He implied that the atrocities being committed during the bombings may have been spontaneous acts of revenge and retaliation by Serb forces against Kosovar Albanians for urging the West to bomb the Serb forces.

Lt Gen Nambiar states that when Western media portrayed the Serbs as 'evil aggressors' and the Kosovar Albanians as 'innocent' it was not only counterproductive but also dishonest. For instance, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) published a sobering human rights account of the atrocities in Kosovo. This report shows that once the NATO bombing had ceased, violence in Kosovo was predominately carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army (ethnic Albanians) on Kosovo Serbs. Four months after the “successful” bombing by NATO had ended the cycle of violence continued with the 'oppressed' attacking the 'oppressors'. Not much had changed in Kosovo. What had changed most remarkably was that the West had appeased its moral conscience through an expensive but sanitized bombing campaign. Whether or not justice was served or subjugated by NATO is a more complicated picture.