Rumors of War

From the U.S. Department of State

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on draft resolution

to authorize the use of military force against ISIL at the White House

 on February 11, 2015.

Last week we got a look at how our policy in the Middle East seems to be unfolding:

ISIS is a big problem. It is a problem that resulted from U.S. military intervention in Iraq which destabilized the region and has caused a generation of young people to grow up in Iraq knowing nothing but war and societal dysfunction. After a decade of military action, we were unable to establish any kind of stability in the region. Now with ISIS ascending, we have decided to try… what? A new campaign of military intervention. I suppose because it “worked so well” the first time. 

A Severe Lack of Imagination

The problem is that virtually every military campaign and military offensive the U.S. has launched in my lifetime has done more harm than good. I becomes obvious that, one, we don't understand any culture other than our own (and even that is questionable); and two, we seem to always think that military intervention is the best and only option, even while claiming it is a last resort.

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning president approves of new military action and has sent a resolution to congress to authorize the use of military force. Most people, when asked, say they don’t see what else can be done in this situation. Our problem is not in lack of strength.  Our problem is a severe lack of imagination as to how to engage other countries and other cultures.

The big problem with everyone saying, "I'm not sure what else we can do," is that nothing but warfare gets done, and societies are made dysfunctional and our own soldiers are wounded at every level. Just look at the PTSD, suicides, unemployed veterans, families bearing the burden for our claims for "fighting for freedom" when we are in actuality just doing the bidding of corporations. Moreover, there would not be the mess that needs fixing if we had not intervened in the first place. 

We didn't know what we were starting when we invaded Iraq, and now we don't know how to stop it. We are Empire, and our footsteps carry mostly destruction.

Re-imagining the World

If the 20th century taught us anything, it should have been that war is no longer a viable option for a workable society. Our world is too small, and our weapons are too large. Europe was devastated when modern nations tried to settle their differences the way leaders settled them in the past - by launching military offensives. The problem was that it was no longer kings sending out soldiers and knights on horseback with spears, swords, and lances to fight in some field outside the city gates, with the occasional crashing of the city gates. The modern army had tanks and artillery, planes and bombs, that immediately brought unspeakable devastation to civilian populations. We need a way to re-imagine conflict. we need a new way to settle our differences.

Historically, since the mid 17th century, the Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) have shown the world a radical way of living that does not include war and violence. While most Christian churches through the years have backed their national governments in matters of war and other violent acts such as the death penalty, The Quakers have made it their Christian witness to stand against violence, war and oppression. The American Friends Service Committee has a strong track record in the area of non-violent alternatives. Thankfully, others have followed their lead and today we have a number of organizations helping the cause for peace and helping us all to rethink our courses of action.

The American Friends Service Committee The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that promotes lasting peace with justice, as a practical expression of faith in action. Drawing on continuing spiritual insights and working with people of many backgrounds, we nurture the seeds of change and respect for human life that transform social relations and systems.

            See their website at http://afsc.org/about

Although the Catholic Church has been criticized for historically standing on the side of emperors and empire, Catholic social teaching based upon the New Testament Gospel and the Old Testament prophets has spawned a number of groups seeking to bring about a more just, equitable and peaceful society. Pax Christi is one example:

Pax Christi USA Grounded in the Gospel and Catholic social teaching, Pax Christi USA (PCUSA) is a membership organization that rejects war, preparation for war, every form of violence and domination, and personal and systemic racism.

            Check out their website at  http://paxchristiusa.org/about/our-vision/

There are also many non-religious, secular-based groups that are effectively supporting peace and justice in the world. Peace Direct is just one of those groups:

Peace Direct – Supporting local action against conflict

We believe that local people have the power to find their own solutions to conflict – and to build their own better futures. Our mission is to help them make this happen. We are an international charity dedicated to supporting local peacebuilding.

In the world’s most fragile countries, we seek out local peacebuilders who are making a real difference – building peace from the grassroots up, preventing conflict in the places where it starts – locally.

They are disarming rebels, resettling refugees, healing communities, reviving economies. They work at great personal risk on crucial problems like child soldiers, women and conflict, youth and peace, political violence. They are the key to preventing conflicts and creating a lasting peace.

We find them, fund them, and promote their work to those in the wider world who can help with finance or influence.

            You can read more about Peace Direct at http://www.peacedirect.org/us/about/

For those who say, "I don't see what else we can do," these are just three examples of groups that are willing to re-imagine a world where peace and justice are possible – a world that is not dominated by empires that know only war and aggression. There are other organizations as well that are involved in the cause of peace and justice. Please take some time to look into some of these groups that are doing so much to advance peace and justice while our governments and empires flail about, crushing many innocents and uprooting whole communities in their unimaginative attempts to govern.

-

Let's Be Honest about War

"Guernica" by Pablo Picaso

     "Anyone who advocates for war should 

first take into account what war truly entails"

Amazingly, there are voices in the news media who are once again drumming up a case for U.S. military action in Iraq. Iraq should be “Exhibit A” in the case against war. Military invasion resulted in chaos, the loss of thousands of lives, and the destruction of social infrastructure. At a cost of over 2 trillion dollars and  4,800 American lives (plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths), the result is continued misery and increased instability in the Middle East. We as a country were drawn into military conflict on decisions based upon fear. The public was still fearful and uneasy following the 911 attack in 2001, and the politicians who authorized military involvement in Iraq were fearful that they would not get votes back home if they did not go along with the drums of war being sounded by the chief executive. Today, with Iraq once again in turmoil, some are suggesting the need for more military action. Before entering into a new war, we need to be completely honest about all of the details. 

First, we should be clear about why Iraq and the Middle East are “vital to U.S. interests.” It is not a desire to “spread democracy,” it was never about “weapons of mass destruction,” and it is not even about the security of Israel. The reason we have a vital interest in the region is oil, which even President George W. Bush admitted we have an addiction to. Back in 1973 our country experienced an oil crisis. Some astute leaders said that it was time to invest in alternative energy sources. If we had launched such a national effort then, we would not be nearly so concerned about the Middle East region now. There would be little question that they should just work out their differences among themselves – without U.S. interference. There were, in fact, many who questioned invasion of Iraq at the outset, saying back in 2003 that there should be no blood for oil. Almost half the country, in fact, were opposed to entering into war.

Second, and most important, we must be honest about the nature of war. We have a long history of glorifying war and making it seem noble and honorable on national holidays. We look to World War II as the grand example of a justified war. Even with that war to end an evil regime, few people then or now could grasp the true horror that is unleashed in wartime.

Perhaps the two arguments most often heard to justify military action are national security and the just war theory. These arguments overlap, as one could claim both arguments in a situation of national defense. In reading modern justifications for armed conflict, I notice that not many people are referring to the just war theory, but for some it is important to use that concept to measure the need for military action. My own view is that war is never a moral choice and that we must find other means for settling our differences. Too often, the just war theory is simply one more attempt to justify war. If one is to make the argument for war, however, it is crucial to acknowledge the full reality of the nature of war.

Realities of War

On the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, Paul Fussell wrote a piece for The Atlantic Monthly titled, “The Real War.” In that article, Fussell made the case that most Americans have no notion of the true horrors of war. When we were engaged in WWII, reporters had an unwritten understanding that the true nature of war would not be stated for the sake of keeping people back home optimistic as well as for the purpose of not jeopardizing the war effort. Such a widespread lack of understanding about what front line troops were facing, Fussell points out, led to immense cynicism on the part of American military personnel reflected verbally in such acronyms as SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR.

No one wrote about conditions on the front line where soldiers had no latrines, lived in filth, saw the internal organs of their buddies scattered about, and faced the growing knowledge that they would likely not make it out alive. Fussell quotes General Eisenhower who wrote a rare explicit passage on the carnage of war in Crusade in Europe, describing the battlefield at the Falaise Pocket: "It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping on nothing but dead and decaying flesh." Fussell goes on to tell of why the public was so unaware of the realities or WWII:

How is it that these data are commonplaces only to the small number who had some direct experience of them? One reason is the normal human talent for looking on the bright side, for not receiving information likely to cause distress or to occasion a major overhaul of normal ethical, political, or psychological assumptions. But the more important reason is that the news correspondents, radio broadcasters, and film people who perceived these horrors kept quiet about them on behalf of the war effort, and so the large wartime audience never knew these things. As John Steinbeck finally confessed in 1958, "We were all part of the War Effort. We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it. . . . I don't mean that the correspondents were liars. . . . It is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies." By not mentioning a lot of things, a correspondent could give the audience at home the impression that there were no cowards in the service, no thieves or rapists or looters, no cruel or stupid commanders. It is true, Steinbeck was aware, that most military operations are examples of "disorganized insanity," but the morale of the home front could not be jeopardized by an eyewitness's saying so. And even if a correspondent wanted to deliver the noisome truth, patriotism would join censorship in stopping his mouth. As Steinbeck noted in Once There Was a War, "The foolish reporter who broke the rules would not be printed at home and in addition would be put out of the theater by the command.”

Anyone who advocates for war should first take into account what war truly entails. “The Real War,” by Paul Fussell is one excellent source, describing conventional war in stark and unromantic terms (that article can be found here). Those religious leaders and politicians who support national military action must make themselves aware of the “disorganized insanity” of battle. They must acknowledge the practices of rape, mayhem, bodily dismemberment, civilian death, and community destruction that are unleashed in wartime. We as a people must acknowledge that many soldiers we send into battle will return badly damaged in body and spirit. They will never overcome the personal horror they witnessed, to which we are blithely oblivious. We as a nation must realize the immense destruction that we leave in our wake when we choose war, as evidenced most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a result of more than a decade at war in the Middle East, we have brought debt to ourselves as well as our children and grandchildren. We have also brought about the destruction of infrastructure and the impossibility of a normal life to hundreds of thousands of people. We have made new enemies and bought at least another generation of ill will. We have forgotten about being a country that welcomes “the tired, the poor and the weary” and have focused on being an empire protecting energy sources. The democracy we pretend to be trying to export is becoming less and less recognizable here at home. In short, our military actions in recent years have brought horror to people abroad and a poverty of national purpose at home. These are only a few reasons why continued military action would be ill advised. The public has little appetite for more war, and if we truly saw the realities of war, most of us would be absolutely repulsed by the notion.

“A Defeat for Humanity”

I cannot get out of my mind the dissonant voices that were heard at the outset of the Iraq War, which was dubbed, “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Pope John Paul II urged restraint from the U.S. stating that war in Iraq would be a defeat for humanity. To me, that was a true prophetic voice from the community of faith, yet there were others from that same community of faith that were easily justifying military action. One example came from George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the official biographer of Pope John Paul II. Weigel wrote editorials stating why war in Iraq was justified. I know that Weigel is an intelligent man and a faithful Catholic, yet on the matter of war, he seemed to bend intellectual theory like a contortionist to make Operation Iraqi Freedom comply with the just war theory. On the one hand, his words sounded clean, antiseptic, intellectual and distant when he argued for military action. On the other hand, I wonder if George Weigel, like many others at the time, was speaking as an American living in fear rather than looking to the standards set by a community of faith. Or perhaps he just put the ideals of empire ahead of the ideals of faith.

The scandal at Abu Ghraib demonstrated how quickly military action can degenerate into unspeakable acts of inhumanity. Any time we advocate for military action, we must be willing to face the harsh realities, the inhumanity, and even the evil that is unleashed in wartime. Perhaps the difference between Pope John Paul II and George Weigel is that the Pope lived through the horrors of war in Poland while in Weigel's case the concept of war is discussed from the halls of academia, far removed from the realities of war. That is the problem that most of us Americans face when war is discussed – we are far removed from the bombing, maiming, and desolation of war.

When Pope John Paul II warned against war in Iraq, he was speaking from a long standing view toward peace. In his message at the celebration of the World Day of Peace in January of 2000, he stated:

The twentieth century bequeaths to us above all else a warning: wars are often the cause of further wars because they fuel deep hatreds, create situations of injustice and trample upon people's dignity and rights. Wars generally do not resolve the problems for which they are fought and therefore, in addition to causing horrendous damage, they prove ultimately futile. War is a defeat for humanity. Only in peace and through peace can respect for human dignity and its inalienable rights be guaranteed.

My hope is that we may come to realize that peace is gained through peace and that war will always be a defeat for humanity.

-