Sojo was on a roll with the thoughtful stuff. What happened?

Well, one can't hit a home run at every at-bat, can one? ;-)

However, Laituri didn't say "war itself is criminal." He said "the war, i.e., the Iraq war, itself is criminal and atrocious." At least that's how I took him. He wasn't calling all wars criminal (though there's some basis for arguing in favor of that), just this particular one. And he followed that by talking about "disregard of the rule of law", "corrupting our national conscience", and "dislocating our moral center," things I certainly feel we have been witness to.

Differ with Laituri's interpretation of current events if you wish to, but don't misstate what he wrote.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 12:18 PM

Letjustice makes some good points and I agree with him that the words "criminal" and "atrocious" need some better definition here if Logan is going to make the charges he is making.

Logan clearly doesn't believe all war is immoral or criminal (I doubt he would have joined the Armyif he felt so). But if it's the war in Iraq that he thinks is criminal and atrocious, by what guide does he judge wars? He writes (correctly in my view) that man-made law doesn't define what is immoral and moral, but then what does? If it's God's law, how does he differentiate the Iraq War from other wars that aren't criminal, in his mind? I think he needs to be clearer about what it is about the Iraq War that sets it apart from the other wars that makes it wrong.

I also want to note that the Winter Soldier hearings aren't just about Iraq, but about Afghanistan as well. They are clearly about more than just a "criminal" war in Iraq.

Posted by: Eric | February 20, 2008 12:38 PM

Mick - I don't think Logan is saying that individual soldiers who are simply out on patrol are guilty of criminal behavior. He's just saying the people who launched the war and the commanders who prosecuted it are engaging in the criminal activity.

But, as this is what I believe he's saying, I think his logic is still faulty. If the war is criminal and those who are responsible for starting and prosecuting the war are liable for this, why isn't anyone who faught in the war liable as well? If I were a low-level employee of a company that has executives that engage in criminal behavior and I go along with them in their criminal schemes, I'm still guilty along with the executives.

Posted by: Eric | February 20, 2008 1:33 PM

"However, Laituri didn't say "war itself is criminal." He said "the war, i.e., the Iraq war, itself is criminal and atrocious."

I read him wrong. My bad. I still disagree.

"The percentage of civilians dead in our wars grew from 25% to 50% to 70% last century over the course of all major conflicts."

This is partly a function of the enemies efficacy in killing our own troops. We suffered a far greater number of casualties in WW2. The number also reflects relaxed standards for what constitutes a civilian death.

Did a German dying of starvation count as an innocent death in Germany? What about an execution of Jewish prisoners prompted by a U.S. military attack? Both standards have been applied to this war in an effort to drive the civilian death toll as high as possible.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 20, 2008 2:14 PM

Was the US entry into WWII criminal and immoral?

Traditional Christian teaching would argue that all war is sin--always. That doesn't necessarily mean all war is unavoidable. War can be used as a means to prevent greater sin--which is what the traditional "just war" theory is all about, and is likely what WWII was largely--though imperfectly--about. But even if it is deemed necessary, it is still sin, and those who participate are not absolved of their sin just because it was necessary. In the Middle Ages, it was common for soldiers to observe a period of penance after coming home from battle.

At the same time, and I alluded to this earlier, it can be argued, and has been argued by more thoughtful minds than mine, that the methods and weapons of modern warfare (e.g., scorched earth techniques, modern weaponry) make waging a just war as Augustine and Aquinas envisioned it impossible today. I tend to concur with that thinking.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 2:52 PM

Both the allies in Europe and the Nazis engaged in wholesale firebombing of civilian target cities - with the stated end being the demoralisation through terror of the civilian populations, hopefully leading to the destabilisation of their governments.

This is much the same aim, in a microcosm, of the modern terrorist attack against civilians by non-state actors. However reprehensible, for it is nothing but murder, regardless of numbers slaughtered, modern groups have been unleashed from serious external moral argument by the precedent and hypocrisy of the Great Powers' own moral violations by utilizing terrorism in WW II, despite Roosevelt's own initial reluctance to engage in it.

That even Roosevelt later caved in to pressure for use of terrorism against civilians under duress of the continuing war reveals that Just War Theory restraints cannot be practically carried out when defeat looms and nations become desperate.

In such scenarios, there are literally no limits - which is why regional immolation by atomic holocaust, should Israel be attacked, is credible. Or America's own threat to unleash world annihilation should the homeland ever seriously be threatened with invasion.

Modern Israel - but certainly not only Israel - came into being under the effects of non-state groups like the Irgun and Stern Gang. Menachem Begin, later Israeli Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize co-winner, masterminded terrorist attacks like those on British civilians at the King David Hotel to successfully destabilize the British Mandate of Palestine.

In Japan, the death toll of a million or more civilians from the dropping of two atomic bombs on civilian targets, pales in comparison to the death toll from the wholesale firebombing campaign against the many other Japanese cities - all civilian targets. Again, the stated aim was the demoralization of the civilian population through terror - our new euphemism being "shock and awe? - in order to delegitimize the policy of the Japanese government itself.

In Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, the student Raskalnikov questions why an act by one or few people is called a crime, but done on a large scale by a Napoleon, murder becomes heroic.

It's not a question lost on many of those engaged in both the atomic program and those who loosed the napalm firestorms from afar - as if from 30,000 feet above the people looking as small as ants could be reduced to the life value of ants. Records of discussions of those involved showed that they speculated that they could be tried for war crimes - revealing that there was an innate sense of moral culpability. We might be able to exempt Curtis LeMay from that group, as upon his retirement, few wanted anything to do with him due to his peculiar - but useful in war - psychopathic moral views of killing.

Unfortunately, regardless of our protestations of holding to a higher moral ground, the unvarnished reality is that in our own perceived interests, there are no restraints except the limitations of technology and opposing force. Those tensions are clearly in view in our current arguments and justifications for abolition of "quaint" anachronisms like Geneva Convention prohibitions against torture, for new relaxed rules regarding pre-emptive wars an other moral gyrations. Apparently there is no moral ground that can be held once war is invoked, relegating Augustine's Just War Theory to the scrap heap.

So is one man's freedom fighter another man's terrorist?
It might seem so, since the Mujadeen we extolled and financed during Reagan's time as freedom fighters have morphed into terrorist evil in Bush's. But the freedom fighters and terrorists are the same, and so is "the Man" - us.

No. None of those acts of violence - even going back to the Soviet Afghan puppet government's overthrow in the eighties - have in retrospect created any peace beyond a temporary exhaustion from the devastating effects of war, but simply created new roots for continuing conflict and death.

The only practical means of achieving lasting freedom is through non-violent resistance, which by no means is without great personal and community sacrifice. However, the practical results are orders of magnitude less destruction.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 20, 2008 3:34 PM

I am anti-war. It is archaic and it is time for societies to find non-violent ways to solve problems and disputes. That said, Logan Laituri's claims in this article are indefensible.He admits that our troops are law abiding and that any few individuals behaving in immoral and unlawful ways are dealt with judiciously. This is characteristic of American Military.
America is not waging a War of Terror. Such a claim obscures the real and serious issues that must be addressed in creating order out of chaos and establishing some kind of security for the Iraqi citizens. We have decent men and women in uniform doing their very best to help resolve the debacle in Iraq. Our troops aren't fighting against another army as in traditional warfare. They deal with non-Iraqi extremists bent on creating as much chaos as possible, and with individuals who have no qualms about blowing up crowds of innocent people. Whatever the reasons our troops were initially sent into Iraq by our government with the loud backing of a great many citizens, they are now in a defensive posture on behalf of Iraqi citizens who are working to establish stability for themselves. The disruptions of lives and the human costs in any war are immeasurable, and together we absolutely must come up with a better alternative than killing one another, but in the meantime let's walk in the truth.
Laituri claims that in 6 years he came across no unit briefed on the implications of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. What does that mean? Were they briefed on the Geneva Conventions or not? The use of the word "implications" obscures this. Does he actually expect anyone to believe that troops are sent willy-nilly into combat zones with no briefings on the rules and laws governing combat? This is absurd.

World peace, protection of human rights, and economic and social justice are sacred goals. They are not served by someone seeking personal catharsis through the type of insupportable judgments and analyses which characterize Laituri's article.

We do not have to castigate our military in order to stand for peace. Each one of us reading this is responsible for every American teenage girl and boy in Iraq, every husband,wife, father or mother,son or daughter deployed there. We also each have a duty to every other person on the planet. We have to hold each other to account, but until we walk in the absolute truth in our claims about one another, we poison the dialog.

Posted by: Marsha Hansen | February 20, 2008 4:25 PM

most peace-loving people are anti-war, however to be realistic is to acknowledge that true peace will only be our when Christ returns and takes us Home.

Until then, war should be dealt with as self-defense as one would deal with a home intruder. We have the right to stand up and defend our people and our country and to suggest otherwise is unfounded. While the Bible advises that peace as a fruit of the spirit, I believe should a nation have the need then they have the right to protect through available means.

Sadly, as long as there are those that pursue war, they shall have it.

Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 5:30 PM

To Steve S,

I agree with you very much. A nation has a right to defend itself and to defend the defenseless, to stand for justice wherever needed. Some of the world's greatest military leaders have been anti-war; but they have been willing to fight for what is right.

I was a naval officer myself and willing to put my life on the line for others. Most military people are among the last to want to use deadly force against others, and among the first to lend a helping hand when they can. That is why I take such exception to military members being cast as either criminals or warmongers.
I know what motivated me, all of my brothers, my husband and our son in wearing the uniforms of our country. To say I am anti-war does not translate into anti-government or anti-authority or even an unwillingness to fight. I know you did not mean that and I see that your response is very thoughtful. I balance my anti-war stance against my anti-injustice stance, and the anti-injustice stance wins every time.

Like you, I think people everywhere ought to keep the ideals of peace and justice as the basis for decision making, recognizing at the same time that we are confronted by realities that are less than ideal. We Americans operate from a posture of military strength, but even when we as people of conscience go to war, I believe our collective sense of morality is constantly driving us to seek a fair and just peace. I believe this is characteristic of our nation. This is what I wish dialogues about concluding this war would reflect.

Posted by: Marsha Hansen | February 20, 2008 6:11 PM

To me, Logan represents one of the better aspects of the modern US military; namely, they have seemed more reluctant to engage in conflicts than their civilian/political bosses.

They actually seem to have greater wisdom about the limits of what they can do than the politicians.

When we don't do the hard work of resolving conflict through other means--we call 911 and we get the guns (whether it is the police or a stealth bomber).

The State Department, UN, international bodies, President, Congress, etc. etc. bear much responsibility for failed conflict resolution. Sadaam bears much responsibility. So does Iran. And Syria. And Israel. And Saudi Arabia. And......

Quite enough blame to go around. I have zero romantic notions about the virtues of the military. But they frankly demonstrate a great amount more accountability, structure, limits on use of power, restraint, etc. than the governments, UN, politicians, etc.

I commend Logan 'from sunrise to sunset' for attempting to work out what it means to be Jesus' person in walking out his obligations as Follower and Citizen. It would take a profound depth of morality to justly exercise US military power. A depth we do not possess.

It is deeply ironic we depend on the Generals to constrain the politicians. Then send Logan with a gun anyway, allow him to confront the grueling atrocities of war, and expect him to resolve the unanswerable.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 20, 2008 6:55 PM

The problem with the idea of the soldier opposed to war except for justified reasons is that almost never has any soldier failed to see the cause of his own side as anything but just.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 20, 2008 10:37 PM

"Is your point being that those people simply don't count, thus making the war more acceptable?"

Nope.

"Until the President decided to attack Iraq, Saddam Hussein was an ally."

Well, that analysis leaves a bit out, doesn't it?

This has come up before on this blog, this notion that military men and women are somehow allowed to go into battle without understanding the rules of combat. I asked by friend who was in the military, and his response was similar to Marsha's.

Logan has been in the military, but I wonder if his own memories aren't tainted a bit by the "independent media" of which he is so fond. I posted an excerpt from the front page of the first magazine he sites, and it was so offensive that it had to be taken down from this comment thread.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 20, 2008 11:32 PM

"Modern weaponry makes it entirely possible (and we use it this way as well) to ever more capably reduce the non-military deaths."

This just isn't so. It's one of the propaganda myths that's sold without the slightest data to back it up, solely to make war more palatable to the public.

There's a reason we purposely do not count collateral deaths at all, and it is the very high rate of death which exceeds that of actual combatants.

If we really care for civilians that much, why has this decision been made?

You would think we would be interested to know how many were being "saved" through use of the "precision weaponry" but the decision has been made not to collect that data.

More to the point is that weaponry has become increasingly destructive and the ability to fire more of it has been increased drastically, resulting in high numbers of civilian dead, especially given the urban setting of the warfare. The insurrection's weaponry has also increased in sophistication and destructive power as the war goes on.

"Some of the world's greatest military leaders have been anti-war; but they have been willing to fight for what is right."

And they have been willing to fight for what is wrong as often. It's comforting to think that one's nation always fights for right, and every soldier on every side rationalizes the killing one way or another, just like his opposite number.

"To say I am anti-war does not translate into anti-government or anti-authority or even an unwillingness to fight. I balance my anti-war stance against my anti-injustice stance, and the anti-injustice stance wins every time."

In effect, you are not anti-war for you will always find a rationale - "every time" -to justify war. For even dictators are "anti-war" if they can achieve their aims at a lesser cost.

"We Americans operate from a posture of military strength, but even when we as people of conscience go to war, I believe our collective sense of morality is constantly driving us to seek a fair and just peace. I believe this is characteristic of our nation."

If only it were so. America is not a messianic "indispensable nation" or the "Fourth Great Western Religion" that wields military might only for the selfless good of others.

The nation was founded upon conquest and genocide, shamelessly utilized slavery and engaged in gunboat diplomacy and imperial wars to expand territory and economic clout.

We might have created a rival religion to Christianity, but its reliance on militarism and materialism are a fatal weakness. Jesus warned that wealth does not bring security, and that those who decide to live by the sword of militarism will die by it.

This is not to especially condemn America as responsible for all the world's ills, for almost every other nation has behaved in just the same way when the opportunity arose. It's just to stand for truth, to dispel the self-justifying myth that America and Americans are on some sort of selfless moral mission for mankind and are not superior beings but sinners subject to just the same failings as human beings anywhere. As such we can cause great evil and can harm others by our mistaken and sinful actions.

To maintain the myth of our being the only "indispensable nation," we tell ourselves and others a whole lot of soothing lies about how good we are, but the truth would serve all of us better and we would be less dysfunctional, and ironically more of a force for good.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 21, 2008 1:22 AM

Whatever people are taught about the Geneva Conventions, they are rendered moot by a command that has ruled them "quaint anachronisms" and exercises executive privilege to redefine or nullify them. This is then propagated down the command chain, as it was via the last secretary of defense.

Posted by: Sistah Soljah | February 21, 2008 1:41 AM

I tend to believe the author downplays the extent of individual crimes committed by US and other Occupying soldiers in Iraq. Somehow his "brothers at arms... in Iraq [being] largely respectable and law-abiding..." and "Of the few outright violations of international or moral law [he observed], each instance... [was] quickly corrected and dealt with judiciously" don't quite match what we've heard about Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, various incidents involving the US Marines, etc.

But far more importantly, he rightly points out that the war itself is by far the biggest crime, and involvement in that war is by definition involvement in that crime (though by no means equal to actually initiating it). Aggressive war is, in the words of US Justice Robert at Nuremberg, "not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." That is to say, the invasion of Iraq is itself the primary crime, all other crimes committed therein only facilitated and made possibly by this "supreme crime."

Thank God for the Winter Soldier hearings. Now, if only we could just get the media to cover them...

Posted by: Graeme | February 21, 2008 8:27 AM

Wow Logan! It's good to know that there are still such strong moral men and women in our military.

Posted by: Cindy | February 21, 2008 9:12 AM

Well, I tried to post something without typos, but it didn't work. :-(

I notice two typos in my quotes from Wendell Berry above:

Paragraph 1, last sentence:
"...it was also a spasm OF our own corporate and professional anarchy."

Paragraph 2, penultimate sentence:
"Our war industries are richer, but as a nation WE are poorer."

Peace,
Don

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 10:09 AM

Some aver that they are anti-war, but are against "injustices" that they believe can be solved best through violence.

Perceived and real "injustice" is the basis for all wars.

That is why the roots of tomorrow's wars are forged in those waged today.

The German people after World War I suffered from an aggrieved sense of injustice, which was expressed in support for the Nazi party and its aims to "right" the wrongs done to Germany.

The Bolshevik Revolution was rooted, too, in the sense of deep injustice experienced by the ordinary people of Russia in the aftermath of World War I. It was aided and abetted by Germany's assisting the return of Lenin in order to redress their own nation's sense of injustice by seeing an enemy weakened. These injustices led to conflict with the western powers, millions perishing within Russia before and during WW II and then the mistrust and military buildup of the Cold War with it 50,000 armageddon weapons.

The sense of injustice experienced by the Vietnamese at the hands of French colonialists prior to World War II, then the occupation of their land by the Japanese, only to be rebuffed in a quest for independence after World War II by France and America, led to a long war in which two to four million of their people perished, while 58,000 Americans died too. Resulting injustices caused reactions in Cambodia, leading to the genocide of millions.

A sense of injustice that western powers controlled the Asian sphere of influence economically and politically led to Japanese militarists' occupation of neighboring lands. An aggrieved Japan, upon having its supply of oil cut off from America, launched a pre-emptive attack on a military outpost in the formerly indpendent kingdom of Hawaii to cut off America from what it believed to be its own just sphere of influence.

An aggrieved China, with a deep sense of injustice at its former governments' inability to control China's destiny, while being subservient to western powers, who had even violently suppressed a rebellion against those powers' profitable drug trafficking in their country, overthrew the western-supported Kuomintang and established Communist control of China. All those years, none of the injustices of the vast millions of Chinese had been addressed. This led to even more conflicts as even more senses of injustice were felt by those losing influence they had formerly wielded.

Many of the roots of the Middle East conflict have to do with our own sense of pending injustice at having our own oil-consuming lifestyle jeopardized and our own military and political pre-eminences threatened. We regard those things as American birthrights. But to those in the Middle East, they see repeated western domination of their politics, their nations created and recreated by western fiat according to western interests and appetite for oil, nation played off against nation in a divide and conquer game by westerners. They also have a deep sense of injustice at the effective mocking of their religious traditions and the value they place on that for guiding their political destinies.

I could go on and on, for if analysed, every conflict is driven by and creates new injustices.

Now I am sure we all know people who go through life aggrieved, blaming others for their misfortunes, with a strong sense of personal injustice, real or imagined, the result of unfair actions by others or even due to their own selfish actions. They use this personal sense of injustice to justify their own actions in support of what they want, instead of seeking the good of the other selflessly.

What does Jesus tell us, as those who are set aside as holy sacrifices for Him? He tells us to be reconciled to God, to ourselves and to others. He tells us there are no enemies, only those we are supposed to do good to and to love even as we are loved by Him.

This is not the way of a world driven by a sense of personal injustice and seeking retribution. It is a way of sacrifice, of seeking the good of others, of peacemaking. It is at this time a minority role, to be sure, but it is the one we are commanded to take, rather than the endlessly futile ways of the world.

He commands us, if we love Him, to resist evil by returning good for evil, through all available non-violent means. It is the way of sacrificing self, the way of taking up the cross.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 21, 2008 12:47 PM

To say that Jesus has nothing to say either way on war, is to make an error of conscience as grievous as that of the Christians of the Old South, who didn't think He had anything to say either way on slavery - except, as in war, to consider it supported by that silence.

Extrapolating from this rather stunning "method" of exegesis, it's possible to make the claim in any particular case that Jesus never had anything to say either way on anything at all, and therefore, you are free to take Him as you will.

It is a remarkably hardened to conscience way of making theology.

Very convenient, though, to our drive-thru and drive-by-shooting insensibilities - the Rorschach Jesus.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 21, 2008 1:37 PM

"Yeah, that's where context comes in. A picture of Obama with sprinkles is meant to convey nothing more than Obama + Sprinkles might be funny. I assure you that most of what I post on my blog is intended humorously, even though you don't believe me." Kevin S.

No problem, Kevin. I think that you should be afforded the same quantum of presumption of good will that you afford to many of the authors on this blog.

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 21, 2008 2:33 PM

If Russia attacked Poland, would we be right to arm Poland? If, thereafter, Poland attacked Germany, would we be right to arm Germany?

Kevin, why don't you read the rest of Berry's paragraph, where he talks about corporate anarchy, and then think again about this question?

D

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 2:46 PM

I really don't think Berry is all that difficult to understand. If Saddam was being armed and supplied through essentially out of control corporate profiteering, then the question of who is the enemy, or when does he become the enemy, is relevant here. And it isn't a simple answer--as he wrote, when the economy is globalized, it becomes more difficult to make that distinction.

So to answer your question, allow me to rephrase it. If Poland were being attacked, the real question should be, why are we arming them? Why are we involved at all? Is it merely to allow our the war economy to profit from yet another conflict somewhere in the world? And if Germany then attacked Poland, why not profit from that as well and sell arms to Germany? We could make any excuse to make it sound legit, couldn't we?

Another way of putting it might be, what was the basis for all of a sudden considering Saddam an enemy after so many years of supplying him with what he thought he needed? Certainly it wasn't his human rights record, since we were well aware of that when we were still dealing with him. Think corporate profiteering and I think you might have the answer. At least, you'll have Berry's answer.

Yeah, this sounds cynical, but is it all that far from what has been happening?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 21, 2008 5:47 PM

The nation was founded upon conquest and genocide, shamelessly utilized slavery and engaged in gunboat diplomacy and imperial wars to expand territory and economic clout.

We might have created a rival religion to Christianity, but its reliance on militarism and materialism are a fatal weakness. Jesus warned that wealth does not bring security, and that those who decide to live by the sword of militarism will die by it.

I just realized the premise for your lengthy posts, and that you and I have no common language, standard of morality, or history.

Whatever the words you posted mean to you, they do not reflect the reality of the world we all live in. Your language and mine must have different definitions for a large array of words.

The "premise" for what you say is so personally insulting to me... so judgemental of both my faith and my character, that I cannot accept a single thing you say as being relevant to reality OR my life. Nobody, who engages in such wholesale condemnation of everyone's faith and beliefs has any resemblance to the kind of Christianity I know and hold higher than life itself.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 21, 2008 10:30 PM

Please note that the word "disingenuous" means insincere or having secret motives. Whatever else one can say about the posters on this blog, "insincerity" would not apply to any. We may disagree about things, but as near as I can tell, we are all very sincere--and up front--about the things we write here.

Posted by: bren | February 22, 2008 1:24 AM

The "premise" for what you say is so personally insulting to me... so judgemental of both my faith and my character, that I cannot accept a single thing you say as being relevant to reality OR my life. Nobody, who engages in such wholesale condemnation of everyone's faith and beliefs has any resemblance to the kind of Christianity I know and hold higher than life itself."

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion - but not his own facts. Make sure that what you believe rests on verifiable and tested reality. Wishful thinking can be very sincere, but it is not the same as reality. Many people acting in this world act out of convictions based upon false assumptions and then wonder why things do not turn out as their belief system predicted, yet do not have the courage to question the underlying validity of their assumptions.

No doubt, your belief system is dearly held and means much to you, giving your world meaning, life purpose and is personally comforting to your own sense of righteous purpose and that of your community.

I know how disturbing it is to have your cherished illusions threatened. I once believed just as you seem to and it was painful to have the real basis of faith separated from self-serving worldly falsehoods. It caused a crisis of faith in which Jesus and His ways and teachings were the only hope left.

But the truth will cause pain, because if He loves you, the things you hold to which are not true will not easily be removed.

Is it better to remain comfortable with flattering lies, or to grow in knowledge of the truth? Does real religion confirm you in your own righteousness or make you uncomfortable with how far you have fallen short of what God requires?

I hope you can look within, without and have the courage to face the truth. I know it's not easy and my prayers are with you.

No insults were intended, unless you choose to take offense to avoid asking the hard questions. May we all grow in knowledge of the truth and in the grace of God.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 22, 2008 2:17 AM

And on a non-faith related matter... I wish you would leave the US, go live in some place like Sudan, and never come back.

Your hate for this country is a poison I cannot get past. Your stated belief that this nation is purely evil in its foundation, to it's core... Is not something I will ever agree to.

Purely evil in its foundation? I don't think anyone writing here wrote that. Don't put words in people's mouths. But founded by fallible humans, some of whom had mixed motives, some of which were less than pure, righteous, or charitable? You'd better believe it.

America isn't God, Watcher. America is an earthly kingdom, ultimately no different than any other earthly kingdom, and ultimately subject to the same judgments by the Heavenly King as any other. God does not favor the United States of America over any other kingdom.

When I hear or read someone who brooks no criticism of the United States, my BS detector is fully engaged. Inability to engage in national self-criticism is no different from inability to engage in personal self-criticism. That's where the Pharisees were. And you know what Jesus said about them (Matthew 21-22).

How dare you tell Sojourner Truth that he should leave! We need people like him. And you need to listen to them. For your own good.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 22, 2008 8:06 AM

Watcher
Do you have another self named mark?
No one said your faith is defective. The question is about historic reality. Are you saying that slavery was not endorsed and allowed by the constitution including the ownership of slave votes by slaveowners. Are you saying that the slave, rum, sugar trade was not foundational to colonial and post colonial wealth? Are you saying that there was not a massive genocidal campaign to take the land, gold and other resources of native american tribes? That hundreds of constitutionally binding treaties were not broken to seize North America?

The problems with these historic patterns is that the habits and ways of the past become the habits and ways of the present if they are not actively questioned and changed. This is all too clear in the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Treaties were broken, innocent lives destroyed, a massive civil war begun, millions of refugees fled and because of all this the US has come to be seen through most of the world as the main threat to peace and stability. We have spent billions in taxpayers hard-earned money with nothing to show but a sick old sinner hanging from a gallows.

The idea that people who are critical of unjust policies are disloyal or that they despise America is false. The abolishing of slavery came through criticism and change as did the extension of voting to non landowners, women's right to vote, the protection of children from economic exploitation an worker safety laws, laws to insure the safety of food and medicine, citizenship rights for native Americans, environmental laws.

We all stand on the brink of an economic recession that is the direct result of deregulation and lack of ethical oversight by representatives who should be more interested in taxpayer concerns than campaign money and bribes from corporate lobbyists.

Posted by: jonabark | February 22, 2008 11:46 AM

seeker-finder: "this is a real opportunity for me to learn patience and put mercy to work for watcher and those like him. i need to learn how to sincerely pray for my heart to be softened toward him and for his heart to be softened toward those with whom he disagrees. i know that God yearns for his beloved 'watcher' and all of us to be more like His Son."

seeker-finder, I share these feelings. I have prayed for The Watcher several times, that he be blessed. It wasn't easy but Jesus never said the Way would be a bed of roses.

Posted by: carl copas | February 22, 2008 11:58 AM

To accuse someone of treason and being a traitor for expressing the truth in love is far from being fair and Christ-like. Why is is that someone is accused of "hate" and is "vile" simply for pointing out unpleasant truths?

No nation is "evil to its core," unless all human beings are "evil to their core."

What you are really positing is a supposed dispensation from God especially for one chosen nation among all those of the earth, making it the divine and infallible instrument of His will to be meted out to all others.

Is this really a sustainable belief? Has America replaced Israel, just as some believed the British Empire was made up of the "lost tribes" of Israel and had therefore supplanted it as the apple of God's eye? And therefore justified the British Empire, and colonialism, not as selfish exploitation, but as a divinely-inspired philanthropic mission to mankind? This was called "British Israelism" and has been extolled and promoted in America by figures like Herbert W. Armstrong as having been transferred to America, founded as it was by "more perfect" British religious figures - the Puritans.

This belief system - "Americanism" - has indeed been elevated to a religion, a more advanced and perfected version of previous incarnations of religion. There is even a current popular book extolling it as a religion, "Americanism, The Fourth Great Western Religion," by conservative author David Gelernter.

Gelernter's book is heavy on invoking the Bible, but light on Jesus, and even doubts the Trinity and Jesus' divinity, just as he says Lincoln did. He invokes the founding of the Republican Party as the Church of America, built on the Rock of the Declaration of Independence, in the same way he says that Jesus built His Church upon the apostle Peter. He attributes American Zionism to Jefferson, whom he agrees did not believe in Jesus' divinity, but merely regarded Him as an exemplary teacher in what Jefferson found support for a system of purely political salvation. American Zionism is the theme, with Washington even compared to Jesus.

And through it all, is the belief - expressed by you as well - that it was a purer form of Christian religion, uncompromised, uncorrupt, that was placed upon these shores - Puritanism, which invoked Zionism and divine founding from the start.

Even Israel did not merit this kind of divine approval and indulgence for all its actions. Scripture is replete with warnings and condemnations by God's prophets for its leaders, its policies and the general low moral and political tone of its population. Jesus rebuked its religious and political leaders, "Your fathers killed the prophets." And they stopped their ears, gnashed their teeth and sought to remove Him from their midst. Even as a child, the hatred of authorities for God's true authority - that of the Messiah - was so great that He did have to flee to another country from Israel because of the hatred expressed towards the truth by the nation's ruler.

Let's look at the Puritan record. Within a few years of their arrival on these shores, they had trafficked in human beings, "buying" slaves kidnapped from Africa. They had invited the natives to a feast where they poisoned hundreds of them in an act of genocide.

Now these facts - written for all posterity in their own hand in their own records - reveal their true nature to us. Cartoon myths just won't do, no matter how flattering to our own present self-justifications. It is entirely too easy and convenient for the members of a particular nation to stoke and sustain that they have been given divine mandate to rule over others. It is bound to be quite inconvenient for other members of the human race however.

This is not to make us the "source of all evil" at all. On the contrary, our error follows a similar pattern among all other human beings, who are and have been equally as sinful as we are, yet have also often persisted in believing they have a particular divine destiny to fulfill.

The truth is not that a particular nation has a divine role to fulfill by being ascendant against all others, but that every human being, should they make humble themselves before God and seek His will, has a divine mission to fulfill, together in love for one another.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 22, 2008 12:44 PM

"On the contrary, I believe God intervened in history to create a nation where conscience reigned, where the corrupt churches of history could not stifle the Gospel any longer, and the politicians were out of the reach of the corrupted politically powerful churches." Watcher

It seems to me, that given recent political and historical developments, that there is a kind of cognitive dissonance implicit in that statement.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 22, 2008 1:00 PM

Kevin:

My purpose for posting these quotes from Wendell Berry was to highlight and underscore the main theme of Logan's post: I think Berry argues very coherently and persuasively that our actions re. Iraq were and continue to be criminal.

I didn't post these quotes from Berry as an offer to engage in debate about whether we should be selling arms to X, Y or Z. To be honest, I hadn't really thought about it. I typed out Berry's words because I thought they were relevant to his argument establishing criminal, or at least negligent, behavior by our government and the war profiteers.

But having said that, my initial reaction to your question is, why should we be selling warmaking technology to anyone, friend or foe? Since our track record isn't very good regarding recognizing which of today's friends will become tomorrow's enemies, maybe we ought to think twice before selling any military equipment to anyone.

Berry later goes on, in a part of his essay that I didn't quote, that our economic system treats war machinery simply as another commodity, essentially no different than wheat or coffee beans. The economic system that sold armaments to Saddam Hussein really could care less how he used them or whom he threatened with them.

I know that doesn't really answer your hypothetical. But since Germany and Poland seem, at least for now, unlikely to become enemies, I don't think I'm going to try and answer it.

Later,

Posted by: Don | February 23, 2008 6:49 PM

"My purpose for posting these quotes from Wendell Berry was to highlight and underscore the main theme of Logan's post: I think Berry argues very coherently and persuasively that our actions re. Iraq were and continue to be criminal." Don

"Coherently? Maybe. Persuasively? No. He persuaded you, but that's a bit of shooting barrel-bound fish, eh?" Kevin S.

Don, it was great that you posted these quotes. About the only thing that Kevin can come up with is that he is not convinced- no real substantive rebuttal. Are you really surprised?

"The other option is to interfere militarily, which allows "today's friends" to preserve their own stockpiles. Or, we can practice the Ron Paul method and pretend other countries don't exist. Or, we should retain absolute military sovereignty over all nations, lest they develop the military might to pose a threat. The latter represents the logical extension of your paradigm." Kevin S.

A very revealing quote that speaks volumes about the neo-conservative mindset- eager to get into conflict. Almost a messiah-like in their belief that they must save the world militarily. Then they scoff at non-military programs that actually help people without killing others.

"I wouldn't either, if I were you. The correct answers to my questions are "yes" and "yes", respectively. Berry's argument is meaningless in light of those answers." Posted by: kevin s

Nice way to try and frame the question but hardly credible or convincing. You try to set the alternatives out in their worst possible light. You are a true disciple of Karl Rove!

Posted by: JamesMartin | February 24, 2008 11:16 AM

It seems people here can't follow a rational conversation.

I say "I wish you would leave, go to someplace like Sudan and not come back" I called noone a traitor. I want someone to realize how horrifyingly wrong they are about the nature of THIS country.

"Built on slavery, exploitation, and greed" indeed. ST has no idea what those things are, if he or she thinks that is the sum total of our nation...

ST slanders all of the founding fathers, in an effort to justify his or her own religion based political demands. You HAVE to denounce limited government, the Constitution, and all those things fought for from the Revolution onward, in order to justify current wants.

Oh, it's never said so crudely... But that is what it is about.

Small federal government, no federal redistribution of money from indivual to individual... Original notion is now declared immoral.

No establishment of religion - the "new" politics now based on our "national obligation to God".

Defense of life - an inconvenient bother. The above is far more important than this. We must bluster about war, ignore abortion, side with the "all abortion all the time for every life" radicals to achieve the first two.

I say "God intervened in history, so that the Gospel could be rediscovered outside the reach of church run states and the established corrupt churches".

Translated by the irrational to "America is a new religion". How utterly absurd!

Sadly, it appears that what goes on here is nothing more than old fashioned politics, and politics alone, but a very old fashioned twist... Claiming the blessings of God.

All the foibles, corruption, dishonesty of politcis... But claiming the authority of God.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 24, 2008 2:39 PM

"About the only thing that Kevin can come up with is that he is not convinced- no real substantive rebuttal. "

The substance of Berry's argument is that we have provided support to Iraq in the past, and this mitigates against our authority to depose their leadership. I am addressing that argument directly.

"A very revealing quote that speaks volumes about the neo-conservative mindset- eager to get into conflict."

If Russia invaded Poland, it certainly wouldn't be only be neo-cons advocating military action. And we did save the world militarily by going to Europe during World War II.

"Kevin, whatever happened to diplomacy?"

Military action is a component of diplomacy, and yes, I have considered the option. But if Germany is invaded, what can we leverage diplomatically? What does diplomacy look like? What does peacemaking look like? What if Poland persists, and is able to co-opt the German military whilst we are pursuing a failing diplomacy tract.

But we are moving away from my original point. Berry makes the case that we cannot afford to go to war in any circumstance wherein we have previously provided support to the enemy. By this logic, we could NEVER intervene militarily on Germany's behalf in my example. If that is the case, even diplomacy will fail because you are asking Poland to trade a claim to Germany for whatever packet of treats we might give them (which won't amount to a Germany).

If the military option is off the table, why would we be leading the diplomatic efforts? Why not Albania or France? But you naturally assume that we would be coming to the table, as would every other country. Why? Because we have the military might to back up the diplomacy.

So Berry's assertions leave us to acquiesce to a Polish Germany (and, possibly, a Polish Europe).

Posted by: kevin s. | February 24, 2008 4:19 PM

What does diplomacy look like? What does peacemaking look like? asks Kevin. Diplomacy and peacemaking look like Kofi Annan meeting day after day after day with the leaders of the two leading political parties in Kenya--the one believing he won the election, the other assuming power--and meeting and discussing and compromising and finding point of agreement and meeting some more--because they all agree that too many lives have already been lost in the recent riots and if Kenya is to have a future, the leaders must find a way to work together both for themselves and as an example to the rest of the country. Without Annan's mediation, the talks would not be taking place. With his mediation, facilitation and what other skills he brings to the table, and supported by prayers from people all around the world, diplomacy and peacemaking are taking place in Kenya.

Posted by: bren | February 25, 2008 4:16 AM

But what is a compromise between a country that has invaded another country, and the country that has been invaded?

Hmmmm, I wonder if there are any Iraqis who could answer this question?

D

Posted by: Don | February 25, 2008 1:15 PM

Thanks, ST, for your comments that were both rational and faithful to the teachings of Christ. While I'm thanking, I should also thank Don.

My only caution is that it's not likely that you'll convince Kevin or The Watcher through argumentation or by scripture. It appears they have chosen where they stand, and that they refuse to back down.

We are all dependent on the Spirit of God to make things plain to us. That doesn't mean that whatever we currently think is what the Spirit of God is saying. But all of us should stay humble in how we communicate.

Watcher, to claim that scripture teaches something is not to claim oneself superior to those who do not interpret it the same way. While I believe that Jesus preached the way of peace--and while I believe that it would be wrong for me to use violence to achieve my own ends, no matter how just they seem--I do not consider myself better than those who do not agree. Each of us has his or her own areas of weakness. All who truly claim Christ are saved only by his grace.

But as Christ's followers we are bound to live out our faith in action, and that includes speaking out against injustice, even when it is perpetrated by those we love. It is no different for a nation.

If any of this sounds at all patronizing--even the smallest bit--I apologize. Let that be assigned to the difficulties of communication, and not to my heart or intention.

Posted by: JO | February 29, 2008 12:11 PM