Hi Ryan ,

Excellent point . And one I thought we have been doing . Even though it gets little attention , and in some news sources none , we have been paying attention to also with aid , infrastructure , medicial care and such . Helping instead of just tearing down .

That was an excellent lesson in Afganastan that movie brought out I thought .

Posted by: Michael | August 29, 2008 1:44 PM

I remember hearing candidate Dennis Kucinich talking about creating a department of peace, and found it kind of amuzing at the time. But more recently I've thought about it; we are spending 1/2 TRILLION dollars annually on the department of Defense (war) which doesn't even count the bills passed to pay for the Iraq and afghan wars. Why not a department that tries the other way first? It could also handle the reconstruction after a war, which shouldn't be a job for the military. I think the Pentagon could spare a billion a year. I don't think the State department has been very successful in recent history, unless I missed something.
I haven't seen the movie about him, but I watched a 2 hour documentary about Charlie Wilson recently, which included his personal life. It was fascinating to see one guy try so hard in Afghanistan. It was a real passion for him. It was mentioned that throughout history, no one who tried to conquer Afghanistan has succeeded. I hope we have clear goals there, but somehow I doubt it. God bless the soldiers over there.

Posted by: paul w. | August 29, 2008 3:30 PM

There are a lot of things that have to be fixed for us to head in the right direction.

The addiction to military contracting, and the absolute refusal by politicians of both major parties to end lobbying are the major obstacles. As long as America remains addicted to weapons contracting and enslaved to the corporations who will bribe politicians into participating, we will not have a dept. of peace.

America's foreign policy is filled with wrong decisions because they decisions were not based on moving towards a worldwide state of well-being, but on contractor greed, war-mongering mentality, and the peddling of fear by politicians seeking power.

Since WWII, nations around the world have wanted certain things they see America has: a modern, functioning infrastructure, a strong middle class, a good educational system, freedom to pursue whatever career we choose, freedom to openly discuss political issues.

What they did not want from America was American bombs, military occupations, exploitation of their national workforce by megacorporations, an American culture in their country based on being privileged and elitist, and using the local people basically as servants, and proselytizing of a certain religion (this last one especially true in Afghanistan and Iraq).

So what did we do? We gave them the downside of America: the wars, the bombs, the exploitation, and all the rest.

Yes, it was a huge mistake.

Is it fixable? Maybe, but it sure would have been a lot easier to do it right starting after WWII, instead of 50 years of screwing it up, then suddenly claiming we want to fix it. Our cred is way down, and with our economy not doing so well, either, the rest of the world now casts a weary, fed-up eye on our proclamations of delivering all the Good Stuff to them.

They know from experience that the Bad Stuff comes first, hits hardest, and then maybe a few humanitarian efforts trickle through, too little, too late.

It would have been easier, more profitable for America, and much more successful in creating a world characterized by democracy and thriving markets, if America had led by example, because the world would have willingly adopted these things and welcomed trade and cultural associations with us.

Instead, we opted to bomb it down their throats so that the military contractors could get wealthy and some politicians could amass a level of authoritarian power that is both unconstitutional and destroys the infrastructures of our country.

After you have trashed a country and demoralized its people, that is not the time to issue proclamations about how great you are and the envy of everyone else.

Because the behavior of America in these countries was not great, and what countries -if any - desire an American presence like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I'm thinking we need to give ourselves a bit more of the Good Stuff here at home, then maybe try again, more humble, and with much tighter controls on nationalistic militarism and political lobbying.

Posted by: yogi-one | August 30, 2008 12:15 PM

May I offer a dissent? Mr. Wilson's ideas are noble, and they seem to arise from a humanitarian perspective. This is as it should be. What troubles me is that he--and perhaps Jim Wallis?--sound as if they are advocating old-fashioned colonial nation-building.

It seems to me that a better approach is for people, especially Christians, to act through churches, para-church ministries, and other NGOs to engage in the kind of community building that Wallis, by way of Wilson, suggests. If this were combined with a less bellicose, intrusive, and imperial foreign policy on the part of our government, the future that Wallis hopes for might be more hopeful.

Nation-building is historically expensive to the point of profligacy, and given the current economic crisis, fueled in part by the US' own foreign policy actions, the poor and homeless in the US would be easily forgotten in the rush to fix the problems in the Middle East. Can we really afford to do both, while sending the bill to our children and grandchildren? This is the time for Christians to step up to the plate beyond federal dollars.

Posted by: Jay | August 31, 2008 9:22 AM

Even if Japan and Germany were successful examples of nation-building in the past, and arising out of unique and peculiar circumstance, this does not mean all nation-building is necessary, or even wise. And if current US nation-building, combined with the US military-industrial complex bankrupts the country, the problems that will arise here at home will be much more difficult to address.

No...Japan and Germany notwithstanding, it seems to me that the Beiler/Wilson call for nation-building needs to arise from two fundamental principles: 1)a humble foreign policy that offers friendship and honest trade, without economic coercion, military interference, or social exploitation, and 2)an out-pouring into these war-torn regions of Christian generosity, service, and witness.

Posted by: Jay | August 31, 2008 11:52 PM

Ryan!

Thanks for an excellent article about a movie that promises to be most stimulating, challenging and edifying - looking forward to watching it.

Would that every nation - and especially the powerful ones - take note of the real-life Charlie Wilson's wise advice.

Jay, do you really think it correct to call "investing in education, health and economic development" (Charlie Wilson), "old-fashioned colonial nation-building?"

I agree that what you mention under points 1 and 2, i.e. humble foreign policy and Christian generosity, service and witness - would go a long way to build healthy relationships and to prevent war - but only if the last is done with honest and real humility. Unfortunately the Christians - and the Churches they belong to - have too often come into foreign countries and into situations of conflict with an attitude of superiority - acting in such a way that the very people we assert we want to serve get the impression that we look down on them, that we have and always had all the answers. Would they then, and especially if we, for what-ever reason, invaded their countries, feel inclined to listen to our witness?

Jay, you ask "Can we really afford to do both" being fair and helpful to the poor in our own country AND try to fix the problems in the Middle East (or where-ever else) -- To my mind these things seem to be two sides of the same coin. We can't do the one and leave the other. In such a case we would always have to weigh what has to be urgently done on both these levels, being realistic about what we can afford... yet never thinking of an "either-or" but of an "and-and"

Yogi-one - thank you for your analysis and good sense!

Annemie

Posted by: Annemie Bosch | September 1, 2008 5:51 PM

Hi Annemie,

Yes, investing in the health, education, and economic development is colonial nation-building. Why? Because our own economic interests are at stake. Our 401(k)s are enhanced by such investment. We have a vested economic interest in it all, which is why we have not intervened in Darfur. There is no economic incentive for us to go in there and stop the genocide. It is tragic, but true. Just follow the money and you will find the incentive to intervene or not.

As to advocating "both/and" regarding health, education, and economic development, I simply re-state the question: how are we going to pay for this without violating the clear biblical teaching to avoid debt? We then compound that violation by going into the kind of debt that enslaves our children and grandchildren to it without their consent or knowledge. Everyone wants to do something about the poverty and lack of stability in the third world, and is ready and willing to use taxdollars to do so--or rather inflationary fiat money loans that erode sound, biblical money (honest weights and measures)--all with a good, even biblical desire to help the disadvantaged. But the plain reality is that we cannot do everything, and what we have done abroad has been mixed at best.

I would like to return to my original contention. If Christians wish to truly participate in the kind of development that Mr. Wilson so eloquently pleads for, then it is up to Christians, voluntarily, self-sacrificially, and without coercing others to their view of what Christian ethics should look like, in order to achieve something in Afghanistan and other places that truly mirrors the biblical ethic of social justice. But to advocate public policy which saddles your neighbor with debt--no matter how well-intentioned and compassionate--is to remove the virtue from the act.

If the Church really wishes to get serious about social justice, then it needs to stop assuming that passing more laws, and that spending more tax dollars (really, fiat money debt loans) will do the job. Perhaps it will salve consciences, and make us sleep better in our lavish middle-class, suburban hi-tech homes at night--while brothers and sisters in the third world eek out subsistence and even live in abject poverty.

No...The Church could win the world to Christ in one generation if it forsook the government treasury, and gave in a self-sacrificial fashion to works of grace and charity both at home and abroad. Say what you will about the anachronistic Amish, sinful as they are, but we could learn something from them: total commitment to the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount, a refusal to engage in violence, a willingness to embrace unconditional forgiveness in the most tragic of circumstances, and a radical community/familial commitment to hard-work, self-sufficiency, and care for the sick, elderly, and poor among them. And then they get on buses and travel to Katrina-ravaged Louisiana to build houses, schools, etc. for the sake of those who lost so much. It would not be necessary to shun the world as they do, but neither do they expect the "English" to bail them out when the going gets tough.

Posted by: Jay | September 1, 2008 11:01 PM