Sunday, September 01, 2013
Syria, Honor, and Christ
President Obama is in a very tough position. He said that if Syria used chemical weapons against rebels, it would cross a "red line" and the United States would take action.
Then, according to the administration, Syria did exactly that.
So, now the President must choose between three options:
1) He can do nothing.
2) He can order an all-out attack, as we did in Iraq.
3) He can take limited measures, such as a cruise missile attack on carefully selected targets.
It now appears that the President will ask Congress to approve the third option.
Is that a principled choice? And given that the President draws his principles, at least in part, from his Christian faith, is it a choice consistent with that faith?
Let's consider the downsides of each choice, starting with the third.
If he orders a limited-duration cruise missile attack, there are three possible downsides (and limited upside, in terms of achieving military objectives). First, people on the ground will die, possibly including civilians. Second, there may be unforeseen consequences, such as conflict with other forces, including those of Russia. Third, it may in the end lead to an Islamist takeover of the country, which will be hostile to the US.
The second choice of an all-out attack has the risk, of course, of being a financial and strategic sinkhole like the war in Iraq.
Finally, the downside of doing nothing is a loss of pride, and possibly of credibility.
People don't want to hear this, but a loss of pride is rarely the right reason to do something. As for credibility... well, I suspect that not acting might raise, not lower, our reputation in many parts of the world.
What about faith? Doesn't it compel the choice to do nothing, if the primary harm is a loss of pride?
Comments:
<< Home
"If you punch me, I'm going to punch you back"
[kid punches other kid]
"no, seriously, don't do it again"
[kid punches other kid...again]
"I'm being super serious now. do it again, and you're gonna get it"
[kid punches other kid...again]
I don't think Obama should've said that the use of chemical weapons would necessitate military action by the US, but once he did, he created a situation where inaction guarantees that nobody takes him seriously, which is a problem.
This guy is in over his head. And that is becoming more and more evident every day.
[kid punches other kid]
"no, seriously, don't do it again"
[kid punches other kid...again]
"I'm being super serious now. do it again, and you're gonna get it"
[kid punches other kid...again]
I don't think Obama should've said that the use of chemical weapons would necessitate military action by the US, but once he did, he created a situation where inaction guarantees that nobody takes him seriously, which is a problem.
This guy is in over his head. And that is becoming more and more evident every day.
# posted by 
: 2:03 PM
: 2:03 PM
I agree with RRL. And once again apologize to him for my mistake back in 2009 when I made the lame case that the President really did know what he was doing.
Having said that, the President talked himself into a no-win situation, and, predictably, is about to lose big. However, I tend to think personal humiliation for the President in terms of walking back his uninformed bluster is better than wading into the Syrian civil war or launching a slew of deadly missiles with no strategic impact. So, this losing scenario may be better than some of the other losing scenarios.
Having said that, the President talked himself into a no-win situation, and, predictably, is about to lose big. However, I tend to think personal humiliation for the President in terms of walking back his uninformed bluster is better than wading into the Syrian civil war or launching a slew of deadly missiles with no strategic impact. So, this losing scenario may be better than some of the other losing scenarios.
ah, but he has asked Congress to weigh in... and we know this Congress will never agree to do anything.
but back to your original question... Is it ok to stand by and watch someone kill their own citizens with invisible chemicals? We watched thousands killed in Darfur. Where is the humanity???
but back to your original question... Is it ok to stand by and watch someone kill their own citizens with invisible chemicals? We watched thousands killed in Darfur. Where is the humanity???
I see it differently. I think there is a fourth option. The President could take a similar approach to the one taken in Libya and Kosovo, based on humanitarian principles. Rather than a limited missile strike, he could use an extended air operation, in conjunction with select rebels and special forces to have a more significant impact. I don't know that this is currently politically viable, but I do think it is what we should have done some time ago. I also appreciate that there are no guarantees on what would follow, so I don’t want to suggest that this would be a surefire effort, except in one respect. I believe it would almost certainly limit civilian deaths, even if additional people died via the bombing. In the long run, less people would die, were the violence ended through military action.
Should Obama choose the more likely scaled back version of cruse missiles only, it could none-the-less have an effect, and possibly give the Rebels an edge.
But here is my bigger concern, doing nothing emboldens both the next bad person, and the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons. Don’t get me wrong, it is easy to be cynical. Once we have decided that 100,000 deaths is not worth intervening in. Or to state it more charitably, once we decide that given America's recent history it is not appropriate, or in our interest or there's to intervene in another Middle-Eastern country, even where civilians are being intentionally and indiscriminately killed--it is hard to make the case that choking to death is somehow fundamentally different that being shot or bombed. BUT, that was not the world’s conclusion the last time chemical weapons were used on a mass scale during WWI. At that time we decided that chemical weapons are different, are horrible, and ought to be unimaginable.
Here is something else that should be unimaginable. The process whereby one painstakingly surrounds a town, the citizens knowing what is to come and unable to do anything about it. Fear and dread overcoming reason with no explanation for the children. Here, there is no need for chemical weapons—shockwaves and shrapnel will do the job, as shells fall randomly, butchering in mass.
One last thought. Suppose we look at this from the other side of the table. Imagine you are Bashar al-Assad or the next sadistic leader. If you are one of these people and a student of history, and if you compare and contrast how Mubarak responded to protests in Egypt with how Bashar al-Assad has responded, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that full-scale indiscriminate violence works, at least for a time. Beating protestors and occasionally shooting a few only emboldens protestors. In contrast, indiscriminately shelling neighborhoods and killing whole families, that works. That is likely to get you a seat in power for a very long time, if no one stops you by force.
At numerous points in history, people of good will have risen up to oppose limited oppression, often using non-violent techniques. This is the preferred way to oppose injustice, and it works where there is some sense of restraint. (South Africa, British India, and the United States circa 1890-1965) This is in contrast to the unlimited systematic use of violence, rape, torture, and war to hold on to power through any means possible. (Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and the Black Slave's experience in the United States circa, 1625-1865) These latter examples of terror and oppression required an armed response. i.e. Just War.
I appreciate that flag waving, the call for intervention on humanitarian grounds, and even Just War theory itself are often perverted to create wars of choice. But we redouble our failure when we choose not to prevent genocide where we have the power to act.
Should Obama choose the more likely scaled back version of cruse missiles only, it could none-the-less have an effect, and possibly give the Rebels an edge.
But here is my bigger concern, doing nothing emboldens both the next bad person, and the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons. Don’t get me wrong, it is easy to be cynical. Once we have decided that 100,000 deaths is not worth intervening in. Or to state it more charitably, once we decide that given America's recent history it is not appropriate, or in our interest or there's to intervene in another Middle-Eastern country, even where civilians are being intentionally and indiscriminately killed--it is hard to make the case that choking to death is somehow fundamentally different that being shot or bombed. BUT, that was not the world’s conclusion the last time chemical weapons were used on a mass scale during WWI. At that time we decided that chemical weapons are different, are horrible, and ought to be unimaginable.
Here is something else that should be unimaginable. The process whereby one painstakingly surrounds a town, the citizens knowing what is to come and unable to do anything about it. Fear and dread overcoming reason with no explanation for the children. Here, there is no need for chemical weapons—shockwaves and shrapnel will do the job, as shells fall randomly, butchering in mass.
One last thought. Suppose we look at this from the other side of the table. Imagine you are Bashar al-Assad or the next sadistic leader. If you are one of these people and a student of history, and if you compare and contrast how Mubarak responded to protests in Egypt with how Bashar al-Assad has responded, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that full-scale indiscriminate violence works, at least for a time. Beating protestors and occasionally shooting a few only emboldens protestors. In contrast, indiscriminately shelling neighborhoods and killing whole families, that works. That is likely to get you a seat in power for a very long time, if no one stops you by force.
At numerous points in history, people of good will have risen up to oppose limited oppression, often using non-violent techniques. This is the preferred way to oppose injustice, and it works where there is some sense of restraint. (South Africa, British India, and the United States circa 1890-1965) This is in contrast to the unlimited systematic use of violence, rape, torture, and war to hold on to power through any means possible. (Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and the Black Slave's experience in the United States circa, 1625-1865) These latter examples of terror and oppression required an armed response. i.e. Just War.
I appreciate that flag waving, the call for intervention on humanitarian grounds, and even Just War theory itself are often perverted to create wars of choice. But we redouble our failure when we choose not to prevent genocide where we have the power to act.
Thank you, David. Lots of provocative insights in your comment. If you would allow me, I would just like to offer a few brief reactions (not necessarily arguments or rebuttals--but just responses your piece evoked):
1. This option is out there. It is basically the John McCain-Lindsey Graham-Weekly Standard approach. And it is worth considering for all the reasons you mention. Syria is a tragedy and the ramifications of non-intervention are serious. I agree. The question really is what horrible choice shall we make.
2. The example of chemical weapons in WWI is not the perfect analogy because its wide use came in the midst of a total war in which the great powers were already engaged. This case seems fundamentally different because it is internal and concerns one country not at war with any other country.
3. I think you are ABSOLUTELY correct that the chemical weapons are a distraction (and, I would add, the question of intelligence is a distraction within that distraction).
4. And, if you were going to intervene to address the 100,000-plus civilian deaths and the myriad crimes against humanity, the Kosovo and Libyan models would apply (which would entail the kind of diplomacy and coalition building that seems almost unthinkable at this point in time from this administration in terms of where we are right now and where we would need to be to make that option viable).
5. Lessons. Great point. You hit the nail on the head. The lesson here is hunker down and kill people. And I will add to the Mubarak-Assad comparison. As many have said, in retrospect, Gaddafi erred in giving away his nukes and WMD during the heady days of the Gulf War. If he had held onto those stockpiles they may well have served as a hedge against international action against him in 2011,
On the other hand, over time, sometimes these things work themselves out. Nazi Germany must have looked like a better way to deal with the unrest in India during the 1930s than British indecision and discussion of rights and sovereignty. In a machiavellian sense, Soviet totalitarianism and violent oppression of internal dissent must have looked appealing during the unrest in American during the 1960s. But, over time, some of the lessons of history are counter-intutitive. Hope is not a very strong foreign policy---but sometimes it is all you've got. Right now I am shaking my head and "hoping" for the best.
1. This option is out there. It is basically the John McCain-Lindsey Graham-Weekly Standard approach. And it is worth considering for all the reasons you mention. Syria is a tragedy and the ramifications of non-intervention are serious. I agree. The question really is what horrible choice shall we make.
2. The example of chemical weapons in WWI is not the perfect analogy because its wide use came in the midst of a total war in which the great powers were already engaged. This case seems fundamentally different because it is internal and concerns one country not at war with any other country.
3. I think you are ABSOLUTELY correct that the chemical weapons are a distraction (and, I would add, the question of intelligence is a distraction within that distraction).
4. And, if you were going to intervene to address the 100,000-plus civilian deaths and the myriad crimes against humanity, the Kosovo and Libyan models would apply (which would entail the kind of diplomacy and coalition building that seems almost unthinkable at this point in time from this administration in terms of where we are right now and where we would need to be to make that option viable).
5. Lessons. Great point. You hit the nail on the head. The lesson here is hunker down and kill people. And I will add to the Mubarak-Assad comparison. As many have said, in retrospect, Gaddafi erred in giving away his nukes and WMD during the heady days of the Gulf War. If he had held onto those stockpiles they may well have served as a hedge against international action against him in 2011,
On the other hand, over time, sometimes these things work themselves out. Nazi Germany must have looked like a better way to deal with the unrest in India during the 1930s than British indecision and discussion of rights and sovereignty. In a machiavellian sense, Soviet totalitarianism and violent oppression of internal dissent must have looked appealing during the unrest in American during the 1960s. But, over time, some of the lessons of history are counter-intutitive. Hope is not a very strong foreign policy---but sometimes it is all you've got. Right now I am shaking my head and "hoping" for the best.
Counter point to my argument: If there are no clear "good guys." And if preventing one side from committing atrocities enables the other side to do the same. And if ground troops would be the only real way to effect change. Then my position seems less tenable.
Another counterpoint to my position: Unintended consequences. It all sounds good. So simple... till the shit hits the fan.
I feel like my initial response sounds too critical Mark. Thanks for starting the conversation!
I feel like my initial response sounds too critical Mark. Thanks for starting the conversation!
David-- such a long discussion, and no mention of faith imperatives? How do you square your position with the confounding instructions of Christ?
The Christian principle in play for me is standing with the oppressed against the oppressor, as well as standing for life.
But I recognize that violence is a game changer that may not be able to be squared with those principles.
Good people have taken the route of non-violence. Others have articulated when and where the use of force may be acceptable. If we conclude that violence may at times be necessary, then killing in the defense of others may be marginally acceptable, especially where it is sanctioned by the community, in the form of a police officers or soldiers. (i.e. the state)
Side note: I look at this differently than capital punishment because it has the primary purpose of preserving life.
I appreciate that these sentiments are often misused. Again, I deeply respect pacifists and would even go so far as to say I wish I was one. But I am not. I have come to the conclusion that I do not think Jesus would necessarily say to the soldier, or the general, or the state department official, that to follow him requires them to leave their vocation. Rather, I think the principles of Jesus can and should inform almost any vocation. Further, I think it may be the Christian who takes risks, and plunges into the moral grey spaces that does the greater good. Jesus often did this, though granted, not with violence, at least not with his time here on earth.
A separate conversation, and one too long to get into here would be the scriptures whole teaching on the use of violence. There I do think the teachings of Jesus are paramount. But I don't they they necessarily override self-defense or the defense of others, though I respect that they could be read that way.
I want to be clear about this. I think taking another human's life is always wrong, always a deviation from the norm. And may sometimes be the lesser of two evils that should be undertaken. But that does not relieve the initial wrong. The soldier always pays a price for taking life--a psychological, moral, and spiritual price. That is a price he pays on behalf of the one he saves. In saying this, I have no interest in resolving the tension. The traditional route is to determine that if the action is the lesser of two evils, then that action is a good. I disagree. Preventing genocide is a good. But the life taken to achieve the aim is not a good. I am ok with the paradox.
But I recognize that violence is a game changer that may not be able to be squared with those principles.
Good people have taken the route of non-violence. Others have articulated when and where the use of force may be acceptable. If we conclude that violence may at times be necessary, then killing in the defense of others may be marginally acceptable, especially where it is sanctioned by the community, in the form of a police officers or soldiers. (i.e. the state)
Side note: I look at this differently than capital punishment because it has the primary purpose of preserving life.
I appreciate that these sentiments are often misused. Again, I deeply respect pacifists and would even go so far as to say I wish I was one. But I am not. I have come to the conclusion that I do not think Jesus would necessarily say to the soldier, or the general, or the state department official, that to follow him requires them to leave their vocation. Rather, I think the principles of Jesus can and should inform almost any vocation. Further, I think it may be the Christian who takes risks, and plunges into the moral grey spaces that does the greater good. Jesus often did this, though granted, not with violence, at least not with his time here on earth.
A separate conversation, and one too long to get into here would be the scriptures whole teaching on the use of violence. There I do think the teachings of Jesus are paramount. But I don't they they necessarily override self-defense or the defense of others, though I respect that they could be read that way.
I want to be clear about this. I think taking another human's life is always wrong, always a deviation from the norm. And may sometimes be the lesser of two evils that should be undertaken. But that does not relieve the initial wrong. The soldier always pays a price for taking life--a psychological, moral, and spiritual price. That is a price he pays on behalf of the one he saves. In saying this, I have no interest in resolving the tension. The traditional route is to determine that if the action is the lesser of two evils, then that action is a good. I disagree. Preventing genocide is a good. But the life taken to achieve the aim is not a good. I am ok with the paradox.
One other thing I should add. And on this I think we agree Mark. I reject the notion that these things are binary options. I reject the position that either we do something (with a gun) or we take the route of the lame pacifists and do nothing.
The best pacifists confront evil without a gun. They are the most brave. Braver than any special-operations soldier with a thousand rounds.
But I am looking at this a little differently. Looking not at how the random follower of Christ should respond should they find themselves in Syria, say as an aide worker. But instead, how the principles of Christ inform the career military officer or foreign policy expert looking at the world in their professional capacity.
I am saying that in the context of a pluralistic and professional conversation on foreign policy, and how the United States should respond to Syria, the principled us of force is an option.
The best pacifists confront evil without a gun. They are the most brave. Braver than any special-operations soldier with a thousand rounds.
But I am looking at this a little differently. Looking not at how the random follower of Christ should respond should they find themselves in Syria, say as an aide worker. But instead, how the principles of Christ inform the career military officer or foreign policy expert looking at the world in their professional capacity.
I am saying that in the context of a pluralistic and professional conversation on foreign policy, and how the United States should respond to Syria, the principled us of force is an option.
Thinking Out Loud:
I believe in bringing your Christianity with you as you navigate life. In terms of religion and politics, from an individual perspective, I always wonder how anybody could ever separate church and state in their own inner dialogue? I cannot imagine how my Christian perspective would not inform my political perspective.
Having said that, I think the teachings of Jesus are much more applicable to me and my workplace and my neighborhood and my church and my family and my community than they are to my decisions and responsibilities concerning national politics and state politics and even local politics. And, I have always had LOTS of trouble applying the gospels to International Relations.
I know this is a facile reading, but I am always thinking Jesus would want me to love Hitler into submission.
Trying to dial back to your original question: I feel comfortable asserting that genuine Christian humility is always a helpful element of any decision. If the President is actually thinking he erred and needs to admit a mistake and is choosing to do nothing (although that increasingly does not look like the most likely explanation for this latest turn of events), I would say bravo.
I believe in bringing your Christianity with you as you navigate life. In terms of religion and politics, from an individual perspective, I always wonder how anybody could ever separate church and state in their own inner dialogue? I cannot imagine how my Christian perspective would not inform my political perspective.
Having said that, I think the teachings of Jesus are much more applicable to me and my workplace and my neighborhood and my church and my family and my community than they are to my decisions and responsibilities concerning national politics and state politics and even local politics. And, I have always had LOTS of trouble applying the gospels to International Relations.
I know this is a facile reading, but I am always thinking Jesus would want me to love Hitler into submission.
Trying to dial back to your original question: I feel comfortable asserting that genuine Christian humility is always a helpful element of any decision. If the President is actually thinking he erred and needs to admit a mistake and is choosing to do nothing (although that increasingly does not look like the most likely explanation for this latest turn of events), I would say bravo.
David-- About this... "The Christian principle in play for me is standing with the oppressed against the oppressor, as well as standing for life."
Where in the gospels does Christ direct us to use violence against oppressors? Doesn't he direct the exact opposite ("Do not resist an evildoer")? Is it your belief that reason trumps Christ's directives?
Where in the gospels does Christ direct us to use violence against oppressors? Doesn't he direct the exact opposite ("Do not resist an evildoer")? Is it your belief that reason trumps Christ's directives?
Short answer: yes. Reason and situation.
But this is not to say that Christ is wrong. Or that taking life is right, as I discussed in the previous post.
Part of the reason I find this tenable is the degree to which we all compromise the absolute teachings of Christ. Non-violence is but one part of the self-sacrificial life of Christ. And very very few people live out a monkish existence that follows his literal teachings. Give everything up? No permanent home? Even just the intentional jump from upper middle class to lower middle class is rare.
If you are right, and it seems plausible that you may be right, then Western Christianity has little moral authority because it does not follow the literal teachings of Christ.
On the other hand, a passage like Luke 3 suggests to me that Christ does not want everyone to be literally just like him. Granted it was not Christ speaking, but when the soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do he replied, " “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” He did not say, put down you swords, or leave your nets or swords and follow me. Christ says to the disciples, leave everything, including family and follow me, but he says to the demoniac, the one where he sent the demons into the pigs, there he says go back to your family. Situational.
BUT this is not to go the other direction and say that this other approach, bringing the values of Christ into the world as it is completely right.
I think that most people take one of two approaches. Either they try to take the Scriptures literally, and think they live their lives largely in the right, while acknowledging the occasional failing. Or they rely on principles and think they are largely in the right, while acknowledging the occasional failing.
Both of those approaches miss the mark. I am trying to suggest that we take a principled approach, and acknowledge the paradox and the failings. Or a close second, take a literal approach and acknowledge the paradox and the failings.
But this is not to say that Christ is wrong. Or that taking life is right, as I discussed in the previous post.
Part of the reason I find this tenable is the degree to which we all compromise the absolute teachings of Christ. Non-violence is but one part of the self-sacrificial life of Christ. And very very few people live out a monkish existence that follows his literal teachings. Give everything up? No permanent home? Even just the intentional jump from upper middle class to lower middle class is rare.
If you are right, and it seems plausible that you may be right, then Western Christianity has little moral authority because it does not follow the literal teachings of Christ.
On the other hand, a passage like Luke 3 suggests to me that Christ does not want everyone to be literally just like him. Granted it was not Christ speaking, but when the soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do he replied, " “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” He did not say, put down you swords, or leave your nets or swords and follow me. Christ says to the disciples, leave everything, including family and follow me, but he says to the demoniac, the one where he sent the demons into the pigs, there he says go back to your family. Situational.
BUT this is not to go the other direction and say that this other approach, bringing the values of Christ into the world as it is completely right.
I think that most people take one of two approaches. Either they try to take the Scriptures literally, and think they live their lives largely in the right, while acknowledging the occasional failing. Or they rely on principles and think they are largely in the right, while acknowledging the occasional failing.
Both of those approaches miss the mark. I am trying to suggest that we take a principled approach, and acknowledge the paradox and the failings. Or a close second, take a literal approach and acknowledge the paradox and the failings.
The problem for me is that if you are right Mark. And I think you may be right, though I am not there yet, is that it may be nearly impossible for Christians to live in the world at it really is, not just on the issue of violence, but in many other respects. It may be impossible to be a Christian attorney or bankers, politicians or business owner, or soldier. And I can't square that position with the rest of Scripture either.
David-- It is a hard balance! But in my own life, I worry when my own reason trumps Christ's instruction, because at that point we reverse roles.
Post a Comment
<< Home
