JUST WAR AND THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

Lesson 1: The Nature of War and Peace (November 18, 2001)

LESSON OUTLINE

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matt 5:44)

1. The events of September 11, 2001, were so unspeakably wicked, that we understandably find ourselves united as a nation in an effort to purge this evil from our midst in every way that is humanly possible. That fervor, though, should also serve as a caution to us. It’s time to think about what we as Christians have to say about a deliberate campaign to kill fellow humans. Purpose of the class is to give you some background on Christian thinking on war generally, then to apply that to the War on Terrorism so you can form your own informed opinion.

• DISCUSSION: Ever wondered when is it the right Christian thing to do to kill people, intentionally, deliberately, knowing exactly what you are doing?
• DISCUSSION: Ever wondered when is it the right Christian thing to die for people, or to send others to die?
• DISCUSSION: If you had found some circumstance where it was Christian to fight and die, do you know what rules you have to abide by?

2. DISCUSSION: Are we going to act like policemen or like an army?

• Generally, a police response is thought to be appropriate where there is a small group of malefactors who can be "arrested." A military response is appropriate against a nation or other political unit who must be "defeated." Which is applicable here?
• Another way of thinking about this is that the purpose of the police is to "keep the peace." The purpose of an army is to "defeat the enemy." Which are we trying to do? Is our objective here to "arrest" a bunch of terrorists, and "bring them to justice" (in the sense of giving them a "fair trial"), or is it to "defeat the enemy," killing them if they resist?

3. DISCUSSION: What is war?

Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian military theoretician. Defined modern thinking about war, its purposes, its nature. On War is his major work -- often cited, but rarely read. According to Clausewitz war is:

• Political. It is an extension of the political process. The purpose of politics is to advance the welfare and interests of society. War ought to be a particular case of that general goal. When analyzed, must think of war in the same way and with the same critical method as you use for any other instrument of policy (economic relations, trade, treaties negotiation). Therefore, military must be directed by the civilian government. Every step from the initial declaration of war to its conduct and strategy must be related to the acquisition of a national goal.
• Imposition of will. Intent is to impose the will of the warring country on another country.
• Forceful. In theory, it is total. Meaning that if war is an instrument of policy to obtain a goal, then it can have no limits other than that goal. To state otherwise would mean that the goal is itself subordinate to some other goal. [Important point -- war is violent. Sounds obvious. But cannot forget. Cannot decide to go to war and then quit because it is violent. In war, object is to kill people -- shoot them, burn them, use explosives to blow off body parts. Civilians get caught in the middle. Terrible endeavor, and will be viewed every night on TV. Must not ever kid ourselves.] In reality, war is much less than total. Not only because of the unthinkable consequences of nuclear annihilation, but because of the influence of mutually recognized moral limitations.
• Organized. Principles, strategies, tactics. Soldiers study these: movement, mass, supply, surprise, others. Also, legal limitations on the conduct of war. War is not a riot.

Our working definition: WAR IS THE ORGANIZED, FORCEFUL IMPOSITION OF WILL ON ANOTHER COUNTRY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

4. Having said that, war is extremely complex.

a. What causes war? Two very different views: (1) War is caused by sociological circumstances (arms races, economic conditions, crises, etc.) Even quantified into "war index.^" (2) Wars are fought for causes, ranging from establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, to (in Shakespeare's words) the length of a straw.

• DISCUSSION: Which view?

[My opinion -- better view is that wars are fought for causes. Different people have different motives in war some see monetary gain, some see territory, some see military career advancement -- all of whose voices will be heard in the call for war ... but, must mobilize public support, must sustain prolonged hardship and loss, must sacrifice dozens of other national goals. Cannot do this without a "cause."]

Which "causes" have produced wars?

• Integrity of the state (e.g., civil war)
• Preservation of way of life (e.g., secession)
• World order (fight against N. African pirates)
• Spread of religious or national ideology (wars of national liberation)
• Pursuit of justice (e.g., removal of Idi Amin by Nyerere)
• Removal of oppression (revolutions), Nationalism, national destiny (Hitler)
• Religious fervor (such as the Crusades and, in the minds of some at least, the Islamic war against the West)
• National obligation (such as from treaties) (such as the cascade of countries entering World War I)
• Self Defense (explicitly recognized in UN Charter, only recognized ground for war)

• DISCUSSION: Which of these are worth dying for? Isn't it a tougher question, which of these are worth killing for? How do you answer that?
• DIGRESSION: We live in a highly relativistic (sometimes called "tolerant") culture, one that says everyone's opinions are equally valid, that all cultures are equally legitimate. Makes it very hard to think about war. Recall photo of Princeton student with placard: "Nothing is worth dying for." Means no ideal, no principle, no toll of human suffering outweighs his personal assessment of the value of his own life. Leads to view of life that has been described as follows: "In the world it is called Tolerance ... the sin that believes in nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive only because there is nothing for which it will die." Contrast this with Lincoln's letter, especially the last sentence: "I pray that our heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom." Most Americans just don't think that way anymore.

b. Destructiveness of war. Depends more upon intention of soldiers than on means at their disposal. E.g., Carthage was sacked, burned, plowed under, and salted with nothing technologically more advanced than a sword.

c. War is not necessarily "primitive." Indeed, the only cultures identified that do not engage in war (very few) are primitive, such as Arapesh of New Guinea or the Pygmies of the Ituri forest. Most cultures, when they are at their peak (arts, sciences, government) are highly militaristic. Don't know why ... pretty depressing ... but seems to be true.

d. "All's fair in love and war" is generally false (at least with respect to war). Actually very complicated. There are rules of war, standards which govern both the initiation or war and the actual conduct of the fighting. See "The Law of Land Warfare." Standards are largely obeyed, despite what one might think and despite the highly publicized exceptions (such as My Lai). At the same time, war is the type of environment where standards of behavior often get suppressed. Although, it must be noted, that war also brings out the finest in human nature (self-sacrifice, bravery, idealism).

Therefore, when thinking about war, have to make two assumptions. Have to assume it is fought according to rules, that it is not just a free-for-all, no-holds-barred, barbaric killing spree. At the same time, must assume that there will be inevitable violations of the rules. Where the line will be drawn depends upon the conduct of the enemy, the integrity of the commanders, the justness of the cause.

5. What about peace?

• DISCUSSION: How many people here prefer peace to war? What is "peace"? Has the world ever had "peace"? Let's call common condition "non-war," i.e., there are really three conditions: peace (ideal, nonexistent), non-war, and war. In the real world, don't get to pick "peace." Your choices are non-war vs. war -- that's it. How many people prefer non-war to war?

a. Since 1900, 35 million people killed in war, of whom about 25 million were civilians. During the same period, approximately 100 million were killed by police forces, by forced labor, by imprisonment, by political executions, all at times and places of professed "peace" (really, non-war).

b. Even without a death toll, "non-war" can involve subjection, degradation, dehumanization, poverty, imprisonment, torture.

c. "Non-war" can be pretty awful.

6. CONCLUSION: War is complicated, and non-war is not necessarily a good thing. But we are Christians.

• DISCUSSION: Read Matt.5:44. Read Matt.26:52. Read Rom.12:14-21.

Here's the tension. Suppose you have a condition of "non-war" BUT it involves or threatens terrible suffering, or a condition of war waged against a weak and vulnerable country who calls out for help. In neither case can it be called "peace." As a Christian, what do you do? Are you ever allowed to fight? When, if ever, is it the Christian thing to do to blow people up? Will talk about that next week.

[To Next Lesson] [To Topic List]

10/27/01