Posted on 04/01/2003 8:19:03 AM PST by sheltonmac
Onward Christian Soldiers?
Michael S. Horton
Recent events have once more invited a flurry of apocalyptic scenarios and rekindled the zeal of a distinctly American kind of patriotic piety. Left Behind, the series of runaway bestsellers by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, has reached its apogee now in a final installment that reportedly centers on Iraq (New Babylon) as the seat of Antichrist. Needless to say, this seat has been considerably mobile over the last several decades, depending on the most current nemesis of the United States.
The Memorial Drive Church of Christ in Tulsa, Oklahoma, announced a nationwide prayer assault in the following terms:
In the Old Testament, God's armies were always led by the priests. When the waters parted in the Jordan, it was the priests' feet which first hit the turbulent river. In the New Testament, Christians are also referred to as priests... all Christians. We must, therefore, go in first. As the possibility of war approaches with Hussein and Iraq, we are asking the priests to step in first... ahead of our military. Let us be setting up camp for our soldiers' entrance into the conflict. How? By prayer. Let us be sending in 'prayer missiles,' 'cruise and scud prayers' to target enemy plans. 'Patriot prayers' to shoot down incoming threats.
One wonders whether Iraqi Christians (there are a good number, after all) could pray this same prayer. It is fairly obvious, in fact, that they couldn't, since it is not a Christian prayer for the aversion of war or for limited casualties in the event of war, but an American prayer for military victory.
We at Memorial are praying for two things: (1) that the enemy leaders become confused, disoriented, and distrustful of each other; that their entire system of attack fall apart, and (2) that in God's wildest ways, these enemies would become aware of His deep love for them and the war Jesus has already fought for them, personally, on the cross. God had Gideon reduce his army from 32,000 to 300 men. He then equipped them with nothing but trumpets, pitchers, and torches. What an odd combination to fight off well-armed soldiers. When Gideon gave the command, the Bible says the enemy fled crying and turned on each other... all because God messed with enemy plans.
Despite the appeal to God to show them how much he loves them, it is clear that they are enemies of God inasmuch as they are America's enemies. One might be forgiven for missing the part about God's forgiving grace at the cross, lost as it is in a cloud of imprecatory appeals ("patriot prayers") for Iraq's military defeat. Our brothers and sisters in Tulsa conclude,
When our men and women of uniform arrive on the scene, may they be surprised at how God had camp set up before they ever got there.
That there is real evil in the world a Christian can hardly doubt and that there are just wars to be reluctantly but valiantly waged is part of the inevitable reality of a fallen world. Yet even American foreign policy is sometimes laden with the rhetorical overtones of a war between Christ (America and its democratic allies) and Anti-Christ (the current enemy). It is not enough that Christian theology allows wars under some carefully defined circumstances (just war); nearly any U. S. military action is practically considered a "holy war" by many evangelical Christians.
We talk a lot about the Muslim concept of Jihad, which (at least for radical Islamists) entails holy war, but ever since the victory of Constantine in 312 at the Milvian Bridge, where the recently converted emperor claimed to have seen a vision of a cross with the emblem, "In this sign conquer," the sad legacy of confusing the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of the world has left untold wreckage in its path. Casting themselves in the role of successors to King David, quite apart from any biblical warrant, medieval princes sent their knights into "holy war" to drive out of the land whatever "Canaanites" happen to oppose the kingdom of God: the holy Roman empire.
The problem with this imaginative narrative that justified atrocities from the crusades to slavery, manifest destiny and apartheid is that it not only finds no support from the Bible but is utterly antithetical to the way Christian scripture treats the relation of the kingdom of God to the kingdoms of this world. In the Old Testament, to be sure, a lot of space is given to telling the stories of holy wars and holy land, but that is because (as believers understand it, anyway) Israel was in fact elected by God out of the nations of the world to belong to the God of the covenant. However, Israel's tenure in the land was conditioned on faithfulness to that covenant and, as the Hebrew prophets recount in tragic terms, the outcome of that probation was their expulsion from the land and exile in Babylon. When will the exile be over? That was the question that everybody was asking in Palestine when Jesus was born and the New Testament answers it by saying that the Messiah himself, as Israel's representative, bore the sins of his people, Jew and gentile, and that now this international community of those who have faith in Christ constitutes the true children of Abraham.
If this is true, no nation can claim God as its political protector--if not the modern nation-state of Israel, then certainly not the United States. God does not covenant with nations, but (according to Revelation 5:9) with believing families "from every tribe, kindred, tongue, people and nation" who together constitute "a kingdom of priests to our God."
And if no nation can claim God's blessing in general, then it cannot presume on God's blessings with respect to war in particular. Many revolutionary zealots at Jesus' side were expecting the Messiah to overthrow Roman domination and reconstitute Israel as the holy land, cleansing the temple and driving out the godless. When Jesus came "not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance," evidenced by his penchant for hanging out with the wrong crowd, and even chastised his own disciples for wanting to execute the Last Judgment themselves here and now, confusion grew about what Jesus was all about after all. There was a time when God did ride into battle ahead of Israel's armies and maintain his presence in the Temple, but "the time is coming and now is," he said, when God's true worshipers will come to him as the locus of God's earthly presence. He is the Temple, the place where God dwells among his people. When he entered Jerusalem on a donkey, he was hailed as king by the throngs that turned against him, disappointed, when it appeared that his kingdom ended in defeat at the hands of the Romans. They did not recognize the true nature of that kingdom and what its king was up to in the way he established it.
There will be a time of final judgment, when he returns in glory, Jesus insisted. However, that time is not yet. For now, the wheat and weeds grow together. It is the planting and growing season, not the final harvest. It is the time of grace, forgiveness of sins, the announcement of God's "good news" to the ends of the earth. Only on the last day will there be a clear distinction between, much less separation of, the children of light and the rest.
The repeated emphases in the New Testament, then, is not that the Old Testament was wrong, but that it was provisional — a "schoolmaster to lead us to Christ," as Paul said. Through its myriad shadows and anticipatory figures, it pointed to the one greater than Moses, the faithful Seed of Abraham, who would fulfill God's destiny for Israel as the "light to the nations." If we are not to return to the shadows of the Old Testament theocracy, still less are we to invent national covenants that God has not authorized. Jesus Christ is David's greater Son, and to draw a line from David to anyone else or from Israel to any existing nation other than Christ and his international body is to tell a completely different story than the one the Bible tells.
Does that mean that there is no place for a Christian understanding of war? Not at all. Ever since the church father Augustine, who distinguished between the City of God and the City of Man in the ways we've been considering, attempts have been made to wrestle with how it is that people who profess to be Christians can go to war. The so-called just war theory, the premise of most western concepts of the ethics of war, is the product of that reflection. According to this approach, since no wars are divinely authorized in this age, any declaration of war made by a secular state must eschew confusion with any notion of holy war. The Christian's warfare, said St. Paul, involves spiritual rather than physical militancy.
Yet, Christians who serve in government, in the military and as citizens participate in the defense of national interests must engage in one way or another in physical conflict. While Christian convictions have long underwritten humane, principled and restrained just war ethics, the failure of Christians over the centuries to recognize their military engagements as purely secular affairs and their confusion of earthly empires with the kingdom of God have ended up taking with the left hand what was given with the right. No war is more vicious, no atrocities more freely legitimized, nor evil more easily justified, than those that purport to be executing God's redemptive purposes in history.
So between the extremes of pacifism and militarism, Christians ought to embrace a clear distinction between the kingdom of God and earthly conquests while allowing the just war ethic a renewed prominence in our reflection on when -- and when not -- to engage in that terrible action that is all too common and yet still all too necessary in this time that the apostles called "this present evil age."
A Few Guiding Thoughts in the Current Climate
1. Distinguish our heavenly and earthly citizenship without separating them or setting them at odds. This is the most difficult and yet foundational move in this matter. Jesus taught us to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." Even with the diabolical Nero in office, the Apostle Paul recognized the temporal authority, going so far as to call secular rulers "ministers of God" to hold evil and disorder in check. John Calvin's comments are to the point. Remember, he says, that we are "under a two-fold government,... so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature....Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men." Although these two kingdoms are different, "we must know that they are not at variance." Christians can and should be concerned about and involved in civil affairs, including patriotic support for troops, but in no way confusing national interests with those of the kingdom of Christ.
2. Recognize that while all effort should be made to avert any particular war, the fact of war is inevitable in a fallen world, where earthly judgment of evil must necessarily take place. Tyrants must be restrained as much as possible, injustices must be confronted, and borders must be protected. Christians do not simply put their faith in a closet for the time being when such actions are deemed necessary, but affirm the necessity of such defenses in a fallen world. By not confusing the kingdom God with either political and military pacifism or patriotism, they are better able to treat specific military conflicts as purely secular affairs. They neither curse nor bless military operations on any explicitly Christian basis. This does not mean, of course, that Christian convictions do not offer wisdom that leaders should heed when contemplating this ultimate and tragic option. As argued above, centuries of Christian reflection gave rise to the just war ethic that has had enormously positive benefits. Even when western nations, including the United States, have engaged in unjust aggression and committed flagrant atrocities, they have been called to account by fellow powers and their own people precisely on the basis of their supposed commitment to these higher principles. It is perhaps time to re-educate ourselves in just war theory, working our way through Augustine, Luther, Calvin and more recent writers on the subject.
3. Bear in mind that God's providence is mysterious and secret. Based on Deuteronomy 29:29, we are to carefully distinguish God's secret predestination from his revealed will and plans. We know, for instance, that God hates injustice; we do not know that he wants Saddam Hussein to be evicted from Iraq. The former is revealed in scripture, while the latter is not. Apart from scripture, we do not know what God has planned for Iraq, America or any other nation. This is true in our own guidance as individuals. Scripture gives us tremendous wisdom for our decision-making, but it does not give us access to God's predetermined plans.
4. Don't read the Bible as though it were "tea leaves." The Bible is about God and his plan of redemption for the world in Jesus Christ; it is not about America or the headlines on CNN. Nostradamus is not a part of the biblical canon. Illustrated in the examples above (end-times scenarios like Left Behind and patriotic prayer movements), scripture is often misused by means of allegorizing. Allegorizing is a common fallacy in the history of biblical interpretation. For example, we are all familiar with the ways in which Old Testament Bible stories become moral lessons: "Dare to Be a Daniel"; "Five Smooth Stones for the Goliaths in Your Life," etc. Often, these stories are taken out of their context. We forget what God is doing then and there at a certain point in redemptive history and instead we simply use these stories for our own purposes. This happens also when we allegorize the history of Israel as our own individual story or as the story of our nation, our particular congregation, etc. "Christendom" is the history of one long allegory. It is the tale of a secular empire re-telling the story of Israel around itself instead of, as the New Testament does, around the person and work of Christ. This fallacy is alive and well in our day, as the examples I've cited illustrate.
5. Think critically and pray diligently. Since there are no easy answers, we have to analyze news reports, official statements and the arguments of experts drawing largely on common sense. But common sense does not equal common conclusions. We must give each other latitude in coming to different conclusions. In hindsight, it is easy even for those who supported the Vietnam conflict to now be more critical of entering and sustaining the war. Similarly, committed Christians will have honest disagreements about whether war with Iraq is justified under the present circumstances. Even those who agree in principle (viz., just war theory) will find disagreements in practice (strategy, execution, policy, etc.). There just is no "Christian" position on the latter, including whether to go to war in any specific instance. Christian leaders and citizens must therefore turn to God for wisdom, through prayer and meditation on scripture. Although this will not give them any justification for claiming to know God's will beyond what is revealed in scripture, God has promised to give wisdom to those who seek it from him.
6. Remember that all civil actions taken in this age, whether by Christian or non-Christian rulers, serve the same purpose: to restrain evil, not to eliminate it; to hinder injustice, not to banish it; to execute temporal and provisional judgments not eternal and final ones. An earlier strike on Iraq was given the code name "Operation Ultimate Justice," but this is in effect to claim to be God ourselves. Our hope is in the Lord who made the heavens and the earth and who became flesh in order to save not only souls but people and not only people but "the whole creation," as Romans 8 so marvelously explains. This gives us an "already" / "not yet" eschatology. In other words, "the age to come" is breaking in on us through the preaching of the Gospel in word and sacrament, but only on the last day will the announcement be heard, "Now have the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ and he shall reign forever." For now, the kingdom of Christ lies hidden, like Christ in his earthly ministry, under the form of suffering and the cross. Only when Christ returns will his body be transformed into his glorious likeness. And only then will Christ's kingdom be victorious in power, driving evil from the earth and executing a final judgment of the world. Until then, we need the secular sword to restrain evil, but we also must not mistake that secular power for the eschatological judgment that awaits the world on the Day of the Lord.
7. Finally, we need to constantly recall that the church of Christ (though not America!) is in a missionary situation during this age between Christ's two advents. While there will be wars and rumors of wars until the end, some of which will involve Christians (sometimes on both sides of the battlefield), the church as the church does not take sides. When it does (as the examples above again illustrate), our witness in the world is considerably weakened. At his holy table, Christ does not ask whether a communicant is Iraqi (even an Iraqi soldier) or American, but whether he or she comes to him in repentance and faith. Are public prayers for American soldiers offered in such a way as to give the impression that God is our national mascot? One thinks of war memorials and regimental flags hanging in English churches or American flags in the front of our own sanctuaries and wonders whether there is still some confusion in our understanding of the great commission and the spiritual and international character of Christ's kingdom. There is nothing wrong with attaching "Old Glory" to our car antennas, but let us leave them in the parking lot on the Lord's Day. May we do our duty to both our heavenly and national citizenship without giving to either a cause for reproach.
Michael S. Horton, Ph.D., is president of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and associate professor of apologetics and historical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in California (Escondido, California).
A fact that I don't think that any of us wish to fully comprehend.
I hadn't seen those posts until now. I must say I derive great pleasure following how the both of you are able to construct cogent and articulate arguments.
Your point regarding a greater enemy is well-taken and something I have wrestled with. I think I have come to the conclusion this is the right enemy at the right time for the following reasons:
1. A war with Iraq as opposed to N. Korea, assuming that you regard N. Korea as a greater threat, is justified based on the Just War theory of keeping casualities as low as possible. Since N. Korea already possesses nueclar bombs the potential for causalities is far greater.
2. Another arguement for Iraq as opposed to N. Korea that I have heard have been along the line that since N. Korea already possess nueclar bombs it is more important at this stage to prevent Iraq the ability to develop them. This seems to be the proliferation arguement. Additionally, since Saddam has proven that he will use WMD and N. Korea has not, to my knowledge anyway, there is far greater justification for war against Iraq.
3. Theologically speaking, it seems wise to me that justice is carried out against a nation in which we dominate as a sign to other countries that evil will not be tolerated. In executing this war in both a just and merciful way we demonstrate as an example to other nations not only that there will be retribution for evil but also mercy (read: humanitarian aid) for those who resist from evil. In the Old Testament God often showed retribution and mercy to individuals as an example to the people of Israel. My prayer is that our greater enemies will see the consequences of engaging in evil acts and resist their tendencies to engage in those actions. I find the pyschological and spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of the people of this world to be extremely important. Notice how the devil is using his puppets, such as Peter Arnet, to try and convince the world that the U.S. is losing this war or encountering such stiff resistance that it needs to readjust it's war policies. By any objective historical criteria this war has been both one of the quickest land grabs and at the same time inflicted a minimium of civilian casualities yet the devil is active in trying to convince the world we are losing and inflicting great harm on civilians. Our victory and mercy are both vitally important to future events.
4. This war is about oil. Not as the liberals contend that this war is about enriching Bush and his cronies. Rather, from a world economic viewpoint this region is more important than N. Korea. I think this falls within the Just War theory too. If we allowed this region to become so destabilized as to cause a world economic depression our governments would be failing it's citzens in allowing their people to suffer because of their failure to act.
The negative aspect of advancing against a weaker enemy is that we are giving a preview to our greater enemy of our military strengths and tactics. When weighed in the balance I still come out in the direction we are proceeding. I'm sure you have a different perspective and I would appreciate your opinion.
i thank you for those kind words, and i am certain that OP does as well (though i do not presume to speak for him). It is always a challenge that is probably beyond my abilities to take on his arguments. None the less, these "war games" that we have a tendacy to play with each other does tend to sharpen the both of us:
Your point regarding a greater enemy is well-taken and something I have wrestled with. I think I have come to the conclusion this is the right enemy at the right time for the following reasons:
1. A war with Iraq as opposed to N. Korea, assuming that you regard N. Korea as a greater threat, is justified based on the Just War theory of keeping casualities as low as possible. Since N. Korea already possesses nueclar bombs the potential for causalities is far greater.
The questions becomes how hiqh our casualties actually would be, and do we simply reckon US casualties in the equation?
In terms of US casualties, we should probably assume minimal among forces in Korea. The great myth is that US Ground Forces need be committed in mass numbers. This is not so. The ROK army is quite capable of dealing with the DPRK since they have superior material of war, and an attacker has required at least a 3 to 1 advantage to overwhelm a defensive position. US support would be in terms of Air Power, and Sea Launched missles. i would not be surprised to discover that one or more Ohio Class ballistic missle submarines are sitting just off the coast, waiting to take out Kim Jong Il's nuke production facilities with a cruise missle strike (got to be careful about how we do that, a run away nuke pile is worse than a bomb, a bomb blows, and the fallout produced is limited, you can't "shut off" a core meltdown). Oddly enough, most of the fighters besides the ROK will be Japanese, who are VERY concerned, concerned enough to consider violating their own Constitution and launch a preemptive strike against the DPRK. They consider Kim's missle tests to be a serious threat in light of his recent threatening statements against the ROK and The USA, which leads us into the next issue.
2. Another arguement for Iraq as opposed to N. Korea that I have heard have been along the line that since N. Korea already possess nueclar bombs it is more important at this stage to prevent Iraq the ability to develop them. This seems to be the proliferation arguement. Additionally, since Saddam has proven that he will use WMD and N. Korea has not, to my knowledge anyway, there is far greater justification for war against Iraq.
The DPRK has demonstrated the willingness to ship WMD technology and material aid to Iraq and other enemies of the US. You may recall a recently intercepted shipment of SCUD missles from the DPRK to Yemen. As far as intent Kim Jong Il has made a great many threatening statements as of late, including the threat to launch Nuclear War against the United States. Many of those statements have been posted here on FR, although i have not bookmarked any of the threads. Frankly, we don't know What Kim has committed against his own population, aside from starving them to death in order to continue to indulge his lifestyle, and provide material for his army. The reports that we do get from the survivers suggest someone who was far worse than Hitler ever dreamed of being.
3. Theologically speaking, it seems wise to me that justice is carried out against a nation in which we dominate as a sign to other countries that evil will not be tolerated. In executing this war in both a just and merciful way we demonstrate as an example to other nations not only that there will be retribution for evil but also mercy (read: humanitarian aid) for those who resist from evil. In the Old Testament God often showed retribution and mercy to individuals as an example to the people of Israel. My prayer is that our greater enemies will see the consequences of engaging in evil acts and resist their tendencies to engage in those actions. I find the pyschological and spiritual battle for the hearts and minds of the people of this world to be extremely important. Notice how the devil is using his puppets, such as Peter Arnet, to try and convince the world that the U.S. is losing this war or encountering such stiff resistance that it needs to readjust it's war policies. By any objective historical criteria this war has been both one of the quickest land grabs and at the same time inflicted a minimium of civilian casualities yet the devil is active in trying to convince the world we are losing and inflicting great harm on civilians. Our victory and mercy are both vitally important to future events.
We may have a slight disagreement here in deterrence. i strongly believe that if one "beats" up the biggest bully boy in the school, the "lesser" bullies are inclined to re-think their intentions in light of the example given to them.
Since the population of the DPRK is starving on a basis that staggers the imagination, the US will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate mercy in simply feeding and caring for that population, and ministering the Love of Christ to them. It will also serve as a test for the Christians in the ROK, most of whom are of the Reformed faith (in my own denomination we have two exclusively Korean expatriot congregations), and would serve to as an example to the nations of East Asia, where the Gospel has made relatively few inroads.
4. This war is about oil. Not as the liberals contend that this war is about enriching Bush and his cronies. Rather, from a world economic viewpoint this region is more important than N. Korea. I think this falls within the Just War theory too. If we allowed this region to become so destabilized as to cause a world economic depression our governments would be failing it's citzens in allowing their people to suffer because of their failure to act.
This is a contention that i have strongly disagreed with, Rush Limbaugh's arguments not withstanding. Fact is: If the Middle East does not sell it's oil to the United States, it simply cannot enrich itself to the extent that it has. Were we to boycott Middle East Crude, those nations would soon collapse. Worse comes to worse, we have the capability of blockading the Persian Gulf, and completly shutting off the flow of oil to the world, esentially starving off the Arab States. Those nations should thank the True God that we have never contemplated doing so.
i do agree with Limbaugh on one point: We will continue to buy oil at fair market price as we always have, no matter who is in charge. While we will face some short term disadvantage when we begin to rebuild Iraq, the sanctions will go away, and the Iraqi People will be quite capable of paying for what assistance they require to put their nation back together. We get little to no oil from Iraq as it is, so the oil argument does not affect us at all.
As per the economy, What do you suppose disruption of the production of goods and services from Korea, Japan, China, and Taiwan caused by a DPRK initiated strike would do to the world economy? Be aware that Japan buys the majourity of it's oil from the United States.
Iran on the other hand is turning into an enigma. The population, and the government are fed up with the Religious Fanatics on the courts, and we may see a regime change. While they are doing Nuclear research, and have a weapons programme, they do not Love Saddam, and are (at the moment) not a threat in this war.
i have been skeptical about the Iranian threat since the book Winds of Change by Reza Pahlavi (son of the Sha of Iran) came out.
Will not be the first time, and probably not the last.
i do seem to recall that in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, he mentioned that the Iraqis were trying to procure High Strength Aluminum tubes, implying that if the Iraqis do have a Weapons Programme, they have not developed it to the point where it is at present a threat to us. Kim Jong Il on the other hand, does have the bomb, and is a threat at this very moment.
Amen, brother!
I'm good friends with several Canadians, and that is one of the major shortcomings they see in American Christians.
The questions becomes how hiqh our casualties actually would be, and do we simply reckon US casualties in the equation? In terms of US casualties, we should probably assume minimal among forces in Korea. The great myth is that US Ground Forces need be committed in mass numbers. This is not so. The ROK army is quite capable of dealing with the DPRK since they have superior material of war, and an attacker has required at least a 3 to 1 advantage to overwhelm a defensive position.
Considering the current S. Korean government and it's opposition to current U.S. strategy how well can we depend on the S. Koreans government to support any action? My understanding is that we have in the neighborhood of 50,000 U.S. troops in S. Korea. If we were to intiate action what are the probabilites that the N. Koreans could launch a nuclear bomb towards S. Korea killing most of our troops and countless S. Koreans?
The DPRK has demonstrated the willingness to ship WMD technology and material aid to Iraq and other enemies of the US. You may recall a recently intercepted shipment of SCUD missles from the DPRK to Yemen. As far as intent Kim Jong Il has made a great many threatening statements as of late, including the threat to launch Nuclear War against the United States.
Excellent points and certainly a concern. Yet I think we must weight the actual evidence of the use of WMD far higher than a threat of implementation. Additionally, I have read on this forum that China cut off oil supplies to N. Korea. Your point regarding Japan's insecurity regarding N. Korea is well-taken. It seems to me that the geopolitical pressures in Aisa are far greater than they are in the Middle East for a variety of reasons. Based on these reasons I sense that the threat from N.Korea to be contained in a more manageable way than the Middle Eastern scenario. It seems to me that China's economic well-being is so inextricably tied to the U.S. economy that they will continue to pressure N. Korea to restrain without the concerns of any religous baggage in their decision making that seems to hinder the geopolitical pressures in the Middle East. Is my analysis of geopolitical pressures misguided?
We may have a slight disagreement here in deterrence. i strongly believe that if one "beats" up the biggest bully boy in the school, the "lesser" bullies are inclined to re-think their intentions in light of the example given to them. Since the population of the DPRK is starving on a basis that staggers the imagination, the US will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate mercy in simply feeding and caring for that population, and ministering the Love of Christ to them. It will also serve as a test for the Christians in the ROK, most of whom are of the Reformed faith (in my own denomination we have two exclusively Korean expatriot congregations), and would serve to as an example to the nations of East Asia, where the Gospel has made relatively few inroads.
I would agree that it would be optimal to "beat" up the bigger bully but considering the other contingent factors I've listed I still think the bigger bully will gain a respect (fear) of our abilities in such a way that it may restrain their evil actions. Reagan's "peace through strength" agenda effectively ended the Cold War without a major conflict. A display of our strength in this case should send an even clearer message to N. Korea that we are serious. I also agree that the starvation problem in N. Korea is horrendous. Yet remember we agree to a seperation between the actions of the Church and secular government. The oppression against it's own citzens by N. Korea is certainly a factor in any aggression but does not rise above the threshold of actual aggression against the U.S. or any evidence of the use of WMD. In this case I would suggest our government employ all diplomatic means available to demonstrate our mercy at least until N. Korea crosses the threshold that requires retribution. What is your view on the role of the U.S. against governments that oppress their own people?
Fact is: If the Middle East does not sell it's oil to the United States, it simply cannot enrich itself to the extent that it has.
True. Fact is: The U.S. still buys 50% of it's oil from the Middle East. If the U.S. was cut off from 50% of it's oil it would send our economy into a tailspin that would make the Great Depression seem like a minor recession. This would, of course, send the rest of the world into an economic depression. My arguement is not about Iraqi oil per se but rather about the political stabilization of the region through the removal of the major disrupting influence in the region and the effect would be a stabilization of the oil markets. A major strike by N. Korea against the U.S. would result in a unity of the world for the removal of the regime that would not include the silly gymnastics of the U.N. and the regimes removal would occur quickly and the economic effects on the world markets would be relatively short-term. If the world economy was dependent upon some resource in this region as it is dependent upon oil from the Middle East I would agree with your assesment. Do you really think our politicians could summon the political will for a Persian Gulf blockade?
Considering the current S. Korean government and it's opposition to current U.S. strategy how well can we depend on the S. Koreans government to support any action? My understanding is that we have in the neighborhood of 50,000 U.S. troops in S. Korea. If we were to intiate action what are the probabilites that the N. Koreans could launch a nuclear bomb towards S. Korea killing most of our troops and countless S. Koreans?
The response to this particular point takes two general tacts.
1) The first question is how strong that opposition really is? It is a fact that every year close to final exams the youth of South Korea demonstrate, usually againist the oppression of their own Government, but they have been known to demonstrate against the American "occupation" of their country. One must ask a second question, Is this Government opposition, or a civil opposition. It is a legitimate question, because there are few left who remember the first Korean War. The view has i suspect recently changed, due to the fact that the DPRK "tested" a missle in the Sea of Japan during the inaguration of the new South Korean President. Both Secretary of State Powell, and the Japanese Prime Minister were in attendance in Seoul that day.A final factor to consider is that due to the close proximity of Puynyang to Seoul, an ICBM is overkill in delivering a nuclear strike. A Scud would suffice. The United States does have a limited Theater Missle Defense system that is capable of intercepting such a missle. No, those Long Range missles are designed to strike the United States and possibly Japan (The Koreans, North and South have an history with Japan that is not a pleasant one), not South Korea. Other types of WMD, especially Chemical weapons are a serious threat.
2) The second point is that the 37,000 army troops (the rest are Air force and other services), and of those army troops, only two brigades of the Second Infantry Division (about 10,000 men), are the real combat power of the United States in Korea. The remnant of the Second Infantry is stationed at Ft. Lewis, Washington BTW. This force is a drop in the bucket compared to South Korean Forces available. So the fact is that our deterrence is at best symbolic. There is no strategic reason to have those forces in South Korea. Recently, the call to remove those forces has been again heard in congress, and i expect that there will be more ears to hear this time.
Excellent points and certainly a concern. Yet I think we must weight the actual evidence of the use of WMD far higher than a threat of implementation. Additionally, I have read on this forum that China cut off oil supplies to N. Korea. Your point regarding Japan's insecurity regarding N. Korea is well-taken. It seems to me that the geopolitical pressures in Aisa are far greater than they are in the Middle East for a variety of reasons. Based on these reasons I sense that the threat from N.Korea to be contained in a more manageable way than the Middle Eastern scenario. It seems to me that China's economic well-being is so inextricably tied to the U.S. economy that they will continue to pressure N. Korea to restrain without the concerns of any religous baggage in their decision making that seems to hinder the geopolitical pressures in the Middle East. Is my analysis of geopolitical pressures misguided?
Let's address the China question first, as it is the easiest. China does Lots of business with South Korea, and has a vested interest in keeping things peaceful. You also may not be aware that China lost over 1,000,000 men in the Korean war. i'll give that one to you. Unfortuantely, Kim Jong Il never was very good at listening to anyone except himself. i don't know how Kim will respond to the shut off of oil, but he didn't respond in an acceptable way to the shut off of food from the United States and Austrailia.
Concerning your first point, Kim is not rational. We should not expect him to make a rational response to any incentive. The second matter is that Kim has absolutely nothing to loose. Philosophy and ideology does play into this equation. Kim is schooled in the Stalinist version of Marxism as was his father, Kim Il Sung (the elder Kim was actually quite rational though). Although not rational, within that Stalinist paradign, Kim Jong Il is not wastefull. Like Stalin, his view is "Why kill people and gain nothing from it, when it is far easier to work them to death in the Gulag, and get some productive use out of them?" In this sense, he is more intelligent than Saddam. As i posted to you previously, we don't know what all is going on in Kim's death camps, perhaps the testing of WMD, we have never been able to find out as those who live to tell about it are few. If war breaks out, do not be surprised to see China open a Northern front against Kim.
I would agree that it would be optimal to "beat" up the bigger bully but considering the other contingent factors I've listed I still think the bigger bully will gain a respect (fear) of our abilities in such a way that it may restrain their evil actions. Reagan's "peace through strength" agenda effectively ended the Cold War without a major conflict. A display of our strength in this case should send an even clearer message to N. Korea that we are serious. I also agree that the starvation problem in N. Korea is horrendous. Yet remember we agree to a seperation between the actions of the Church and secular government. The oppression against it's own citzens by N. Korea is certainly a factor in any aggression but does not rise above the threshold of actual aggression against the U.S. or any evidence of the use of WMD. In this case I would suggest our government employ all diplomatic means available to demonstrate our mercy at least until N. Korea crosses the threshold that requires retribution. What is your view on the role of the U.S. against governments that oppress their own people?
Again, this idea presumes a rational person making those decisions. Even Kim Il Song was not that rational.
On the second issue of this paragraph, i quite agree with you: STARVING NORTH KOREANS ARE NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR A JUST WAR.
That being said, we have plenty of justification in the Aquinas sense for a war. Even in my days as a soldier, American Soldiers were being murdered by North Korean forces. Violations of the cease fire agreement of 1953 have been made by North Korea. US property has been interdicted by North Korean forces. i don't know how old you are, but the USS San Pueblo incident almost restarted the war. That ship still sits as illegally seized US property. In my army days, two American soldiers on United Nations territorial bounds in the DMZ were murdered by North Korean Forces who violated that territorial integredy. You may recall hearing about the multitudes of tunnels under the DMZ (we blow them up as we find them, but conceed that we have not found all of them) in direct violation of the Armistice that the North Korean Government signed with the United States. We have a multitude of causes for a Just war without worrying about others.
True. Fact is: The U.S. still buys 50% of it's oil from the Middle East. If the U.S. was cut off from 50% of it's oil it would send our economy into a tailspin that would make the Great Depression seem like a minor recession. This would, of course, send the rest of the world into an economic depression. My arguement is not about Iraqi oil per se but rather about the political stabilization of the region through the removal of the major disrupting influence in the region and the effect would be a stabilization of the oil markets. A major strike by N. Korea against the U.S. would result in a unity of the world for the removal of the regime that would not include the silly gymnastics of the U.N. and the regimes removal would occur quickly and the economic effects on the world markets would be relatively short-term. If the world economy was dependent upon some resource in this region as it is dependent upon oil from the Middle East I would agree with your assesment. Do you really think our politicians could summon the political will for a Persian Gulf blockade?
Fact of the matter is that the oil market was stable before this war began, and the price raise had nothing to do with the middle East, rather the continuing civil unrest in Venezeula, a major supplier of oil. A crisis in the Gulf may be our best friend in the long run, because the Enviro-pagan objection to drilling in the US would die that day. As per the Pacific Rim, we may end up fighting a war over Oil there. The Sprately Islands, oil rich, are claimed by the Chineese, the Philippeans, and the Vietnamese as well as Thaiwan. That could be a bloody conflict. Indonesia also has oil as well as Borneo, and Russian Siberia may actually outproduce the Gulf in the not-so-distant-future. On the final point, as alluded to above, North Korea has crossed that threshold on far too many occasions. Continued indifference to those actions begin to take on the scent of appeasement.
"Calvinist Dark Lord" is entirely too kind to me, and entirely too generous to me. (Ahhh, but these are rather soft criticisms on my part, given that our opponents often accuse us Calvinists of being too hard-nosed and "too smart" for our own good. Indeed, I secretly harbor the opinion that they accuse Calvinists of being too Biblical for our own Good -- a criticism I am prepared to accept!!)
C_D_L may have lost Formal Debates to the infamous David_K... but then again, who, on the entire East Coast, hasn't? He is entirely capable of answering my Arguments when I am ready to re-join the Discussion... he is just too humble to admit it (grin).
I miss FR a lot.
I have just been wrapped up on Business. Despite the deathly-morbid economic climate, it is looking like a good month for me.
Shockingly enough.... but Busy. (word to the wise -- with War Deficits approaching $500 Billion, buy TIPS Bonds while they are still cheap. You're probably wrong about the "salad days of TIPS Bonds being over", Torie -- they are only priced 100 basis points beneath Treasuries, which is HILARIOUSLY cheap in an inflationary War Economy).
Anyway, I really want to get back to FR when I have the chance.
In the meantime... Calvinist, Libertarian, et cetera -- CDL is well-qualified to speak for me. If needs be, he can always check it against Nymeyer.
Gosh, between Jesus, Paul, Dabney, Schlissel, Lee, and Nymeyer, you have pretty much the whole gamut of "OP's Calvinism" pretty well figgered out. ;-)
After 911 you would have had the Likes of an Albright and anothers trying to understand Saddam and OBL for them being upset with us!
There would be no homeland security etc.
It is amazing people are never thankful for whatever instrument the Lord uses to get the job done.
Maybe in the furture the Lord should get your approval for who is to facilitate the Lord mission.
If you didn't have voices like Rush, you would have had Al Gore for youdr president today!
So what did Rush Limbaugh have to do with the election? Did he change a single vote? We can't ever know.
Here is the facts about the 2k elections:
Vice President Gore did not loose the election because of the vote in Florida.i don't know what Rush Limbaugh had to do with that, but i don't suspect that there was that much to it.
Vice President Gore lost the election because he lost the state of West Virginia (the last time they went Republican was...nobody knows)
Vice President Gore lost the election because he lost the state of Arkansas the home state of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
Vice President Gore lost the election because he lost his own home state of Tennessee
i suspect more that even in the midst of the depravity THAT WE ALL SHARE DUE TO OUR SIN IN ADAM, God moved the population to disgust over the previous eight years of ammorality.
After 911 you would have had the Likes of an Albright and anothers trying to understand Saddam and OBL for them being upset with us!
Personally, i leave trying to predict an ALTERNATE HISTORY for the "chrystal ball/tin-foil-hat" crowd, and the excellent writers who publish that kind of work to entertain their audiences (Harry Turtledove bump here!!!)
The fact is, we cannot even determine IF 9/11 would have happened had Gore won the election
There would be no homeland security etc.
The fact is that many people who are concerned about their liberty have serious objections about the Department of Homeland Security. You know, the last time i took a look at the Constitution of the United States, i discovered that we already had a Department of Homeland Security
ARTICLE I SECTION VIII PARAGRAPH I:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"ARTICLE I SECTION VIII PARAGRAPH X:
"To define and Punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"ARTICLE I SECTION VIII PARAGRAPH XI:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"ARTICLE I SECTION VIII PARAGRAPH XV:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of hte Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"ARTICLE I SECTION VIII PARAGRAPH XVI:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescrebed by Congress;AMENDMENTS ARTICLE II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.We didn't need John Ashcroft or Tom Ridge (spit!) to infringe on the OTHER RIGHTS that we were gauranteed under that Constitution.
It is amazing people are never thankful for whatever instrument the Lord uses to get the job done.
i'm certain that Judas Iscariot was God's chosen instrument to "get the job done", but he is still in Hell.
Maybe in the furture the Lord should get your approval for who is to facilitate the Lord mission.
We already have that --it is called the election. The point simply remains THE UNITED STATES HAVE NOT BEEN, ARE NOT NOW, AND WILL NEVER BE "GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE" ANY MORE OR LESS THAN ANY OTHER NATION ON THIS EARTH
1) The first question is how strong that opposition really is? It is a fact that every year close to final exams the youth of South Korea demonstrate, usually againist the oppression of their own Government, but they have been known to demonstrate against the American "occupation" of their country. One must ask a second question, Is this Government opposition, or a civil opposition. It is a legitimate question, because there are few left who remember the first Korean War. The view has i suspect recently changed, due to the fact that the DPRK "tested" a missle in the Sea of Japan during the inaguration of the new South Korean President. Both Secretary of State Powell, and the Japanese Prime Minister were in attendance in Seoul that day.
My concern was not about a few silly college students protesting but rather my understanding was that the newly elected President was elected based on an anti-American platform. With any politician I understand that they emphasis certain policies in order to get elected and then back off a pure idealogical position once they are elected. Nevertheless, if the current President is against action in N. Korea it appears we would have to spend a considerable amount of political capital secure his support for an ROK invasion of N. Korea. Your point about the missle launch is the type of event that could sway their government and hopefully renewed cooperation. Your contention that are troops in S. Korea are only a symbolic deterrence appears to me to be correct. However, that symbolism seems to me to be important and the removal of those troops would send a message to the region that would not be to our benefit in the short term.
Let's address the China question first, as it is the easiest. China does Lots of business with South Korea, and has a vested interest in keeping things peaceful. You also may not be aware that China lost over 1,000,000 men in the Korean war. i'll give that one to you. Unfortuantely, Kim Jong Il never was very good at listening to anyone except himself. i don't know how Kim will respond to the shut off of oil, but he didn't respond in an acceptable way to the shut off of food from the United States and Austrailia.
The China question seems to me to be most delicate and complex in this situation. Potentially I see China as our greatest threat in the long run. It would not surprise me to learn that China offered to the U.S. the willingness to take out Kim Jong but the U.S. refused not wanting China to occupy half the Korean peninsula. Your analysis about Kim's lack of rational decsion making abilities and his Marxist ideology seems to me to be the strongest arguements for action against his regime. Without China's support Kim must feel "boxed in" and his willingness to engage in evil actions because he has nothing to lose probably increased.
That being said, we have plenty of justification in the Aquinas sense for a war. Even in my days as a soldier, American Soldiers were being murdered by North Korean forces. Violations of the cease fire agreement of 1953 have been made by North Korea. US property has been interdicted by North Korean forces. i don't know how old you are, but the USS San Pueblo incident almost restarted the war. That ship still sits as illegally seized US property. In my army days, two American soldiers on United Nations territorial bounds in the DMZ were murdered by North Korean Forces who violated that territorial integredy. You may recall hearing about the multitudes of tunnels under the DMZ (we blow them up as we find them, but conceed that we have not found all of them) in direct violation of the Armistice that the North Korean Government signed with the United States. We have a multitude of causes for a Just war without worrying about others.
I was unaware of much of that information. (38) My senses tell me that once Saddam's regime is gone and we feel relatively comfortable regarding the security of Iraq we will start to spend the political capital necessary to resolve the N. Korean problem. While I believe the case against N. Korea will be driven by more contemporary issues the facts you provided should certainly be part of our case against N. Korea.
Fact of the matter is that the oil market was stable before this war began, and the price raise had nothing to do with the middle East, rather the continuing civil unrest in Venezeula, a major supplier of oil. A crisis in the Gulf may be our best friend in the long run, because the Enviro-pagan objection to drilling in the US would die that day. As per the Pacific Rim, we may end up fighting a war over Oil there. The Sprately Islands, oil rich, are claimed by the Chineese, the Philippeans, and the Vietnamese as well as Thaiwan. That could be a bloody conflict. Indonesia also has oil as well as Borneo, and Russian Siberia may actually outproduce the Gulf in the not-so-distant-future. On the final point, as alluded to above, North Korea has crossed that threshold on far too many occasions. Continued indifference to those actions begin to take on the scent of appeasement.
Again, thanks for facts that I was unaware of. I had heard that Russian Siberia was oil rich but unaware of the Sprately Islands. It puzzles me why Russia has not taken greater advantage of that resource. I can only guess that they are still developing these wells for production. I agree we have appeased N. Korea long enough and hope to see the screws start to tighten here very soon. Thanks for your service to our country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.