Of Christmas, War and Peace
"And this shall be a sign unto you: You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.
"And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: Glory to God in the highest and on earth, peace to men of good will."
Here the argument begins. Is it biblical to say, "Peace on earth and good will to men," which is inclusive but inexact? Or does that dilute and distort the meaning of "Peace on earth to men of good will," which is restrictive?
The former, while ecumenical, seems pacifist. Do we wish good will today to al-Qaida? And is not the chorus singing out peace on earth "to men of good will" at the first Christmas a "heavenly army"?
And is not the purpose of an army to destroy enemies—in the case of the heavenly army, the army of the Devil?
"Peace on earth to men of good will" seems more consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, where the Lord says, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Surely, Christ was not here calling down blessings on the legions that had brought a Roman peace to the known world by conquering all tribes and nations through the power of the sword.
Yet, Christ did not exclude Romans soldiers from the company of men of good will. Of the centurion who implored him to heal his servant from afar, as "I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof," Christ said: "Amen, I say to you. I have not found such great faith in Israel."
The centurion's words have become immortal, as for centuries they have been repeated three times by the faithful before receiving communion at every Latin mass said on earth.
What the Bible seems to teach is that there are just causes worth fighting for and just men who fight in them, and "peace on earth" is not merely the absence of war, as "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar," but the presence of peace with justice.
To his credit, President Obama reintroduced, in his address at Oslo on accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace, the Christian concept of a just war.
(O)ver time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a 'just war' emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Obama is saying that not only must the cause be just, but the means employed. He went on to ask if, even in the "Good War" against Nazism, we always observed the Christian laws of war.
(F)or most of history, this concept of 'just war' was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations—total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.
In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
Though World War II was a just war, Obama was implying, it was not always conducted justly. Indiscriminate bombing of defenseless cities of defeated nations—Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is difficult to reconcile with a Christian concept of jus in bello.
And today's wars? Certainly, after Sep. 11, Afghanistan was a just war, justly fought. But as it has become Obama's war, with his having doubled U.S. forces in combat, what is it we are fighting for?
Comes the answer: to prevent a return of the Taliban, which could lead to a return of al-Qaida and a new base camp for terrorists preparing another Sept. 11. And if the Taliban return, Afghanistan will become a sanctuary for war on Pakistan, and the capture of its nuclear weapons by Islamic fanatics who would use them.
We are hence no longer fighting a war of necessity to root out terrorists so they cannot replicate an act of mass murder. We are fighting a preventive war—to prevent their return, from Pakistan, to Afghanistan.
Is this a just, necessary and wise war? From his own hesitancy in sending more troops and his ruminations at Oslo, Obama himself seems conflicted. And understandably so.
Merry Christmas, and peace on earth to men of good will.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
The people who lead (and have led) this country are at best nominal Christians. Furthermore, the idea of a just war fought in a just manner is a Catholic idea and the USA is an anti-Catholic country. Daniel Larison has some good discussions on his blog contrasting "Jacksonians" (those who favor unlimited means to win a just war) with conservative non-interventionists. In general, our statesmen have been Jacksonians and have not been reluctant to use holocaustic methods against our enemies. The decreasing utilty of such methods in unconventional wars has been the only brake on their use.
#1 wrote: "The people who lead (and have led) this country are at best nominal Christians."
After GWB and the neoconservatives got through with the GOP, now with its worshipful adoration of Mammon and Mars, there's very little truly Christian left about it.
As Christ said, "By their fruits ye shall know them," and it's a really rotten crop of fruit both parties have been harvesting for almost all of the last decade.
Am I misreading this, or is PJB on his way from being a Republican establishment enabler to being an Obamacon terror warrior (er ’scuse me – a warrior in the war against “violent extremism”)? And how far is this from enlisting in the neo-con war against “Islamo-fascism”? The probem is not with the “just wars” which US rulers like Obama occasionally preach, but with the unjust wars they consistently practice.
Mr. Higdon,
If you don't like Pat's columns, I suggest you stop reading his them. You'll be happier, and so will the rest of us.
I'm not sure why you think I'm unhappy, Mr. Piatak, nor do I know where you got your authority to speak for "the rest of us". You've made the comment before that anyone unhappy with PJB's columns should just stop reading them. That's just not the way a forum works. You read an article and then comment on it, whether in agreement or disagreement.
Mr Van Osbree, which discussions are you referring to? All I found at Eunomia which had anything to do with 'Jacksonians' was 'So Many Jacksonian Moments, So Few Jacksonians', which doesn't have anything to do with just war theory. It doesn't even mention it, nor does it mention interventionism.
Also, just war theory and just means of conducting war have been a concern of Protestant and Orthodox theologians as well as Catholic.
If only I had a quarter for every time someone called PJB a Republican shill. If buddying up to the GOP is the price Buchanan must pay to continue his syndicated column and presence on MSNBC, then so be it. He pushes the envelope on controversial issues that no one other "Republican establishment enabler" in the mainstream media would ever touch. What's the last hard-hitting piece on immigration, affirmative action, free trade or demographics that you've read by Jonah Goldberg or Ramesh Ponnuru?
I'm not quite sure what PJB is talking about here. Is he now joining with the Neo-Trots and Obamabots (and not a few Busheviks from the party of political drag queens) in the notion that securing the poppy fields and goat pastures of Pashtunistan are very, very important to our 'national security', or 'winning' in the Global War against Violent Extremism? Buchanan has been one of the few folks with a media gig to raise some real questions about Curious Jorge's Misunderestimated Mesopotamian Misadventures, after all. The idea that he's now gung-ho for such adventurism seems out-of-character.
The bottom line is that all such arguments cannot be taken seriously at all so long as our ruling overlords resolutely refuse to even consider the concept that Muslims (among others) have no business being allowed - much less encouraged - to migrate en masse to reside in Western countries. In light of the fact that Muslims continue to be imported - even in the midst of a depression where some 22 percent of the workforce is unemployed - so that they can live on taxpayer largesse as "refugees" in places like Lewiston, Maine (where they beat up 60-year old women in their off-time from prepartions to join up with the jihad-pirates back in the Umma), the only logical position is that all such claims of strategic importance, fighting wars on ter-r-r-r-r, etc, are merely tales told to entertain the publik-skool edumacated denizens of the Dumbass Dystopia between episodes of reality TV, Oprah and Jerry Springer.
That said, I doubt Obama has ever read any of the seminal works on just war theory. I seriously doubt he has read many, if any, of the Western classics at all. This is a guy who considers Toni Morrison, Thomas Friedman and Malcolm X to be great writers.
And I wholeheartedly agree that the Wilsonian nation building in Afghanistan is insane. It will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote on the war in Afghanistan: "According to reports, the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of gasoline per day. At $400 per gallon, that comes to a $320,000,000 daily fuel bill for the Marines alone. Only a country totally out of control would squander resources in this way."
BTW, PJB's latest article - about this soon-to-end first decade of the "New American Century" - is much more in his traditional vein. It's a superb take-down of the monumental idiocy we've seen for the last 9 years.
Some readers are anticipating that in 2010 Mr. Buchanan will find the time to write of the activities of the Bildenburg Group. Their history goes back to 1954, with meetings every year. They are stated
to be meetings of private citizens from many parts of the globe. Are
they part of the New American Century?
Anyone who calls 20th century American politician/warmakers "Jacksonians" is seriously confused about American history. Americans expanding to territory in North America in the early and mid-19th century is a vastly different thing from the Northeastern imperialism that took over in the late 19th century. Different groups, different purposes, different supporters, different rationales.
#4 Mr. Piatak, I think you misunderstand. It is because we admire Pat Buchanan that we are so disappointed when he seems to err.
Correction to #12 "Bildenburg Group", should be Bilderberg Group.
Appreciate Mr. C. Wilson's #13, for clarifying U.S. history for novice
history buffs who need updating in important times and circumstances.
M.A. Roberts, I think the quote is in error. Certainly it should read $4.00/gallon gasoline. That would be $3,200,000 per day. I would not know how accurate the 800,000-gallon number is.
The quotation is not in error. In October, the Department of Defense reported that the "fully burdened cost" of a gallon of gasoline used by our troops in Afghanistan—that is, the cost per gallon, when the cost of transporting the gasoline to its final destination is taken into account—is $400.
You can read more about it here: $400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan.
Well, OK, $320,000,000 per day of anything is $116,800,000,000 per year - thats 116.8 billion. I wonder what costs are not loaded into the cost of gasoline. That's only the Marines.