Notes From Off Center - Latest Comments in War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Re: War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Brian — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:27:50 -0000

Should have read:

the use to which jus ad bellum has been put since Augustine penned it

Re: War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Brian — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:11:07 -0000

And that's exactly -- to one extent or another -- the use to which jus ad bellum has been put since Augustine: justifying otherwise unjustifiable wars. I mean, for Pete's sake, the Nazi Germans wore belt buckles that read "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

The broader problem I see -- and that I intimated in my original comment -- is that there is no option available to Americans who wish to see an end to the bellicosity that has been the US stock-in-trade for the last century, at least. The only difference is that they are "Republican wars" or "Democratic wars." Rhetoric from one side or the other about "diplomacy" is just "lipstick on a pig," if you'll pardon the expression.

I mean, let's be honest: if peace was what the Democrats wanted, they could simply vote to de-fund our ME hijinx (possibly electoral suicide, but certainly a valiant stand on principle). Pelosi's first act as Speaker, namely, taking impeachment "off the table," told me all I need to know about reason's place in American politics... at least, under the current two-party (sic) system.

Drew, I don't see a likely outcome to our current situation that isn't scary.

Re: War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Drew Tatusko — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:41:24 -0000

I understand that. Even as a lowest common denominator of sorts, the pre-emptive strike policy is unjust. I agree that if it was Jesus doing the negotiating, it would be even more radical. What bothers me is that the GOP has spoken little to nothing about diplomacy and peace and have rather put war as a first option and are justifying it. That's scary stuff.

Re: War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Brian — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:10:12 -0000

I understand that. I was saying -- though I did go off on a tangent -- that not only is pre-emptive strike doctrine unjust, but no retaliatory strike would be just.

I can't imagine the Jesus of the Gospels fighting in even a purely defensive war, and is he not the standard of behavior toward which we are supposed to strive?

I think the idea of a "just war" is an attempt to justify and rationalize the act of murder simply because it is at the behest and command of the state.

Re: War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Drew Tatusko — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:34:59 -0000

The point is if a pre-emptive strike doctrine is just.

Re: War as First Option or, When is War Just?

Brian — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:26:32 -0000

Drew, I would argue that the jus ad bellum doctrine diverges from the true practice of Christianity. I think a lot of people try to justify to themselves the murder of other human beings by claiming that the rules are different for the State. But who composes the State? It does not exist in a vacuum, nor of its own will.

I agree that any platform that separates "pro-life" from bellicosity abandons all principle for rhetoric. (Of course, I'd argue that any Congressman or Senator who hasn't attempted the "Constitutional Option" on abortion isn't anti-abortion, either, really; they just use it as a hot-button issue to gain re-election) In this way, both wings of the Demopublican Unity National Committee for Election (DUNCE, aka RNC or DNC) are immoral and wrong. As with their various preferred beneficiaries for welfare, they only differ on the "who," not the "what."

A truly Christ-like approach to the question would acknowledge that we believers are all strangers in a strange land, and that our loyalties should not lie with any man-made (if God-ordained) state. Our only loyalty to such should extend precisely so far only as such the actions of the state do not inhibit (or even promote) our abilities to discharge our Christian duties to each other and to unbelievers. (This does not include co-opting the state to discharge our duties for us)

The "opposition" candidates would simply change belligerents. In this, Palin (and McCain) is no more -- nor any less -- bad a choice than their complements on the other side. The only answer to this kind of dilemma is to either divorce ourselves from the fallacy that we must either check the evil with the "D" after its name, or the evil with the "R" after its name, and find a non-establishment candidate to vote for; or we must eschew the electoral process altogether.

Re: War as First Option or, When is War Just?

ptet — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:06:25 -0000

Great post again, Drew.

The incongruity of being "pro-war" while being "pro-life" is for me what makes much of USican evangelical Christianity into more of a nationalistic folk-religion than anything else...

Palin played a smart line here ... Well, for any viewers who don't think foreign policy experience actually means anything... She's kept her options open for future action while distancing herself from Bush.

One the one hand its tempting to say that anyone with half a brain won't be fooled by what was apparently a cynical, irrational and bizarre choice of VP candidate from McCain.

On the other hand, there's anecdotal evidence of "white women" (not my words) deserting Obama for McCain/Palin. I'll be watching the actual polls closely.

And as an aside... Biden as Obama's pick? Oh dear. hey well.