Posted by Rachel on: 06.07.2007 /
On the What does it mean to “die for your country?” thread, David H. left this thought-provoking comment:
The problem for me is that I can’t find where Christ allows national interests to be part of the equation on the value of any human life. If Christ is my King, if his kingdom is my ultimate citizenship, then I must have different allegiances and values…
My problem is with the leaders blindly pursuing “American interests” regardless of the cost to others. Has their effort made the world a better or safer place? How many wars need to be fought before they learn that violence, whether pre-emptive or reactionary (if the difference can even be told anymore), only results in more violence?
David raises an important question. Is national interest an acceptable moral bottom line, for the United States or for any nation?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: David H
1 06/7/07 11:43 AM | Comment Link |It is my belief that much of civil religion that focuses on God and country is intended — often quite conciously — to make national interest an acceptable bottom line. My country right or wrong because we are blessed by God. If we should fall — because we fail to act or because too many question our actions — then who will represent God (and democracy and the free market economy) in the world.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
2 06/7/07 4:05 PM | Comment Link |wow, david. Thankyou. I intend to respond at more length later, but my initial reaction is that you nailed something very important
Comment by: Martin Gugino
3 06/7/07 11:53 PM | Comment Link |“Dying for your country” might be ok. “Killing for your country” is another issue.
Comment by: Rachel
4 06/8/07 7:39 AM | Comment Link |Welcome to Justice and Compassion, Martin!
Comment by: JG
5 06/10/07 8:54 AM | Comment Link |This is where I really struggle with US foreign policy. I recoil when I hear reference to national interests.
For me it is right to regard national interests as important. I find it easier to reduce this to a level I can identify with where I believe the principles are the same. As a husband and father it is right for me to protect the interests of my family. It would be wrong for me to stand back and do nothing while someone came into my house and attacked my wife and children and walked out with their possessions. I have a duty to protect them and look out for their interests.
BUT and it is a big but. It would be wholly wrong for me to advance my family’s interests in a way that caused harm to others. If there are limited places at a school nursery, I should give my child a chance of getting a place but I should not seek to give them an unfair advantage or trample other children underfoot in the rush to get my child into that nursery.
In practice there are many duties, responsibilities and interests we should consider and it is a question of keeping them in the right balance.
So yes, it is right to pursue national interests but only in balance with other responsibilities such as to help, respect and support weaker and poorer countries rather than to exploit them.
Comment by: Rachel
6 06/10/07 7:37 PM | Comment Link |Well said, JG. And unfortunately, that seems to be exactly America’s attitude these days - our “interests” are all that is important and the rest of the world be damned!
Comment by: Elaine
7 06/11/07 11:43 AM | Comment Link |No. National Interest is not an acceptable moral standard for me. This is such a loaded term to me. When I hear it I think, they are going to lie to me about something.
Because of “NI” we have supported many men of questional character - Noreiga (Panama), Sadam Husseins, and many more - into power - only to be “shocked” when they turn on us. (For those of you younger than me, is this part of history even taught in our schools today?)
Our view of “NI” has always seemed to be short sighted - no long term conciderations go into the decision to act in the “NI”.
Invariably it seems to me that if the other guy is NOT doing what we want - we find another corrupt person to replace him AND think we can control the new corrupt guy — again all of this feels selfserving - Big business/oil industry benefit - so if it’s good for them - it’s good for all.
How is sinking to the level of our enemies a good moral standard?
What if…when 9/11 happened we had come together as a people and said - we have to model a different way (for Christians - consider “what would Jesus do”) - retaliation will only accelerate this violence. What if…we paused and said is there anything we have done in our past or present that contributed to them “hating” us so much? Who among our enemies and allies would we need to bring to the table to have a real conversation…to act as a real “super” power and model a different way.
There are always going to be crazy people in the world - but, all we did was give them an audience. Are we really better off now? Was this really in the “National Interest”?
Comment by: Rachel
8 06/11/07 2:22 PM | Comment Link |Elaine, your comment reminds me of this delightful quote from George Bernard Shaw:
When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.
Yes! What if we had acknowledged that poverty and hopelessness contribute to terrorism and decided to put our resources to work to change things. We have already spent over $300 billion dollars in Iraq. For a mere $6 billion, we could eradicate malaria worldwide! What if we had done that instead? Would the world be a more peaceful place? Would fewer people hate America?
We could still have responded to Al Quaeda with law enforcement action - working with other countries to bring the perpetrators to justice, disrupting terrorist financing, improving airline screening, etc. But the primary goal should have been (and still should be) to change the environment of resentment and hopelessness that leads to terrorism. As Jim Wallis always says, “We must drain the swamp of injustice where the mosquito of terrorism breeds.”
Comment by: Elaine
9 06/11/07 3:21 PM | Comment Link |Rachel - yes, I think Jim Wallis captured it all with his “drain the swamp”.
In re-reading my comment, I realize I used a poor choice of words “there are always going to be crazy people”…not quite what I was going for…what was I trying to say?
More that it is likely there will always be someone who doesn’t agree with us or like us, but do we really have to irritate them as much as possible. What if instead, we listened to what they had to say AND did a little introspection on why they might not like us.
BTW - Rachel - I love your plan - Are you running for President?
Comment by: Rachel
10 06/11/07 4:27 PM | Comment Link |I don’t think it is particularly a poor choice of words. There ARE people who are crazy and do evil things. There are deranged, sadistic people, like Saddam Hussein and his sons, like Osama bin Laden, who need to be confronted. But we also have to address why a message of hatred like bin Laden preaches has such appeal. And it makes me mad when people say that it isn’t about poverty and disenfranchisement, it’s about Islam. I sure don’t see any Saudi princes strapping suicide bombs to their bodies!
he-he! I don’t have any plans to run…but I’ve got my eye on my 11-year old daughter. :-)
Comment by: David H
11 06/12/07 10:01 PM | Comment Link |There have been few altruistic empires or super-powers in the history of the world. It seems inevitable that national interests becomes synonymous with “My country uber alles.” Perhaps that is human nature (I think therefore I want) or just the nature of societies (mine is better than other societies because it is mine). Even in a democracy — often touted as the best of earthly governments — it is hard to convince more than half the people that there is a need to treat others fairly if it will mean we pay more for gasoline. Empires and super-powers seldom employ good will just because it is a good thing to do.
I neither endorse nor particularly appreciate how this society or others maintain their place in the world. But I do believe that societies are a reflection of their citizens in many respects (if there is moral murkiness in the society and how it deals with the rest of the world that is a reflection of some moral ambiguity in the people who make up the society).
So if we want to change our society, maybe we should begin with our citizens. That seems more in line with the teachings of Jesus anyway. He seemed more of a bottom-up guy.
Comment by: adaniel
12 06/20/07 4:14 PM | Comment Link |Let me tell you something outside the US. In Hungary, where I live, we did not have democracy between 1947 and 1989. We had a conscripted army, and people had to serve in the army regardless of their faith and moral point of view. Very few people refused to serve in the army, usually people who had a strong religious belief. They were sentenced to long prison terms.
Hungary became democratic and the conscription rules where changed. We had a conscripted army until 2004 but people who felt that it was morally inacceptable to serve in an armed force could choose a consrcipted “civil army” where they usually worked for the public interest - taking care for the elderly, doing unfilled works in hospital, etc.
Since 2004 we have a voluntary army, we abandoned conscription. Nobody must serve in the Hungarian army. We have two types of volunteers: those, who oath to fight if our country is attacked, and those, who are willing to fight whatever cause that our Parliament chooses as a NATO ally. This Parliament is democratic.
I think this is a good way to reconcile a moral conviction and democracy.
Comment by: Rachel
13 06/20/07 6:23 PM | Comment Link |Thank you so much for that interesting information, Daniel. I really like the idea of having the two different types of voluntary military service. That seems like a very wise and fair system.
I’m interested to learn more about those Hungarians who refused conscription based on their convictions and served long military terms. They sound like very courageous individuals.
Comment by: adaniel
14 06/24/07 10:25 AM | Comment Link |Unfortunately, there is very little information available in English about these people. I think one of the best-known community was Bokor (Bush). Since the majority of religioius Hungarians are Catholics, this group may be typical at least up to a point: Bokor in short. Another big group who refused to serve were Jehovah’s Witnesses, adventists, nazarens, usually members of small but strong communities.
Here is another short English summary on a civic movement against conscription from the 1990s. This movement was successful: conscription was abolished in Hungary. I’ll try to look up some more personal accounts in English, they may be very inspirational.
Comment by: Rachel
15 06/25/07 8:02 AM | Comment Link |Thanks so much for those links, Daniel! I was very inspired to read about the Bokor community. They are a beautiful example of faithfulness in the Way of Jesus.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
16 07/9/07 11:45 PM | Comment Link |Hi Rachael.
Answering the question you asked: Yes national interest can be a valid reason for doing some things, such as CAFE standards.
David’s point is that some reasons are more important than national interest and so preclude its use. True, of course.
His comment that violence does not work (only results in more violence) is not accurate: the indian wars finally stopped, and so did the shooting at the English.
Many things that are immoral do work.
Comment by: Rachel
17 07/10/07 9:51 AM | Comment Link |Good point, Martin. What is moral and what achieves the stated goal are often at odds. If the stated goal is to accomplish what is in the economic or political interest of the United States, than many of our military actions have been a “success.” And all too often this has been and continues to be the moral bottom line, regardless of the horrific suffering we inflict on others.
It certainly should be no surprise that the kingdoms of this world will pursue their own selfish interests. But followers of Christ are called to pledge our allegiance to a different Kingdom, a different set of interests and values and standards for success. What fills me with outrage is the number of self-professing Christians in the US who unquestioning give their allegiance to what is in “America’s best interest.”
Comment by: David H
18 07/10/07 1:55 PM | Comment Link |I guess I should restate that violence may work if your intent is to eliminate your enemy. However, you have to be prepared for immoral action on an extremely high level (genocide) and also to ignore the likely ramifications of your actions. In other words, violence may not cause more violence (at least overt against you) in the short term. However, the long-term outcome is much more uncertain unless you can kill all of your enemies of co-opt the survivors in some way.
In the case of the Indian wars, American (and European) policies were largely responsible for starting them. They only ended (in the late 1800s) after the Indian tribes in North America were decimated, forcibly relocated and then “assimilated.” One source says there were up to 1 million aboriginal people in the continental United States in 1800 and that number was likely below 250,000 by the end of that century.
Joe Stalin and Mao both succeeded in “bringing order” to their nations using extreme levels of violence. However, the question is always whether a society is willing to perpetuate such levels of violence until their enemy is subdued (Stalin is credited with the deaths of 30 million comrades, while Mao is believed to have killed 50 million of his own people). In Vietnam, part of the equation that ended the war was the realization that with 4 million Vietnamese dead (estimates have ranged as high as 13 million) we as a nation didn’t have a stomach for the escalated level of violence that would be required to favorably conclude the conflict (according to some reports, Johnson considered the use of nuclear weapons on the north).
Even when violence (physical and/or economic; first person or via proxies) have succeeded in the short-term (Central and South America, Iraq and Iran during the 1950s-70s, etc.) those conflicts have come back to haunt the US in a variety of ways. The growing Marxist movement in the Americas is largely attributable to reaction against American aggression there in the 1800s and 1900s.
If goals are narrow and short-term, then violence may work if there is a stomach to commit the level required to achieve those goals. But unless that violence can kill everyone or those on the receiving end can be co-opted after the fact, then chances are that violence will only be part of a continuing cycle. It may take decades or even centuries (the Chinese have a saying about 1,000-year revenge), but history seems to indicate that in many (if not most) cases violence will eventually lead to more violence.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
19 07/11/07 6:15 AM | Comment Link |What should be done in Iraq? Does the US have an obligation to try to help restrain the violence there, and, if so, how should it be done?
Comment by: David H
20 07/11/07 12:33 PM | Comment Link |I hear this question a lot these days. As for what should be done in Iraq, the most accurate answer is to have never started a war there. However, while true that isn’t a particularly useful answer.
Coming up with a useful response is kind of difficult, though. I know metaphors are of extremely limited use, but say a man comes along and finds a family mired in a cesspool. So he picks them up and tosses them into a bog of quicksand, then jumps in after. Now everyone is going under and the man says to himself, how do I get out of this mess? I’m not sure I have any helpful answers for him, but I am very doubtful that it will do him much good to stay the course. And now that he is neck deep and everyone else is sinking it may be too late to decide how to “fix” things.
So the second question, does the US have an obligation to try to restrain the violence over there? Since we played a significant role in escalating the violence, we probably should do something to try and stop it. But the bigger question is if that is even possible? The policies we are now pursuing don’t seem to be leading us toward that goal.
As someone with close ties to the Mennonite church, I am a pacifist. I believe war is always wrong and that Jesus tells me it would not be right to ever kill anyone. However, I have chosen that belief system and don’t think that the US government needs to or even can follow my non-violent beliefs.
However, were my opinion to count there are a few things I would recommend our government pursue in trying to change what is happening in Iraq.
1. Admit our culpability in starting a war that was not necessary and apologize. Maybe our leaders didn’t lie — though there is plenty of evidence they did — to start the war, but even if they were mistaken would it hurt us that much to say we were wrong?
2. Start to be candid and realistic with the American people about the situation there. What would have been the response if, when asking for authorization for the war in Iraq, the President had said we were about to begin a process that would likely take 15-20 years to properly complete? It may be that if our government told us the truth about what we are trying to accomplish there and how long it will take the American people would go along. Maybe the Iraqi people would gain a different perspective also.
3. Make a concerted effort to involve the UN and the rest of the world in solving this problem. We entered the war largely alone and have watched most of our allies get out or prepare to leave. The UN was asked in after the fact and forced into an untenable situation. Given what we did to start the war, it is unlikely we can broker an end to the violence, so we need to find someone who can.
4. Stop looking at this war as something purely political. Self-serving politicians started it, directed it to the place it is now, and continue to try and milk it for all it is worth. The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans don’t talk about it in terms of what is moral or what is best for the people of Iraq, the talk about it in terms of how it will affect their chances of getting elected.
There much more we can do — stop backing corrupt politicians in Iraq as a for instance. I have heard people who are far smarter than me talk about other tacks we could take. But I am pretty sure that we can’t kill enough people to bring an end to the violence unless we are willing to decimate the population of that country and several others in the mid-east.
Who knows, maybe the troop surge and other efforts now under way will change everything. We keep being told there hasn’t been enough time to see the result of those new tactics. But I can’t help but remembering the many efforts of the generals in Vietnam to change the direction of that war — fortified hamlets, massive bombing, and the addition of more troops. All of those helped us to kill more Vietnamese people but did nothing to bring about the end of the war.
Comment by: Rachel
21 07/11/07 5:29 PM | Comment Link |David H for President!
Comment by: David H
22 07/11/07 7:39 PM | Comment Link |I hate politics and have little respect for politicians. I am not running for any office, nor seeking any praise. All I am doing is talking because silence can be seen as tacit approval. I am not somebody important. I am just a guy who believes Jesus really meant that his followers should be good to their enemies no matter the consequences.
Comment by: Rachel
23 07/12/07 9:09 AM | Comment Link |David - Aw, shucks! And I was all set to become your campaign manager! ;-)
But seriously, I agree that it is important to speak out about our convictions. I have been deeply disturbed by the attitude in the US that it is somehow “unpatriotic” to criticize your own government’s policies.
I was thinking about this yesterday as I was reading one of the lectionary texts for this week: Amos 7:7-17. Amos the prophet has come with a message of harsh rebuke for the nation of Israel. God is outraged by their oppression and injustice! Because they “trample the heads of the poor into the dust” and “sell the needy for a pair of sandals,” God says that all their pious religious rituals are meaningless to him. Only if they will “let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream” can they avoid God’s judgment.
The priest Amaziah is not pleased with Amos’ message. So he runs to the king and announces, “Amos is prophesying against you, he is a traitor!” Then he runs back to Amos and says, “The king is mad at you, you’d better flee!”
I find it interesting that Amaziah never seems to question that Amos is truly a prophet of God. He just wants Amos to take his message of gloom and doom elsewhere.
Amaziah’s words seem very relevant in our climate today: “Amos, your message is too unpatriotic. So you are a prophet. Fine. Go over to Judah and prophesy to them. They’re probably worse than we are anyhow. But the religious and political establishment won’t put up with your message here. Criticizing your own country and your own government is treason.”
Comment by: Martin Gugino
24 07/12/07 2:26 PM | Comment Link |No, “National Interest” is not a sufficient cause for invasion. What is a sufficient cause? Maybe a country that kills more than 1 million people, violently, in twelve months should be subject to invasion?
I am guessing here.
Comment by: David H
25 07/12/07 6:27 PM | Comment Link |It is seldom as simple as that even when exploring it purely from an ethical or moral point of view. Likewise, there is a difference between what I — as a pacifist — would consider right vs. how a country would reasonably be expected to deal with something like this. With those caveats, here is what I think.
A situation that leads to the killing of 1 million people is wrong. But those types of things don’t usually occur overnight. The response should probably begin before 1 million are dead and that first response probably shouldn’t be invasion. The humanitarian crises now occurring in Sudan and previously in places like Rwanda didn’t suddenly occur. The perception of approval or unconcern by the west helped escalate each. The lack of a strong, unified diplomatic response helped empower the bad actors as they ramped up both their rhetoric and actions. Bickering over how to properly define genocide (which occurred with both Sudan and Rwanda) was likely considered as encouragement by those doing the killing.
Nation’s may decide that they have exhausted all reasonable ways to stop those bad actors and then go to war. Much of what occurred prior to the Iraq war was an effort to prove that invasion was the last available option to deal with what could be a disastrous situation. Much of the cynicism around the ongoing war is fueled by the mounting evidence that our leaders knew that wasn’t the case and that they “cooked” the intelligence so the public would get on board.
During the elder Bush’s administration, Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, developed what is now called the Powell doctrine (http://tinyurl.com/yrykkl). The Powell Doctrine appears to be a fairly effective rationale on the topic of how and when a nation should go to war. It came out of the run-up to the first Gulf War and was employed by the Clinton administration when considering military action in Yugoslavia. From a purely secular standpoint the Powell Doctrine (and concepts on which it was built) are fairly effective for helping a nation (especially one that imagines itself as the policeman of the world) determine when war is necessary and how it should be pursued. If it had been followed in the run-up to the current war the current situation might be considerably different.
If you check the Powell doctrine page referenced you will also find a link to the Just War theory. As a Christian, I have quite a bit more trouble with that than I do with the Powell Doctrine. The problem for me is that Just War is couched in spiritual terms like justice. Justice is either an absolute or it isn’t anything. Only God’s justice is real and everything else has more to do with point of view or national interests than it does with such moral imperatives as right and wrong.
At least for these times, I would argue that Just War not only doesn’t exist — it can’t exist. Nation’s rarely if ever resist someone simply because that person is doing something wrong. As the people of Darfur and Rwanda learned to their horror, the US and the west find morality much more compelling and their response much more immediate when things like oil are involved.
Moreover, Just War theory gives the “legitimate authority” of a nation exclusive and largely unquestionable authority to wage war. Those powers are acting on behalf of a higher authority, therefore citizens are obligated to go along. That doesn’t work for Adolf Hitler (he was elected leader of Germany) and it shouldn’t for people like George W. Bush (this is a Democracy and the actions of the governing authorities should be questioned constantly).
My belief is that if Jesus told me to shoot somebody, then I should probably do that. But based on what I read in the gospels, I can’t really accept the word of any proxies for Christ that I need to take up arms against others.
So, bottom line is national interests compound the problem of when a nation should “morally” react to a wrong by going to war. But even when it is clear that one nation is doing wrong, other nations should exhaust all other methods to curtail the activity before invading. I might not personally agree that war was the right response, but if pursued on that basis I might at least be able to understand it.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
26 07/12/07 11:36 PM | Comment Link |Relating this question to Iraq: as long as the president is willing to overlook torture at home, and overlook torture abroad, he has very little chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Americans, or of the Iraqis. As a practical matter, the moral foundation of the war needs to be addressed.
Comment by: David H
27 07/13/07 4:56 PM | Comment Link |A president willing to acknowledge the immoral foundation for the war might be a place to begin.
Comment by: Benjamin
28 07/14/07 8:53 AM | Comment Link |Is it possible that the best thing that the U.S. could do to …. shorten the ongoing violence in Iraq would be to get out of the country?
that is, is it possible that while violence might very well escalate at first were the U.S. to withdraw, the escalation would lead much more quickly to some sort of .. “vialbe” end to the conflict, whereas the ongoing presence of U.S. troops could very well be the … catalyst for ongoing violence which will not be able to be stopped until the catalyst is removed?
Just asking.
Comment by: David H
29 07/14/07 9:57 AM | Comment Link |It would appear that there are no easy or clear answers to that question. It seems almost certain that a massive bloodbath will occur there whenever the US pulls out. That might not have been the case 3 years ago, but it certainly is now. Given the animosity between Shite and Sunni groups there it is possible we could witness killing on a scale to rival the Iraq-Iran war (which left 875,000 - 1.5 million civilian and soldiers dead). What’s more, without a “stable” “unified” country on our departure it appears likely that we would essentially be turning over a significant portion of the oil resources from Iraq to Iran (about 60 percent are in Shite controlled areas). Finally, we would be leaving the country as a hot-bed for the recruitment and training of radical terrorists.
But all of that may be unavoidable anyway. How many lives and dollars will be spent in our effort to find out? Are we using tactics and pursuing goals that are really designed to prevent that or are we doing all the things most likely to cause it to occur? Do we have an administration willing to admit and examine its mistakes? Do we have a government willing to try and seek a wider solution that incorporates the efforts of all the players in the region (even if that results in a final result that isn’t strictly toward our self-interests)?
If the US isn’t going to pursue different approaches. If the US isn’t going to admit both the wrongs and the missteps. If the US is going to insist that we just have to keep going as we have until it all works out in the end. Then we should just get out now, because whatever is going to happen will happen anyway.
But all of this is why I used the metaphor of the quagmire. The easy answers are gone if they ever existed.
In my opinion.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
30 07/14/07 2:24 PM | Comment Link |The National Interest:
An action is in the national interest if it helps to solve a national problem or exploit a national opportunity. For example, CAFE standards help resolve dependence on foreign oil, and can be justified on that ground. Even within the political sphere, national interest is not the ultimate test, and has never been seen to be. The Bill of Rights, for example, prohibits certain actions, even when those otherwise might be thought to be in the national interest. For actions abroad, international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, might serve as a similar limitation. However treaties do not seem to have the equivalent universal political respect.
Abraham Lincoln appealed to national interest as a justification for the Civil War. I do not see that this was acceptable on moral grounds, and is on questionable grounds politically. I view the Declaration of Independence as the foundation of the Constitution, not its repudiation. The Declaration of Independence clearly supports the right of secession.
Comment by: Benjamin
31 07/15/07 1:13 AM | Comment Link |secession.
Yeah, maybe before the civil war. But now secession is … practically, if not technically, illegal. I mean don’t they intepret the 14th amendment to mean a rather enormous lot, including, perhaps, that secession works out to be technically illegal? Or no? I don’t really know. But that’s been my impression. Didn’t it sort of end up tweaking everything so it’s not so much a federal/power sharing system as a federal/power concentrated at the center system? I started to do political science many years ago, but dropped it not too far in. Ah well
Comment by: Martin Gugino
32 07/16/07 1:08 AM | Comment Link |Yea. Hard to figure. This was your point all along, wasn’t it.
Comment by: Rachel
33 07/16/07 7:44 AM | Comment Link |Martin - Yes, it was. Especially since I used to be one of them.