Making War "Nice"

Last week it was reported that Lieutenant Colonel Allen West was brought before a military hearing in Iraq for firing his pistol near a detained Iraqi's head. "West said he believed the detained Iraqi, a policeman called Yahya Jhodri Hamoody, had information about plots to attack American troops when he was brought in for questioning at Taji, just north of Baghdad, around August 20." When the Iraqi refused to reveal what he knew about possible attacks on American troops, the Iraqi was forced over a sandbox which soldiers use to clear weapons and Lt. West fired a gun near his head to intimidate him. The Iraqi then revealed plans to set up a sniper near a location frequented by American soldiers.

Due to his actions, West lost command of his battalion of 650 soldiers. Listen to how West justified his actions: "If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can. But that's what's going on out there in the streets here and that's how I feel about my boys. There is not a person in this room I would not sacrifice my life for." Granted, officers should obey their orders for they do not always possess all the pertinent information to make wise decisions. But when an officer is placed over his troops, his superiors give him the discretion to make tough decisions in the heat of battle. Lt. West was placed in command of his battalion because his superiors knew he was qualified to lead and would sacrifice himself for his men. That is exactly what Lt. West did when he conducted this interrogation.

This is just one example of a larger problem facing America today. Since WWII, liberals have infiltrated leadership positions in government and implemented their own agenda: making the world peaceful through "humanitarian acts". To them, the military is not an institution designed, as Rush says, "to break things and kill people", but a bigger branch of the Peace Corps. During the Clinton Administration, we were introduced to the term "peace-keeping mission". Throughout history, the only way to keep peace was to subdue your enemy through military power. America's philosophy was succinctly described by President Teddy Roosevelt: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." Under liberal influence, America's philosophy has changed: Impose our agenda of peace on the world and carry love, not a stick. This new philosophy has had a devastating affect on the military. Soldiers are no longer allowed to execute what they have been trained to do: protect America.

Who can forget the disheartening massacre of American soldiers in Somalia? Those soldiers were not allowed to defend themselves because of the politically-induced commands that prohibited the firing of weapons on the locals. As a result, the soldiers were not allowed to do their job and paid the ultimate price. Somalia, Iraq and the rest of the world do not yet understand our post-modern, enlightenment thinking. But liberals hope that through enough of these peace missions, we will create a world of love. In the meantime, we create resentment and hatred wherever we meddle. Especially during the Johnson and Clinton Administrations, Americans were sent to intervene in conflicts with no U.S. interests at stake. This belief that we can make the world more peaceful through intervention and policing is rooted in a fatally flawed understanding of mankind. Because man is sinful, he will never find peace apart from the life-transforming Truth and influence of the Gospel.

America's leaders should review St. Augustine's Just War Theory. This theory involves eight principal elements: (1) a punitive conception of war, (2) assessment of the evil of war in terms of the moral evil of attitudes and desires, (3) a search for authorization for the use of violence, (4) a dualistic epistemology which gives priority to spiritual goods, (5) interpretation of evangelical norms in terms of inner attitudes, (6) passive attitude to authority and social change, (7) use of Biblical texts to legitimate participation in war, and (8) an analogical conception of peace. It does not include noncombatant immunity or conscientious objection.

Allowing liberal, feel-good politics to dictate the process of war is analogous to allowing a mother to conduct surgery on her child: she's not trained to competently finish the job and will shrink back from ever making an incision as it may harm her child. Liberals detest war and as such attempt to make the military "nice". Instead of following it's purpose of defending our country by "breaking things and killing people" our military is forced to engage in efforts better handled by non-profit humanitarian organizations. Tying the hands of our soldiers with political, arbitrary rules will result in more loss of life than wars with no such constraints. War is not nice, it is not clean and all the rules are not obeyed. That is why we call it war. (And this is why women should not engage in combat; but that's another issue.) Soldiers must be given the ability to protect themselves against the enemy's attack. And they must have leaders who will model for them the character necessary to survive the battlefield.

Lt. West will suffer the consequences for his actions. But the real question is whether the policies governing this war allow our soldiers to do their job or tie their hands, leading to needless loss of life. There's a video game commercial currently airing on television that is completely politically incorrect but I believe it perfectly states the goal of any soldier: "It's not about dying for your country. It's about making the other guy die for his."