Thoughts on Warfare (LONG)

With all the news in the USA about interrogations lately, I thought I would write out an in-depth statement and reasoning of my views. Personally, I don’t care who knew what, or when. Those are nothing but political attacks and the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. So let’s start with some definite laws that I was taught during Military Basic Training and that we as Americans should unquestionably uphold: The Geneva Conventions.

Interrogation

Prisoners of war are only obligated to provide names, ranks, date of birth, army, personal or serial identification numbers or equivalent information. (Convention III, Art. 17)

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted. Prisoners who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. (Convention III, Art. 17)

So there it is, plain as day. However, the legal rub is that in order to qualify as a “prisoner of war” an individual must first be classified as a combatant.

Combatant Status

Convention I defines combatants as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3).

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

Are the people we commonly call terrorists considered combatants or mercenaries? Further definition of “mercenary” is needed.

Mercenaries

A mercenary is any person who is specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who takes a direct part in the hostilities, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47)

I imagine that those who make the decisions in the military define terrorists as mercenaries and thus afforded no protections under the Geneva Conventions. The more you look into the wording of certain parts of the Geneva Conventions, the more of a gray area it seems; a case could be made for either stance. I’ve only provided examples of one side here.

However, because of the nature of the War on Terrorism, my view (with the understanding that I have no knowledge of the nature of the prisoners’ capture) tends to lean towards them being closer to mercenaries. With that being said, do I agree that torture is okay, depending on the situation? Absolutely not. Do I think “waterboarding” is torture? Yes, I do. (I have lots of reason to think so, but I won't go into them at the moment.) Even if an individual may not legally fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions, I truly believe all captured “terrorists” should be treated as prisoners of war, and thus protected as combatants. The ends do not (and have never) justified the means.

There must be an understanding that there are higher laws than man’s. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical. We are all children of God (the good and the evil among us) and should be treated as such. Just because an enemy doesn’t extend to our soldiers the same respect doesn’t make it okay for us. We need to set the example and follow the moral laws we claim to hold so dear. To do otherwise makes us seem like immature kids who whine about having to keep their rooms clean because Billy’s mom doesn’t make him clean his room.

So what is this higher, moral law? Quite simply, it is summed up thus: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. The Golden Rule. Many religions around the world have a similar phraseology:

• Judaism – “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary” (Talmud, Shabbat, 31a)
  
• Buddhism – “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” (Udana-Varga, 5, 18)
  
• Confucianism – “Surely it is the maxim of living-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you” (Analects, 15, 23)
  
• Islam – “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself” (Sunnah)
  

Am I preaching complete pacifism? Not really. As a youth and young man, I had no problem with the thought of taking another person’s life to defend my life or that of a member of my family. I felt I had every right to proclaim a person’s life forfeit in such a situation. As a man rapidly approaching middle age, my views have altered somewhat. I have a greater understanding and appreciation of what I’ve heard called “an Eternal Perspective.”

A few years ago, I sat down with my scriptures to see if I could reason out my views of self-defense and general warfare and to find what scriptural support there was for such actions. Although I didn’t write it down at the time, I remember the general starting points and, with help from the footnotes in my scriptures, I can fairly accurately retrace my steps.

The first person I looked to was a hero of mine from the Book of Mormon: Captain Moroni, described thus:

And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his bretheren from bondage and slavery;

Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood. (Alma 48:11, 13)

Immediately following that is this:

Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. (Alma 48:14)

It would be a very simple thing to stop there and think my question answered. It is even backed up by a footnote by the phrase “never to give offense” with several scripture references, the first of which leads to:

And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion. (Alma 43:47)

Again, more support for self-defense. The second scripture reference is 3 Nephi 3:20-21, which (perhaps having some modern application) talks about a chief captain wanting to go after a large band of robbers in the wilderness but was counseled to prepare defenses instead and wait for the enemy to come to them. From that, there are several footnotes that lead to a very apparent principle that warfare should be fairly defensive. There are plenty of examples of the “good guys” pressing an attack, but those were individual battle and not the war as a whole. A pre-emptive strike just because the “bad guys” are out there and might hurt you “someday” just isn’t supported.

Fair enough. I can accept that. However, something in the back of my head seemed to tell me that something was missing. I went back to Alma 43:47 and read the preceding verse, specifically the last part:

Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. (Alma 43:46)

First offense? Second offense? Seemed to support the “defensive warfare” model that was developing in my mind. One of the footnotes in that second leads to something Jesus taught:

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid him not to take thy coat also. (Luke 6:29)

Wait…what? We seemed to have switched gears because Christ is giving a pretty strong teaching of pacifism here. On reflection, though, it makes sense. Be “not guilty of the first offense, neither the second.” Further enlightenment comes from yet another footnote reference:

Now, I speak unto you concerning your families – if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.

(skip ahead a few verses)

And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for they righteousness; and also they children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought they life, and they life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou are justified. (D&C 98:23-25, 31)

It goes on with some very interesting verses on how the Lord fights His peoples’ battles. However, in light of this discussion, I come away with the following:

1. We are justified in defending our families and our liberties unto the shedding of blood
   
2. The higher way Jesus would have us take is to patiently bear the afflictions given by our enemies
   
3. If we continue to “turn the other cheek,” we will be greatly blessed
   

What would I do if my family were under attack? Honestly, I don’t know. To paraphrase an old saying, I may not start a fight, but I am justified in ending it. I've told my wife often enough that I hope no one ever hurts her or one of our kids, because I'd hate to go to jail for killing someone. A lot of times, I think I meant it - but I don't truthfully know how I would react.

From what I’ve read, it seems this same principle applies to nations as well as individuals. When it comes to war, Carl von Clausewitz calls war the “continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means” (On War, pg 87). I’m not entirely sure I agree with that. Should warfare be started just because someone doesn’t do what you want? If that nation attacked first, then by all means we are justified in doing everything in our power to protect ourselves. But there is a distinct line there – protecting our freedom versus removing the threat of attack. Again, pre-emptive strikes are just not in the program.

Many today claim war is nothing but an economic vehicle for enriching one group of people over another, or that the strong have a right to whatever the weak cannot hold. Of course I reject that completely; but what if an enemy takes control of some economic base (a commodity or property) that we as a nation feel is “ours” even if it doesn’t affect our life or liberty? Do we fight to get it back? The current war on terror seems to be a too much of a war of retaliation. Someone has done us wrong and we are going to make them pay. We are going to hunt down every threat to our people and eliminate it before they can hurt us again. It seems to fall too far outside of the bounds of a “defensive war” for my comfort. I feel we would be better served by following the council found in 3 Nephi 3:20-21 as mentioned above.

(Quick tangent: Speaking of economics and war, I’ve heard it said that war is good for the economy – after all, it got America out of the Great Depression, didn’t it? Well, one of my favorite authors, Frederic Bastiat, wrote an essay in 1850 called That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen, which, in addition to his book The Law, should be required reading for anyone in politics. Bastiat’s essay deals with the hidden costs associated with the destruction of the property of others. Read up on the Parable of the Broken Window; it’s good stuff.)

I think a lot of warfare has to do with Pride (with a capital “P”). Too many people (of all political persuasions) have become incapable of turning the other cheek out of pride or fear of looking weak. Humility and meekness are seen as faults and not virtues as they one were. The consequences of pride in the scriptures are clear: “Pride goeth before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18). It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom. Saul became an enemy to David because of pride. It was because of pride that Jesus was crucified. It is because of pride that too many of our men and women have already lost their lives (and I'm not talking about just those in the military). And it is because of pride that I am now watching the leaders of my country slowly (or quickly as the case may be) tear at the very foundation of our society.

Well, this has gone on much longer than I expected. Still, I'm glad I finally took the time to write all this out. I think if more of our politicians would sit down and write out what they believed (if anything) and why they believed it (other than to get votes), we might be in a better position than we are now.

There is an old Chinese saying: "Unless we change our direction we're headed, we'll end up where we're going." Amen, brother. Amen.

The Modern Procrustean Bed

One rather obscure Greek legend deals with Theseus (ya know, the guy who used a ball of string to find his way out of the labyrinth after killing the minotaur who lived in it) and a bandit by the name of Procrustes. Procrustes had a bed that fit him perfectly - and he thought everyone should be just as perfect. So whenever anyone would come by, he would capture them and tie them to his bed. If that person was too short, Procrustes would stretch them until they fit; if the "guest" was too long, Procrustes would cut off an appropriate amount from the legs. Thus, "perfection" (i.e. conformity) was achieved...well, until Theseus came along and killed him, that is.

It seems in our world today, there are far too many who would take up the mantle of Procrustes and attempt to make everyone the same. It doesn't seem to matter if the process is painful, tortuous, or downright barbaric, as long as everyone fits the same standards. Fortunately, these Procrustean wannabes don't normally resort to physical mutilation. That would be too blantant and the people would rebel immediately. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the more subtle aspects of the Bed of Procrustes: Multiculturalism, political correctness, moral relativism, etc.

Too many people (and I'm not just talking about politicians here - although they can be among the most visible proponents of this way of thinking) apply their pre-conceived notions about how I should act and think, because that is the way they act and think. They do this through the redefining of words and concepts (such as "family", "modesty", "conservative", to name a few), revising history (the demonizing of the American founding fathers for example), denying the existence of evil, believing faith and reason are mutually exclusive, ignoring some laws while enforcing those that are currently popular, and (and this may seem odd coming from a self-defined champion of individuality) praising extreme individualism over duty to others and commitment to a set of values.

If you don't fit these ideas, you obviously must be blind, stupid, ignorant, out of touch, oppressive, repressive, regressive, unacceptable, unsociable, unhappy, a misogynist, and a kicker of small puppies. 

Yes, the spirit of Procrustes is alive and well.

But I refuse to just make this post about pointless complaining. I refuse to bow before the pressures of modern culture. I refuse to deny what I believe is right and true and good. I refuse to stand on the corner and point the finger of shame on those that don't believe as I do. I refuse to fall into hypocritical self-righteousness.

I will do everything in my power to be an example of what a Man is for my daughters and sons. I will teach my kids my religious and moral values, so they know where I stand (and why) when it come time for them to make their own choices. I will continue to enjoy who I am, where I live, and why I live the way I do. I will understand that everyone is different. I will believe everyone is a child of God. And by so doing, I will trust that one day the Bed of Procrustes will no longer be used as a means for achieving unity.

Xenophobia in America

Well, besides me potentially (or even highly likely) to be categorized by some in our country as a "right-wing extremist", I do have some issues with some of my fellow conservatives.

Last week, I attended one of those local tax day tea parties (we had a couple thousand show up...not a bad turnout). Overall it was enjoyable. We had some good speakers and a lot of it revolved around constitutional basics. Good stuff. Unfortunately, the whole experience was ruined (for me anyway) by one of the last speakers. I don't know who this woman was or where she came from, but she was so full of hatred and self-righteousness that was truly appalling. She took a rally that had been (up to that point) fairly neutral as far as political parties went and started bashing specific people in the Democratic party and liberals in general.

The low point in the whole deal was when she started going off the handle about President Obama's comment about the USA not being a Christian nation. Now, I'm about as Christian a guy as you'll find (and no fan of Obama), but she was spouting such intolerant crap (generally towards Muslims) that I was embarrassed to even be there. I feel I have a pretty good understanding of was Obama meant (even if he said it in a completely dreadful way) and I understand the reaction to that statement. But come on... If what this lady was saying and what the masses were cheering on went to it's logical conclusion, they would want all Muslims, Jews, Hindi, etc. kicked out of the country (and I KNOW there are a lot of people who don't think my religion is Christian).

Amendment One of the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Stick that in your intolerant pipe and smoke it.

And not only that (now that I have my bile up), conservatives (of which I consider myself a strong part of) need to stop turning the illegal immigration issue into such a racist quagmire. Yes, illegal immigration is an problem and should be dealt with (change the current immigration policy we have in this country and enforce the immigration laws with strictness - including slapping those businesses that hire illegals), but I am getting so SICK of people looking down on someone because English isn't their first language.

And that's another thing: English isn't the official language of this country, nor should it be! So what if you have to "Press 1 for English" on your flipping phone whenever you call some big company! I do it every single day at my job. It's not a big deal. Whatever happened to the great promise of this country as summed up by the Statue of Liberty inscription:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

The Native Americans didn't like the Western Europeans when they came over; the Western Europeans didn't like the Eastern Europeans; the Eastern Europeans didn't like the Asians. What a bunch of intolerant crap. Ever hear of the Melting Pot (or perhaps we're more like a Mixed Salad)? If you truly believe we are all children of God, then act like it!

(***big breath***)

...nope, not ready yet...

(***another big breath***)

Government based on the Constitution - now and forever. Leave your personal bigotry in your head. I don't want to hear it.

"No, YOU Move."

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right.

This nation was founded on one principle above all else: The requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences.

When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world--

--"No, you move."

~Captain America (in the Amazing Spider-Man #537)

9 / 11

So here this country sits, five years after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I'm not really in the mood to make a big long rant about the proper role of government or anything like that. I just feel a bit sad that things like that happen and some people don't think it is noteworthy anymore or not worth dwelling on.

I disagree.

Granted, I don't think we should be thinking about it every day or living in fear/anger/whatever for the rest of our lives. We should, however, remember that that event changed (or should have anyway) everything - similar to how the bombing of Pearl Harbor changed everything for the people back then. The difference between then and now, I think, is that we have become so jaded with a life of luxury.

I mean, come on. I'm unemployed but I still have a TV (no channels, but still), a VCR/DVD player with a bunch of movies to watch, a mini-van that is completely paid for, a computer (and a half) with a connection to the Internet (a dial up one, but still), and still plenty of food in the cupboards. We live in a four-bedroom house with a fenced yard, with an air-conditioner (which I don't turn on, but still), located in a great neighborhood with an elementary school for my kids to attend only four blocks away. I have a credit card and enough of a credit limit (not to mention a great credit score) to purchase just about anything I could possibly want AND have it delivered to my home without even breaking a sweat. I have books, games, a college education, family, religious values, clean water to drink, cook, bathe, and flush my toilet with, electricity, clothes washer and dryer, a refrigerator/freezer, and green grass (sort of).

And what do people in developing and war-torn countries have? Perspective. A firmer grasp on the realities of life. A belief that they aren't "entitled" to the "basics" of everyday American life.

Whew...I really didn't think I was in a mood for a rant. At least it wasn't about government. Don't get me wrong, I love my country. I've even been debating on trying to get an officer commission in the Air Force (have to wait until March for that one though...long story). I just get pent up when I hear people whining and complaining about all the crap other people aren't doing for them - especially when they have more than I do at this point.

What ever happened to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?