In my last post I accused John McCain of having "almost certainly killed more unborn children than his opponent." I qualified that statement as follows: "I am not referring to so-called “collateral damage,” but to the calculated, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas for the dubious purpose of breaking the will of an enemy nation. The failure of conservatives to be honest about the nature of such tactics damages our pro-life stance as deeply as bailouts damage our claim to fiscal responsibility."
Needless to say, this accusation didn't sit well with many readers. I anticipated some reaction, hence my reference to conservatives being "inexcusably myopic" on the issue of the sanctity of innocent human life. But in general, the criticism was thoughtful enough to prompt me to reconsider whether my statement was defensible, or at least to explain it further.
I based the accusation on the fact that John McCain was shot down over Hanoi (hardly a military target) during his 23rd mission as part of Operation Rolling Thunder. Estimates I've seen of civilian deaths from Operation Rolling Thunder range from 52,000 to over 150,000. Granted, I don't know what specific targets McCain bombed. In his own memoir, however, he states that he was shot down over "the heart of Hanoi" as he completed his bombing run. Perhaps there was some legitimate military target in "the heart of Hanoi" - but I doubt it.
I responded to one friend as follows: "My own dad bristled at that paragraph, and asserted that I didn't understand the nature of the war or the real targets of the bombing. Since I wasn't even alive at the time, I'm not inclined to argue the point. The fact is, however, that our modern military paradigm is more like that of Napoleon Bonaparte than the Just War doctrine Christians historically held to. Our massive nuclear arsenal is largely targeted at cities, not military targets (or so we're led to believe). If I charged John McCain personally with wrongs that are the fault of our larger foreign policy, it is because he has largely supported that foreign policy, and aspires to be the next "decider" without addressing the immorality of the direction it has taken us. I apologize to anyone, veteran or otherwise, who was offended by the accusation leveled at McCain, but I stand by my belief that one cannot be an advocate of preemptive, aggressive war, or any war merely for the protection of so-called "economic interests" and make a legitimate claim to being pro-life."
Even nominally christian nations like France, Germany and England historically recognized that purposely attacking unarmed civilians was dishonorable and unjustifiable. We look back with horror on military crimes like the Glencoe massacre or the sacking of the Palatinate. Future generations will judge us no differently.
7 comments:
I happened across this article which speaks specifically about the "extra" casulties from America's new war method of choice - the air war. I think it lends credence to your proposition that McCain(both through his personal bombing efforts and his senatorial support of many others) has killed more innocents than Obama. Worth the Read -
http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt326.html
Innocent civilians? The Bible says, "There are none righteous," do you disagree? The basic tenets of Christianity teach that all are born in sin and therefore dead in tresspasses and sin. I realize you are a product of the extremely liberal and intellectual northeast, but I believe that the Lord makes war, famine, prosperity, etc. and that man is just the instrument in carrying out His will upon the earth. In retrospect, given his unwavering conduct in carrying out his duty coupled with the time he must have had to communicate with God while in solitary confinement McCain may have been the only candidate willing to be used in the Master's service!
Of course I agree that "there are none righteous" - in God's eyes. You and I aren't God, however, and neither is John McCain. I used the term "innocent" in a legal sense. If you turn to Isaiah 10:2 you will notice that God refers to Assyria as "the rod of Mine anger" and makes it clear that He sent Assyria against the surrounding nations to execute His judgment on them. But in verse 12 God says He will then punish the Assyrians for their excesses and their arrogance in carrying out His will.
I believe God is sovereign. I believe that a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice. I believe that neither the USA nor any other nation can do anything unless He permits it. None of those things will excuse us for injustice or shedding innocent blood. George Mason once observed that nations cannot be punished for their crimes in the next life, so they must be punished in this. Whether you like to face that reality or not, America will be judged for the innocent blood her military has spilled all over this world in the name of "protecting economic interests" and other dubious endeavors. And the individuals who have willingly participated and disregarded the women and children whose lives they have taken will someday give an account of their actions before the Creator who made them and their victims. I sincerely hope that McCain and others like Him are shown more mercy than they have shown others.
By the way - are you going to apply the "none righteous" logic to Americans who died on September 11, 2001? Be honest - have you ever referred to them as innocent civilians?
I thought so.
If you thought so...you were wrong. I do believe that the lives of those people who died that day were tokens of God's coming judgement. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were crucified by the media for saying so. Now let me ask you, do you think war is a crime and all the participants criminals? Or are the nations who engage in it criminal no matter if they be aggressor or defender? I happen to disagree with the idea of moral equivalency. I believe instead in justice and that justice sometimes dictates the killing of ones enemies to right wrongs. That is why Harry Truman was right in using the atomic bomb. It is why John McCain was right to fly those missions. It is why it is now right to bomb Iraqi and Afghanistani villages. Justice must always preceed Liberty.
So the terrorists were right to attack us? God's judgment is always just, isn't it?
Your argument is completely fallacious. God allows evil and turns it to work His will, but it is still evil and the perpetrators are still judged as evil-doers.
I believe murder is wrong, whether it is on an individual or a national level. I agree that justice often calls for a death penalty, and I agree that defensive war is a right response when the citizens of one nation are actually threatened by another. Instances of such wars are extremely rare, however. Most wars are fought on completely unjust grounds. Vietnam and the current Iraq war are no exceptions. In both cases sovereign nations that posed no credible threat to Americans were invaded. In both cases United Nations resolutions were used to justify the aggression. In both cases the alleged goals of the conflict were constantly restated and redefined, and consequently both wars dragged on unnecessarily, lining the pockets of financiers and the military/industrial complex while soldiers and civilians died. Trite comments like "I believe in the idea of justice" have no place in defending such abominable activities.
But lets leave aside the question of just war. You say justice dictated the atomic bomb, Operation Rolling Thunder and the bombing of Afghan an Iraqi villages. Tell me, of what crime were the women and children who died in Hiroshima guilty that made them enemies to Harry Truman, Col. Tibbetts or any other American? What did women and children in Hanoi do to deserve death at the hands of Johnson and McCain? What heinous violation of national or personal rights was perpetrated by Afghan villagers or Iraqi children, that now cries for justice at the hands of some cocky Predator pilot playing video games in his Nevada office? Please show me the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?
There are things called history books - you might want to invest in one. Atomic bomb unjust? I'm sorry you weren't there to inform the United States Army of that back in 1945. General Marshall calculated it would cost 750,000 American lives to invade the islands. You should have been there to make sure that no women or children were harmed by the barbarian aggressors, a.k.a. the US Marines. Communism posed no credible threat to the United States? Again, you should have been there to inform Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. We really didn't have a man of your stripe in office until Jimmy Carter. "Whither hath fled the Spirit of '76", eh, Patrick Henry? Thank God that Bush and Cheney are being replaced by Obama as he should run things a bit more like you advise. I'll give you one thing, your English is pretty good for a North Korean. Did ACORN help you vote?
I find it imperative to remind Xpressive of the passage of Scripture that refers to Judas' betrayal of Christ. I regret that my memory for text references is so bad that I cannot point to the verses. But it is to the effect that, while it was necessary to God's infinite plan for someone to betray Christ, yet Judas having chosen of his own free will to be that one, still bore the guilt and the punishment for his crime. In other words, the fact that he clearly carried out the will of God was irrelevant.
Post a Comment