The war in Iraq goes ever on. When I was talking with friends about the it I found myself coming to one conclusion, that this war cannot be won. We have the technology and the personelle on the ground to win, but I feel we cannot or will not, or, more importantly, will ourselves not to.
Up until a couple weeks ago I found myself as a Christian who supported the "Just War" concept.
Wars have always been fought by armies and lost by populaces. In the past you starved populaces in cities, killed innocent people, raped the women of the enemy forces. In the end the populace gave up and the army with them. Eventually, when people can't get running water, and all their daughters have been have raped, their sons killed..........well, they tend to give up and their armies follow.
But America has "smart" bombs, we want to get water to the people of Iraq, we prosecute soldiers who kill the innocent. In essence, we cannot this war because we are unwilling to harm the innocent. Wars have never been won in such a way. EVER.
But this also left me with a conundrum with my just war position. If wars can only be won by destroying the innocent, not solely the guilty, how then can a Christian support any war be it for any reason, even a so-called "just" reason??? Then again, if the Christian sees someone in peril and does not aid him, even defend him violently against the guilty, then how does the Christian defend the apparent apathy of someone in danger, or a people in danger from a grave threat?
I used to take this simple position:
If the Christian is in peril he does not defend himself.
If the Christian sees someone else in peril then he may, if the situation demands, use violence to defend the innocent.
Somewhere between those two, however, stands a murky grey area that I do not have any answers to.
Up until a couple weeks ago I found myself as a Christian who supported the "Just War" concept.
Wars have always been fought by armies and lost by populaces. In the past you starved populaces in cities, killed innocent people, raped the women of the enemy forces. In the end the populace gave up and the army with them. Eventually, when people can't get running water, and all their daughters have been have raped, their sons killed..........well, they tend to give up and their armies follow.
But America has "smart" bombs, we want to get water to the people of Iraq, we prosecute soldiers who kill the innocent. In essence, we cannot this war because we are unwilling to harm the innocent. Wars have never been won in such a way. EVER.
But this also left me with a conundrum with my just war position. If wars can only be won by destroying the innocent, not solely the guilty, how then can a Christian support any war be it for any reason, even a so-called "just" reason??? Then again, if the Christian sees someone in peril and does not aid him, even defend him violently against the guilty, then how does the Christian defend the apparent apathy of someone in danger, or a people in danger from a grave threat?
I used to take this simple position:
If the Christian is in peril he does not defend himself.
If the Christian sees someone else in peril then he may, if the situation demands, use violence to defend the innocent.
Somewhere between those two, however, stands a murky grey area that I do not have any answers to.