War.
I hate it. Always have, always will. Yet, for most of recorded history, war has been with us, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.
On Tuesday night President Obama announced that his strategy for trying to conclude at least one of the wars he inherited involves sending another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. It reminds me, in a very non-proportional way, of the ill-fated couple of years that I owned a small boat. Someone had told me that "BOAT" stands for "Bring Out Another Thousand."
And another. And another. With war, the constant cost in added thousands is exponential. I'm not second-guessing the president. He didn't ask for this war. I'm glad he's thinking through each step very carefully, and I believe he's doing the best he can to get us out of the quagmire of conflict, but I'm still bemoaning the cost -- a cost that comes in lost lives, in broken families, in dollars down the drain.
I heard an estimate that the war cost could go to $75 billion per year. At some point, we're going to have to pay for that. Who can say how many lives it will cost -- how many families will be scarred? No amount of money will make those good.
I don't have any advice for either the Pentagon or the president, but I have a prayer. In this season, a time in which at least one Advent tradition calls for the celebration of a Sunday of peace, I'm reminded that Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God" (Mat. 5:9).
War works on many levels, and so does peace making. Both require a great deal of effort and often considerable risk. I'm aware that part of our forces' agenda in Iraq and Afghanistan is to bring peace to unstable areas and to make peace with skeptical or unfriendly folks. In that role especially, may God bless the troops.
And may God bless all who work for peace and the wellness of the world.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well said, Tony. As one who has been to war more than once and will go again, less war is always better. But for the fallenness of man, less war might be our reality.
Yet it must be remembered that while President Obama inherited this war, this is precisely the war candidate Obama said was "a war of necessity not of choice" (unlike the Iraq war, in his opinion). One has to assume he would have taken us into this war if he'd been at the helm following the 9/11 attacks. Hopefully it will end well--not just end--under his leadership. Only time will tell.
The war cost estimate is not all that much per person, if you look at it that way, only between $215 and $250, depending on which population estimate you use, 300 or 350 million.
Dr. Cartledge,
I am an engineer, not a thinking man, so my thought process may very well be flawed. However, I would like your insight on some thoughts that i have had swirling around.
When I consider what it takes to be a nation in this world and what it takes to fulfill the commandments of Christ, I come to the conclusion that the two are mutually exclusive. If we act in the best interest of sustaining our country, we usually have to defy the laws of love and grace. If we live fully by the grace and love that we are commanded, our country will be run-over and toppled. Heck, Jesus lived by his commands and was crucified for it. Ghandi followed those guidelines and died because of it. MLK led a passive resistance and was assassinated. Worldly sustainment rarely follows Godly living.
That has been my thought pattern, anyhow. I'm willing to admit that there may be some gaping holes. Can a country/government exist in this world and still fulfill live the gospel of Christ?
A righteous man soon finds the world aligned against him.
JP,
I think the gospel of Christ operates contrarily to the modern nation-state. The nation-state prioritizes love of country above all else; Christ calls us to love God and then our neighbor. The nation-state seeks prosperity and protection; Christ calls us to charity and vulnerability. The good news is that we do not have to rely on a country or government to carry the cause of Christ, although many Americans seem to disagree. God has blessed us with the church: a transnational, prophetic body of pilgrims living between the age that is and the one that is to come. I believe that it is the Body of Christ alone that can faithfully live the gospel; no other social body has the resources to live faithfully to God and I do not expect them to do so.
Sorry for the delay in responding, JP -- I think the bottom line is that countries and Christianity have different agendas. When Jesus talked about "rendering unto Caesar the thing's that are Caesar's," I think he was acknowledging that.
In a sense, the term "Christian nation" may be an oxymoron.
JP,
For someone who does not claim to be a "thinking man" those are some of the sharpest (and most honest) thoughts that I have read on the blog-o-sphere.
Though this may not be the most popular thing to ask, is peace possible outside the moral vision of Kingdom of God in the New Testament, particularly the teachings of Jesus?
Then, one must ask, do we withdraw and commit to a non-violent witness and possible martyrdom? Or do we work through government and secular means, including military and violence to hopefully work toward peace?
Either road is difficult, requires great faith and perseverance. Which is the correct one? I have sympathies toward both, and maybe they are not mutually exclusive.
However, my concern is that competing worldviews, political theories and religions have different ideas of peace, the means to achieve it, and what the world will look like when it arrives. Thus, the result is conflict. "Peace" is not the mere absence of war.
Post a Comment