I found this quotation from George Orwell, written in the middle of WWII, to be fascinating (ht to “The Corner”):
In his Tribune column “As I Please” Orwell wrote (August 4, 1944) that death and destruction were not the most evil thing about war:
“We shall all be dead in less than a hundred years, and most of us by the sordid horror known as “natural death.” The truly evil thing is to an act in such a way that peaceful life becomes impossible. War damages the fabric of civilization not by the destruction it causes (the net effect of war may even be to increase the productive capacity of the world as a whole), nor even by the slaughter of human beings, but by stimulating hatred and dishonesty. By shooting at your enemy you are not in the deepest sense wronging him. But by hating him, by inventing lies about him and bringing children up to believe them, by clamoring for unjust peace terms which make further wars inevitable, you are striking not at one perishable generation, but at humanity itself.”
I’m not seriously claiming George Orwell read the BoM. But once again the BoM is prophetic when discussing war and its effects on the people. In addition to the horrible battle to the death we read about in the Book of Ether, the above quotation reminds me of Mormon 4: 9-12:
9 And now all these things had been done, and there had been thousands slain on both sides, both the Nephites and the Lamanites.
10 And it came to pass that the three hundred and sixty and sixth year had passed away, and the Lamanites came again upon the Nephites to battle; and yet the Nephites repented not of the evil they had done, but persisted in their wickedness continually.
11 And it is impossible for the tongue to describe, or for man to write a perfect description of the horrible scene of the blood and carnage which was among the people, both of the Nephites and of the Lamanites; and every heart was hardened, so that they delighted in the shedding of blood continually.
12 And there never had been so great wickedness among all the children of Lehi, nor even among all the house of Israel, according to the words of the Lord, as was among this people.
Yet, interestingly, many of the BoM’s greatest heroes are warriors. In fact, almost all of the major heroes in the BoM had to fight at one time or another. And, yes, the majority of the battles are in self-defense.
I constantly puzzle over this issue: the horror of war and the BoM’s widespread denunciation of it — contrasted with the apparent inevitability of it. It appears that many people are forced into participating in wars despite their personal righteousness (think of Nephi, King Benjamin, Mormon, Capt. Moroni, etc).
I honestly don’t know what this means for our times, but I’m glad we have a prophet who does know. It seems more important than ever that we follow his guidance to help us through this puzzle.
If the Book of Mormon proves anything, it does prove Christ right. “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.”
I think George Orwell said it very well. It is the hatred that is more destructive than the war itself. Captain Moroni did not hate the Lamanites. In Alma 44, he gave them ample opportunities to surrender and stop fighting, and even after the Lamanites continued the attack, and then once again begged for mercy, he gave it to them, and let them go free. Seriously, would that all modern warriors were like Moroni.
I wonder sometimes how much the prophet specifically knows about this himself. If you don’t know, then maybe he doesn’t either, or he has not told you. How much specific revelation is given about this today?
would that all modern warriors were like Moroni
Might want to be careful, since Moronoi also jailed dissenters, killed insurgents and generally behaved a lot like the Democrats caricature of the current Bush administration.
Whosoever would not take up arms in the defence of their country, but would fight against it, were put to death. And thus it became expedient that this law should be strictly observed for the safety of their country; yea, and whosoever was found denying their freedom was speedily executed according to the law. And thus ended the thirtieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi; Moroni and Pahoran having restored peace to the land of Zarahemla, among their own people, having inflicted death upon all those who were not true to the cause of freedom.
and
Now, Moroni being a man who was aappointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them. And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death;
I would argue that, in fact, hatred is essential for war. The enemy must be characterized as evil incarnate, as subhuman, as completely “other.” There must be no allowance for complex motivations or shades of gray in his morality. He cannot be justified in any of his acts. The fault for the conflict is entirely his. He is the hate-filled aggressor, and we are merely defending our homes and freedoms.
Unless we characterize him in this manner, doubts as to the righteousness of our cause enter into the community’s conversation and impede our ability to utterly destroy the enemy. (Some demented few would argue that this is a good thing.)
Ian – exactly.
No one has attacked us on US soil. No one is plotting to. There are no real terrorists.
Thank you for clearing that up.
PDE #8:
Mike, do you think I’m demented?
I was being sarcastic in my post #6; sort of paraphrasing Mark Twain:
Ivan Wolfe #10:
No one has attacked us on US soil. No one is plotting to. There are no real terrorists.
Not in Iraq, pre-March 2003.
Mike Parker:
I never mentioned Iraq (BTW – I was opposed to invading Iraq). I was thinking more along Gitmo/Afghanistan/domestic terrorist lines.
This isn’t about Iraq, so don’t bring up a red herring.
Proud Daughter of Eve,
#8:
That is a noble cause, but where do you draw the line on who you help? Sure the Iraqis lived under a nasty dictator, but so do the Kyrgyz, the Uzbekhs, the Egyptians, Zimbabweans, etc. Are you willing to go “free” them also?
Ivan,
#12,
ah, but Bush made it an Iraq thing, didn’t he? How often have you heard him and his supporters say that Iraq is “central” to the war on terror. What ever happened to Afghanistan in their eyes?!?!?!
Dan –
no idea. I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, but the modern left has decided it’s all about Iraq as well. Especially since many modern progressives seem convinced Bin Laden and his ilk will all pack up and go home if we free everyone from Gitmo and support Palestine over Israel . i.e., if only we were “better behaved” they’d stop hating us.
The war on terror is crucial and important. But the left (in general) has determined not just to oppose the Iraq deal, but everything else Bush does to fight terrorists.
That’s one problem with war: Most everyone (right, left and center) all seem to lose any sense of perspective. Everything becomes a synecdoche.
Ivan,
#17,
That is a straw man and that group of people “the left (in general)” who you think is determined to oppose everything Bush does to fight terrorists, does not exist, but in the propaganda of the Republican National Committee.
You hear Bush today attacking straw man Democrats to rile up the base, but if pressed for facts, cannot name a single Democrat who has ever said we shouldn’t listen in on terrorist phone conversations, or interrogate terrorists, etc. Why can’t he name these people he accuses? Because they don’t exist. They are straw men.
Furthermore, these straw men attack the dignity and patriotism of citizens who actually love their country and hate seeing it being used badly.
There are more ways than Bush’s to go after terrorism. Tell me, Ivan, after five years now of pure Republican strategies (Republicans run all three branches of the government), how are we faring against terrorism? Why is the frequency of terrorist attacks on the rise if Bush’s strategies are the best way to go? Is it not by their fruits that we shall know them? Bush has had five years to attack terrorists. Bin Laden is still alive. Zawahiri is still alive. Al-Qaida still carries out plans against us. Iraq is in serious shambles and a loss. North Korea tests nuclear weapons. Iran moves steadily forward towards nuclear weapons. Somalia is falling back into control of warlords, with some assistance from Libya’s Qahddafi.
Furthermore, James Baker’s group is recommending a plan of “redeploy and contain,” which sounds eerily similar to what Rep. Murtha recommended ONE YEAR AGO. The splitting of Iraq into three provinces was a plan first given thought by Joseph Biden, Democratic Senator from Deleware, also one year ago. Democrats have been saying we should have finished Afghanistan before venturing off into other countries, and look, Afghanistan is following Iraq’s lead. Car bombs are on the rise, the Taliban are back. Senator Frist actually said we should try and get the Taliban to be a part of the Afghan government! Do you hear any Democrat recommending that we allow terrorists to be a part of a democratic government? A Republican recommended this. Where’s the criticism?
Don’t listen to Rove’s propaganda, Ivan. Democrats have plans and ideas. Republicans steal them one year later and claim them as their own.
It strikes me how “right” many people seem to think they are on this thread. If there is one thing I have learned about war in the BoM, and this is the primary point of the post, is that it is not always clear what is right and what is wrong. Was WWII a good and necessary war with the good guys triumphing in the end? Well, most people think it was, yet here we have Orwell pointing out what a horrible thing war is as his side was about to win. I don’t think you can argue that the world would have been a better place had Hitler and the Japanese won. Yet the war, which most people think was necessary, was a horrible, brutal thing.
I really think some commenters need to have a bit more humility about this issue. Again, there is a real paradox in the BoM: on the one hand, you have clear warnings about hatred leading to genocide and on the other there is no condemnation of BoM heroes who defend their people. This is an issue all people need to study and pray about. Anybody who comes to easy conclusions — and goes about lecturing the rest of the world — has not thought things through very carefully, it seems to me.
Geoff,
You’re assuming none of us have thought about this long and hard. The misreading of the Book of Mormon’s war chapters has irked me ever since 9/11, and it continues, and probably will until the end of time.
I don’t see the paradox. There is an actual and stark difference between hatred that leads to genocide and defending one’s homes. There is no paradox. Defending one’s homes is not a hateful thing to do. Wanting to annihilate your enemy is. Righteous Nephites like Captain Moroni never desired, nor even attempted to annihilate his enemies, but simply to drive them back out of his lands. He gave them ample opportunities to leave in peace, and when they accepted his demands, he let them go free. This is not a hateful man, but one who defends his home. Yet this man is used today by some as an example of warmongering, aggressive warfare, and offensive attacks. This misreading of a righteous defender is disingenous, foolish, and wrong.
For anyone who doesn’t want to be found guilty of “coming to easy conclusions”, here is a must-read for anyone who would advocate premature withdrawal from Iraq:
http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=4913160
I will not soon forget the description of horror and despair by Bro. Van Nguyen as the Americans left Vietnam and the North Vietnamese overran Saigon – and the telling of his own subsequent imprisonment and torture. After reading this, I will never advocate that the U.S. withdraw and leave the Iraqi people to be taken over once again by the most violent minority within their borders.
Protecting those in need is definitely an acceptable reason for the US to have gone in aid to other countries. I recall a long time ago our country decided to stay out of another war. We didn’t want to be drug into it and it wasn’t our war to fight. I also recall that when we finally did we found out how much had been lost in our wait. How many human lives had been annililated. It wasn’t that long ago that Hilter was killing off people using a religious agenda. Innocent people. They couldn’t fend for themselves…and we waited to help because it wasn’t our war. Look at what Saddam did, how did that not warrant giving our help?
Nicole,
But most of what Saddam did was in the 80s, and supported by Reagan. I don’t hear righteous indignation at Reagan for supporting Saddam when he was gassing Kurds and Iranians left and right. Why not? Why did America not go in then to help the poor Iraqis? In fact, why did Reagan arm both sides of the Iran-Iraq war? Why did he sell weapons to both Iraqis and Iranians? It seems he didn’t care who lost, just as long as both lost. That’s pretty reprehensible, and certainly not something that benefits the poor lowly Iraqis. I’m tired of hearing Bush supporters claim we were right to go to Iraq because the poor Iraqis could not do anything of themselves. We did nothing when the real damage was done, Nicole. And that was under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
[blockquote]While I would have loved to hear the Prophet speak out against the war, his stance makes sense. What President Hinckley is doing is keeping religion out of this conflict.[/blockquote]
Hardly. Not as long as members cite the first two or three sentences of his April 2003 talk to give this President a blank check, and say that those who do not are speaking against the Prophet. Yes, that view made it to “Teachings for our Time” in July 2004, and I have yet to hear any official or quasi-official pronouncement that counters that stance.
Hinkley mentioning the terrible costs of war.
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650203424,00.html
I have no problem whatsoever with the USA being policeman for the world. The treatment of women alone in Iraq is more than enough reason to at least try to help the place out, http://www.wendymcelroy.com/ifeminists/2003/0211.html It is a cause worth dieing for.
Will Iraq be better in the end? I think so, but there is no guarantee. I feel proud to be an American and to be a small part of helping Iraq.
That movie was horrible, much worse that the Heston version.
Dan, #22, I’m sorry, if you don’t see a paradox you need to do some more thinking. Go back and read all of the war-related chapters in the BoM. You’ll see that almost all of the righteous wars were purely defensive wars in which the Nephites were defending themselves against the aggressive Lamanites. You have mentioned it yourself — they were “defending their homes.” And, no doubt, defending your home seems justified.
Now let’s take a look at some of the more “righteous” wars in U.S. history. Let’s start with the Civil War: were people from New York state, Massachusetts and Maine “defending their homes?” Well, strictly speaking, no. In fact, the vast majority of the battles took place in the South. So the people defending their homes were in fact the southerners. Does that make them, slave-holders, more righteous than Lincoln and Grant?
How about WWI? We had no need to enter that war by your standard. The Germans probably would have left us alone in the long run. And WWII? Well, Hawaii was not even a state in 1941 but a territory we had taken over. We could have easily given it up to the Japanese and concentrated our forces in California. And even if they had attacked California, well, no reason for people in Utah to fight. We Mormons could have simply waited it out until they attacked the Salt Lake valley.
And as for Korea, forget about it. We clearly should never have gotten involved there. Who cares about those South Koreans anyway?
Can you see how silly this is? Clearly, in modern times there must be a different standard for going to war than “defending your home.” So, it is a bit more complicated than you claim.
The typical Democratic response is to attack and attack without offering an alternative. So, now the onus is on you: which modern wars are justified and why? Should the U.S. only get involved in wars if it is attacked directly? How about if our allies are attacked? And should Mormons abstain from all wars unless they directly affect us? Well, in that case, what about supporting our brothers and sisters around the world if they are attacked? (For example, what if a desperate North Korea attacks the South and thousands of Latter-day Saints are about to be killed?) Are wars for purely humanitarian reasons justifed? How about wars to bring liberty to others who are being oppressed? Democrats love to cite Vietnam as a failed war. Have you ever thought about the bigger global picture involving Vietnam and what would have happened in Thailand, the Philippines, indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore if we had not tried to stop Communism in Vietnam? Are you aware that Mao and the Soviets were clearly hoping we would get involved so they could conquer all of Southeast Asia? Would the 200 million people there have been better off under Communist rule?
What about Panama and Grenada? Are they better off under their old governments (a Cuban-sponsored budding dictator in Grenada and a drug-running murderous lunatic in Panama)? Should we have just let them alone so they could continue to attack Americans and sell arms to guerrilla groups in Latin America?
Needless to say, there was obviously no reason at all to bomb Libya, even though it was that retaliatory bombing that finally got Kaddafi out of the terrorism business, right? No reason at all to drop a few bombs to prevent the potential deaths of thousands that Kaddafi planned, right?
Of course bombing Serbia is a bit more complicated because a Democratic president did that, right? (Democrats of course started U.S. participation in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, but let’s ignore that inconvenient detail). Was bombing Serbia and preventing genocide in the Balkans justified or not?
Suddenly the world looks a little more complicated, doesn’t it? Let’s see if you answer the questions directly or if you try to avoid the tough questions, which seems to be the typical Democratic tactic. A typical Democratic tactic would be to avoid the question and say, for example, “we lied our way into Iraq, so all of this is meaningless.” I especially like it when Democrats try to say, “well, Reagan supported the Iraqi government” and of course Reagan was a Republican so therefore a BAD MAN!! This is a classic example of trying to change the subject and only shows a complete misunderstanding of complex interworkings of foreign policy. Both Democrats and Republicans have, over the years, supported different governments that did bad things for different geopolitical reasons. FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ all supported brutal dictatorships (in the Middle East and elsewhere) because it was in our geopolitical interests. But of course you only mention Reagan’s (relatively minor) support for Iraq because it fits your black and white (Democrats GOOD, Republicans BAD) view of the world. Please note I haven’t even mentioned Iraq until now, and this post is not about Iraq. Iraq is likely not to be the last war in our lifetimes and is today’s sideshow in the bigger picture, which is indeed very complex and perplexing. So, do some thinking before answering, and if you can, please answer all the questions directly without prevaricating. Good luck.
Geoff,
oh where to begin, where to begin…first off, when I said, I don’t see a paradox, I was saying, there is no paradox, because to defend one’s home is not hateful. you said:
You’re implying there is a paradox between the defending one’s homes and hatred leading to genocide. There is no paradox, because they are not one and the same. To defend one’s home is not hateful, and does not lead to genocide. Can you show me any example of righteous Nephites using genocide (quick clarification of definitions here, before you mistake a battlefield loss for genocide—genocide is the attempt at mass casualties of civilian populations) against Lamanites? In the Book of Mormon who has attempted genocide? Certainly not people defending their homes. So my point is pretty accurate: there is no paradox between defending one’s home and those who use hate to murder and destroy, because they are not one and the same.
As to your historical examples…well, I’m rather troubled by your apparent understanding of these conflicts, Geoff. We entered World War I because we were attacked (the sinking of the Lusitania) and the Germans were about to get Mexico to align with them.
As to the Civil War, well, there was nothing righteous about it. Neither side had any righteous intentions, (you never do in a civil war, which is why you generally try to avoid taking a side).
Geoff,
the problem I am seeing in our discussion here is that you seem to think there are only two options: hateful genocide or defending one’s home, and that they are one and the same and paradoxical. Further, you think my stance is contradictory, because I say they are not one and the same. You claim that the wars fought by America don’t all fit into the category of “defending one’s homes,” so therefore many of our actions would then fall under the category of “hateful genocide,” which is of course, ludicrous. And you tell me to think more before writing!
Geoff, Geoff, you’ve fallen into Republican propaganda. This is a straw man and is false. Democrats have alternatives, but you wish not to hear them unless they come from Republicans. On Iraq, did you know that James Baker’s group is recommending a strategy called “Redeploy and Contain?” You’ll hear about it after the election, of course, but what is interesting is that this is what Congressman Murtha recommended ONE YEAR AGO. At the time, he was called a traitor by Republicans for daring to recommend a withdrawal from Iraq. Yet now a Republican is recommending it to the President. I doubt Mr. Murtha will get an apology. How about the idea floating around right now to split Iraq into three provinces. I first heard this option from a Democrat, Senator Joseph Biden back in May. Now Republicans are talking about it. Is Mr. Biden getting the credit? Nope. He’s a Democrat, all he is about is “attack and attack without offering an alternative.” You want more examples? Bill Clinton was for regime change in Iraq before Bush was. Jimmy Carter….well, I know you don’t like him…but he made peace between Israel and one of its greatest enemies: Egypt. Can Bush or actually any Republican claim they’ve gotten an Arab nation to make peace between Israel and one of its neighbors? Clinton and Carter can. No Republican leader has accomplished that! So, please, dude, stop with the Republican straw men, and stick with a logical and reasonable debate.
Before I answer your multitude of questions regarding modern warfare, let’s just get some things cleared up about Libya:
Um, when Reagan dropped bombs on Libya after the plane blew up over Lockerbie, Libya was not swayed. In fact, Libyans rallied around their leader, Colonel Qaddafi. You know what changed Qaddafi’s tune? economic sanctions. Then later, before the Iraq war, oil companies lured Qaddafi into letting go of certain terrorists. They also pressed the State Department to take Libya off the terror sponsor list so that they could do business with Libya, even though Qaddafi had attempted to assassinate the Saudi Royal Prince in 2003!
As to your questions, I will get to them later.
I don’t know which democrats you’ve talked to in the past, but you’re talking now to one who is not afraid to bloody a Republican nose. 😉
Dan, unlike you I am not a partisan person — I call them as I see them. Republicans have done bad things in the past, just like Democrats. I don’t see the world in the simplistic black and white partisan way you do, so please spare me the partisanship and deal with the questions.
You have either deliberately or as a tactic missed the point of my post and my questions.
Let me try again. Deciding whether to go to war is an agonizing decision. The BoM shows this. Justifiable wars in the BoM are defensive wars. Other wars lead eventually to hatred and genocide. Yet, in our modern era, leaders have to make decisions whether or not to defend principles and territory and people and, yes, freedom. These decisions are never easy.
So, to answer my questions correctly and not prevaricate (typical Democratic tactic that you once again continue in #39) you need to look at recent wars and try to decide whether they are justified or not. So, go back to the questions and answer them directly. Was Lincoln justified in trying to keep the Union together and attacking the Southern people who were defending their homes, yes or no?
Once you do this, you need to come up with a unified, defendable policy on when war is justifiable or not. And this strategy is not just for Iraq but for possible future wars (Iran nukes Israel, do we help them? North Korea invades the South, do we respond? China invades Taiwan, do we help?). Just as I said, it’s a bit more complicated than you think. And it’s not just about Democrats GOOD, Republicans BAD. Democratic presidents will probably have to go to the war in the future as well. What will you say about that?
Geoff,
I may want Republicans to lose, and badly, in this election, I’m not a simplistic black and white partisan. The war in Iraq, the torture policies, yeah, those definitely pushed me completely away from Republicans, but I’m really a moderate.
If you read my post, I said I would get to your questions later. That meant I was not answering them in that post. Sheesh!
I ask you to cease and desist with these petty swipes, Geoff. Why should I answer your questions if you keep attacking me? It shows that you really are not interested in my answers, but will find some keywords in my answers to turn against me. If you keep up these kinds of swipes, well….this is your blog, and you’re the dictator here, so I can’t say much. You probably would be relieved if I say, I won’t comment anymore.
Please also stop being condescending.
Dan, OK, take the time you need to answer. But just a reminder: for your answers to be on-point they need to do deal not only with Iraq but instead when war is justified and why based on recent history (let’s say since the 1860s). I’m glad to hear you are a moderate. Let’s see if you can come up with a coherent doctrine of justifiable war that can be applicable to modern times and future potential conflicts. I have my own, which I have discussed many times on this blog and would be happy to summarize for you again after I hear from you.
My comment about prevarication had more to do with Democratic tacits than with you personally. I agree the tone was a bit combative, so sorry about that.
I really look forward to your answer. All the best.
Geoff, are you paying attention to the Selfish Gene thread? I suggest you go and take a look at what has been transpiring there.
Seriously Geoff. It needs immediate attention.
I third that.
(and my answers are coming. It takes time. you asked a lot of questions) 🙂
On the Just War:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm
I skimmed it and I have to say, I think the US has satisfied the Just War doctrine of the Catholic Church.
“Dan, unlike you I am not a partisan person — I call them as I see them….
answer my questions correctly and not prevaricate (typical Democratic tactic”
This is hilarious
Yeah, Bill, you caught me. Lots of juices flowing before the elections. I guess my point was that war should not necessarily be a partisan issue. Lots of Democrats have involved this country in wars (Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton in Bosnia). I support those military efforts. I don’t think war should be opposed for partisan reasons, as Dems are doing now. Oh well, another “botched joke.”
Geoff,
I’ve got a big long response, but your system is telling me the comment is invalid or something…..i’ll try again.
Geoff,
Now that I’ve got some time, let’s go over your questions about justifiable warfare:
The issue of modern warfare is tricky, as you say, and as you think I don’t know. As with anything, you have to calculate the opportunity cost of an action. Unfortunately, many of the “wars” America has fought in the 20th century were executed by men who did not consider all the opportunity costs. While there are many other wars that others have chosen not to fight because the opportunity cost would have been too great. Take for example North Korea today. If Saddam Hussein would have detonated a nuclear test like North Korea did, do you think Bush would sit back and pout, saying “It’s unacceptable,” but not really do anything about it? The opportunity cost, in the eyes of Bush, is low to attack Iraq, but at unacceptable levels to attack North Korea. However, based on the rationale used to attack Iraq, you’ve got no better, more perfect, example than North Korea. A rogue nation with assumed ties to terrorist groups. A dictator who abuses his people. A failed state. In the possession of nuclear weapons that are a threat to our nation. To use Condi Rice’s words, “are we going to wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?” Yet for some reason, Bush and his staff are working for a peaceful resolution to North Korea’s belligerence. Why? Opportunity Cost. These costs are clear as day in regards to North Korea. Seoul would be destroyed, and millions of Koreans on both sides would be killed if war breaks out. The cost, therefore is too high. In my view, the opportunity cost of most, if not all, wars are greater than the benefits of the execution of a war. There is a reason wars have not ended. There is a reason why it has been prophesied that the end would be full of violence. Because, when the final tabulation is made, wars do not bring about peace, just a whole bunch of dead people. Sure, you stop a conflict to a point, but as is clear from history, conflicts rise again between to warring factions.
So was America’s inclusion in World War I a justified action? Yes, to a point. Germany was looking to expand their conflict to America through Mexico. The opportunity cost would have been pretty high if America stayed out. However, what was not taken into account was the humiliation that Germans felt upon losing. They claim, rightly so, that they weren’t the only aggressors in this conflict. Europe was itching for another war in 1914. Germany was smart in attempting to take the first hit, and win out. But due to some fancy maneuvering by the French and British in Belgium and northern France, Germany’s attempt to end the war quickly failed, and both sides dug into the trenches. The way the French, British and Americans treated Germany after the war created such an opportunity cost that it led to an even greater world war with 20 million more people dead.
Was America’s involvement in World War II justified? Of course. Americans at the time were weary of war. They saw how destructive World War I was. They had just gone through the Great Depression and certainly weren’t looking to fight anyone. Roosevelt knew the danger of Germany’s actions, as well as that of Japan’s. Most Americans who supported going to war before December 7, 1941, wanted to attack Japan, where as Roosevelt wanted to go after Germany first, but he couldn’t convince Americans to enter the war. After all, Germany had not attacked the United States, and, to this point, neither had Japan. Then when the United States threatened Japan with sanctioning their oil supplies, Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. Upon this brazen attack Japan declared war with the United States. Germany followed suit, also declaring war with the United States, even though the United States did not attack Germany, nor had Germany attacked the United States. The United States was therefore justified in warring with both Germany and Japan, as both had declared war on the United States first.
The opportunity cost of actions during the Cold War was different than before the Cold War. The local opportunity costs lost to the greater message of being anti-Communist. It did not matter that we created greater problems, as long as we fought the dreaded communism ideology. Thus we get the problem of Operation Ajax in Iran in the 1950s. Iran, at this point, was a democratic nation, though they were leaning towards the Soviet Union—they are next door neighbors at this point, after all. The newly elected government, at the wish of its people, nationalized oil production, to the chagrin of British Petroleum, who to that point had full control and revenue from oil in Iran. British Petroleum complained to the British leadership to do something about it. Yeah, how dare the people of a nation decide for themselves! The British government went to Dwight Eisenhower’s administration, who ordered the CIA in Operation Ajax to overthrow the elected government and reinstall the monarchy. Which they did. Yeah, the Iranians were not happy about this, at all. You want to know why the Ayatollah Khomeini had such popular influence in Iran? It comes down to this very thing: Operation Ajax. The removal of leaders they elected from power by a foreign influence. Can you blame them for being mad at Americans by 1979? Did Eisenhower consider the opportunity cost of such an action? I doubt he did.
Let’s move to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Here is a situation where the Soviets made a bold move, to use a chess example, they move their rook to check the king. Very provocative. Kennedy was a young, new president. Kruschev seemed to want to test the young president, or make a move that the young president wouldn’t be able to do a thing about, being inexperienced (or so Krushev may have thought). Many in Kennedy’s administration (especially military leaders) thought this was the best excuse they had to start a war with the Soviets. In their eyes, the accepted the supposed opportunity cost of a few American cities, for the destruction of the Soviet arsenal. They knew they could not fully destroy the Soviet Union at this point, yet they still felt this was a good enough opportunity cost. Kennedy, being a very smart man, saw that the cost would be too great. It would mean the end of the world; his generals could not see this. Through bold moves of his own, and through honest communication with Krushev, Kennedy saved the world from a war that would have destroyed it completely. He proved that conflicts, of the greatest nature, could be solved if more thought would be put into the equation. Just what are the opportunity costs of a war with the Soviet Union? Far too immeasurable to even consider. M.A.D. worked better than actual warfare.
During Kennedy’s term, and then in Johnson’s term, we began getting involved in Vietnam. (actually I guess the real involvement in Vietnam began during Eisenhower’s administration). The French had just left Vietnam and had warned us not to get involved. Would that we listened to the French. But again, America had a greater fear, the “domino effect.” In our calculation of opportunity costs, America thought involvement in Vietnam would be a smaller cost than not being involved. The trouble with Vietnam is not necessarily our involvement there, but rather how we were involved there. Our introduction into Vietnam began with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which we know today was a set up to rally Americans behind Johnson’s efforts to war in Vietnam. Rather immediately, the division began, and America split on this war. There was something fishy about America’s presence there. It didn’t sound right. It didn’t feel right. In the end the opportunity cost for the Vietnam War was greater than the reward, because we didn’t fight the war correctly, didn’t sell it well to our people, had gone in due to a fake incident, and had a hubris that was greater than the size of our nation. We underestimated the enemy. In the end, the Vietnamese had gone communist anyways, and all that we had from the outcome was a whole bunch of dead Vietnamese, a whole bunch of dead Americans, and a wounded pride. Did the “domino effect” come to fruition? Nah. That was a fake fear. And who really thinks that the best way to fight an ideology is through military means, anyways? Doh! our current administration does. No wonder we are failing in our fight against terrorism today. You cannot defeat an ideology through military means. I thought Americans would have learned this from Vietnam. I guess not.
You claim I don’t look at the bigger picture, vis a vis Vietnam. Did the war in Vietnam convert South East Asians to our side? Nope. Cambodians had gone on to allow Pol Pot to rule for a while, which ended in a far worse tragedy than the war in Vietnam was. 2 million Cambodians were killed by Pol Pot and his ruthless henchmen. Worse, Pol Pot targeted educated Cambodians, setting back Cambodia several generations. Would Pol Pot have been in the situation he was in if the United States didn’t go into Vietnam? We’ll never know. One thing we should have regretted wholeheartedly is that Ho Chi Minh actually begged the United States to help him, and accept him as a ally. What better way to curb communism than to have a communist on your side, directing future communists our way! What folly that we left him to the Maoists. Such a shame. I bet we could have averted a conflict if we had supported Ho Chi Minh.
But see, by this point, America had fallen into the military industrial complex’s guise that warfare is good, peace is bad. Eisenhower had warned us about the military industrial complex. So has President Kimball (in his talk “The False Gods We Worship”). Look at the world around you today. You see the propaganda of the military-industrial complex all around you. It is inevitable today that America will be at war at one point or another from here until the end, because that is how the military industrial complex thrives: war.
In 1983, Israel had invaded Lebanon, and the United States and France both sent soldiers into Beirut for support. An incident occurred in 1983 that has sent shockwaves through the Middle East and the entire world. This one incident showed the power of terrorism. Hezbollah formed as an opposition militia to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Israel’s excuse was that they would forcibly wipe out Palestinian leaders who were at the time in Lebanon. Those Palestinian leaders escaped to exile, and later went back to Palestine to lead the Palestinians yet again. Israel was now stuck in Lebanon (they obviously did not calculate their opportunity cost well). This was their worst move (well…until this July’s bombing of Lebanon….what exactly did it bring Israel????—but that’s another story). Anyways, Hezbollah wanted both Israel and the United States and France out of Lebanon. Understandable. No one likes a foreign force in their country. Hezbollah did something that changed the future of the world. They sent two trucks carrying explosives into the barracks where American marines and French paratroopers slept. The bombs killed 241 American marines and 78 French paratroopers. Reagan vowed not to cower to the threat of terror, but inexplicably, three months later, he pulled American forces out of Beirut. Why did Reagan pull out? He considered the opportunity cost, but did not calculate that his moving out would send a message that the attack succeeded in removing Americans from Beirut. Hezbollah had beaten the United States. This sent reverberations through the entire world. America pulls out if you hit them with terror.
Should we have been in Beirut? Nope. We had no business being there. It wasn’t really supporting Israel. In fact, it led to terror attacks against both Israel and America that in the end still forced Israel to remove its forces from Lebanon.
Now, shall we talk about Iraq and Iran? Boy what a mess this was back in the 1980s. What was Reagan doing backing Saddam Hussein, the aggressor in the war against Iran? What was Reagan doing turning a blind eye when Saddam was using chemical weapons against the Iranians? What is worse is what the heck was Reagan thinking in arming both the Iranians and Iraqis? Did he really wish to see an end to that conflict, or did he instead wish to see the utter destruction of both sides? The Iran-Iraq situation in the 1980s was again a small conflict that dealt with sending a message to the Soviet Union. But I think by this point, it did not matter what messages were being sent to the Soviet Union by proxy. The Soviet Union made the biggest mistake of their existence by invading Afghanistan, their Vietnam, and they were losing both influence and strength. They fled Afghanistan with their tails between their legs, much like we left Vietnam. Besides, just what message were we sending the Soviets by our support of both sides in the Iran Iraq war?
Notice that all the conflicts of the 20th century are connected. World War I gave us World War II. World War I also gave us most of the conflicts we are still dealing with in the Middle East. World War II gave us the Cold War, which gave us a host of other conflicts, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, Operation Ajax, the Iranian Revolution, the Iran-Iraq war, terrorism in the Middle East, and so on and so forth. All these conflicts can be tied together.
Now, let’s look at where conflict was averted and see if other conflicts can be tied to that lack of conflict. We’ve got the Cuban Missile Crisis. Conflict was averted through peaceful maneuvers. Can any future conflict be tied to that incident? I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Note that peaceful efforts tend to bring about peaceful results with no additional conflict somewhere else. Note that wars tend to destroy, and then create a new conflict elsewhere. Where does conflict end? In the deaths of human beings. Where does peace end? It doesn’t.
So where are we justified in taking a war? There is a reason we are supposed to war as infrequently as possible. History shows us that the more we war, the more war we create, not the less. We were justified in going to Afghanistan because that is where those who attacked us were. We had the full support of every nation on the planet, even Iran. (Saddam didn’t support it obviously, but we don’t care what Saddam thinks anyways). Can we see any way that Afghanistan could have spilled into other areas to create other conflicts? I can’t see any other area. This is one of those situations that if we had solved quickly and decisively, we probably could have contained it to just Afghanistan. More importantly, we could have shown the world that we take attacks against our nation very seriously, and we hold those who attack us fully accountable. By diverting our attention to Iraq, and letting those who attack us go free, (we still haven’t captured Bin Laden), not only are we showing the world that we don’t care all that much about being attacked, but we’re letting the conflict spill out of Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if at some future point, closer than some think, Pakistan goes under and extremists take control. Then that would lead to a conflict with India, and so on and so forth. I’m personally very worried about Pakistan. It could be a Serbia, that leads to greater nations warring with each other.
No, but this should be like 95% of the time the only reason we go to war.
We have to be careful at how much we support our allies in a conflict. Sometimes it comes back to be the worst thing we ever did. I’m all for supporting Israel, but our involvement in Beirut was the worst thing America has ever done—yes, even worse than Vietnam.
Mormons should be involved in the country they belong. There is nothing wrong with participating in the defense of one’s nation.
Brotherhood in the church, at this point in time, does not trump the call of the nation. We might find in some future conflict that a Mormon in America will be shooting at a Mormon in, I don’t know, China. Did Mormons not participate in the German Army during World War II?
No. There are more factors to consider than just humanitarian reasons.
Terrible reason for a war.
I think I answered that sufficiently above.
That one requires too much to get into, however, because we’re looking at the bigger picture here, yes, Lincoln was justified. America would not be what it is today if the South had won, or even were allowed to leave the Union all together. Moreover, this would have been detrimental to the growth of the church (even though it really isn’t growing very well in the South), around the world, because, well, America would not have been able to respond well to future threats, like Germany in both World Wars.
Furthermore, it was the express intent of George Washington (he warned the South in his farewell address to remain unified) that the federal be of greater priority and worth than the state.
I don’t think there can be a unified defendable policy because situations that might warrant justifiable warfare do not fit into perfect paradigms. However, go by this principle: Peace tends to be more fruitful in the long run; war tends to be more fruitful in the short run. Peace tends to cost more in the short term; war tends to cost more in the long term. If you keep that in mind as you consider war options, you might do well.
Take for example Israel’s bombing of Lebanon this July. Just what did they get out of that? Did they return their soldiers? Did they destroy Hezbollah? Nope. So in the long run, war cost them dearly. In the short run, yeah, they taught Hezbollah a lesson about incursions and taking soldiers, but did not solve the problem. This problem can only be solved by peaceful solutions, which don’t look good in the short term, but will be very fruitful in the long run.
Dan, good, thoughtful answers. I salute you. If I can summarize your answers, most of us can agree that there are times when war is justified and necessary, and those times are not simply when we are directly attacked. This is exactly the point of this post, which is that the BoM justifies defensive wars involving direct attacks on a people or nation but clearly warns that wars will lead to hatred which will lead to all-out genocide. This is a warning for our times.
But the puzzle is, just as I stated above, we are not told in the BoM which circumstances justify modern wars and which circumstances do not. And we also know that war is pretty much inevitable, despite its horror. So, my point as a follower of the Prince of Peace is that it is very difficult, for purely religious regions, to know whether a war is justified or not. For this, I need to rely on the prophet.
I have never heard of a prophet advising Latter-day Saints in the United States (or elsewhere for that matter) not to go to war. Even in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s, good German LDS members were not told not to avoid service in the German army. I am aware of Pres. Kimballs’s talk on Vietnam, but the prophets have never told members not to serve the military in their various countries. They have never, as the Pope has done, for example, specifically condemned military conflicts and advised the people not to go to war.
It seems to me that the prophets are 1)staying out of politics and 2)allowing members to make their own decisions on whether a war is just or not and 3)not willing to condemn a career choice that individual people may make and not honorable or righteous.
I think President Hinckley’s April 2003 talk, in fact, can be read as supporting the Iraq war. But at the same time, I also agree that the prophet was not cheerleading for that war and has made recent comments opposing war, so I do not promulgate the argument that “President Hinckley supports the Iraq war.” In fact, I think the prophet hates all war and supports peaceful resolutions to all conflicts.
I will mention a few disagreements I have with your otherwise excellent answer. The first is that I do think that there are times when bringing liberty to the oppressed is justified. I believe there are a myriad of other issues involved in war-making and this should never be the ONLY reason. We need to consider geopolitical issues, humanitarian concerns and whether or not the country we would be liberating is a threat to us or not. But bringing liberty to the oppressed is not always a “terrible” reason to go to war. Woodrow Wilson, a good Democrat, wanted to make the world safe for democracy, and FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ often mentioned the importance of liberating people from tyranny. This does not mean we should support overthrowing all of the world’s tyrannies through military means, but I do think that the Creator wants people to have “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It is honorable to bring these things to the oppressed.
I also do not think history always bears out your theory that peace tends to be more fruitful in the long run. I think you could make a good argument that one of the reasons the peace did not last in post WWI Germany was that the allies did not occupy Germany and completely defeat them. Yes, I know about the complaints of the Treaty of Versailles, but the issue is that Germany was defeated but not occupied. We have had 60-plus years of peace and prosperity in Europe and Japan precisely because the enemies were completely and utterly destroyed and defeated and then we helped them rebuild and install working democracies. Again, this is a paradox: why did complete defeat bring a lasting peace and what lessons are we to learn from that?