I lived in a small New England town called Sudbury in Massachusetts for years. About three weeks ago, Sudbury lost one of their own to the “war on terror.” Army 1st Lieutenant Scott Milley who was twenty-three and went to high school with my daughter, was killed by small arms fire in Afghanistan. His body was laid to rest last week.
I found myself driving through Sudbury last week as well. With the streets all lined with American flags and yellow ribbons practically around every tree honoring Lt. Milley, a few things struck me. First, as a former Air Force spouse, I understand this show of support for not only the soldier who died, but for all the soldiers lost in war. Soldiers die every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when it hits close to home, that is when people support, react and rally, with what I guess could be called, “patriotism.” Two, does anyone, when they witness this sense of patriotism think about all the others killed in war—all the children and women, the “human collateral”—caught in the crossfire? Three, I often wonder if we reacted that way to all the other casualties of war, what that would mean? What would that look like? In other words, yes, we live in America, but what about all the innocent Iraqis and Afghans killed in this “war on terror?” What about honoring them? What color would their ribbons be? This may not seem like a normal reaction when we are at war—honoring the “enemy,” but maybe that is just it—maybe we need to view the “enemy” differently.
Elise Boulding, a peace activist and well-known author of such books as Cultures of Peace, once told me that we need to bring the United Nations into our own backyard. “What exactly does that mean,” I asked? She told me that we need to extend our hands and our hearts to all those who are like us and more importantly, not like us. We need to extend the idea of diplomacy and acceptance to everyone, each of us. It is not just the United Nations that must do this kind of work, it is ALL of us, wherever we are, however we can.
To me, that idea during war looks like this: If I not only put up an American flag, but also an Afghan flag and an Iraqi flag in my yard to remember all those lost in this “war on terror,” I would honor all those killed the last nine years, not just my own country men and women. I would bring the United Nations into my own backyard by doing this. What kind of reaction would my actions bring? Unfortunately, I think we all know what kind of reaction it would bring. If not violence, I would most definitely receive looks and comments of disapproval. This makes me have to ask, because I am an American, can I only fly our flag and can I only honor citizens from my country whom have died in this nine-year war? Does honoring the people whose country is killing my fellow citizens make me unpatriotic? A sympathizer with the “enemy?” How would these actions fall under the guise of my Christian religion?
One of the many reasons I entered into the work I am doing now is because of an email exchange I had with my ex-husband’s aunt. After 9/11 there was an email going around from Author, Barbara Kingsolver, about what would happen to the Afghan people if the USA were to invade. It included tidbits about how these gentle people were already living in the “dark ages” due to the lasting effects of Colonization, the lasting remnants of the Russian invasion in 1979, as well as living under the Taliban for several years. The outcome, said Kingsolver, would be complete devastation for the Afghan people. I forwarded this email, including to my ex’s Auntie. I will never forget the response. She sent me a litany of reasons as to why the US needed to invade and she ended with, “And besides, they aren’t even Christian over there.” As you can imagine, I was somewhat horrified. Justifying an invasion is one thing; justifying an invasion because you think a people are less than you because they aren’t Christian is inexcusable. As a Christian, I reject Just War Theory. War is never justified, even if we are attacked. Retribution should never supersede reconciliation. The fifth commandment states “Thou shall not kill.” There are no addendums to this commandment—no ifs, ands or buts. I am pretty sure God meant what God said.
I am not saying that Lt. Milley’s death is not tragic, or any soldier’s death for that matter is not tragic and unnecessary. It is tragic when we lose one of our own. My heart goes out to Lt. Milley’s family and all those who lost their loved ones in this war. One can go to websites such as usfallen.org and get the latest statistics. This week it reads: +0 = 5,846. The # of US military deaths in the GWoT as of 12/15/10. The financial cost to the US, as of 2010121512:54 = $1,121,305,229,695. Per every town, that’s an average of $44,189,368.66: $18,242.47 since yesterday. As someone who lived amongst military families for thirteen years, I comprehend this loss on a level that many cannot. There is so much sacrifice, on so many levels, when one serves in the military for our country.
A side note: According to foreignpolicy.com, right now there are thirty-three raging conflicts on the planet. When will it end?
The fact is, yes, Al Qaeda and the Taliban must be stopped. The other fact is, they are not going anywhere for a very long time. We must first understand where they are coming from, their ideology, and their religious understanding of Islam, before we can combat them in any way. If I am really going to stretch this, we need to recognize their strand of Islam. It may be tweaked, it may be extreme, but it is their form of Islam. Kelton Cobb from Hartford Seminary writes that the 9/11 hijackers were most likely praying moments before they hit their targets. To most people in the world, prayer is something that brings peace and answers—for the 9/11 hijackers, they sought the same thing, just before they killed thousands of people. Grasping this is, I admit, incredibly difficult. It is easy to dehumanize those we fear. It is difficult to humanize those we fear. When we seek to not understand, then we leave our enemies as just that—enemies. What would it look like to humanize those we fear the most? What would it look like to humanize our enemies?
Driving through Sudbury and surrounded by “patriotism,” I thought, we are not at war with “terror” because, as Madeleine Albright has said time and time again, we cannot be at war with a noun and our country must stop declaring war on a “noun.” She is right—our country cannot be at war with a noun; our country can only be at war with human beings. Yes, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, they are made up of human beings. They do not have horns coming out of their heads, tails, or fire coming out of their mouths. They are humans, just like you and I. They may think differently than you and I, but, nonetheless, as difficult as it is to understand and accept, they have the same feelings we have; they breathe just like you and I do; they laugh just like you and I do; they pray, just like you and I do. They are children of God too.
I think finding compassion for all those killed in this “war on terror” is incredibly difficult, but more, it is important. Not only to show solidarity with and for all our fellow human beings around the globe, but to also recognize that before we are Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jain, or any religion, we are human, and we have a duty as humans to not hurt each other.
Yellow ribbons, flags, songs, and memorials—none of these actions illustrate the true depth of loss that families are facing when they bury a loved one killed in war. None of these actions illustrate the complete and utter profundity of the whole situation and what we face as a society in this war and what, in the end, it will lead to. And, sadly, none of these actions here in the United States recognize the “human collateral” on the other side as well.
Who are we at war with anyway? We are not at war with Islam. We are not at war with “terror.” We are at war with each other. Until we recognize that, we will remain at war with ourselves.
Karen, thanks for this. It always provokes thinking and always well said.
Thanks, Garfield! Be well. 🙂
“Yes, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, they are made up of human beings. They do not have horns coming out of their heads, tails, or fire coming out of their mouths. They are humans, just like you and I. They may think differently than you and I, but, nonetheless, as difficult as it is to understand and accept, they have the same feelings we have; they breathe just like you and I do; they laugh just like you and I do; they pray, just like you and I do. They are children of God too.”
So, there is no evil in the world? The people in America who hanged men just because they were black “are humans, just like you and I. They may think differently than you and I, but, nonetheless, as difficult as it is to understand and accept, they have the same feelings we have”?
You cannot be serious.
Hello Ron,
Thanks for your response. I never wrote that there was no evil in the world…of course there is. And, I never wrote that those who do harmful acts to others are excused from their actions. Of course they aren’t.
What I did write was that we must humanize those who do dehumanizing acts. Do they deserve that kind of grace? Maybe not.
The fact is that yes, they are human. All of them. That is what is so difficult to grasp and a bigger question is, how do we, as “civil” human beings, work to change those who do harm to others? I think the change has to start with us.
We will always have “evil” people in the world who do terrible things to others. unfortunately that is a given. It is how we respond, is what really matters and can make a very large difference for the future of all of humanity.
Thanks again. I appreciate your honesty and your ability to agree to disagree.
Karen
Hi Karen, I’m curious given Ron’s post also, what do you recommend politically / public policy wise regarding people who physically threaten and attack others? I’m not sure you meant this, but your essay gives the impression of there being no place for law enforcement, national defense, and so forth. The Christian Just War tradition tends to point to Romans 13 about the state bearing the sword as a deterrent / agent of justice, but you say you don’t believe in just war? Pensively, Ben
Hi Ben!
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
This is where I struggle as well. I do not believe in war before reconciliation. After 9/11, we, as a nation, sought retribution. There was no time to reflect or seek understanding. Our nation’s reaction was based soley on anger, fear and retaliation. Because that is what we, as a nation, have always done. That is what we, as a nation, know how to do. I wonder what would happen if just once, our nation and others would try it the other way. Instead of going in with guns blazing to prove who is the boss, what about acting humanely?? Even if the other side didn’t.
As for military presence. I struggle with this. I had a Prof at Wellesley who believes that our military is the biggest, best peacekeeping force in the world. I am in a quandary over this. While I believe we need a military presence, (negative peace at its best), I am not sure the military always brings a postive peace. Costa Rica is the most peaceful nation on the planet, and they do not have a military. Yet, as a good friend pointed out to me, this may be true, but other countries “step all over them.” So, I may sound hypocritical, but I do believe we need a military, but I do not believe in war. It is perplexing to me and I have no answers. Only more questions.
Best,
Karen
Thank you for your article Karen. 1421933 Iraqi deaths so far due to US led invasion since 2003, war is never ‘just’ and the US invasion was not only illegal it was evil. My own country were completely opposed and saw through the lie about so called weapons of mass destruction, and knew Al Qaeda, Shia, and Sadam, a Sunni, would not collaborate. Foreign troops in Afghanistan have no justification for their presence there either. However your article is sad and every death is a tragedy. I’m surprised that Ben seems to be trying to justify war on the basis of a religious text. It seems a little ironic.
Hi Stephanie, I’m saying that Christian Just War tradition looks partly to Romans 13 as a scriptural guide.
As to my own opinions, as a religious person, I am partly but not exclusively formed by Scripture.
Also, I’m still interested in what Karen, you, and others think is the appropriate response to people who physically threaten and attack others? Is there no place for law enforcement or the military? Also, to be clear, assuming there is a purpose for law enforcement or military in no way obligates one to endorse every or any particular armed conflict or use of physical force.
and Christian pacifists have theological arguments for rejecting the ‘Christian’ just war tradition which I don’t think are necessary to summarise in a blog comment. And as to the “appropriate response” see my comment to James below.
Further to Ben’s question, I’d be interested what Karen believes would be an appropriate response to genocide and the creation and deployment of biological weapons, both crimes committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, if we are not to take military action.
It sounds worryingly as if we are being asked to “turn another cheek” to such atrocities.
I’m surprised you of all people appear to believe in Sadam’s mythical WMDs. Luckily we weren’t sucked in in New Zealand and the standard joke was ‘if he has any, America has the receipts’. He was nevertheless guilty of murdering his own people but that didn’t justify the invasion, which was not only illegal to international law, which America ignores, but left millions of Iraqi people dead or homeless, as well as Americans, and turned many soldiers into monsters. All for one man who the FBI or CIA or SS could have taken out. No, that war has created more terrorists and was nothing but a war based on lies seeking control of oil in the Middle East. And the NT biblical text is only authoritative for Christian, sometimes used unfortuanately by your political leaders to justify their actions. There are non violent ways of dealing with tyrants.
First, you mistake my reference to biological weapons for a reference to the WMDs we know Saddam had but did not have by the time of the invasion. Saddam did have, and had deployed, BIOLOGICAL weapons in the past. Here is a quote from Iraq Watch: “Iraq…admitted that it deployed germ weapons between January and July 1991, but the numbers and location of weapons deployed remain uncertain due to inconsistent Iraqi accounts.” I am surprised that you of all people would be unaware of this.
Second, you seem to be against war but for assassination, while appealing to “non violent ways of dealing with tyrants”. It seems to me, initially, that assassination is violent. Further, what non-violent means would you suggest we use to deal with North Korea, for example?
If genocide does not justify humanitarian intervention through military action, what is the correct response to genocide?
James,
I hear you. Again, don’t have all the answers. Just more questions.
Be well,
Karen
I never said assassination James. Your assumption.
And “humanitarian intervention through military action” is an oxymoron.
What on earth does 1991 have to do with 2003? And what about that ever so close relationship in 1991 with you (america)?
Something from Codepink regarding gays now being able to join the military – I hadn’t heard of Codepink before and I really like this: http://www.alternet.org/news/149290/to_the_gay_community:_now_that_you_can_join_the_military,_please_don't!/
and I wonder what you Ben and Karen think of Origen when he said “We will not raise arms against any other nation; we will not practice the art of war, because through Jesus Christ we have become the children of peace.” (sorry lost the reference)
Hi James!
Thanks for your post.
Not sure if you read my post to Ben. Although I believe we need a military, I do not believe in war as an answer to other country’s aggressions.
As for genocides, that is a tough question. And, honestly, I ponder this. I have no answers. Just because I am against war does not mean that I must have an answer as to what we should do in place of war. Some may call this a cop out, I just call it honesty. My understanding of this concept could also be because, like the rest of the world, I have never seen anything else besides retribution for aggression, so that is all I can fathom or relate to, even though I resist it. Or, it could be that my thoughts have just not matured enough for me to define what I really want to say and what I think. So, being completely honest…I just don’t know. When and if I ever do, I will get back to you.
All the best,
Karen
Best,
Karen
I appreciate your honesty. You will appreciate, I imagine, that it leaves the people of Darfur, Iraq and other genocidal regimes quite without comfort. Your argument, if it had been followed, would have led to a non-declaration of war against Germany in 1939, and would have left us with no alternate policy. This is troubling, is it not?
Yes, that is troubling. Yet, let me throw this out. People knew what was happening before it happened in almost all the 20th Century genocides. Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia – there were warnings on the radio, in memos, from the UN, etc. Maybe I am naive in thinking this would work, but what about diplomacy right away, dialogue right away, threat of sanctions against the aggressor, and this may sound hypocritical, but maybe even a “threat of force” right away, etc.? Usually genocides occur as people watch…as the world watches. Much of the fault in genocides lies in the apathy of humans in general. A genocide shouldn’t even get to a genocide, but that’s a discussion for another time. Anyway, just throwing that out there. International Law forbids genocidal actions. International Law should follow through before genocides happen, and not before. It may sound simplistic and ignorant, but again, if we keep doing things the way we always have, nothing will ever change.
But the threat of violence is meaningless without an enforcement mechanism, and ultimately international law, like all law, is based on force: we say, ultimately, if you do not stop doing X, we will stop you doing X by force. All state legal power is ultimately based on violence in this sense. It seems to me you hope that you can talk these things through. This is precisely what we tried in Darfur – look how that turned out.
“Usually genocides occur as people watch…as the world watches. Much of the fault in genocides lies in the apathy of humans in general.”
So you say – but it seems to me that you are arguing precisely for apathy – the unwillingness to stop people doing terrible things to each other. I find this response deeply troubling. I also find war deeply troubling, so it puts me in a very difficult position, but I’m willing to bite the bullet, I think, and say that until we come up with something better war may be necessary.
John Pilger is worth reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/10/war-media-propaganda-iraq-lies?intcmp=239
and sorry – I should have introduced my home (pacifist!) country: New Zealand.
Thanks, Stephanie! Appreciate the stats. One death is too many.
Best,
Karen