Tag: Syria

Posted on

just war?

Save for the testosterone-infused, teenage boy lost in the latest video game craze, I’m not convinced there are any rational-thinking, goodhearted people who actually like war. The question, therefore, is not: who likes it? … who wants it? The better question is: when it warranted?

On Thursday evening, as Syrians slept (and others across the globe had their eyes closed in regard to current events), America launched missiles to destroy airplane and fuel facilities allegedly used by Pres. Bashar al-Assad’s regime to mount chemical weapons attacks. Two/three days prior, Assad’s military had dropped chemical weapons on persons deemed oppositional to the Syrian government; they dropped them on their own people.

While the Intramuralist is one whose head and heart are typically both fully engaged in decision-making and the building of perspective, my heart hurt seeing the horrific pictures associated with this chemical attack. Chemical weapons are some of the most dangerous to ever exist; they attack the body’s central nervous system, which includes control of functions such as our heart rate, breathing, digestion, waste, etc. My heart grieved at initial glance.

To be clear, I am one not comfortable with any cheers where violence is involved. Such is true whether it’s military conflict, political protests in the streets, or crime directed at one. Violence is not something to be celebrated. Celebrating and believing that there is a “time for everything,” however, are separate, capable-of-coexisting perspectives. There is a time to be born and a time to die… there is a time to mourn and a time to dance… and there is a time for peace and a time for war. The question thus becomes: when is that time?

The best, time-tested guidelines go back centuries, initially put forth by St. Augustine of Hippo and added to by succeeding, societal leaders. They developed the concept of a “Just War.” The purpose of this timeless doctrine is to ensure military force is morally justifiable but is also conducted in an ethical way. It seeks to reconcile (1) the wrong in taking a human life, (2) the duty of states to defend their citizens, and (3) the protection of innocent human life and of important moral values.

Hence, the first premise of the Just War concept is the admonition to all citizens and governments to work for the avoidance of war. Assuming all non-violent options have been exhausted, the principles of a Just War are as follows:

• A Just War can only be waged as a last resort.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority.
• A Just War can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.
• The ultimate goal of a Just War is to re-establish peace.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
• And the weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants; civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.

As this doctrine has developed over the centuries — and as modern warfare methods (nuclear, biological and chemical) have become so extreme — crimes against humanity are also viewed as something to be especially guarded against.

Friends, I have serious concerns about escalation in Syria and elsewhere. I also will never celebrate violence against any. I do, though, believe a just response is sometimes necessary. I will also add that I am no expert. I am thus thankful for the veterans and career military men and women who have far more expertise than I — and whose perspective is shaped by more than their heart or by their politics.

And while I sincerely doubt peace will ever fully come until heaven is a reality, my strong sense is that we should never tire to work for it… peace on the planet… peace with the people around us… recognizing peace is not always possible.

Let’s be bold enough to ask the question of when war is just. But let’s do so in reverence, sobriety, and with zero celebration.

Respectfully…
AR

 

[Editorial note: significant external sources were utilized extensively for the contents of this post, including but not limited to the BBC Ethics Guide, the “Big Think”, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mount Holy Yoke College, and Wikipedia.]

Posted on

Syria once more

When I was a first time parent, honest to goodness, I didn’t know what I was doing.  When my second child was born, I was a little better, but truth be told, I was by no means improved in all areas.  I’d like to tell you that child number three resulted in perfection, but no, I humbly share that such a status does not exist.

 

One of the areas in which all parents must improve is discipline.  In order for discipline to be effective, it needs to be 3 things:  logical, consistent, and timely.

 

Today’s post, friends, is actually not about parenting.  In fact, for the 3rd post in a row, the Intramuralist focuses on Syria.  Why?  Because world wars are started by singular acts.  Because so many uncontrollable variables are involved here.  Because like it or not, politics are in play on all sides of this equation.  And because the wisdom and results of military action are ambiguous.

 

Tonight Pres. Obama will interrupt prime time television to address us on Syria.  He proposes that the United States must take military action against Syria as a retaliatory response for their use of chemical weapons.  Retaliatory means to return like for like… to reciprocate… sometimes, thus — like parenting — it means to discipline.

 

Is the proposed retaliation logical?  Is bombing a logical response to the death of 1400 Syrian citizens at the hands of their own government?  Does the so-called “punishment” fit the crime?

 

Is the proposed retaliation consistent?  Thousands have died in other nations in recent years, albeit not via chemical weapons.  Are we being consistent when the means of death — as opposed to the number of deaths — serves as this metaphorical red line?

 

And timely.  Geepers.  Don’t get me started.  Let me attempt to address this respectfully via an analogy from my youth…

 

When I was a kid, we often played “Stratego,” the military strategy game where all roles and options remain hidden from the enemy until the time of attack.  While I, for one, think no president should be able to authorize military intervention without a clear majority of congressional support, I do not understand the lengthy delay of the decision.  Hence, any American response no longer seems timely.

 

A clear majority do not share the President’s desire to attack.  The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 64% of the American public oppose military intervention.  Hence, tonight’s goal is to persuade us that military intervention, regardless of logic, consistency, and timeliness is necessary.

 

Perhaps instead of any persuasive rhetoric, Obama could borrow from the unfiltered responses after yesterday’s slate of initial NFL games.  In fact, I’m thinking I’d prefer all politicians were a little more unfiltered.  Obama could indeed open with or include some of yesterday’s actual quotes…

 

“First off, it wasn’t a very smart play.”

“There were a lot of question marks…  are the plays going to work?”  

“I’m disappointed in myself. This loss is on me.”

“This is just one step in the right direction.”

“It wasn’t the easiest, but I’m not a person to make excuses.”

“Obviously, it wasn’t perfect.  And there’s a lot of things we can do better.”

“We’ve got a lot of work to do.  We need to understand that.  We need to stick together and persevere.”

“We’ve got to go back and look and see exactly what they did and how they took us out of what we wanted to do on offense.”

“It’s not the way we drew it up.  We’re all going to learn from this.  There’s no reason to point any fingers.”

 

From NFL to parenting to military intervention, we must embrace logic, consistency, and timeliness.  Being unfiltered, also, often helps.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

incapable

Before we converse today, let’s lay a bit of groundwork…

 

  • While multiple factors contributed to its onset, World War I began after the assassination of the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie, by a Yugoslav nationalist.

 

  • World War II started after Poland was invaded by Germany — under the leadership of Adolf Hitler — and Great Britain and France decided to respond.

 

In other words, world wars began with singular acts.  Yes, other factors were involved and undoubtedly led to the climactic onset, but singular acts provided the spark through which wars of the world were both prompted and justified.

 

Did the men/women involved foresee the major, military consequences?

Did they know it all?

Smart as they may or may not have been, were they capable of predicting the massive extent of global devastation that resulted from singular acts?

 

Friends, I am not “anti-war” nor “pro-war.”  I’m not exactly certain how any could be either; there’s a time for everything — for every activity under the sun… a time to be born and a time to die… a time to be silent and a time to speak… a time for war and a time for peace.  And just as both Pres. Bush said last week and Pres. Obama said yesterday, using military force is one of the most grueling decisions any president or nation has to make.  The ramifications are sobering.  In instances such as above, the ramifications meant World War 1 and 2.

 

How does the potential beginning of World War 3 affect your thoughts regarding bombing Syria today?

 

As I watch our leaders contemplate an attack (and as I continue to cringe at the politics in play and the “running for cover” by far too many in Washington — the deflecting of blame, the voting of “present,” etc.), I wonder how many are considering the ramifications of a singular event.

 

They say it will be limited.  They say it will be done in 90 days.  They say there will be “no boots on the ground.”  They thus say that any lives lost will be few.

 

Here’s my zillion dollar question:  how can they predict exactly what will happen?

 

Were those involved in the initial ongoings of World Wars 1 and 2 able to predict all that would happen?  Of course not.

 

One of the aspects I find most troubling about our current American leadership is that they keep telling us exactly what will happen when in my opinion, they are not capable of making such a prediction.  It’s not that they aren’t smart men and women.  Many of them are incredibly smart.  But sometimes I question their wisdom (not their intelligence, but their wisdom) because they don’t possess the capability to predict all that they tell us they do.  So much of what our leaders say seems designed to persuade us, as opposed to sharing actual, honest, and entire truth.

 

The entire truth means the acknowledgement that all things cannot be predicted.  They are incapable of being predicted.  If the United States chooses to bomb Syria — regardless of the continued rhetorical promises outside of their control — what are they missing?  What can they not foresee?  What’s incapable of being predicted?

 

We don’t know…  and we don’t know what we don’t know.  We don’t know what singular act could prompt a third world war.  And that should add a humble, sobering pause to any affirmative vote.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

serious questions

In case you were unaware, the Intramuralist has at times been quite specific about the love of grammar.  In fact — hands down — my favorite punctuation mark is the question.  Asking questions.  I love it.

 

To ask a question implies humility.  It’s the only punctuation mark that invites a response.  And unless only asking to hear oneself think — and yes, I am making the almighty assumption that the asker actually listens to the answer — to ask means to acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers.

 

Friends, the situation in Syria is serious.  If you aren’t paying attention, I would strongly encourage you to quickly take note.  The situation is intense and evolving, and the potential consequences and results from both action and inaction are ambiguous at best.  Hence, the Intramuralist has many questions.  Why?  Because we don’t have all the answers.

 

One caveat prior to the asking…

Military conflict is not a partisan issue.  There should be no politics involved.  While “shame on you” is a phrase not in my vernacular, if there was a place for the consideration of employment, it would undoubtedly be here.

 

Hence, the questions…

 

What’s new that has led to this level of seriousness?  This conflict has been ongoing since 2011.  According to the latest estimates by the United Nations, more than 70,000 Syrians have died.  Why consider getting involved now?

 

Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad has led Syria since 2000, succeeding his deceased father, who was president for 30 years.  What is Assad’s agenda?  Are any of his motives hidden?  What are they?

 

What role do Islamic extremists play?  The terrorist group, Hezbollah, has supported Assad’s government, while the Associated Press has been reporting that a primary rebel group in Syria has pledged allegiance to the terrorist group, al-Qaeda.  Are we aligning with terrorists?  Whose side are we on?  Whose side should we be on?

 

We must therefore extend our questions to address American involvement.  Pres. Obama is advocating interference due to the believed use of chemical weapons.  Pres. Bush advocated involvement after the believed existence of chemical weapons.  Let me ask now:  where did Syria actually obtain their chemical weapons?

 

Should America be involved in the civil war of another?  Is that our job?  Is that our role?    Are we capable of being effective?  And if we aren’t certain it’s effective, should we even entertain the role?

 

Attacking anyone will cost us millions.  Billions.  Maybe more.  We are a country that is continuously spending more than we take in.  Few others in the world have affirmed an attack and committed to support any military intervention.  That means the role is ours; the lead is ours; and the expense is ours.  And the reality is that the cost may mean more than money; it may mean military lives.  Is that too much to pay?

 

Is it America’s calling to be the world’s police?  Was it right under Pres. Bush?  Is it right under Pres. Obama?  Is it ever right?

 

Friends, I have a lot of questions.  I don’t have a lot of answers.  We must acknowledge we don’t have all the answers.  The situation in Syria is serious indeed.

 

Respectfully,

AR