War on Terrorism II

In my last post on the "War on Terrorism" I float the concept as to the nature of our nation's current "Long War" and what means are appropriately brought to bear on which targets through a simple equation:

1. Terror Tactics = Internal fortitude of heart
2. Terror Groups = Policing Operations
   
3. State Sponsored Terror Groups = Overwhelming military force.

In reviewing this list, there are two questions which may come to your mind which need further explication:

1. Overburdened Military:

Isn't our military stretched too thin to wage a "Long War" against additional state sponsors of terrorism (such as North Korea, Syria and Iran)? Yes. It seems to me that this is the case (now, please keep in mind, that I am not exactly one of our nation's great military minds).

In the first Quadrennial Defense Review of the Bush Administration, Secretary Rumsfeld's team made a dramatic shift in America's military sizing to reduce the number of "capital cities" our forces would be able to "occupy" while increasing the number of fronts on which we could fight. I was a solid supporter of this approach. In light of the last few years of mired conflict in Iraq, the approach still seems attractive, but let's face it - reality has caught up with and overtaken theory.

In times like these, the appropriate response is to change course. It is time for the military to beef up its size in terms of personnel and budget in terms of value driven development of weapons, logistics, intelligence platforms and defensive capabilities. I've been frustrated for a few years now that our government seems slow to embrace this change. (I'll flesh out the reasoning behind these thoughts in a future post).

At the same time, four items must be noted:

1. Our lack of size doesn't change the right course of action. State sponsors of terrorism have demonstrated a determined effort to disrupt the world's apple cart, killing untold innocents, through their dedicated investment of cultural support, legal protection and national resources. The right course of action against these states is military in nature. Our lack of sufficiently building our military doesn't change this equation.

2. If we can't do it now, let's start building for the day when we can. State sponsors of terrorism are not likely to disengage from these actions short of military pressure. Notice, I said, not likely. The blessing of being overstretched in terms of military might is that it forces our nation to truly pursue every other non-military end. If time allows, I FULLY support other approaches (see below). But in the meantime, we need to martial our resources in a way we simply having in the last 20 years to rebuild our military capabilities.

3. The US is not the only Nation which can conduct military operations. We are certainly the largest and most capable of sustained operations, but we are decidedly not the only (or in the some cases even the best equipped) to engage in the appropriate military operations. (Again, in a following post I'll explore this concept in terms of the "Coalition" forces at some point in the future).

4. Not all military operations must involve the "occupation" of "capital cities". Senator Lieberman made this point in terms of Iran in a recent Sunday morning interview. Here's an excerpt:

I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike into--over the border into Iran where I--we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

Notice his main point. Aggressive military action does not always mandate "occupation" forces. As I state above, such limited actions may be best performed by other nations and may buy us the time to build our military and, most importantly, to pursue diplomacy by "other means".

2. The Prince of Peace:

As a believer in Christ, doesn't it bother you to focus so much on the military? No. (Ok, yes it does, but only within a certain context.)

1. Government and Government Might are Constituted by God: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) affirm God's hand in appointing governments. Not His direct will in how each government acts toward its people and other nations, but the authority and role of government in general. In this affirmation, it is clear that government has the power of the "sword" to enforce peace on a world which is in rebellion against the "rule of love". State sponsored terrorism is a poster child for this rebellion.

2. Turning the Other Cheek: Both Jesus and Paul (and, all of Scripture) have a lot to say about the virtue of embracing personal humiliation instead of fighting for self-rights. I wholeheartedly affirm this as being central to the way of Christ. At the same time, none of these teachings are provided in a context of forcing others to do the same. They are to arise from individual's heart response to God's forgiveness AND God's vindication of the wrongly attacked. Government is not in the position to mandate this sort of extremely personal moral response in the face of terrorism. To do so would mirror the fascism of radical Islam. The role of government, as constituted by God, is to beat back such threats such that individuals have the freedom to make self-sacrificing choices of love, service, humility, intercession, forgiveness, etc.

3. The Ultimate Victory Comes from Changed Hearts, Not Charred Homes: There is no lasting honor or peace from military action. It has a moral role, but that role is extremely limited. If deployed (hopefully as a last resort) it must be deployed wholeheartedly. Once completed, another wave of soldiers are needed. This second wave must bind the broken hearted, rebuild the desolate inheritances, set the oppressed free, etc. Only when sufficient quantities of folks lay down their lives in service to the citizens of a combatant state will a lasting peace be established. Yes, it would certainly be better to see this happed PRIOR to bombing. But the whole purpose of this concept is to answer the question of what to do when it hasn't happened and innocent lives are being placed in jeopardy as a result.

This 1-2 punch of force and service has demonstrated its effectiveness time and time again. When was the last time our fellow citizens faced threats from England, Spain, Germany, Italy or Japan? All of these nations were our enemies in battle at one time.

Yes, I favor peace through redeemed lives filled with existential hope, but I will support the use of national force as needed to provide those hearts ample opportunity to hear the words of those who cry in the wilderness.

On Principle,

CBass