Are we still fighting wars? How come?
Political Pulpit
Object:
These months (especially at Christmas) are the season of peace. Yes, we sing and pray for peace. The gospels for Christmas, January 1, and Epiphany (January 6) move us in this direction. This is a timely message given the fact that even with President Obama's promise of troop withdrawal by Christmas we remain in the longest war (in Iraq) America has fought in history. We are engaged now in two more -- in Afghanistan and Libya. These wars hardly affect us, unless you serve a blue-collar congregation, at or near a military base, or a predominantly black or Hispanic congregation. Those of us in white-collar positions who hang with such folks and even some on the assembly line barely think of these wars. Life goes on in pretty much the same old way it always has -- except we worry more about our nest-eggs and jobs these days. We're too busy thinking about how tough life is. After all, somebody else is fighting those wars for us. Maybe that's why the masses are not calling for peace like we did in Vietnam. With no more draft, the sons and daughters of the elite are not at risk like they could have been in the 1960s and early 1970s.
The class and racial demographic characteristics of today's armed forces makes these observations transparently clear. True, about 60% of enlistees are white but most are from families without resources to send them to college. It is true that few from families below the poverty line enlist. Estimates are that most come from families with incomes in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, which with just one kid qualifies your child for reduced-free school lunches and if you have several kids entails that all of them get free lunches. No, today's armed forces are largely drawn from lower middle-class families without the means to send their children to college. There is a disproportional racial/ethnic demographic. True, whites outnumber everyone else in our armed forces -- at last count about 61% (on the decline since the wars began). While African Americans only make up nearly 13% of the U.S. population, at last count 22% of the armed services were populated by sons and daughters of Africa. Asian Americans are now up to 4% of people in the armed services, more than doubling the amount of sons and daughters of Asian nations serving before the wars began. Hispanics are almost 10% of the military. Little wonder that many upper middle-class and rich white readers are not affected by the war.
The lives of the thousands lost in our ongoing wars seem not to be as valuable to most white Americans as those of their sons and daughters would be had they been compelled to serve. With the (Republican) presidential primaries beginning in January and heating up in February, no doubt the economy and the national budget deficit will get lots of attention. Wes and I will turn to those issues again as soon as the assigned lectionary texts demand it. In a way we are doing that in this column in view of the trillions of dollars spent on these wars, helping the national debt to soar at the expense of aid to the poor in our nation.
As people of peace, it is our responsibility as American Christians to try to hold our politicians accountable on their foreign policy programs and plans for these wars. What do we have to say, given the realities of the present wars? Other texts assigned for December, January, and February provide important points of clarification.
The first lessons for December 11 (Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11) and for Christmas (Isaiah 9:2-7) as well as to some extent February 5 (Isaiah 40:21-31) speak of the Word of God's role in breaking the oppressor's rod. A similar concern for the weak is expressed in the second lesson for January 29 (1 Corinthians 8:1-13). Significantly, we encounter a critique of the culture of commercialism in the gospel for Ash Wednesday (February 22) (Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21). Texts speaking in favor of standing up to evil worldly powers or critiquing them include the gospel for Epiphany (Matthew 2:1-12).
Two other interesting lectionary texts are the first lesson for January 22 (Jonah 3:1-5, 10) where Jonah does not want to go to Ninevah in Syria, and the first lesson for February 12 (2 Kings 5:1-14), where Elisha performs a healing to prevent war with Syria. How interesting that the Bible reports efforts to prevent war with the ancestors of Islamic faithful, in view of the fact that it is such people with whom we are now contend.
The famed fourth-fifth-century African theologian Augustine provides some guidance in what to make of these different themes. For Augustine, though war should be avoided as much possible, he was not a pacifist. Drawing on ideas from ancient Roman philosophers, he developed the so-called Just War Theory. In essence, he maintained that only wars that are self-defensive and seek nothing more than the restoration of what had been previously seized are just and valid (Questions on the Heptateuch, 6.10; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, pp. 286, 405). And so the question is whether we have a Just War in the case of our present conflicts.
The dialogue we need to conduct with our parishioners, with the broader society, and in determining our vote in the upcoming elections is whether our present conflicts are indeed just wars. We were not attacked by Libya and Afghanistan, and though George Bush told us we had been attacked by Iraq, all the evidence points away from that conclusion. Of course we might argue that in all these cases we are defending others -- the people who have been victimized by evil rulers. It is on these grounds that our murder of Osama bin Laden can be justified, right? He started the violence.
It is not at all as neat as it seems. Famed American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr makes a strong point that seriously questions the validity of the present wars, indeed of all wars. He notes that all conflicts, even within a given nation, are a function of collective egoism. In every modern nation we find different classes, each seeking the upper hand, grasping for more power than the other classes have. This social conflict seems to explain a lot of the dynamics of American politics in our lifetimes -- the present college-educated Tea Party against the poor and its proponents, the young middle-class Occupy Wall Street Movement against the wealthiest 1% of our nation, the business-oriented Republican mainstream against organized labor. Niebuhr proceeds to claim that such class conflict underlies most international conflicts (Moral Man and Immoral Society, pp. 49-50). On such grounds we need to examine carefully our motives in the wars we presently fight.
I am not convinced our motives are pure. Certainly there are economic class issues at stake in these conflicts. The richest country in the world (the United States) takes on Islamic rebels mired in poverty. The Bible lessons noted above teach us to care for the poor and oppressed, not fight wars with them.
Oh, but we are setting people free from dictators. Fair enough. But let's look at all the economic facts. Numerous sources have indicated that our agenda in conducting the present wars has in fact been self-serving. England's Sunday Herald reported in 2002 that the Bush Cabinet agreed as early as April 2001 (months before 9/11) that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil from the Middle East. A former CIA analyst confirms this. Clearly a war fought to stabilize oil flow is in America's interests, an improvement of the situation compared to what it was like before the war. Such a war by definition cannot be just.
A number of American companies have profited from the war. Big winners have been Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton, making $17.2 billion as of 2008 for maintaining military bases and doing oil well repair. The Dyn Corporation comes in second, sowing a $1.44 billion profit as of three years ago by training new police officers in Iraq. Next is Washington Group International, with a $931 million profit for helping to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Meanwhile oil company profits have swelled.
The scenarios are not much different in Afghanistan and Libya. If we win the war in Afghanistan for the government against the rebels, we deny a safe haven to the militant Islamic party al-Qaeda. That is clearly in our interests in keeping the oil flowing. Then there is the fact that this is a nation rich in iron, copper, and gold reserves, a field wide open for American business ventures once the fighting stops. Nor should it be overlooked that Afghanistan is the largest opium producer in the world. To get influence on that part of the world is potentially good for America's war on drugs.
Even in Libya, the war is not just about protecting the revolutionaries in their efforts to upend the evil dictator Muammar al-Gaddhafi. It seems that Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa, the ninth largest among all oil-producing nations. There is also the need to prove to the world that America has the power to intervene. A nation that maintains itself and is regarded as the world's only superpower has to find ways to assert that authority or lesser powers may deign to challenge it. It seems like a child protecting her turf. But as Augustine once noted, since the fall into sin that is the way grownups and their nations behave (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, p. 49).
It certainly does not seem that the wars in which we are engaged are just. At first glance the Bible's call for peace seems to involve either an end to these wars or changing strategies in such a way that we will not profit from winning them at the expense of the economic prospects of our (largely impoverished) hosts. Why not put this data before your parishioners? Try to get them to seek politicians in the new election cycle who will level with us on these matters.
Let's be sure, though, that we continue to support our troops. Coming from the background that the all-volunteer army draws from, we need to remember the texts during these months that call us to care for the vulnerable among us. If we want wars, it's time Americans of all stripes and economic classes started sharing equally the burdens and the risks on the battlefields. So preach peace in these months but be sure your sermons aim to get your parishioners praying for and working for a peace that does not exploit and is not just in American interests.
Mark Ellingsen is a Professor of Church History at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta. The author of 16 books and hundreds of articles, his most recent volumes include Sin Bravely: A Joyful Alternative to a Purpose-Driven Life (Continuum) and CSS' publication of his Lectionary Preaching Workbook.
The class and racial demographic characteristics of today's armed forces makes these observations transparently clear. True, about 60% of enlistees are white but most are from families without resources to send them to college. It is true that few from families below the poverty line enlist. Estimates are that most come from families with incomes in the $35,000 to $40,000 range, which with just one kid qualifies your child for reduced-free school lunches and if you have several kids entails that all of them get free lunches. No, today's armed forces are largely drawn from lower middle-class families without the means to send their children to college. There is a disproportional racial/ethnic demographic. True, whites outnumber everyone else in our armed forces -- at last count about 61% (on the decline since the wars began). While African Americans only make up nearly 13% of the U.S. population, at last count 22% of the armed services were populated by sons and daughters of Africa. Asian Americans are now up to 4% of people in the armed services, more than doubling the amount of sons and daughters of Asian nations serving before the wars began. Hispanics are almost 10% of the military. Little wonder that many upper middle-class and rich white readers are not affected by the war.
The lives of the thousands lost in our ongoing wars seem not to be as valuable to most white Americans as those of their sons and daughters would be had they been compelled to serve. With the (Republican) presidential primaries beginning in January and heating up in February, no doubt the economy and the national budget deficit will get lots of attention. Wes and I will turn to those issues again as soon as the assigned lectionary texts demand it. In a way we are doing that in this column in view of the trillions of dollars spent on these wars, helping the national debt to soar at the expense of aid to the poor in our nation.
As people of peace, it is our responsibility as American Christians to try to hold our politicians accountable on their foreign policy programs and plans for these wars. What do we have to say, given the realities of the present wars? Other texts assigned for December, January, and February provide important points of clarification.
The first lessons for December 11 (Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11) and for Christmas (Isaiah 9:2-7) as well as to some extent February 5 (Isaiah 40:21-31) speak of the Word of God's role in breaking the oppressor's rod. A similar concern for the weak is expressed in the second lesson for January 29 (1 Corinthians 8:1-13). Significantly, we encounter a critique of the culture of commercialism in the gospel for Ash Wednesday (February 22) (Matthew 6:1-6, 16-21). Texts speaking in favor of standing up to evil worldly powers or critiquing them include the gospel for Epiphany (Matthew 2:1-12).
Two other interesting lectionary texts are the first lesson for January 22 (Jonah 3:1-5, 10) where Jonah does not want to go to Ninevah in Syria, and the first lesson for February 12 (2 Kings 5:1-14), where Elisha performs a healing to prevent war with Syria. How interesting that the Bible reports efforts to prevent war with the ancestors of Islamic faithful, in view of the fact that it is such people with whom we are now contend.
The famed fourth-fifth-century African theologian Augustine provides some guidance in what to make of these different themes. For Augustine, though war should be avoided as much possible, he was not a pacifist. Drawing on ideas from ancient Roman philosophers, he developed the so-called Just War Theory. In essence, he maintained that only wars that are self-defensive and seek nothing more than the restoration of what had been previously seized are just and valid (Questions on the Heptateuch, 6.10; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, pp. 286, 405). And so the question is whether we have a Just War in the case of our present conflicts.
The dialogue we need to conduct with our parishioners, with the broader society, and in determining our vote in the upcoming elections is whether our present conflicts are indeed just wars. We were not attacked by Libya and Afghanistan, and though George Bush told us we had been attacked by Iraq, all the evidence points away from that conclusion. Of course we might argue that in all these cases we are defending others -- the people who have been victimized by evil rulers. It is on these grounds that our murder of Osama bin Laden can be justified, right? He started the violence.
It is not at all as neat as it seems. Famed American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr makes a strong point that seriously questions the validity of the present wars, indeed of all wars. He notes that all conflicts, even within a given nation, are a function of collective egoism. In every modern nation we find different classes, each seeking the upper hand, grasping for more power than the other classes have. This social conflict seems to explain a lot of the dynamics of American politics in our lifetimes -- the present college-educated Tea Party against the poor and its proponents, the young middle-class Occupy Wall Street Movement against the wealthiest 1% of our nation, the business-oriented Republican mainstream against organized labor. Niebuhr proceeds to claim that such class conflict underlies most international conflicts (Moral Man and Immoral Society, pp. 49-50). On such grounds we need to examine carefully our motives in the wars we presently fight.
I am not convinced our motives are pure. Certainly there are economic class issues at stake in these conflicts. The richest country in the world (the United States) takes on Islamic rebels mired in poverty. The Bible lessons noted above teach us to care for the poor and oppressed, not fight wars with them.
Oh, but we are setting people free from dictators. Fair enough. But let's look at all the economic facts. Numerous sources have indicated that our agenda in conducting the present wars has in fact been self-serving. England's Sunday Herald reported in 2002 that the Bush Cabinet agreed as early as April 2001 (months before 9/11) that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil from the Middle East. A former CIA analyst confirms this. Clearly a war fought to stabilize oil flow is in America's interests, an improvement of the situation compared to what it was like before the war. Such a war by definition cannot be just.
A number of American companies have profited from the war. Big winners have been Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton, making $17.2 billion as of 2008 for maintaining military bases and doing oil well repair. The Dyn Corporation comes in second, sowing a $1.44 billion profit as of three years ago by training new police officers in Iraq. Next is Washington Group International, with a $931 million profit for helping to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Meanwhile oil company profits have swelled.
The scenarios are not much different in Afghanistan and Libya. If we win the war in Afghanistan for the government against the rebels, we deny a safe haven to the militant Islamic party al-Qaeda. That is clearly in our interests in keeping the oil flowing. Then there is the fact that this is a nation rich in iron, copper, and gold reserves, a field wide open for American business ventures once the fighting stops. Nor should it be overlooked that Afghanistan is the largest opium producer in the world. To get influence on that part of the world is potentially good for America's war on drugs.
Even in Libya, the war is not just about protecting the revolutionaries in their efforts to upend the evil dictator Muammar al-Gaddhafi. It seems that Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa, the ninth largest among all oil-producing nations. There is also the need to prove to the world that America has the power to intervene. A nation that maintains itself and is regarded as the world's only superpower has to find ways to assert that authority or lesser powers may deign to challenge it. It seems like a child protecting her turf. But as Augustine once noted, since the fall into sin that is the way grownups and their nations behave (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 1, p. 49).
It certainly does not seem that the wars in which we are engaged are just. At first glance the Bible's call for peace seems to involve either an end to these wars or changing strategies in such a way that we will not profit from winning them at the expense of the economic prospects of our (largely impoverished) hosts. Why not put this data before your parishioners? Try to get them to seek politicians in the new election cycle who will level with us on these matters.
Let's be sure, though, that we continue to support our troops. Coming from the background that the all-volunteer army draws from, we need to remember the texts during these months that call us to care for the vulnerable among us. If we want wars, it's time Americans of all stripes and economic classes started sharing equally the burdens and the risks on the battlefields. So preach peace in these months but be sure your sermons aim to get your parishioners praying for and working for a peace that does not exploit and is not just in American interests.
Mark Ellingsen is a Professor of Church History at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta. The author of 16 books and hundreds of articles, his most recent volumes include Sin Bravely: A Joyful Alternative to a Purpose-Driven Life (Continuum) and CSS' publication of his Lectionary Preaching Workbook.
