The Syria dilemma surely has to do with peace, yet simply saying no to military force is not enough. It leaves aside the issue of justice for the hundreds killed by chemical weapons, the millions made refugees by the Syrian civil war and the hundreds of thousands killed so far in the conflict. This is such a confusing situation that President Obama has found an ally in John Boehner in supporting a military strike, while Sara Palin, Pope Francis, Noam Chomsky, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Family Research Council and the United Church of Christ all oppose the use of military force in Syria. Strange bedfellows indeed! (I seem to recall many of the Evangelical Christians who oppose Obama's plan to bomb Syria supporting Bush's wars back in the day. Have they changed their minds about the morality of war or do they just hate Obama that much?)
Personally, I like this president and I want to believe that he is different from his predecessors, more deliberative and cautious about the use of military force, but I am cynical enough to believe that anyone in the White House, no matter his or her party, can be seduced by the trappings of power and a misguided confidence in US military power. Even though I agree with many of his political positions such agreement does not mean blind trust, and my devotion to Jesus Christ must come before any and all political beliefs.
I would love to believe that launching some cruise missiles would somehow equal justice for those killed by the Assad regime's chemical weapons. The victims deserve justice. Yet, the likelihood of the actual perpetrators feeling the blow of a US military strike is low; much more likely is the possibility that innocent civilians will pay with their lives for a US strike adding to the devastating body count in Syria. The Assad regime, like many rogue governments, has entrenched its high value targets in the midst of its civilian population. Killing them, even unintentionally, gives the Assad regime a propaganda tool that changes the conversation from its atrocities to the actions of the US. It inflames anti-US beliefs in the volatile Middle East, and most of all it moves us further away from and not closer to an international condemnation of the Assad regime's brutality.
We have been down this road before-a US administration declares it has solid intelligence of a foreign government's hostile actions-remember the Gulf of Tonkin or the WMD's of Iraq? How many times must this occur before we learn that "rock solid evidence" may very well not be so definitive? As Americans, we like to think that we fight on the side of morality, but our foreign policy over the last seventy years has been about our perceived self-interest and not about justice. Michael Shank wrote this week in The Washington Post about those in Washington who argue that the world is watching and waiting for the US to act on the side of morality. "They are not expecting America to act nobly now, as they know how that has worked out. They watched America unseat democratic leaders in Iran, support military autocracies in Egypt for decades, turn a blind eye to religious fundamentalism and gender oppression in Saudi Arabia, create and sponsor a violent mujahideen [sic] movement in Pakistan, and more. If we truly want to lead, and regain the world's respect, correcting our inconsistencies would be a start." Similarly Henry Allen, also in The Washington Post, wrote that our wars fought supposedly on the side of what is moral have largely been disastrous. "Since World War II, says Allen, "we have failed to win any land war that lasted more than a week: Korea (a stalemate), Vietnam, little ones like Lebanon and Somalia, bigger ones like Iraq and Afghanistan....all intended to be good wars, saving people from themselves." Despite what we tell ourselves as a nation, we aren't very good at deciding when to use military force or understanding the unforeseen consequences of such actions. Most of all, we aren't very good at justifying the morality of our use of military force. The same seems true of the situation in Syria now.
Our decisions about an attack on Syria should be based on more than just a consideration of the weaknesses of American foreign policy and its use of military force; in the end our decisions should be based upon our church's commitment to be a Peace with Justice church as we seek to follow the way of Jesus Christ. Christians who subscribe to "Just War" theory argue military action is permissible when certain conditions are met; not the least of these conditions is that war must be a last resort used only when all other options have been exhausted. In the case of Syria, can we really say that there are no other options besides violent ones? Furthermore, believers in "Just War" theory and outright Christian pacifists all believe that violence should not be used when such use increases rather than decreases the likelihood of further violence and suffering. In the case of Syria which is already in the midst of a humanitarian crisis of casualties and refugees, a military intervention by the US seems unlikely to change the calculus on the ground and very likely to make things worse. Neither the Assad regime nor the Syrian rebels who now include large numbers of Islamist extremists are good options for governing the Syrian people. Furthermore, the possibility that Syria will become a hot war between the Sunni Muslim governments of the Gulf like Saudi Arabia and the Shiite government of Iran and its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon is terrifying to consider.
Most of all, if we truly want to be a Peace with Justice church and follow Jesus' declaration that we are to be peacemakers, our opinion about a military strike in Syria must only be a starting point rather than an end point in our thinking about the use of military force in the world. What do the complicated realities of the Syrian civil war reveal about our nation's foreign policy? For decades we have allied ourselves with military dictatorships throughout the world that oppress their own people while giving lip service to human rights. We continue to strike a devil's bargain with nations like Saudi Arabia who promote extremist forms of religious violence, oppress women and do not give their people a say in their own destiny so that we can have cheaper fossil fuels which destroy our environment. We continue to ignore the long-term consequences of short-term alliances with thugs and despots. Our "allies" in one generation morph into our enemies in the next generation. We supported Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of his people because we shared the same enemy in Iran, but a decade later we would begin over 20 years of armed military engagement with Iraq. We supported the Mujahidin against the Soviets in Afghanistan only to later fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If we wish to avoid creating today our enemies of tomorrow, it is time that people of faith consider the limitations of violence and commit to a different way that honors the interconnectedness of humanity.
When CCCUCC made a "Peace with Justice Covenant" in 2007, our church declared the following:
We seek to be faithful to God's call to be peacemakers. We seek to advocate for peace and Justice through our faith, following the example of Christ. We seek to engage all of the world's peace-loving religions to advocate peace and justice for all humanity by:
- Promoting human interdependence through economic, social, and political justice throughout the world;
- Loving and enjoying life in all its diversity;
- Working for a sustainable earth and proper use of God's earthly gifts;
- Challenging the values of our age that threaten peace and justice; and,
- Answering anger and resentment by seeking an equitable distribution of resources.
- Train ourselves, through spiritual discipline, in non-violence;
- Seek knowledge about issues related to peace and justice;
- Work for a world free of war, mistrust, and hatred;
- Weave Peace with Justice principles into all aspects of our church life including worship, education, relationships with one another, and joint advocacy;
- Embark on a journey of Peace with Justice through an extraordinary commitment to advocacy and change
Grace and Peace,
Chase
P.S. Here are some other statements on the proposed military strike on Syria that are worth reading:
- The United Church of Christ's "Pray and Act for Syria"
- Thomas Friedman "Arm and Shame" in The New York Times
- Jim Wallis, "Respond, But How? What We're Missing on Syria" at his God's Politics Blog
- Yonat Shimron of Religion News Service, "The ethics of a Syrian military intervention: The experts respond"
- Rabbi Michael Lerner and Aryeh Cohen, "How to Slow Down the Rush to War: What Obama Should Do About Syria" at Religious Dispatches
No comments:
Post a Comment