Of Christmas, War, and Peace
“And this shall be a sign unto you: You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger.
“And suddenly there was with the Angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: Glory to God in the highest and on earth, peace to men of good will.”
Here the argument begins. Is it biblical to say, “Peace on earth and good will to men,” which is inclusive but inexact? Or does that dilute and distort the meaning of “Peace on earth to men of good will,” which is restrictive?
The former, while ecumenical, seems pacifist. Do we wish good will today to al-Qaeda? And is not the chorus singing out peace on earth “to men of good will” at the first Christmas a “heavenly army”?
And is not the purpose of an army to destroy enemies — in the case of the heavenly army, the army of the Devil?
“Peace on earth to men of good will” seems more consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, where the Lord says, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”
Surely, Christ was not here calling down blessings on the legions that had brought a Roman peace to the known world by conquering all tribes and nations through the power of the sword.
Yet Christ did not exclude Romans soldiers from the company of men of good will. Of the centurion who implored him to heal his servant from afar, as “I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof,” Christ said: “Amen, I say to you. I have not found such great faith in Israel.”
The centurion’s words have become immortal, as for centuries they have been repeated three times by the faithful before receiving communion at every Latin mass said on earth.
What the Bible seems to teach is that there are just causes worth fighting for and just men who fight in them, and “peace on earth” is not merely the absence of war, as “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” but the presence of peace with justice.
To his credit, President Obama reintroduced, in his address at Oslo on accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace, the Christian concept of a just war.
“(O)ver time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.”
Obama is saying that not only must the cause be just, but the means employed. He went on to ask if, even in the “Good War” against Nazism, we always observed the Christian laws of war.
“(F)or most of history, this concept of ‘just war’ was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.
“In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.”
Though World War II was a just war, Obama was implying, it was not always conducted justly. Indiscriminate bombing of defenseless cities of defeated nations — Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki — is difficult to reconcile with a Christian concept of jus in bello.
And today’s wars? Certainly, after Sep. 11, Afghanistan was a just war, justly fought. But as it has become Obama’s war, with his having doubled U.S. forces in combat, what is it we are fighting for?
Comes the answer: to prevent a return of the Taliban, which could lead to a return of al-Qaeda and a new base camp for terrorists preparing another Sept. 11. And if the Taliban return, Afghanistan will become a sanctuary for war on Pakistan, and the capture of its nuclear weapons by Islamic fanatics who would use them.
We are hence no longer fighting a war of necessity to root out terrorists so they cannot replicate an act of mass murder. We are fighting a preventive war — to prevent their return, from Pakistan, to Afghanistan.
Is this a just, necessary and wise war? From his own hesitancy in sending more troops and his ruminations at Oslo, Obama himself seems conflicted. And understandably so.
Merry Christmas, and peace on earth to men of good will.
Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Sometimes, Pat, ’tis necessary to put up yer dukes.
That does not mean you have to ascribe divinity to it.
Am I misreading this, or is PJB on his way from being a Republican establishment enabler to being an Obamacon terror warrior (er ‘scuse me – a warrior in the war against “violent extremism”)? And how far is this from enlisting in the neo-con war against “Islamo-fascism”? The probem is not with the “just wars” which US rulers like Obama occasionally preach, but with the unjust wars they consistently practice.
Or could it be that Pat never abandoned the Roman in Roman Catholic? Perhaps the lack of comprehension here of Pat’s writing stems from a generational divide. Or perhaps it reflects some people’s dislike for those who have engage in actual politics.
While I agree with Adam Rurik that sometimes it is “necessary to put up yer dukes,” I nevertheless recoil in horror at some of the implications that flow from the idea that we ought to refrain from “ascrib[ing] divinity to it.” In one sense, it is true, humility directs us to avoid making gods of ourselves and applying a divinely sanctioned infallible character to whatever it is we happen to do. The other side of that rationalization is to blithely declare that “war is hell” and go on to exempt our conduct in war from any and all moral laws.
The Just War Tradition of the Catholic Church is security against these two grave errors and Mr. Buchanan is right to applaud Obama’s invocation of it, notwithstanding the other errors in Obama’s personal philosophy it conflicts with. True respect for life, all life, means respecting the young men and women whose lives are put in jeopardy by providing them a clear and achievable directive. It means strengthening their moral fiber to achieve victory by just means, not encouraging its decay as a way of winning by whatever means are necessary. It also affirms the universality of loving your neighbor as yourself, even if your neighbor is in the cross-hairs of your gun on the battlefield.
Yes war is sometimes necessary and it is always messy. We must take care, however, to bring God and all of His moral laws into the battle with us, else we will return home to find ourselves abandoning God and doing whatever we deem necessary to correct whatever crises arise in our personal lives.
Buchanan writes, “And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers…” but I can easily think of a cause more just: the defeat of the USSR and it’s communist allies, who were much more deadly in the 20th century than the Nazis.
Buchanan also shows a disturbing neo-con tilt in this piece as he believes the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan merits the appellation of “Just War,” as there was (and still is) no proof of any Taliban or bin Laden involvement in the 9/11/01 attacks. We basically told a nation to void its internal extradition procedures and hand over bin Laden with no evidence. When they refused, we bombed them, and we’re still killing Afghan civilians with ‘smart bombs’. That’s not very Christian is it, Paddy?
How can one applaud Obama’s “invocation” of the just war concept, when all he does with it is attempt to apply it to a patently unjust war? Why not invoke the Nicene Creed as well? It applies to Obama’s wars about as much as the just war concept does.
peace on earth to men of good will