Energion Roundtable Week 4 Responses – The Military 2
In the ongoing discussion stemming from the week 4’s Energion Roundtable question, Arthur Sido, wrote a long response to my comments on the military. As we are already posting on week five, I will just address a couple of his question/responses to clarify my position.
Sido asked, “Are the Armed Forces of the United States designed to be a force to project American will around the world or as a primarily defensive force that is intended to counter direct threats to our sovereignty?”
While I believe Sido intended this question to contrast our positions, the problem is that I, like Sido, would argue the latter. I suspect that the main difference is not in the question above but the underlying assumption behind it. We have a technologically advance economy that depends on international trade and alliances. To take just one example, we do have a direct interest in ensuring in freedom of navigation in places like the Straits of Hormuz and the South China Sea.
One could argue that it should not be this way and we should, for example, be moving to develop our own domestic energy sources, something I would agree with. But wishing the current situation was different does not change it. Nor do I think it is even desirable in all areas and even if it were desirable I do not think it is practical.
Sido’s analysis of potential threats is a mixture of ridicule, diminishment, and blaming the US. It is also combined with a moral equivalence that I firmly reject. This is not to say, “that our motivations are pure.” At least not always. But I believe that in the history of the world the United States has held a pretty unique place. After all, it is pretty hard to find a valid selfish reason for the US to have intervened in Korea and to have kept troops there all these years. But the contrast between North and South Korea makes for a pretty good moral case.
Sido confidently claims “None of the Middle East regimes is going to invade or directly attack America.” I wish I could believe that. In one of his more disturbing sentences Sido writes, “Certainly Iran is working toward nuclear weapons, the same nuclear weapons that we have had for decades and have used on civilian populations in the past.”
He is quite correct. We did drop two atomic bombs on Japan, an action that ended a war and saved literally millions of lives. The problem is that there is little if any moral equivalence between America and the Iranian governments. Iran is a state that actively sponsors terrorism around the world. More importantly, I believe that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, they will use it, and have said as much repeatedly. So while we used atomic weapons to end a war, they will, I believe, use them to start a war, and I do not see these as morally equivalent.
Sido claims my argument is “difficult” because “When you examine the rhetoric that surrounds even the faintest suggestion of reducing military spending and indeed suggestions that we increase military spending, the “enthusiastic embrace of unlimited military spending” seems to be appropriate.”
I do not see what is so difficult. For example, the Navy says that we need at least 300 ships to meet the defense needs of the US. A bipartisan review in 2011 said that we needed 346 ships. Yet since 9/11 we have dropped from 316 down to 282 and look headed to 250. As Robert Kaplan put it, “There is a big difference between a 346-ship US navy and a 250-ship navy – the difference between one kind of world order and another.” The difference he lays out is not an encouraging one. But regardless, asking for a 300-340 ship Navy is not asking for “unlimited military spending.”
Finally Sido is at least partially correct when he claims that “our armed forces are rarely used to ‘defend’ America.” While I would argue that our defense concerns are much broader that those accepted by Sido, I would agree that our actions have rarely been solely defensive. Many of the wars we have fought, from Korea and Vietnam, up to the current wars have, at least to some degree, been to resist evil, and this does set America apart.
Most world powers could be classified as evil or indifferent to interests beyond their own. America has been one of the few powers in history to have fought for the freedom of others. As I Christian, I do not believe that my responsibilities and concern for others in need stops at the border and that we do have a responsibility to resist evil in the world to the extent that we can. On the other hand, I do not believe we can be the policeman of the world. Between these two views are very difficult decision with a number of complex considerations and a full examination of these issues goes far beyond the scope of this discussion. Let me just say that to characterize this as “enthusiastic support for wars of aggression” is a gross mischaracterization at best, yet another in a long line of straw men.
RoundTable 5 Middle East Turmoil
This week’s Energion Roundtable question with Bob Cornwall, Arthur Sido, Allan R. Bevere, Joel Watts, and myself is:
Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s and Governor Romney’s responses to the violence in Egypt and Libya and now in other countries in the middle east?
One of the problems with reacting to events like this is that information is in flux. Not only does new information come in, but we find much of the early information was just flat out wrong, that is very true here. Thus my comments are based on the information I have as I write, which is on evening of Monday the 17th.
Let me start with Romney. I judge all such comments by two criteria: truthfulness and prudence. Concerning truthfulness, I see nothing wrong with Romney’s statement. The state department is under the executive branch and thus speaks for the administration. Thus at the time of his statement, Romney’s comments about the “Obama administration” reflected what was known at that time. More importantly I do not think we should be apologizing for our values, but more on that shortly. Bottom line I find nothing wrong with his statement and a lot right about it.
Still, while I might wish it otherwise, Romney is irrelevant in the current situation. He is not the President, and thus he has not had any effect on the conditions leading up to these attacks, and cannot affect them now. Maybe after next January, if he is elected, but the attention really should be on Obama. Though I must say that the open mike incident with the press, revealed that they coordinate the story line far more than even I believed was the case.
As for Obama, I do not hold him responsible for the statements from the embassy, and applaud his rejection of it. But, that is about the only good thing I can say about his handling of the situation, and much of what he has done causes me great concern.
First off, I am disturbed by the attempts to mitigate the situation by condemning the video that allegedly sparked the demonstrations. I say allegedly because right from the start I doubted that this was the true cause and believed that at best it was a pretext. After all does the administration really expect us to believe that this video that has been on YouTube since July, just happen to be discovered by Muslim on Sept 11?
Thus while Romney was severely criticized for accusing the administration of apologizing for the video, in one of the strange paradoxes that surround so much of the coverage of Obama, much of what the administration has done since can, I believe, be put squarely into that category. Rather than condemning the video and pressuring YouTube to remove it, the President should be defending Freedom of Speech, something he is required to do by his oath of office.
In fact, I am very disturbed that the film maker was taken out of his home in the middle of the night by the police and taken in for questioning. Not exactly what I call standing up for the right of free speech. Then again it is troubling enough that government officials seek to suppress speech. It is more troubling when they use the military to do so. If we can have the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff make a call, could we have a squad of Navy Seals make a visit?
What I do think the incident reveals is how out of touch and naïve Obama has been. With Obama’s detached management style, it should have come as no surprised that he skipped over half of his daily intelligence briefings. Following this disclosure, the While House claimed that he reads them, but despite their claims, this is just not the same thing. The briefing is not just a one way street, but a time for questions, direction and feedback. But rather than get the briefing, in the middle of the crisis, Obama felt it was more important to fly off to Vegas for a fundraiser. No wonder he does not have time for Netanyahu. This detachment becomes increasing important as the evidence grows that we had advanced warnings that were ignored.
Ultimately, this incident is a repudiation of Obama’s Middle East policy, and a confirmation of his critics. The key issue in the Middle East is how to deal with the growing power of radical Islam. The administration assured us that the Muslim Brotherhood were no longer bad guys and that we should celebrate the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, the Arab Spring has become the Islamic winter, just like I and many others thought it would.
There is a simple rule in life that even applies to foreign policy: That which gets rewarded, gets repeated. Islamic extremists attack embassies, kill 4 Americans including our ambassador and so far while there have been some verbal condemnation from the White House, their actions have been to go after those who produced a heretofore obscure video.
What the Obama administration seems to miss is that the real problem is from Arab extremists who claim they represent the Religion of Peace, and who will kill anyone who says otherwise. While Hillary Clinton can say for the administration that “we absolutely reject its content and message” of the video, one as to wonder if she felt the same way when she attended the Broadway play “The Book of Mormon” which broke new ground in its use of profanity on Broadway.
One has to wonder, if we are going to limit free speech when it comes to Islam, what about other religions? Have liberals suddenly reconsidered their view of putting a crucifix in a jar of urine, smearing a painting of the virgin Mary with elephant dung, or depicting Jesus and the apostles as homosexuals? Somehow I think not.
So what should Obama have done. While he certainly could, and should, be very diplomatic about it, he should also have been very clear that this is a free country and citizens have the freedom to write, speak, and even make videos that others find offensive. In short, he should have stood up for our freedoms. Like Romney did.
Energion Roundtable Week 4 Responses – Other Issues
I found Joel Watts answer to this week’s Energion Roundtable question a mixed bag. I agree with him that we should have a flat rate, so I don’t quite understand his desire in the short term to go in the opposite direction. I also agree that government is too large. I agree we should reform health care, but strongly oppose single payer. We need more real choices for consumers, not less.
His comments that we should use eminent domain for corporations were to me a misappropriation of eminent domain and a misunderstanding of corporations at least the very large ones he seems to be targeting. Who does he thinks owns the stock? It is not just “the rich.” A lot of average people have their retirement accounts and pensions invested in these companies. For example, just to consider the current focus of evil, Bain Capital, since 2000, teachers other government employee pension plans have had $1.56 billion invested in Bain. And this is before one begins to consider just exactly how this would all happens.
Still, I would agree that government should consider the effects of its actions, particularly in the areas of creating barriers to entry into particular markets. This is one of the paradoxes of the left, they oppose big business, but much of the legislation they push has the unintended consequence of making it harder for smaller businesses to compete with them.
Concerning Bob Cornwall’s answer, again there was a lot I agreed with. I would quibble with his claim that Republicans “have been even more profligate” when it comes to spending. One of the problems I have is the lumping of Presidents and Congress together as I do not think they have equal impact. Since the budget reforms of the 1970s the power of the President to directly affect spending has been greatly reduced. They propose a budget, but most Presidents’ budgets, from either party, are at best a starting point and often are “dead on arrival.” Obama’s last budget, for example, could not get even a single democrat’s vote, much less a Republican vote. While the president can veto a spending bill, normally Congress waits until the last minute and thus any veto threatens a government shutdown. Only Clinton was willing to risk this, and that was to increase, not decrease spending.
In terms of Republican versus Democratic Congresses, from 1952-1994 the Democrats held the House where all spending bills must start. During this time the budget was only balanced one year, and that was not by design. Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, and within a few years not only cut taxes, but brought the budget into balance over the initial objections of Clinton.
In the early years of this century, Republicans “lost their way.” With the recession that followed the collapse of the internet bubble, the attack of 9/11 and the subsequent wars, tax cut and new spending programs pushed by Bush, the deficits rose to over $413 billion. With criticism from both conservatives and Democrats, Republican began to reduce the deficit. In the last budget they passed it had been reduced down back down to $161 billion, but anger from conservatives concerning spending, and democrats concerning the war caused them to lose the Congress. The democrats took over in 2007 and their first deficit rose to $459 billion. Then came the financial problems and since then we have been well over a trillion dollars.
Whatever the history, currently it is the Republicans who are pushing to reduce the deficits. The Democrats who control the Senate have not even bothered to do a budget in over 1200 days, even though they are required to do so by law. Without a budget, it is hard to take their claims seriously.
I also disagreed with Cornwall’s claim that that the belief that the wealthy create jobs is “nonsense.” The problem is that the current Democratic definition of wealthy includes a lot of small businesses, the sector that creates most of the jobs in the country. I do not believe that this is an either or proposition. You need consumers who can purchase, and employers who can hire. Many businesses also need investment in order to expand and grow, and thus hire more people. This investment often comes from “the wealthy.” No new investment, no new growth, no new jobs, and therefore no new consumers.
Energion Roundtable Week 4 Responses – The Military
In their answers to this week’s Energion Roundtable question, Arthur Sido, Joel Watts and Bob Cornwall, all expressed the need to cut the military and so I thought I would respond deal with all three on this issue here. Since this was my main disagreement with Sido, I will focus on his comments and will deal with my disagreement with the others in other areas in a different post.
First off, let me say that my disagreement is not total. I, and I believe many that Sido would label “hysterical,” realize that, just like any other area of Government, there is a lot of waste in the Defense Department. There is often a huge difference between what the military needs to defend this country, and what Congress appropriates.
One of the interesting facts revealed in Rumsfeld’s book Known and Unknown was the difference between being Secretary of Defense in the 1970s and then later in the early years of this century in terms of the demands made by Congress. In 1977, during the Cold War and when the Defense budget consumed nearly twice as much in terms of GDP, the legislation authorizing the Department of Defense was 16 pages long. In 2001 it was 534 pages (p. 297). Therein alone is a large part of the problem.
Where I disagreed, was over the assessment of the threat, the nature of the threat, and the need for a standing army. I do a lot of reading of history and recently have been reading a lot on WWII. I just finished reading Eugene Sledge’s With the Old Breed, which is a great book, and which was one of the main sources for the HBO series, The Pacific. One of the things that becomes clear in his book and many others, is the link between the role of training and equipment and the chance of survival in combat.
Herein is a huge difference between the military and other branches of Government. Not only is it a prime responsibility of the federal government, but experience has shown that with all the talk of cutting waste, cuts in the military normally end up being born by troops who at the end of the day, still need to get the job done, as they operate equipment that is often older than their fathers, and now days, at times their grandfathers. As a result, peace dividends are often paid for with the lives of our troops.
(On a side note, while one of the videos Sido cited claims we do not need landing craft anymore, that we have not made an amphibious attack since WWII and are unlikely to make one again. Yet as it turns out, the son of a friend of mine was part of the first amphibious attack since WWII, in a craft that was so old that according to him, the threat of sinking was a constant problem, even before they got into combat.)
I also disagreed over the nature of the threat. In one of Sido’s links he points out that we do not face any real threats from Russia and China, and that we would defeat Iran or North Korea if war started with them. (I would quibble a bit his claim that we have not been attacked since Pearl Harbor, 911 comes to mind).
While perhaps true today, this is not so much a result of spending today, but of spending in the past. Much of the spending we do today is to maintain our status. In short it is not so much that we could win a war if attacked, but to be so powerful that no one will attack us. This is particular true given that North Korea is a nuclear power, and Iran, if not stopped, soon will be. So we are not just talking about avoiding war, but nuclear war. Sure we would win, but at what cost?
And while China is not a threat today, it is very clear that they are intending to be, as is Russia. Those concerned about China do not want a strong military so that we can fight China in the near future, (though Chinese military leaders have threatened to attack several times.) They want a strong military so as to preclude any such conflict 20 -40 years from now. Given the length of time to build ships and planes, etc, waiting until they are an actual threat is too late.
The bottom line is that we are the world’s dominant power, and the world it not a safe place. If we relinquish this role, who will take our place, and will that be better for us and the rest of the world in the long run?
Finally, as Sido writes, “Even more troubling is the enthusiastic embrace of unlimited military spending by people who claim the name of Christ.” Perhaps he would include me in this category, but I find it little more than a straw man. No one I know wants “unlimited military spending.” Granted I and others may err on the side of over-spending, but I would rather waste dollars than waste lives. I would rather be so strong that no one would dare attack us, than just weak enough that we end up in a war. I would rather our troops go into battle over-equipped than under-equipped and struggling to make do. In short, I do not believe the threat comes from us being too strong, but rather too weak.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 1 John 3:16-18
Week 31: May 20, 2012 / Sept 9 2012
Having contrasted sin with abiding in Christ, John now gives two positive examples to show what abiding in Christ and love really mean.
Study
16 – This is how we have come to know love: the Messiah[1] gave his life for us. We, too, ought to give our lives for our brothers.
– John started this section by saying we are to love one another. Now he gives us some examples of what he means by Love. The greatest example is that Christ died for us, he gave (laid down) his life for us. Notice that John says, For us… This is key for he did not just die to show love in some general abstract sense, he died for us.
– We, too, ought to give our lives
As the Gospel of John taught, Jesus is our example in all things, even this. Does this mean that we should go find someone to die for? No. This should not be seen as our sole duty; this is the limit of our duty. We should be willing to give of ourselves up to and including our very lives. This is not just what we can “afford” nor is it to give of our excess. After all could Jesus “afford” to give his life?
17 – Whoever has earthly possessions and notices a brother in need and yet withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God be present in him?
– Since most of us will not be called upon to give our lives, John further expands on this with a more day to day example.
– Whoever has earthly possessions
When understood within the historical context in which Jesus spoke, that is the economic conditions of the time, when translated to today, this would include virtually every American.
– withholds his compassion from him (κλείω ὁ σπλάγχνον αὐτός ἀπό αὐτός)
– The picture here is of locking up (κλείω) our natural feelings, in short of hardening our heart. It is important to note here that John does not say withhold our goods. Tithing or giving to the benevolent fund is not what John is talking about here. The focus here is more on how we feel, rather than what we do. What we may do in any given situation is complicated. How we should feel about it is not.
– This is because if we have the right attitude, it is far more likely that the correct actions will follow and he will be dealing with actions shortly.
– how can the love of God be present in him?
If God has compassion for those in need, and we are filled by the love of God, how can we not also have compassion for those in need?
a. Expansion: True Love Acts (3:18-20)
i. True Love Acts (3:18)
*18 – Little children, we must not express[2] love merely by our words and manner of speech; we must love[3] also in action[4] and in truth.
– Little children
Again we have a common marker of a transition. Here John will add actions to the feelings discussed in the previous verse.
– we must love in action and in truth
While our feelings are important, without action they are of little value. Why does John add Truth? Truly loving someone in need often takes a great deal of discernment. It involves a good understanding of the circumstances, and the actions we take must do more that alleviate our conscience, they must actually improve the situation. Giving money to a starving alcoholic on skid row, is likely to do nothing other than pay for more alcohol, and further their problem. We might walk away thinking that we have done a nice thing, but in truth all we have done is worsen the problem.
Questions and Discussion
The discussion this week centered on what constitutes a “good” action. As mentioned above, this is not always easy to determine. In addition truly helping can often take a lot more commitment than just giving some money. On the other hand there are far more worthy causes then we have the ability to support. We can’t do it all, and God does not expect us to. It will take a lot of prayer and consideration to determine which ones God may be calling you to support. Finally, we are to be good stewards of our money. We should check out those groups that we support, but this should be in proportion to the how much you are giving. The recommendation of a friend may be enough for small one-time gift, but a more serious ongoing financial support, should not be done haphazardly.
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
[1] 3:16 Lit. he
[2] 3:18 ISV: we must stop expressing
[3] 3:18 The Gk. lacks love
[4] 3:18 Or work
