My first column for the Dayton Review so very many years ago was an anti-war one. That war was the Persian Gulf War. The following week, there were several BLISTERING letters to the editor responding to my work. One I remember in particular was written by two former SWG history teachers (Mitch Schroeder and Matt Parker--the latter of which is a self-avowed Libertarian--you know, like Glenn Beck)which strongly suggested that I was only anti-war when a Republican was president and then asked the question: “Where were you when Clinton used missiles on Iraq?” After I finished pondering exactly how many history teachers does it take to write one letter to a third-rate newspaper, I responded that I was against that war as well—I simply hadn’t started writing a column yet.
In order to be completely consistent (and not to "waffle"), It is my duty as a pacifist to announce that I am also against the U.S. involvement in Libya. There is quite a bit of debate if this involvement constitutes a ‘war’ or not. According to the guidelines of the Constitution, only Congress can declare war, so technically our military offensive in Libya cannot be called one. However, bombs are being dropped and people are dying—so perhaps a war by any other name . . .? For now, let’s just call it a ‘military action.’ Whatever—I’m against it. Me and Dennis Kucinich. I’m betting my anti-war stance causes some local conservatives a little dilemma: “Do we agree with Kendra or do we agree with the hated Barack Hussein Obama? What kind of a choice is that??” I'm betting the coffee shop in the grocery store will be scratching their heads for days over that one. If they agree with me, well, they've agreed with ME--the evil, leftist, "drunken drama queen." If they disagree with me, the are on the side of Barack Hussein Obama, who isn't really even an American and is also a closet Muslim, a fascist, a socialist, and all kind of other bad words. WHAT A PROBLEM. Their little tiny minds might just explode with that little problem. Was that too bitchy?? Probably.
I did a little research to see why more diehard liberals such as me weren't waving the anti-war flag. Seems like most of them would kinda, sort like to oppose the war--but don't want to appear to be going against President Obama. According to Tom Matzzie, “There is a strong anti-war case for staying out of Libya. These kinds of No-Fly Zones always end in troops on the ground. Intervening n a civil war is almost always a miscalculation of the situation on the ground. The American system of checks and balances does require congressional authority for the use of war powers. Adherents to traditional foreign policy logic would argue that there is no specific U.S. national interest at stake in the outcome of the Libyan uprising. We seem to have entered the conflict without an obvious exit strategy already in place.” He then states that even with all this evidence he is still supporting President Obama on Libya.
Did I mention that Tom Matzzie writes for the Huffington Post? Yep—you got it: I am not officially more liberal than the Huffington Post. I DO NOT support our president on the U.S.’s military action in Libya. Don’t get me wrong—I still support President Obama and I’m not planning on sending Mike Huckabee a campaign contribution anytime soon—but I do not think that now is the time or Libya is the place for more U.S. led military actions.
Yes, Muammar Gadaffi is a raging lunatic who was threatening to track down the family of rebels and murder them without restraint. Yes—we should do SOMETHING to stop the slaying of innocent civilians. However, inserting ourselves in the middle of a civil war is not the answer. It is even MORE of a bad choice if we choose to send in ground troops—which is looking more and more inevitable every day.
Dennis and I aren’t alone in thinking this ‘war’ is a bad idea. Germany and China have both called for non-violent, political solutions to the problem. According to Symon Hill in “The Guardian”: Now, as then, those who raise questions are told: “We can’t just do nothing.” This is the old warmongers’ trick of pretending that there are only ever two options – violence or passivity. But pacifism is not passive. To be a pacifist is to take a stand against the dominant values of our society, and this cannot be done passively.
There is nothing more naive than believing that violence will always work. Of course, some nonviolent movements have been more effective than others. But the many successful uses of nonviolence are often forgotten, while war is applauded and written about in history books. Advocates of war rarely speak of the repeated failure of violence to achieve its aims even in the short term, let alone the long term.
As the German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, argued: “The alternative to military options is hardly inaction.” Suggestions for alternatives include financial assistance and intelligence-sharing with anti-Gaddafi movements, working with Libya’s neighbors to prevent the flow of non-Libyan mercenaries to Gaddafi’s forces and various economic and political pressures.”
Eric Stoner brings up another good antiwar point to which I agree: “As a Christian, I believe that not only are we not supposed to kill, but we are called to love our enemies and do good to those that harm us. And while love of enemy can take many forms, I’m pretty sure that means we can’t bomb them. This, of course, is dangerous and difficult and could get one killed. But Jesus not only preached this, he lived it. By giving his own life on the cross and forgiving those who killed him, rather than taking up the sword to defend himself. Jesus was really the perfect embodiment of nonviolence.”
I think Stoner’s views are particularly relevant as we head into Holy Week, the week where Jesus turned the other cheek in the most ultimate way and died for our sins. What would Jesus think of us dropping bombs on Libya, all in the name of peace? Perhaps I should have entitled this piece "Jesus: the Original Pacifist," but then I would probably not be allowed to attend Sunday School anymore. I mean, what kind of good Christian would even SUGGEST that Jesus preferred peace to war. What was I thinking??
I was thinking that when God said "Thou Shall Not Kill" he meant it--no exceptions. Have a blessed Palm Sunday.
No comments:
Post a Comment