Word
Gems
What is a
man but the sum of his thoughts?
A Personal Statement:
War II
November 4,
2008
It is election day. I have just returned
from the polling station in our neighborhood, a local church
gymnasium.
And I have been thinking about the state of
the country and this issue of war.
For some time, as I've been
reading the AfterLife testimonies, I find that our Advisors on the
Other Side are very opposed to the concept of war; that, nothing of
enduring good comes from it, that there are many unintended
consequences.
And yet, they, too, are not pacifists; they,
themselves, are in constant struggle against the forces of darkness
as they work to build a better world and life for all.
And I've wondered about this, this seeming
contradiction - how can one be against war, and still fight
evil?
My
friend, Jason, the part-time Sioux Medicine
Man
Just yesterday I met and spoke with a friend
whom I'd not seen in awhile. Jason is different - not just because
he wears his black hair in a long ponytail, but
his nature is
so not
man-of-the-world. This part-time rock-band
drummer has native American blood in him, and he very much
looks the part of an authentic Sioux medicine man,
but a displaced one - and I feel that this is what he
is!
He has told
me before, and he tells me now
again, that he feels that he is a stranger in this
world, that he doesn't belong here. I sense what he
means.
-
This evolved soul is
very non-combative, very humble, very non-threatening, and
non-competitive in his spirit. In his presence, I feel my own
spirit expanding as I am introduced to points of view previously
unknown.
Our conversation turns to world conflicts
and war; the Taliban, and their repressive regime, especially toward
women. He explains that they, too, believe in God; albeit, a very
demented version of God; nevertheless, he feels
that they could be reached, if approached in the
right way.
He goes on to express that
they hate our gross materialism, our hedonistic Western ways.
He acknowledges that they must be stopped - but, then, clarifies,
that our traditional military action might be ineffective: "There might be another, better, way of dealing
with this."
He has been thinking of this whole issue;
and, of course, his people once felt the brutal
effects of US religion-inspired "manifest destiny." Homer Simpson, with Bible in hand,
once spoofed this: "We come in peace
- we take 'em your land!" This is funny - but it's quite painful
humor.
I suddenly think of Ken Burns' documentary,
The West, in which, near the beginning, we learn that an early Caucasian explorer-settler,
as I recall, began to lead a spiritual movement among the
Indians, with very significant success. If this effort had been
allowed to continue, we would have done better.
One cannot help but wonder how differently
history might have unfolded if we had dealt with our Red Brothers fairly,
honorably, and with true spirituality. I am confident
that both parties would have gained the best that each had to
offer - and that North America, today, would be much more developed
and advanced than it presently is.
We look upon our own Revolutionary War as a
necessary expedient, something inevitable for those who required
freedom. Maybe so. But maybe not. Canada
received its independence less than 100 years after we got ours -
but without firing a shot -
just part of the natural evolution of things.
It is a virtual certainty that we, too,
would have gained our autonomy fairly soon, in any case. For one
thing, Mother Britain needed strong allies against her own enemies, and
didn't need to create any others.
Few wars in history have been "holy wars";
by this I mean wars of critical need for immediate participation -
here I would include World War II and the desperate need to stop the
killing of millions in concentration camps; not to mention the need
to stop Hitler from acquiring The Bomb, and plunging the entire
world into a new dark age! We just
barely escaped that one!
-
"Peace in our time"
-
-
British Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain landed at Heston Aerodrome on 30
September 1938, and spoke to the crowds there:
-
-
"...the
settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been
achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement
in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another
talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the
paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to
the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you,
perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like
to read it to you (proceeds to read the agreement). [...] We
regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval
Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to
go to war with one another again."
-
-
Later that
day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from
the document and concluded:
-
-
"My good
friends, this is the second time in our history that there has
come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I
believe it is peace for our time [emphasis added]. We thank you
from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home
and sleep quietly in your beds."
Hitler used this time of negotiated "peace"
to further fortify his incredible military machine - Chamberlain's
naivete probably caused the deaths of untold
extra hundreds of thousands!
It is clear, in my mind, in this imperfect
world, that there is a right and necessary, time and
place, for military-police action - Hitler needed to be stopped! and
when it comes to that, the time for negotiations will be over -
because with dark and demented spirits, negotiation has no meaning.
You cannot reasonably discuss issues with madmen.
-
General Matthew Ridgeway,
July 10, 1951: Ridgeway commented on the
near-impossibility of negotiating with the Chinese to end the
Korean War: "To sit down with these men and deal with them as a
representative of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride one's own dignity and to invite the disaster
their treachery will bring upon us." Ridgeway was severely
criticized by doves at home for these bellicose words, but his
critics would have to eat their own words as the war dragged on
for another bloody two years of fighting while "peace talks"
continued, and multiple tens of thousands of lives were lost.
All of this is too true... and yet... and
yet...
My friend Jason reminds me that something is
missing from our view of national defense.
Often, when I write here, I do so
in a spirit of thinking that I know something. I don't feel
that way now. I don't know what the solution is.
I just know that we are missing something,
and that we are often causing more problems than we solve in the way
that we conduct our military actions.
I think it is obvious that the true
answers are spiritual in nature, answers incompatible with a
materialistic view - I think it is possible to be
spiritually minded and also conduct military operations -
someone has to do that job in our imperfect world.
But I also think that an arrogant,
materialistic, imperialistic approach will cause other peoples to
hate us - thereby, fomenting wars, which are then proclaimed to be
young boys' patriotic duties to wage.
Sir John Templeton, some years ago, created
the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion - an annual large
monetary award, like a Nobel Prize, to those who have advanced the
cause of spirituality in the world.
-
Pope John Paul
II: "Humanity should question
itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon
of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain
standing the negotiating table that could and should have
prevented it."
Maybe we need to do more of that. Maybe if
we put more effort into researching, and thinking, and seeking
humanitarian and spiritual solutions to our problems, we would have
fewer wars to fight.
I don't know the answer here - I just know
we are on the wrong track - and we are going to suffer for our
present course, more than we now know. Because no imperial power can
survive for long, as the proverbial seeds of its own destruction
reside within.
Thomas Paine, the unloved founding father,
was correct when he stated:
|