WAR

“France is at WAR!” declared Francois Hollande president of France following last week’s claimed Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist attack on his country.  Fourteen years previously on 20 September 2001 United States President George W. Bush likewise declared before a joint session of Congress, “Our war on terror begins [today] with Al Quaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. . . .” 

 

This essay will declare my position on war as a means for eradicating an evil aggressor—if he can be found. I will first set the stage with some historical perspective.

Historical perspectives

To back up a bit further than presidents Hollande and G. Bush’s impassioned declarations of the 21^st Century, let us first consider a few of 19^th Century military theorist Carl von Clausewitz's observations concerning war.  He said:

• War must never be seen as having any purpose in itself, but should be seen as an instrument of policy and politics: "War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other [more forceful] means."
• The military objectives in war that support one's political objectives fall into two broad types: "war to achieve limited aims" and war to "disarm" the enemy: "to render [him] politically helpless or militarily impotent."
• All else being equal, the course of war will tend to favor the party with the stronger emotional and political motivations, but especially the defender [italics added] (contrary to the common prejudice that soldiers generally endorse aggressive warfare).

Valuable, also, to my understanding was 19^th Century writer Leo Tolstoy’s Christian-centered philosophy of war articulated in his epic novel War and Peace and in A Letter to a Hindu.  He saw war as a bane on all humanity.  In the end, war served little positive purpose outside of causing pain, grief, destruction and suffering, and could cause drastic change (mostly negative) to society.

Tempering Tolstoy’s view, however, would be the eschatological (concerning last matters such as death, judgment, our final state, etc.) thought that for better or worse the resolution of some final conflict will produce a new society ultimately free from war. 

My view is that following the devastation of wars of the kind we are experiencing and will continue to experience will come a final victory for the side of right.  The Messiah (Christ) will prove victorious through the doctrine of Christ, though there will be many casualties.  False religious/political doctrines such as communism, Jihadism, Nazism, or of the seemingly more benign early American political concept of manifest destiny will not sustain a people because these constructs are built on a faulty and false foundation. Indeed, they will foster a climate of war.

Ethical categories

A system for categorizing different schools of thought on war from several centuries can also be found in philosophies based on the ethics of war—the  Realist, the Pacifist, and the Just War theories. In a nutshell:

Realists will typically hold that systems of morals and ethics which guide individuals within societies cannot realistically be applied to societies as a whole to govern the way they, as societies, interact with other societies. Hence, the so-called realist believes a state's objective in war is simply to preserve its national interest.

Pacificism however, maintains that a moral evaluation of war is possible, and that war is always found to be immoral. Generally, there are two kinds of modern secular pacifism to consider: (1) a more consequentialist form of pacifism, which maintains that the benefits accruing from war can never outweigh the costs of fighting it; and (2) a more dogmatic form of pacifism contends that the very activity of war is intrinsically wrong, since it violates foremost duties of justice, such as not killing human beings. Nonviolence also holds that a moral evaluation of war is a duty, and that war is always found to be immoral.  Mohandas K. Gandhi,  Martin Luther King and Leo Tolstoy  were all famous advocates of the power of truth, lawfulness, soft power, nonviolent resistance, and  civil disobedience methods instead of war and to prevent war.

Just War Theory, along with pacifism, holds that morals do apply to war. However, unlike pacifism, according to Just War Theory it is possible for a war to be morally justified. The concept of a morally justified war underlies much of the construction of  International Law, such as the Geneva Conventions.  Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, and Aquinas are among the early philosophers who have espoused some form of a Just War philosophy.

One common Just War Theory evaluation of war is that war is only justified if 1.) waged in a state or nation's self-defense, or 2.) waged in order to end gross violations of human rights. The position of the United States government (if it could be found) and most of the West would be a secular application of the ‘Just War Theory.’ Likewise would be my position except with a religious rather than a secular foundation and with a very limited involvement.  And so I now come to that foundation.

Christian war perspectives 

The ancient Christian apostle James  writes, “From whence come wars and fightings among you?  Come they not hence even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not; ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war, yet ye have not because ye ask not.  Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” (Holy Bible, KJV, James 4:1-3) 

A modern Christian apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, in the context of James’ time and of our time writes: “Wars come because of a desire to steal, to plunder, to take another man’s goods; they come from a desire for sex immorality, for power, for fame, and for wealth.  There are no great international principles at stake; there are no earthshaking reasons for combat.  Any such are simply excuses.  It is not nations of people and races of men that rise up to battle because of some irresistible need to take up the sword against other nations and kingdoms.  Wars are simply quarreling and fighting in a magnified and organized form.  They are born of lust and inspired by the devil.  Satan is a warrior.  In heaven (pre-mortality) and on earth he rebels and fights because wars destroy souls and hinder the work of righteousness.  They are no different in principle from fighting and contention between individuals.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 264) 

 

The question must first be answered before anyone attempts to engage a modern enemy in hot combat:  Who is the enemy? ‘Terrorism’ is not a nation, a regime, or an army. It doesn’t wear a uniform.  Terrorism is a tactic used by an ideological fanatic or group of fanatics in pursuit of ideological goals and to redress grievances  which  transcend borders.  It is “deliberate, systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to create fear and intimidation to gain political or tactical advantage” or to “pay back” for a perceived wrong. 

The question is, How do you fight an ideology that motivates a ‘true believer,’ one who cares nothing for civilized mores, one who wants to be a martyr for his cause?  You can’t use a conventional approach to combat a guerrilla tactic much less a strong ideological difference. To fight a faith you need a faith—a better way. And it must be persuasively communicated to your enemy in order to make him your friend. “In the gift of his Son hath God prepared a more excellent way [faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ]” (Book of Mormon, Ether 12:11).

In the meantime, as far as justification for involvement, there is such under certain conditions. (First be assured that there will continue to be war in our time and that it will escalate.  Read Matthew 24: 3-14.) 

Justification for involvement, for me, would be forced by the need for a defensive position—to defend myself, my home, family, friends (and, by extension those in my care or influence) and liberties and country and my Church as a duty to God.  One of the central and repeated messages of The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ persuades me of and commits me to that response.  Any offensive action taken, I believe, and my religion teaches me, would be at my own peril and would not have the approbation of the Lord.  God, I am convinced, hates war.