Comments on politicaLDS - Mormons From All Sides: A Hero

Lot of food for thought, there Anonymous David, th...

2008-11-24T14:03:11.338-07:00

Lot of food for thought, there Anonymous David, thanks.

One of the things to keep in mind is that the powe...

2008-11-23T11:58:03.694-07:00

One of the things to keep in mind is that the power to wage war is pretty much the greatest and most consequential power any government can exercise. To the extent that conservatism is about limiting government power, then conservatism has to approach the war question very carefully--at least if it wants to be truly conservative, which of course Bush and Cheney are not.

Coy, your argument for the Iraq War is a humanitarian one, but not in any way that I can see a conservative one. The conservative approach to war is more or less Ron Paul's approach (which is also the Founding Fathers' approach, including, e.g., their horror of standing armies and "foreign entanglements).

In your post above you've sketched out the beginnings of your own just war theory, one that could justify the Iraq War, and that's fine. But the building blocks out of which you seem to be constructing that theory (e.g., the duty to help others in addition to oneself) seem incomplete at this point. Yes, one has a moral duty to help others. But one also has a duty to be reasonably sure beforehand that your effort to help will not do more harm than good, etc. Just saying that there are other factors here that must be included in any theory of just war. (And yes, anyone who makes a decision about whether they think a war is right has a "just-war theory," even if it is only implicit.)

Many secular philosophers have tried to work out a logical just-war theory. To my mind, the church that has done the best job of identifying and analyzing the relevant factors is the Catholic Church. As far as I know, the LDS Church's approach to these issues has not been to work out a general theory of the morality of war and then instruct members to apply it or follow it; the approach has been an "individual agency" approach that leaves the question to the individual believer's conscience. (Note the stark contrast to the Church's stand on gay marriage, which I--and apparently a lot of liberal Mormons--believe rather strikingly illustrates the Church's biases and priorities.)

I did look for evidence of an LDS just-war theory in McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, and I found nothing there about wars fought to free others from oppression--only stuff about self-defense. I did find this interesting claim:

It is true that individual soldiers may be held accountable for needless, brutal killings. But the soldier who is required to take life and spread desolation will be guiltless before the Just Judge, whether that single individual fought for or against the Lord's purposes.

I'm not sure I agree. McConkie seems to be saying that there's no moral duty to refuse when your nation (which could, after all, be Nazi Germany!) tells you to kill others for an evil cause. That suggests to me that McConkie buys into the basic ideology of nationalism. Odd that nationalism should trump religious duty--but then, I think that's true for many people who claim to put God first.

Of course, the Iraq War raises issues beyond the justification of the war itself.

As it happens, I agree with you that freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein was a legitimate reason for war. What's not legitimate is the way the president misled us. In our country, if a president believes we should go to war on humanitarian grounds, he should take that case to the American people and let the people debate it and then, through their representatives in Congress, make the final decision. For the president to make up a bunch of evidence in support of some other justification-for-war because he thinks it will be easier to sell to the people--to lead us into war under false premises, and then when we find out shrug your shoulders and say "Well, now that we're in it you have to support the troops, and anyway isn't it great that we got rid of Saddam?"--well, I can hardly think of a worse offense against our democracy. Presidential forthrightness and honesty are never more important than when the president is making the case for war.

Let me repeat that I'm not arguing here against the justice of the Iraq War itself, only that the president must be thoroughly honest when making the case for war. I'm one of those who (now that we're in it) support the war but even more strongly support the impeachment of the president and vice president. I think those two positions are perfectly compatible, and I find it really sad that so many Americans, including or especially so many so-called conservatives, have proved so complacent after learning of the administration's dishonesty and manipulation. I'm not being overly idealist here. I understand that a certain amount of dishonesty and manipulation is to be expected in the political sphere, and that it's usually just not worth dealing with it in between elections. But lying about war is different.

--David

Great analogy David. I might add though that the ...

2008-11-23T11:01:25.213-07:00

Great analogy David.
I might add though that the guy 2 houses down was not just allegedly plotting to invade your house, but he was killing his own kids and some of the neighbors kids.
I think there is justification in preemptively stopping an offensive if you have seen this neighbor tyrant killing and causing suffering on his own. There may not have been any WMD's, (except the neighbor himself) but freeing the family of that tyrant neighbor from his abuse is just... It's about humanity. Who could be a "sincere Christian" and turn a blind eye to abuse of humanity.

Thanks for sharing that quote, Anon David. In the ...

2008-11-23T10:29:55.785-07:00

Thanks for sharing that quote, Anon David. In the analogy you gave, I think the BofM clearly shows that it would not be okay to attack the neighbor's house - even if you knew they were preparing to attack yours. There is a point in the BofM where the Nephites want to attack the Lamanites in their own land, but the Lord says that He will not preserve them if they do. This is what changed my mind on the Iraq War and caused me to believe that VERY FEW wars are ever just.

We're talking about draft dodgers? It's like the 1...

2008-11-23T10:13:11.588-07:00

We're talking about draft dodgers? It's like the 1960s all over again, only with blogs. You guys make me feel young again.

Once again, Stephanie and I agree, at least partially. After citing the rather clear-cut case of "Captain Moroni" requiring people to fight a war of genuine self-defense, she wrote, "The hard part is when people wanting power in the government go to war for other reasons." (She tactfully declines to actually name any of those people, which is a good thing since doing so might have made her sound a bit like Noam Chomsky!)

From a small-government-conservative point of view, one huge problem with a "pure" draft (one without provision for conscientious objectors) is that it's a massive government intrusion on the conscience and freedom of the individual. Like it or not, many forms of Christianity are pacifist, and many sincere Christians would find a "pure" draft requirement a violation of their religious belief and conscience, even in a war of genuine self-defense. I can't say whether Moroni would have executed such conscientious objectors or not, but I will suggest that he would have been wrong to do so.

Stephanie has a point about enjoying the benefits of a nation without being willing to help defend that nation. But like she suggests, many of the wars we have fought have not been genuinely about self-defense. Japan did pose a direct threat; Vietnam and Iraq never did so. Where does one draw the line between defense against an obvious and imminent threat, and using the military in some general way to strengthen our geostrategic position, which admittedly could make it easier for us to defend ourselves against threats that might arise in the future?

Kinda hard to draw that line. To give an extreme example: Assume for the moment that if we really tried, we could invade and conquer Mexico and make it some sort of colony, or at the very least force it to agree to surrender terms that would solve our immigration problems and strengthen our economy. The result would be a significantly stronger country, and to that extent a nation less vulnerable to attack. But even if we were militarily less vulnerable as a result of conquering Mexico, no one would describe an attack on that nation as a legitimate exercise of self-defense.

On the other hand, the War of 1812, in which Britain flat-out invaded the United States and tried to destroy it and reclaim its territory, was obviously (for us) a war of self-defense.

In between these two is a lot of gray area, in which it's hard to tell whether a war is defensive or offensive. My question for everyone would be, OK, fine--you would fight against someone forcing their way into your home and threatening to kill you and your children. But what if you've heard, but don't know for sure, that the guy two houses down the block is thinking about invading your home? At what point would you be willing to invade his home (and incidentally kill some of his children, not to mention destroying the home between the two of you)? And what if you're drafted into invading that guy's home and killing his children and then learn that your Head of Household kinda sorta didn't tell you the whole truth about whether the enemy really ever planned to invade your home at all? What if you discovered that the head of your household's younger brother had long had his eye on your neighbor's property?

The unfortunate fact is that some of our wars have really been about strengthening our geostrategic position, which is not the same thing as self-evident "self-defense." Other of our wars have been quite crassly about invading other countries at the behest of American corporations (e.g., U.S. Marines invading Nicaragua to promote the interests of the United Fruit Company). And all decisions about going to war are nowadays made in a context that includes a powerful military-industrial black that profits tremendously from war.

Makes ya think. At least, it ought to make ya think.

Still other of our wars have been about defending the nation against people defending themselves against our own offensive policies. When white Americans expand into some Indian tribes' territory and settle there, and the Indians try to kick out the settlers, and the U.S. Army "defends" the settlers, is that a legitimate exercise of "self-defense" or an illegitimate use of the military for offensive purposes?

It can be hard to tell. If a hundred years have passed since the settlers first took the native land, and some radical native group tries to take it back a century later,, and the military is called in, that's one thing. The natives are on offense and the U.S. military is on defense. But if the settlers have only been there for one year, and the natives have never consented to the settlers' intrusion, and the army is called in, it's kind of a lie to say the army is "defending" the settlers. The army is really engaging in an offensive rather than a defensive war.

(What if fifty years have gone by, and the settlers are more and more entrenched, but the natives have continuously fought against that entrenchment? Who is right then? Ask the Israelis and the Palestinians which side is "defending their homes.")

The Vietnamese nationalists were defending themselves against French intrusions on their freedom. When we took up the French mantle, we also took over the role of aggressor--and in the 60s it was quite reasonable to argue that the government was forcing citizens to participate in a profound immorality (in a way similar to the more obnoxious provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law).

Anyway, there are some real political-philosophical problems to be worked out here, not least of which is the question of who should adjudicate the borderline cases--the government, or the individual? To impose a draft is to answer, "The government." One problem with that is that governments don't have consciences--only individuals do.

I would say that the two churches that have put the most effort into thinking these issues through are the Catholics and the Quakers. As far as I know the LDS Church has not developed a thorough "just-war theory," but during the Vietnam War the Church did support Mormon conscientious objectors, at least according to this source:

Some young Latter-day Saints, convinced that their government was asking them to participate in an unjust war, applied for exemption as conscientious objectors. These young men generally faced draft boards that assumed the Mormon emphasis on national loyalty precluded Mormons from conscientious objection. When these LDS men wrote to President McKay about their standing, they received this reply:

"As the brethren understand, the existing law provides that men who have conscientious objection may be excused from combat service. There would seem to be no objection, therefore, to a man availing himself on a personal basis of the exemptions provided by law."

Though this certainly did not assume pacifism as the Mormon position, the First Presidency clearly placed individual agency to live by the general principle over specific national loyalty. And the letter successfully supported applications of Mormon conscientious objectors.

Ciao, everyone!

--David

Thank you, coy. That is along the lines of what I ...

2008-11-21T14:47:00.395-07:00

Thank you, coy. That is along the lines of what I was going to say. I agree, wizzle. We need to start with the premise that the war is just. To be just, it needs to preserve liberties that others are trying to destroy.

In WW2, soldiers in the U.S. from Germany fought against Germany. It wasn't "Germany" that they were fighting or the German culture or even really the people in the German army. It was a "tyrant [reigning] with blood and horror on the earth". It was a cause worth fighting for. And Mormons were on both sides of the conflict. But, the cause was just.

If we're talking about people who hate war, the military, and who maybe even feel conflicted about it on religious or political grounds, I have a lot of sympathy for them. Even for the "cowards."

Well, I feel sympathy for people who feel conflicted, too (I would be conflicted myself). But, if someone is going to choose hating war over freedom, perhaps the U.S. isn't the country for them. If they aren't willing to fight for the freedoms we have (granted by God, but won with blood), perhaps this isn't the country for them.

Immigration does make it more interesting, but the U.S. isn't an ethnic country like some other countries. The U.S. is a melting pot of people from all countries and cultures. All are welcome. The bond we share is a love of freedom and liberty. So, I would hope that someone who chose to leave another country and come here to partake of and enjoy those liberties would be willing to fight to keep them.

Great post Mike.The horror of war is something tha...

2008-11-21T14:25:12.645-07:00

Great post Mike.
The horror of war is something that none of us (thankfully) have had to experience 1st hand. Many of us have family who have. They are all worthy to be called Heroes. My uncle was shot down in Vietnam and survived breaking every major bone in his body. He, like many others, as Heroes, because they gave all to protect others.
Hero Inouye has made much of his life since his ordeal. A great example to us all.
As for the discussion on drafts... I have to say that I might consider myself a coward more than a hero. Considering my family and all I have to lose, I would feel more of a coward. But if my country called, and the choice to dodge the call came along, that decision would not be considered. To turn my back on all I have been given, no. I can sympathize with their agony, but not their choice.
NO ONE likes War. No person in their right mind is PRO-war. I think however, many of us are PRO-right (vs wrong), and war is sometimes a terrible necessity to obtain right.
There was a war in heaven, we all fought. We knew that fighting for the right was the right choice. we won.
Those who dodged that call...well... they are not with us... in body at least. (haha.)(a non conceited light-hearted smile;)
Though I consider myself more of a coward than a Hero, even cowards like myself must step up and stand up for what is right. For nothing good has ever been granted free.
I don't claim to know the answer to making people fight against their country or even for a cause they do not support (ie Nazi Germany). But I know that for us, (in my opinion), the US has stood for good, democracy, freedom, and good intent, not evil.
To those Heroes, we owe our commitment to uphold what they fought for, even if we must fight again. For cowards like myself, we still must make the right choice. ;)

That was a good analogy, Stephanie. Oy, it's a tr...

2008-11-21T13:36:57.764-07:00

That was a good analogy, Stephanie. Oy, it's a tricky one! I guess it comes back to avoiding a draft and unnecessary wars - REALLY avoiding them - in the first place. I think that's how you keep people's good will even in the face of asking them to do dangerous, hard, unpleasant things. There were plenty of non-US citizens who would have - and did - stand up and defend us after 9/11, for example.

fd, i think you may be referring to jeremy hinzman...

2008-11-21T11:32:36.518-07:00

fd, i think you may be referring to jeremy hinzman, a us army soldier who fled to canada in 2006 to avoid deployment to iraq. he, along with another soldier, had filed in the canadian courts a request for refugee status. it was denied. an appeal to the canadian supreme court was also denied. i believe he & his family were ordered to be deported back to the us but he is still living in toronto.

By the way, Stephanie, your intruders in the home ...

2008-11-21T11:24:59.925-07:00

By the way, Stephanie, your intruders in the home analogy was good, I hadn't really thought of it that way. It's just that things would get complicated if the intruders were friends of family members of your guests and then they were forced to shoot them. :D

The Muslim question is one that I was thinking of ...

2008-11-21T11:09:13.800-07:00

The Muslim question is one that I was thinking of as well. Can you imagine being forced to go to war against fellow Mormons in another country?

As far as people signing up for the military during peace time in order to get a paid college education, I agree with you, Stephanie. You should know what you're getting into when you sign up. Those who signed up before 9/11 probably never could have imagined what they were in for, and yet they knew the risks. Hopefully they are aware of them (an army recruiter at the college where my sister-in-law in MI used to go was always giving her US Army freebies and trying to get her to sign up. She said she would if he could guarantee her that she wouldn't be in Iraq by Christmas and he would just chuckle :). Same goes for all the NATO nations that are now involved in Afghanistan. Many Canadians and Europeans have been lost there and many of those probably signed up when it was peace time.

I feel differently about draft dodgers, though. If we're talking about people who hate war, the military, and who maybe even feel conflicted about it on religious or political grounds, I have a lot of sympathy for them. Even for the "cowards." Seeing and reading about what war has been like and is still like, I cannot imagine what it would be like to be forced overseas, maybe to lose your life in the process. So while I have the utmost respect and gratitude for those who do accept the call to arms and risk absolutely everything, I also have the utmost sympathy for those who feel like they're just not cut out for the job they're being made to do and are just plain scared to death.

I think that immigration has made things more complicated than they were before in history, in the event of a possible draft. The US, Canada, and most western European countries have a sizable minority population. By 2046, the US is predicted to have a white minority. America has a huge Mexican population. Canada has a very sizable Asian population (particularly Chinese), Scandinavia has a lot of Pakistani immigrants, and France and Germany both have large Muslim and/or African populations. For any of these countries to have a draft requiring residents to take up arms against what could be either their country of birth or ethnic origin makes things very, very complicated for the military.

If there is a draft, and my sons are called to war...

2008-11-21T09:03:07.215-07:00

If there is a draft, and my sons are called to war, I will have very little sympathy for draft dodgers. Regarding the military, you sign up with the potential of war. Signing up during times of peace because you want your college education paid for and then trying to get out because you don't want to go to war is wrong. It isn't a club, it is the military. Of course, the Iraq war is a tough one - I wouldn't want my brothers called to war in Iraq. But, if you start making exceptions, then when a justifiable war comes along, it will be too easy for cowards to get out. Would we have enough men willing and able to fight?

These are interesting questions, FD, considering the increasing Muslim population in the U.S. If al Qaeda were here attacking us, would we require Muslims to fight?

What if it were my home? I invited a couple of fam...

2008-11-21T08:52:49.413-07:00

What if it were my home? I invited a couple of family members to live with us for almost three years. They were guests in my home. As guests, they did not have the right to make decisions about the house - they did not have a "vote" in how things are done. But, if it came down to defending my home against some form of attack (burglars, fire, whatever), you can bet that they would have been required to get up and fight. If they chose to sit around, "Well, this isn't my home, so I don't care if it burns down or if everything is stolen/destroyed" or had run away from the danger and abandoned us or the home, you can bet they would no longer have an invitation to return.

Coming to America from another country isn't a right - it is a privilege. Legal residents are our guests, so I think it is entirely appropriate that they can't vote but would be required to register for the draft. If they want to move beyond "guest" status to being "part of the family", they can seek citizenship and gain the right to vote.

Seems kind of ironic that someone who isn't even e...

2008-11-21T03:13:44.421-07:00

Seems kind of ironic that someone who isn't even eligible to vote in his country of residence could be forced to go to war for it.

How do you guys feel about draft dodgers? Some of the Vietnam draft dodgers came to Canada. And even though there hasn't been a draft for Iraq, there have been some American military personnel who have sought political asylum in Canada for their opposition to the Iraq war. I never heard whether they got it or not.

As it is, I think the most fair thing is for all r...

2008-11-20T16:32:20.122-07:00

As it is, I think the most fair thing is for all resident males to be registered for the draft.

I guess it would depend on what kind of dire strai...

2008-11-20T16:30:52.694-07:00

I guess it would depend on what kind of dire straits we are in. If a draft were enacted now for the Iraq War, I probably wouldn't feel so opposed to an exception for legal residents from Iraq, mostly because I don't feel the Iraq war is fully justified. However, if we were in a situation like the Nephites were in under Captain Moroni, where they were fighting for "our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" - where if we didn't fight, our country would be destroyed, or at least our liberties lost (taken into captivity, etc.) then I think even the same approach that Captain Moroni took would be justified: Alma 46:35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

Really, the BofM tells us that we should only go to war in defense to protect our freedoms. If that is our guide for war, then I think things like requiring all the legal residents to be drafted is justified. The hard part is when people wanting power in the government go to war for other reasons.

The sad thing is that I can easily see a situation like Alma 46 happening in the U.S., so I don't think it is entirely impossible that we would face a draft like that.

I can see Stephanie's point, but at the same time,...

2008-11-20T14:57:49.489-07:00

I can see Stephanie's point, but at the same time, is it really in the best interest of the US military (or any other country, for that mater) to have non-citizens fighting a war against their own country that they don't want to fight? Sabotage, spies anyone?

Like Rap08, I thought about conscientious objectors. Would Quakers be forced to go to war in a draft?

Mike - Making a man tear up at work is not very ni...

2008-11-20T13:53:42.149-07:00

Mike - Making a man tear up at work is not very nice. Great Post!!

Faithful - I did not know about that clause. I did a search and found that all male residents of the country are suppose to register for the draft, interesting.

As a practical point if a draft is instituted it would not happen over night so I think there would be a period of time for those who wished to leave could do so. Though it could be rushed and financially difficult to uproot and move so quickly.

I do not know the rules regarding consciences objectors, but there may be a way for them to express their desire not to fight their own people with out going to prison.

I also wonder how the military would feel about drafting citizens of the country with whom we have a conflict. My guess is that they would be careful what type of duties those citizens would be given to perform.

I know there were some people that have gone home to fight for their home land when war breaks out, Germans in WWII as an example. We also had some Americans go and serve with Canadian or British units before the US entered the war. So they accepted help from citizens of other countries though not trough a draft.

I think it is fair. If another country comes to at...

2008-11-20T12:34:04.632-07:00

I think it is fair. If another country comes to attack the U.S. and we need to fight for survival, no way do I think it would be fair for someone who has been living here and benefitting from our rights and freedoms (however short)to be exempt from the draft because we are fighting his/her country of origin.

Perhaps it would be more fair if a clause were added to the provision. Something like, "At the onset of a draft, any legal residents who do not wish to be drafted have 30 days to leave the country".

My first instinct is no, I don't think it's fair t...

2008-11-20T09:04:45.879-07:00

My first instinct is no, I don't think it's fair to make a non-citizen fall under the draft. That's a very interesting little provision!

Thanks for sharing this story, Mike. I'm pretty s...

2008-11-20T02:36:03.978-07:00

Thanks for sharing this story, Mike. I'm pretty sure I recognize Mr. Inouye from that PBS documentary "The War." If any of you haven't seen it, it's excellent.

I know Mr. Inouye's situation is a bit different since even though he was ethnic Japanese, he was born in the US. But here's something I thought about that would be interesting to hear your perspectives on.:

When my brother married his wife from NC and moved from Canada to MI, we found out something interesting once he finally got his papers. There was something in there about how if the US decided to have a military draft, he could be forced to go to war. So that means if America was at war with Canada, my brother, a Canadian citizen born and raised in Canada and having only lived a short time in America, could be forced to fight against his own country. Now, even though it seems very unlikely that the US and Canada would go to war with each other, it's certainly not the case for other immigrants to the US from countries that have strained relations with America and who maintain the citizenship of their home country while being legal residents of the US. You can almost understand the thinking behind the Japanese internment camps in Canada and the US during WWII.

So, forcing a non US citizen to go to war against his/her own country: fair or unfair?

That story was beautiful, an just what I needed to...

2008-11-19T23:19:31.726-07:00

That story was beautiful, an just what I needed to hear today. Mr. Inouye was bound to grow into an honorable man when he had such a wonderful father.

But oh, the horrors of war! That part was very difficult to read.

Dan Inouye is an impressive guy. I knew he had lo...

2008-11-19T18:14:36.177-07:00

Dan Inouye is an impressive guy. I knew he had lost his arm in WWII, but it's nice to read more of his story. Thanks for sharing, Mike.

Thank you so much for sharing this. I pray that my...

2008-11-19T16:17:23.751-07:00

Thank you so much for sharing this. I pray that my sons will grow up to be men like these.