Justice
Expired- Details
- Written by: Cara
Good perspective
Expired- Details
- Written by: GS
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Christian reaction to Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of American Special Forces wasn’t that different from other US citizens’ reactions. Most rejoiced in an outpouring of relief, closure, or patriotism. Some gloated.
On the other hand, some, maybe many, used Twitter and other social media to worry aloud whether the death of any human being could properly be the focus of anything other than sadness. In an effort to avoid what they considered an improper response they seemed almost to lament bin Laden’s demise. Or at least they lamented America’s hand in bringing it to pass. It’s these latter responses that caught me by surprise.
I admit that I am glad we finally got bin Laden. I don’t feel any special charge from this. But I am pleased and relieved on behalf of the American people, our ideals, the families who lost loved ones in 9/11, and the families who lost servicemen and women in the last nine years of war. I also remember clearly that Osama bin Laden was a terrorist, mastermind of 9/11, and a clear and present danger to the United States if not the entire West. So in view of this Christian angst about the circumstances of bin Laden’s demise caught me off guard.
I certainly agree with those who suggest Christians, or Americans in general for that matter, shouldn’t become cocky. I appreciated President Barack Obama’s announcement. He spoke solemnly and strongly, said he made the decision, and reminded us of the “why” of the avoidable but tragic suffering of 9/11. He said we were not at war with Islam but with this one man: “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims." The President avoided conveying an attitude of triumphalism, hubris, or bravado. Yet he warned the world’s bad guys that the US would protect its citizens. It was a well-crafted and well-presented statement.
It seems to me that Christians who’ve struggled with how to respond to OBL’s end confuse vengeance with justice. They quote Romans 12:19 asserting it’s God’s province to avenge. True enough, but bringing bin Laden to heel was not about vengeance. It could have been. It could have been about individuals acting independently and unlawfully to seek retribution. But it wasn’t. It was about an official government armed force, acting under direction of duly elected leaders to bring lawfully to account—to justice—a person deemed to be a mass murderer and threat to thousands or even millions of innocents.
Vengeance and justice are not to be confused. Vengeance aborts the law. Justice preserves the law. Vengeance disrupts order. Justice reestablishes order based on law.
Scripture says, “Rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” What American Special Forces did in bringing Osama bin Laden to account was an act of justice.
Looking upon OBL’s death as justice means we rejoice not in the destruction of a human being but in a victory of righteousness. Christians can support this, for God’s law is vindicated.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2011
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
After wrestling with my conservative inclinations I’ve come to the conclusion the U.S. needs to get out of Afghanistan—the sooner the better.
To date, War in Afghanistan casualties include some 2,162 Coalition personnel, including 1,342 U. S. service members who've given their lives in Afghanistan. They gave the ultimate sacrifice for what initially was a justifiable military response to 9/11 but what has since become a mish-mash of objectives few national leaders can articulate with clarity or passion.
Beginning October 7, 2001, just weeks after 9/11, the U.S. launched Operation Enduring Freedom. The goal? To find and capture or kill Osama bin Laden, the perceived leader responsible for 9/11, to destroy Al Qaeda, the terrorist group that sponsored 9/11 assassins, and to remove from power the Taliban regime that provided safe haven for bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Within weeks the Taliban regime was deposed, Al Qaeda seemed to be on the run, and bin Laden had gone to ground. Now it’s nine years later and the situation in Afghanistan has not appreciably changed or improved. In fact, some would argue it’s worse.
It is true that the Taliban is no longer able to enact nationally its strict legal system and arbitrary punishments, including cruel and unusual ones in which people were executed publicly for a variety of religious offenses. It’s also true that bin Laden is no closer to being found and brought to justice.
At any given time civilian and military leaders in both the Bush and now Obama Administrations have communicated a vast array of convoluted, confusing, and at times conflicting objectives for the war effort. No one, even the President, can provide us with a clearly stated, brief “elevator speech” describing why we are there and what we are trying to do.
Nation-building, at first rejected by President Bush and his neoconservative staff, later emerged, sort of, as a goal for our engagement. Meanwhile, the U.S. has lost international credibility, continues to drain its economy, and cannot say when we’ll leave because we don’t know what it looks like to “win,” if indeed we’re trying to win.
Afghanistan is not Iraq in the sense that it is a country where tribal culture still persists. Consequently, a surge of troops will not necessarily result in less violence. Insurgency continues rooted in centuries of local politics.
In addition, the financial costs of the War in Afghanistan are staggering. We’re spending about $200 billion per year in direct and indirect costs. That’s $1 million per U.S. soldier or $3,947 per family of four per year, approximately $101 million per day.
It’s time to ask Why? Are we appreciably safer than we were five years ago? If the Taliban is now little more than a confederation of ill-equipped tribal groups and if NATO is willing to include Taliban leaders in peace talks, whom are we now trying to subdue? If, as many sources allege, bin Laden is in Pakistan, why are we fighting in Afghanistan? And none of these questions raise the specter of civilian collateral damage for which we are responsible, something we’re not willing to examine or admit.
The Soviets met their Waterloo in Afghanistan. I don’t want us to meet ours. President Obama won office largely on his claim he voted against the Iraq War and would end it if he were elected. Iraq was Bush’s war, so Obama could sling mud without fear of getting any on himself. Now, though, Afghanistan has become Obama’s war and he’s repeated many of Bush’s actions in Iraq.
Bringing U.S. troops home doesn’t equate with abandoning Afghanis to their fate. We’re involved financially now and could be involved in more targeted ways with financial aid in the future, at far less cost than we’re paying now.
It’s not that I’m against military action when it’s necessary and important. It’s that I’m weary of military action that has no goal. I think the majority of the American people feel the same way. We’ll fight when we need to and we’ll fight to win. But we don’t like to fight when we don’t know why we’re fighting.
For more on the Taliban, see James Fergusson's Taliban: The True Story of the World's Most Feared Guerrilla Fighters.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
My son is a 22 year old Sergeant in the Army Reserve MPs heading to Iraq in early May. So I listened with a Father’s interest to President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy speech delivered Friday, April 20, 2007, in East Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Our Sergeant is in Ft. Bliss, Texas nearing completion of almost three months of in-country combat and medical training. He enjoys what he’s doing, and he’s pleased to serve his country. Mom and Dad are proud of him. But pride and patriotism don’t bring one’s son home soon.
Sitting in a choice seat in the third row, I already knew what President Bush hoped to accomplish in Iraq and why he thought it was essential. But I wanted to hear how he proposed we get it done and how soon he thought American service personnel might come home. Nothing new in this. Just the yearning of every war-weary American and certainly the desire of nervous parents.
We’re in Iraq, President Bush said, because the primary lesson we learned from 9-11 is that terrorists can and will bring their hate to our shores. “Our enemies make no distinctions based on borders,” so America can no longer afford to be isolationist. “What happens in Baghdad matters in the U.S.”
Beyond a desire to defend ourselves, President Bush believes that all human beings want to be free and the vast majority of people want to live in peace, because “the Almighty” made us that way. If most Iraqis are given a chance, they will not turn to terror or help terrorists. The President refers to Iraq as a “young democracy,” and points to the 12 million Iraqis who voted for freedom three years ago. In his view, most Iraqi people are glad for American intervention, but we’re still fighting because “The U.S. wants to achieve peace and build lives. Insurgents want to achieve terror and take lives.”
President Bush puts great stock in his new strategy of counterinsurgency warfare. Top priority is to help Iraq secure its ability to put leaders in place by training and mentoring Iraqi security forces. We’ve moved American troop bases from the outskirts of Baghdad to neighborhoods we expect to secure. Unfortunately, the President said this new strategy will take some time, will bring higher risks, and will result in higher casualties.
But things are improving. The President said the number of sectarian murders has dropped by half since the latest operation began. But since the developments of peace are not as spectacular as a terrorist bomb, media tend to focus on the worst experiences of war.
Mr. Bush said people want to withdraw despite progress on the ground. “It’s gloomy despair in Washington,” he said, “but cautious optimism in Baghdad.” But withdrawal is not a strategy. It would “plunge the country into chaos,” and “it would encourage enemies like Iran.”
The President says what we do not want to hear, that the fight in Iraq will be long and trying. We are in “a difficult moment in history. But it is a consequential moment. The security of America depends directly on what happens in Iraq.” The danger is real and our troops understand this best. They are “doing what they do so that 9-11 will never happen again.”
The President came alive in the last few minutes of his speech, liberated at last from a prepared text and expressing his core values. He believes in the “power of liberty to overcome an ideology of hate.” For a proof he sites the power of liberty transforming enemies to allies—in particular Japan. Referring to his father’s heroic service against the Japanese in WWII, he wryly noted, “41 fought them. 43 works with them. Japan is now a partner in peace.”
We want our Sergeant home safe and soon, but we understand his role in protecting the freedom hard-won by our fathers. Clear objectives, clear strategies, and coordinated resolve are the safest ways our troops can operate in harms way. The first two essentials are within our grasp. The question remains whether the American people can provide the third—the will to see tough times through to resolution. American troops can succeed, but the rest of us must back them.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2007
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Iraq’s experiment with democracy today is heartening. In an election that should give them their first full-term Parliament since Saddam Hussein was toppled, the people of Iraq turned out in remarkably high numbers, braving curfews, security, road closures, border closings, threats of insurgency violence, and more.
Is it possible for this ethnically, religiously, and politically fractious society to come together in a free, pluralistic and democratic state? President George W. Bush says, “Yes.” Most of us don’t know. All of us hope so.
For democracy to succeed it needs more than free, fair, and legal elections. It needs a culture that respects the rule of law, individual dignity and liberty, and freedom of conscience and expression. It needs people who believe in truth and justice, who respect property rights, who value free enterprise, and who above all recognize freedom of religion. It needs a people who understand something about the separation of church and state, even if it is not much more than the rather noisy, imprecise version found in the United States. For democracy to succeed, it needs a people who believe in a better tomorrow and who are willing to work together to achieve it.
Let’s hope and let’s pray that the Iraqi people’s new symbol of freedom, purple ink-stained fingers, will point the way to a workable, governable peace between long-standing enemies.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2005
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.