The warmongers are at it again: Bombs are falling on foreign cities; politicians are being assassinated; tanks are paraded through Washington; and troops are “liberating” Los Angeles.
“Game on,” Senator Lindsey Graham said, cheering the prospect of going “all-in” against Iran. Warmongers see a world of enemies engaged in constant battle. They imagine it is easy to achieve “unconditional surrender,” to quote President Donald Trump’s ultimatum to Iran.
The militaristic mindset explains the Trumpian call to “liberate” Los Angeles from “the socialists,” as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem put it last week. As troops were deployed to L.A., the president told the soldiers under his command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina that the riots in Los Angeles were an assault on “national sovereignty.”
This aggressive language is a prelude to moral disaster. Moral judgment about the use of force requires careful deliberation informed by the wisdom of the world’s traditions, most of which teach us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. If violence is ever justified, it should emerge as a last resort from out of a background commitment to nonviolence.
But that’s not how warmongering works. Rather than making arguments grounded in patience, love and justice, the warmonger rants and raves. And, indeed, that is the way war works. Violence is dumb, inarticulate and morally mute. It kills and disables. But it makes no arguments — it does not convert or convince, it only destroys.
Violence is seductive because it is spectacular. It is quick, loud, decisive and even fun. Bullies and abusers enjoy what they do. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do it. Some sinister part of human nature likes to blow stuff up. Sigmund Freud called this the death drive. He saw a key challenge of psychological development as learning to transform cruelty into something better. Civilization develops as we learn to sublimate aggression.
Moral development should lead beyond cruelty, rage and revenge. Retributivism is a step in that direction: Rather than simply lashing out in blind fury, retributive justice tells us to apply violence in measured doses according to the old recipe of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life. The retributive scheme is meant to moderate rage. It sets a limit on violence.
It was in response to the old law of “eye-for-an-eye” justice that Jesus said we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies. Christian pacifism emerged in the ancient world following this ideal. But some Christians argued that there was a right to kill in self-defense — and especially in defense of others. The “just war theory” developed, allowing defensive war as a reluctant last resort. The elaborate edifice of the just war theory aims to limit warfare and minimize bloodshed in pursuit of just causes.
In my own scholarship on this topic, I have argued that just war is much easier to describe in theory than to carry out in practice. The “fog of war” makes it difficult to master events, to predict outcomes and to ensure compliance with moral principles. Another problem is “the just war myth,” a wishful idealism that thinks it is easy to fight a just war, and that “the good guys” win because they are good.
The warmongers ignore these difficulties. They are “all-in” on war. Perhaps they think war is like a movie or a video game where widows and orphans never appear on screen. Or perhaps they are really just cruel and aggressive.
In reality, very few wars live up to the moral ideal. Good people die. Bad guys sometimes win. Atrocities are committed. And noble soldiers suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and moral injury.
Our culture inclines us to ignore all of this. Parades do not show off the injuries or the trauma. Films and video games make violence seem exciting. And warmongering makes war appear easy to justify.
As soldiers deploy on American streets and bombs rain down on foreign cities, we need to think more carefully about the justification of war. We also need to listen carefully to the critics of war, whose voices are often drowned out by the warmonger’s ranting. Cruelty and war are ancient maladies. But the argument against violence is as old as Jesus who advised us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.
Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article309092545.html#storylink=cpy