Obama’s Afghanistan Plan.
“What do you think about Obama’s Afghanistan plan?” That was the question posed by RELEVANT magazine. “Tonight, President Obama is giving a speech detailing his new Afghanistan strategy, which includes a surge of 30,000 troops. What do you think of his plan?”
Response of Travis Keller:
“Peace is love. Violence is not. Militarization brings death… either physically or by fear. What if Afghanistan sent 30,000 troops to the U.S.?”
To contextualize my comment I will disclose that I am neither anti- or pro-Obama. I did vote for him. I would also qualify RELEVANT’s question by noting that the plan is not “his” plan but rather a plan that was developed by a team of people which includes military strategists and advisors. Additionally, I have a brother-in-law who is in the United States Air Force. My wife and I love him. He has been to Afghanistan and currently is stationed in the U.S. where he controls mechanisms on the Predator Drone planes that fly in Afghanistan.
What is your response to my response (or the original question)?
21 Responses to “Obama’s Afghanistan Plan.”
Leave a Reply
I’d say the Change you voted for isn’t really much of a change at all. Same old, same old. Vote Nowicki in 2024.
my response is courtesy of John Stuart Mill:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worse than war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than themselves.”
I also think his wavering shows exactly how weak he is. He wanted to rush, rush, rush a trillion dollar “stimulus” through Congress, and rush, rush, rush another nearly trillion dollar entitlement money pit (aka health reform) through, but took 80+ days to make a decision when people actually ARE dying in Afghanistan, as opposed to the made-up people who are dying in the streets because the mean doctors won’t treat them.
Yes, militarization can bring death, but it also brings freedom. In this case it was to those who were too weak to throw off the Taliban on their own.
seems that our Nobel Peace Prize winning president is a “peace maker” as long as he does what the U.N. wants him to do.
Disclaimer: I don’t know much. Most of what I say is speculation. But I think many of us are doing exactly that, so I’m going to speculate away.
Afghanistan is a difficult place for anybody or any group to govern. It is not surprising, then, that there is a deployment of more troops to Afghanistan.
As to the “ethicalness” of war. It is not ethical/just. But are there situations in which it may be the more just choice? I’m willing to say perhaps. It may be that although war cannot create peace, it may create a space wherein peace may grow. This is probably pretty sketchy to defend. But basically, there is something to be said for relative calm and effective governments and how it seems to encourage better, broader relationships. It seems that war sometimes establishes such an order.
Slabaugh, in my opinion, it is right of you to point out that we should not trivially dismiss or take for granted the relative order in which we live. Nor should we out-of-hand deny the assertion that “violence” (needs defined) has contributed to this order.
Apart from those points, I do not think that John Stuart Mill was right: cowardice is emphatically not the only reason to oppose a specific war or war in general.
Before I get to the studying that I really need to do, allow me to say one more thing. Know that I extend this comment to you, Slabaugh, not as a personal attack, but as a caution: More ugly than cowardice is blind support of any and every war effort. The assertion that there is “just war” is not the same as the assertion that all war is just.
Well said, Tom.
Brian, you’re absolutely right – blind support of any and every war is also cowardice, as one obviously doesn’t think the issue through. I agree with you that Afghanistan is a very difficult place to govern and it may never turn into another American style republic or Iraqi democracy. However, it was (and still is) in our best interest to respond to an unprovoked attack on American soil against American citizens and to pursue that response to its end.
“What if Afghanistan sent 30,000 troops to the U.S.?”
We are fighting al-Quaeda, not Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda sent nineteen troops to the U.S. on September 11. They will send more when they have the chance.
“The most important topic on earth [is] peace. Not a pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war … I am talking about genuine peace. Not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women—not merely peace in our time but peace for all time”
“Some say it is useless to speak of world peace…that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. .. But I also believe we must re-examine our own attitudes—as individuals and as a nation—for our attitude is as essential as theirs … And every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward—by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war, and toward freedom and peace here at home”
“Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable—that mankind is doomed—that we are gripped by forces we cannot control”
“Truly as it was written long ago: ‘The wicked flee when no man pursueth’ … [this] is also a warning—a warning to the American people to not fall into the same trap as the Soviets … No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue”
- John F Kennedy
found at Chris Rice’s blog…with significant commentary…
http://reconcilers.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/preemptive-peace-on-the-anniversary-of-jfk%E2%80%99s-assassination/
I’m definitely all for peace and anti-war but I don’t think imposing my idea, belief, and/or religion on my country is necessary.
Our affairs lie with the affairs of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and our Father God in heaven. Our “nations” policies transcend the policies of our country and every other country.
However, struggles against injustices and outrages, especially those committed against the poor and defenseless, still remain. It is not permitted for Christians to be silent, to withdraw, or to refuse not to get involved. But no where is it written that to make your adversary yield it is necessary or indispensable to employ the sword, the machine gun, or the tank.
I would have to agree and disagree with you on that point.
First, I do not think that “Peace is love” I think that Love brings peace. I believe that when all act in accordance with Love, that is the Love of God, then peace and good will is the result. However, because not all act in love peace is not always the result, and sometimes a forceful reply is the appropriate, and loving, response.
Again, I do not necessarily agree that violence is not an act of love. I do not believe that violence should ever be the first answer, but sometimes it is the right answer.
It is true that Jesus says to “turn the other cheek” when someone strikes you, but should you turn someone else’s cheek when someone strikes them? Sometimes you need to stand up for the “least of these” and sometimes the only way to do this is to retaliate to the offender.
Militarization does not always bring death, and it can often bring life, or rather the insurance of life. Yes, the early 20th century militarization of Germany brought about a lot of death, but if the Allied forces had not also “militarized” there would have been much more death and destruction.
To be honest, if America were in the same conditions of Afghanistan, and vice versa, I would hope that they would send troops.
Ideally we would live in a world where there is no violence, no crimes, and no need for security against them. But the truth is we don’t, and the truth is we live in a fallen world.
I’m not saying that we should be content to live in the world as it is. We need to work for a world that is more like the Kingdom of God. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the reality of the world around us.
the kingdom of God does not ignore the reality around us, if we are serious about pursuing it. the justice of God is never a reality apart from forgiveness and mercy. it humanizes and heals. it subverts retaliation and revenge. jesus commands that we cannot be forgiven, if we cannot forgive.
resurrection does not require a violent pursuit of happiness or power here on earth. it actually gives us the freedom to walk among the oppressors of this world, without camouflage and weapons, if we indeed believe in this jesus, who is indeed asking us to believe in the resurrection of the dead. why else would it matter?
http://reconcilers.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-interruption-of-forgiveness-an-interview-with-angelina-atyam-of-uganda/
I can’t imagine that dehumanizing can ever be good or even contribute to a “larger?” good (if good comes in different sizes how big is God?)
I think of the story of the men in the trenches on Christmas eve WWI. In their break from fighting, they begin singing their carols and celebrating the Good God’s coming to earth and looking forward to his triumphant return. In their singing, they can hear the other soldiers singing and so they come together for a night of celebration. They spend the night singing and telling stories in their respective languages of their families and traditions that they have passed down through the years.
The next morning the officers come in with battle plans and the soldiers are reluctant to get going. Someone spills the beans on last night’s celebration and the officers are irate because their soldiers went against all of their training and humanized their opponent making them much harder to kill.
What’s in it for the “leader’s” of our country to keep us hating our neighbors?
Lots or terse and simplistic arguments that work for cheap talking points, but are absurd when examined more thoroughly.
“Peace is love. Violence is not. Militarization brings death… either physically or by fear. What if Afghanistan sent 30,000 troops to the U.S.?”
So would you kill a man who was intent on killing you and your family?
Would you depose a dictator who was engaged in genocide?
Our God is a God of peace and love, but also one of justice.
“For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” Genesis 18:19
The way of the Lord is righteous and JUSTICE! WE are constantly implored to take up the fight of the persecuted and oppressed.
I will fight for my family and I would fight for yours. I would fight against oppressive dictators who engage in genocide because the is the right thing to do. It may be violence, but it is just! I would love a world at peace but turning a blind eye to genocide and oppression while calling our position the “loving” one is ABSURD! Love and JUSTICE… you can’t pick the parts of God that you like and leave the rest behind. Just sayin’
jesus taught us a lot of things. i still don’t think we get it.
Justice cannot be separated from forgiveness and mercy. violence may be, but it is not just.
not that anyone is still reading these comments, but the quote below (from Chris Rice’s blog) somewhat illuminates whatever it was i was trying to convey…
“I’m always surprised at the stories of where the initiative for reconciliation and beloved community begins. It’s Desmond Tutu on the black side of apartheid who is calling for forgiveness. It’s Nelson Mandela who is reaching out to embrace his white South African jailer. It’s Martin Luther King Jr. who is casting a vision of communion while saying that the end is not a boycott, the end is not legal integration, the end is in the beloved community and in calling for self-examination within the African American community. It’s Cesar Chavez doing a boycott that he calls a pilgrimage of penance, not penance by the white business owners, but penance by the Hispanic farm workers. And they are all offering a kind of grace toward the enemy with no guarantee they are going to win.
“Does this leave those in power off the hook? Absolutely not! As Chavez said, yes, this is a pilgrimage of penance, but we are not going to rest until the injustices farm workers endure are illuminated and changes are made. We are not going to rest until there is repentance on the part of those in power. But there is something significant about how Chavez, King, Mandela, and Tutu work for justice. Their end is a different dimension than human rights. It is more about a kind of conversion of all humanity toward a new place of life together and shalom. There is no beloved community without new relationships.”
Turning a blind eye is much different from actively engaging in the lives of the oppressed. My life is no example. Interesting phrase “turning a blind eye,” especially within the context of helping the oppressed.
The one has accumulated the power to stop evil has the hardest time not using their own power for it. There is freedom in powerlessness. Once one rationalizes violence for a purpose that is for the greater good, it’s easy to justify Hitler’s genocide against the Jews and others, as he was successfully bringing Germany out of the deepest depression and hyperinflation that their country had known. He was helping feed his country. Rome gave protection to tens of thousands of villages that before being conquered could have been squashed by Persian armies, but at what cost? Half of their annual yield to Caesar? At what point does the rationalization stop, do we die to ourselves and live as a living sacrifice.
Our culture is So individualistic it doesn’t have a value for passing our story through our bloodline. As I study native American societies and Eastern Communalistic societies, they have this great responsibility to follow their father or mother and carry on their spirit in life, making sure that it gets passed down.
We are so selfish to think that when we die, it’s all over. So we have to justify self-preservation. I haven’t lived many years, but I offer my words, and my experience.
nothing is black and white.
“nothing is black and white” is a black and white statement.
just like “there is no truth” is a truth statement.
maybe you are trying to state that we are trying to over-simplify the issue of violence/non-violence?
maybe you are suggesting that we are over-simplifying the issue of violence/non-violence?
English-Grammmer was not my best subject.
Tom Joad,
Oh… people are still reading. I get Google Analytics to tell me that. If you type it, they will come (sorry for the poor film reference, both the film and the reference are poor).
Peace.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned what the critics have already observed. Namely, that Obama’s speech for the Nobel prize was simplified Reinhold Niebuhr. And specifically, Neibuhr’s view of Christian Realism. And it should be noted that Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and Obama were highly influenced by his writings. Many have drawn different conclusions as to the actions of the reality of evil in the world, but they all agree, there needs to be some action taken against the realities of evil. But here’s my thoughts.
As I reflect upon what little I know of King’s organization and action of non-violence, he was able to capture an imaginative possibility within his community… and to be frank, I think our over stimulation of ideas, lack of any significant oppression, and constrained view of hope has left an abyss in our imaginative possibilities in the actions against evil. King could see the consequences of Gandhi and knew that if he appealed to a better world, paint the picture of hope amidst oppression, that the little victories could lead to a major victory. My concern lies in the very dark imaginative world of the followers of Jesus Christ. And my prayer is that a voice would emerge, once again, of someone who chooses to see what others refuse to see. And maybe, as he pierced His side to assure Him of His death, that he might get some blood and water on his face and his eyes would be open to see.