When history is being made, most people would do well to stay at home and go offline. Maybe I'm venturing out a little too early with this post, but here goes...
On the one hand, I think that there's one etiquette for victory or defeat in war, and another etiquette for victory or defeat on, say, the basketball court. A lot of people got that mixed up last night.
On the other hand, last night was no time or place for sanctimonious tut-tutting about not delighting in anyone's death. And I saw a lot of that in my news feed from people with whom I otherwise agree.
Some who were short on sanctimony were long on platitudes. "Violence only breeds more violence." Well, sure. Osama Bin Laden instigated the worst mass murder in American history. No one who thinks that violence only breeds more violence should be surprised at the end he met.
Come now. Liberal pacifists (and I include myself in that category) ought to be able to tell the difference between crashing a hijacked airplane into an office building and a commando raid to kill the mastermind of that hijacking. It's the difference between violence that deliberately targets civilians, and violence that doesn't. It's the difference between violence managed by a lawful authority and violence that isn't.
In short, it's Just War Theory.
What does the Bible say? Doesn't the same Bible verse that begins "Never avenge yourselves" end with "leave room for the wrath of God?" Isn't there such a thing as a Deuteronomic History that narrates a monotheistic, historical version of karma? If the wrath of God didn't finally catch up with Osama Bin Laden yesterday, will it ever catch up with anyone?
I think that there is such a thing as the wrath of God. It is not a mere rhetorical device. I also think that God acts in history. If God can discipline the Chosen People with the Assyrian Army, he's probably not above disciplining Al Qaeda with Navy SEALS.
Now whether Christians should volunteer to be instruments of the wrath of God is a different question. I'm not called to that line of work. I think that my line of work is beating swords into plowshares. Not that I'm very good at it.
And even Christians who differ (and that's most of them) would do well to take a deep breath after suffering a wrong, rather than lashing out. In this respect, I still affirm everything I wrote in an op-ed in The Charlotte Observer two weeks after the attacks, which you can read here if you care to.
This last decade didn't have to go down the way it did. It's hard to imagine it going down any worse than it did.
I suspect that beneath the sanctimony and platitudes of some (not all) lies the worry that Bin Laden's death means that somebody's theology is all blown up. There were leftists who were a bit glum when the Berlin Wall crumbled because Liberation Theology, with its foundations poured in a mixture of the gospel and Marxism, seemed to crumble with the Wall. Liberation Theology made a comeback in the last decade in the Christianity versus Empire oeuvre, but I can't help but think that Bin Laden's killing has iced this movement as well.
Let me explain. Peter Bergen has been telling CNN that Bin Laden's death means that the War on Terror is effectively over. Sure there is still much anti-American feelings in the Arab world. Certainly no war can eliminate terrorism as a tactic. But Al Qaeda operatives swear fealty to Bin Laden when they join, not to the organization or to any generalized "Death to America" sentiment. No Bin Laden, not Al Qaeda.
That means the troops really can begin to come home. As Matt Yglesias points out, yesterday's raid undermines the logic that we need to remain in Afghanistan in order to deny terrorists a safe haven. Eliminating Afghanistan as a safe haven didn't stop Bin Laden from finding a new one. And taking out Bin Laden didn't entail invading and occupying a country.
We can end this war; we should end this war. And yet I think that leaves some Christian leftists feeling glum. The Empire struck back yesterday, and the Empire may yet survive. Heck, if the end of the war helps the Empire get its fiscal house in order, who knows how long it might last?
If your theological ethics are basically a stained glass version of Counterpunch, that can't make you all that happy.
One aspect of the past decade that I found revolting was how the right characterized the 90s as a holiday from history, and how how they welcomed the war (I'm thinking of Christopher Hitchens especially) because it gave them something to live for. I think that hating the Empire has been a similar motivating force for some on the Christian left.
But look; we don't need something out there to hate, whether it's terrorists or Empire. There are enough demons within that need exorcising.
As to the specifically right wing love of war, the quotidian tasks of raising kids and being good neighbors ought to be demanding enough, and the Gospel compelling and grand enough to capture one's imagination.
And as to the left's disgust over the Empire, please, please try for something other than total tone-deafness. We have an opportunity here, between the death of Bin Laden and the Arab spring, to move history in a different direction.
First, the President and Congress need pressure to bring home the troops. War, like any government program, is hard to stop.They need our help.
Second, the President and Congress (the latter especially) need pressure to adopt a more even-handed strategy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--which remains a major irritant in our relations with the Arab world. Being pro-Israel does not mean reflexively supporting the most hawkish elements in the Israeli government.
Lastly, the pro-democracy movements in the Arab world need our prayers and the shrewd and timely support of our government.
Osama Bin Laden is at the bottom of the Arabian Sea, awaiting the general resurrection. That he is there is not unjust. For the rest of us, we have work to do.
Posted by: |