Conflicted!

Life is not simple. There are no easy answers to so many of the big questions. We are often torn between what seems right and what seems right. And one of the most difficult questions regards how we should respond to those who do evil.

There are many categories of people who do the most flagrant kinds of purposeful evil: child molesters, torturers, serial killers, murderous dictatators, and terrorists, to name a few. These people have one common characteristic - they do terrible harm to large numbers of innocents, and they put fear into uncounted others. What should a moral person do when confronted with this kind of purposeful evil? My last two posts discussed opposite poles of action regarding the radical Islamic terrorist threat.

In the first post, I criticized two Christian friends who support wholesale suppression of Muslims because "peace-loving Muslims" are not doing enough to control the radical terrorists who do evil in the name of religion. I felt that it was unfair (wrong) to assume guilt by cultural association, and I said 1)that violence is counter-productive and 2) that love is the ultimate solution to the problems of the world. Rather than stigmatizing peace-loving people of the Muslim faith, we should be doing everything possible to support them.

In the second post, I opined that terrorism would be the scourge of the 21st century. Terrorists deal in the currency of fear. They believe that by indiscriminately and horrifically killing innocent non-combatant citizens of a target country they will force a government to accede to the their demands. My suggestions for dealing with terrorists were 1) to minimize their ability to "hide" within civilian populations by offering those populations both carrots and sticks, and 2) to mercilessly attack them whenever they are found. I went so far out on the latter suggestion that I condoned collateral damage. Comments ensued...

One comment stated that it seemed I would support a continuing U.S. presence in Iraq to assist the "peace-loving Muslims" in that country. I don't support our continuing presence in Iraq, for two reasons. First, we can't beat the terrorists in Iraq because they have all the tactical advantages. Second, there must be a political settlement there, and some kind of effective government, before the U.S. will be able to offer and provide aid to moderates. Sadly, it will be bloody in Iraq whether we stay or leave. But it will surely continue to be bloody as long as we stay, so we must give the Iraqis a chance to sort this out for themselves. (Of course, every sane person knows we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place, or kept large forces in the Middle East which provoked radicalism.)

Another comment stated that it was inappropriate for me to advocate telling Muslim populations that terrible consequences could befall them if terrorists associated with their society pull off some horrendous operation in the West. He felt that large masses of these people already lived in such precarious circumstances, and under such great threats, that further threats from us would have no impact on them. Maybe so. But just theoretically, let's think about how the U.S. would respond if individuals associated with Hamas detonated a suitcase nuclear bomb in Chicago or somehow breached the Hoover Dam. It seems to me that every Palestinian would be in grave danger even if the U.S. said we were only after Hamas. So, maybe predicting terrible consequences is merely stating the obvious.

Lastly, a commentor felt that I was wrong about not being too concerned about collateral damage when we attack terrorists. He felt collateral damage tends to incite radicalism on the part of those who mourn the innocent victims, and even encourages terrorists to stay closer to innocent populations. Maybe so. But it seems that terrorists already make sure there are plenty of civilians around them at all times - our current rules of engagement make this strategy their best insurance policy. In my view, if we let terrorists escape out of fear for collateral damage, we may be saving the lives of a few in favor of losing the lives of many who will later be killed by those same terrorists. If we choose in favor of the messy attack on terrorists, we must make it clear that we chose the action we felt was least harmful from an overall perspective. Lastly, if civilians like Palestinian women purposely place themselves as shelters for fighters who they support, I don't consider their deaths collateral damage.

So, I'm conflicted. I pray for peace and peacemakers every day, and I practice peace whenever I, or others around me, face a personal conflict. I sincerely believe that virtually all disputes can be successfully negotiated by opposing parties that show good faith. Yet I also know that pure evil intent exists - intent that is immune to negotiation and will stop at nothing to achieve its purpose. It is that evil that I believe must be resisted with whatever force is necessary. If it is the lives of my family and myself that must be lost to prevent a greater tragedy, so be it. I am willing to be "collateral damage" when the cost of saving my own life is too great.

I'm not sure that Jesus would agree with this post, and I claim to be his follower. Perhaps I will someday fully come to grips with the concept of turning the other cheek. On the other hand, maybe there was a good reason why Jesus is never quoted as criticizing a good soldier...maybe he felt there were good reasons why us humans need someone to keep order when things get totally out of control. I'm conflicted!