Neumann 1

Jonathon Neumann

Professor Jeff Galbraith

ENGW 103

30 April 2014

A Christian Response to the United States War on Terrorism

Over the past decade, the United States of America has been fighting a war not against a

single nation, but a group of terrorist organizations that are worldwide. This leads me to question

how Christians should respond collectively and individually to these wars that are, in many

ways, different than previous American wars. This paper will address what could make a war

justified, will examine the war on terrorism to see if it is a real war, and if it really is a war are

the actions taken in it justifiable. I am concerned that we are supporting a war that is not

primarily about spreading peace to the world. Therefore, I will assess statements from recent war

veterans, study C.S Lewiss view on war as well as Biblical passages about it, interweave pieces

from President Bushs September 12th speech, and examine propositions from Christian writers

and debaters

Primarily, it is important to address what war is. A reputable source is the Collins English

Dictionary, which states that war is: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations

or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. Looking at the words in this

sentence, the definition of war may need to be altered to suit what the United States labels it as.

Next, members of the universal Church still debate whether war is justifiable. There has

been much research done on this topic, such as in the Articles and Resources section of the

2008 English Standard Version Study Bible, where Dr. Craig Mitchell, a professor at the

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, examines the ethics of war. After his introduction,

the commentator establishes two differing groups, the church and the government, which have
 Neumann 2

different duties under God. He believes that the Church, following Christs example in Matthew

26:52-55 and John 18:36, should not use force to spread the Gospel because it must be

personally accepted. Some use these verses as support for their argument against violence

because Jesus refused to use the power of the sword to advance his kingdom (Mitchell 2555).

However, the commentator claims that God does give civil government the responsibility and

the authority to use superior force, even deadly force, to protect its citizens from evil (Mitchell

2554). He uses passages such as 1 Peter 2:14 (ESV) which instructs the state to to punish those

who do evil and to praise those who do good. Therefore, if evil is done to a nations citizens, the

nation should seek to punish the evildoers. Additionally, Mitchell notes believers in the New

Testament that believers such as the soldiers who asked John the Baptist what they should do in

Luke 3:14 were in the military, and Mitchell believes that [John]implied [that] they were

serving a morally legitimate profession (2555).

Another supporter of justifiable war is well-known Christian author and apologist C.S.

Lewis. In his essay Why I am Not a Pacifist Lewis argues that Pacifism creates a structure that

will cause a state to be weak and able to be overtaken by its totalitarian neighbor who does not

stand [Pacifism], and that Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which

there will be no Pacifists (C. Lewis 78). He believes that Pacifism has the probability of ending

itself. In addition, Lewis finds that Saint Augustine, a well-respected Saint among most

believers, supported war and discovers no evidence in the New Testament against it. Thus, after

examining the arguments of these Christians, I believe it to be possible for war to be justified.

Next, it is necessary to focus on the government as it is the established state that is

commanded to pursue justice. As I examine the states actions, a good source to compare the

actions to is the just war guidelines that Mitchell has included in his essay: (1) just cause ;(2)

competent authority ;(3) comparative justice ;(4) right intention ;(5) last resort ;(6)
 Neumann 3

probability of success ;(7) proportionality of projected results (will the good results that come

from a victory in war be significantly greater than the harm and loss?); and (8) right spirit

(2555). This list will be used to compare how the war against terrorism stands up to biblical

justification.

First, the war on terror may not even fit the Collins English Dictionary definition of war

as it is not a war against nations like the World Wars or even the American Civil War, but it is

rather a few countries against a global organization unidentified with any state. As it stands, the

war on terror requires the definition of war to be altered.

However before one argues that this war should not have happened, one first must

examine the historical facts that lead up to The United States retaliation. According to The

Encyclopedia of American Military History, there have been quite a number of terrorist attacks

against the United States ever since the Tripolitan War in 1801, but for approximately two

hundred years the U.S. government policy had preferred military force as a last resort against

terrorism (Cobane 848). Prior to the attack against civilians on September 11, 2001, the United

States military has been attacked by terrorists. For example the worst single surprise attack on

U.S. forces since Pearl Harbor occurred in October of 1983 when a suicide bomber killed 241

marines at a barracks in a Beirut airport (Cobane 848). Also, according to the encyclopedia, since

the 1990s, terrorists have become more organized into groups such as Al-Qaeda under Osama bin

Laden (who was recently assassinated), and the groups have continued to attack the United

States in a manner that appears to be just cause for military action.

It is known that the attacks in September of 2001 are what led President Bush to state in

his address on September 12th The deliberate and deadly attacks, which were carried out

yesterday against our country, were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war. These are

powerful words to the American ear as war is a last resort, but as the United States homeland was
 Neumann 4

attacked, the statement makes sense. Even if the United States committed injustice against

people that led them to attack, their response proves, according to Professor Dr. Daniel M. Bell

Jr. of Lutheran Theological Seminary, that [they are] an enemy who does not respect the

traditional moral parameters of warfare (34). Though war is terrible, there are unofficial rules

that the terrorists ignored. Therefore, after examining this evidence, a fight may be a legitimate

response to the evil committed by the terrorists. Observing the guidelines Mitchell mentioned, in

comparison to the organization of Al-Qaeda, the United States Government is much more

competent; this appears to be a last resort as the attacks have greatly affected the U.S. and the

world; however, the intentions of the war have been questioned; the probability of success is

debated today; and the spirit of the war may be a skewed justice.

Though it may be that declaring war was just, the way that the Britain and America have

conducted the war is still in question. In an attempt to avoid an utterly chaotic war, President

Bush declared on September 20th, 2001 the illegitimacy of neutrality during these times as he

stated Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists (Bell 34). Following this

declaration, the Afghan government did not hand bin Laden over United States; so President

Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom to kill him and destroy Al-Qaeda in October 2001

(Cobane 848). President Bush stated on September 12 th, The freedom-loving nations of the

world stand by our side. This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will

prevail. Therefore, according to the President, the enemy is whoever is not promoting freedom.

The reader most likely knows that bin Laden was not assassinated until almost ten years after the

Afghan invasion, and though the number of United States forces has decreased over the years in

the country, there is still a military presence there today. This fact leads me to question whether

the cost was worth all the civilian as well as military lives lost for a country that is yet still very

unstable.
 Neumann 5

The reader most likely knows that Iraq was invaded in 2003 under the suspicion of hiding

weapons of mass destruction, and to invade for such a reason appears understandable. However,

the motive has been questioned by many as the WMDs were never found. Perhaps the invasion

was to do more than snuff out supporters of terrorism. To dig deeper to find a Christian response,

let us examine a debate between Dr. David Fisher, author of Morality and War: Can War be Just

in the Twenty-first Century?, and Professor Nigel Biggar, author of In Defense of War. The two

argued from opposing viewpoints about the Iraqi war. Fisher argued The war failed fully to

meet any of the just war criteria. There were doubts whether the operation was undertaken with

competent authority and as a last resort (692). Even Biggar affirmed that the invasion and

occupation of Iraq were gravely flawed (693). However, Biggar disagreed with Fishers

previous statement when he said: I think that [the criteria] met just cause, last resort and

legitimate authority. (706). Biggar believes that there was just cause for war after viewing the

way the state was treating the people. He asked Fisher: Was Saddam Husseins regime guilty of

[state] atrocity? Undoubtedly (696). As evidence to support him, he recounted some of the

crimes committed by Saddam Hussein such as 300,000 victims of state violence between 1991

and 2003 (696). He believed one cannot let such things happen to ones global neighbor. Yet

Fisher responded that many of the 300,000 people are from years previous to 2003, and in 2003

there was no such humanitarian catastrophe taking place, nor was one imminently expectedIn

the absence of such a crisis, the humanitarian case for military action is weak (700).

After listening to both sides, it would have been risky to not invade Iraq because WMDs

in the hands of Saddam Hussein is extremely dangerous; however, since not many other nations

agreed with Americas decision, there should have been more investigations about the WMDs as

taking down the regime has caused much chaos. On the one hand, Nigel Fisher has very high

expectations for the result of a war, but one the other hand Biggar sees the justification for
 Neumann 6

declaring the war yet does not defend the wrongs that have been done in the course of the war.

He even quotes a spokesman for young Iraqis who said to him: It was good that [the invasion of

Iraq] happened. It could have been done better. And it isnt over (698). Therefore, I will now

examine some of the affairs that may have been conducted better in the course of the wars.

First, since the start of the wars, the official rights of people have changed. Bell writes:

the enemy combatants (and in many cases civilians) are stripped of the protections of the

Geneva Conventions and imprisoned under brutal conditions (Bell 35). In case one is unaware,

the Geneva Conventions are, according to Dictionary.com, one of a series of international

agreementsestablishing rules for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. This should be

cause for concern as torturing enemies or even civilians by mistake is wrong. Even though the

enemies do not represent any state, torture is stretching the boundaries of the just war tradition

(Bell 36). Bell disagrees with the idea that prohibitions on practices like torture are

anachronistic (36). Yes, it is true that the enemies are hardened in their beliefs, but torture is

regressing on a humane perspective. I myself do not have the authority to declare torture

permissible or sinful, but I question how it stands up to the standards of comparative justice,

right intention, and right spirit.

Additionally, the reader may be aware of the mistreatment of prisoners at places such as

Guantanamo Bay. According to a New York Times article from 2004, The International

Committee of the Red Cross has chargedthat the American military has intentionally used

psychological and sometimes physical coercion tantamount to torture on prisoners (N.

Lewis). This is not something that the church should simply glance over. Even though many of

the acts of the aggression were performed by individuals, the responses of the government are

questionable.
 Neumann 7

Moreover, there is controversial article written by Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges

titled War is Betrayal that speaks of the experiences of recent veterans. This article questions

not only the negative effects this war has had on civilians and enemies, but also on American

soldiers. Though the author seems anti-American in his conclusions, the accounts of the soldiers

should not be discounted. Geoff Millard was a sergeant in the 42 nd Infantry Division in Iraq.

Upon finishing his time in Iraq he became an anti-war activist (Hedges 369). Millards view

may make the reader uneasy: Its not about defending the country or serving our people. Its

about working for some rich guy who has his interests (Hedges 368). During the conversation,

Millard told Hedges about the time when a frightened 18 year old soldier accidentally killed an

entire family that had turned the wrong way on a road. The general responded to the report of the

incident: If these f***ing Hadjis learned to drive this s**t wouldnt happen (Hedges 368).

Millard claims that they are almost trained to not view Iraqis as real people: When Iraqis got

killed, to them, it was one less f***ing Hadji around (Hedges 369).

Another veteran interviewed was Jessica Goodell who was positioned at Mortuary Affairs

for an airbase in Iraq. She recalls that during her eight months there, she handled six Marine

suicides. She tells Hedges that some of the suicides were mistreated heavy soldiers that were

subjected to withering verbal and physical abuse (Hedges 371). Hedges notes that upon

returning to the states, Goodell experienced depression and abused drugs and alcohol (371).

From these two experiences it appears that in the course of this war all involved may be victims.

Now it is time to examine the Churchs response to these wars. It is apparent that there is

a personal hate against terrorists that many Americans harbor, and it compels me to reminisce

about my childhood views on terrorism. If the reader is unaware, I was merely six years old at

the time of the terrorist strikes on September 11, 2001, and I clearly remember confessing to my

father: Dad, I know we are called to love our neighbors, but I just hate terrorists, they just want
 Neumann 8

to ruin peoples lives for no reason. Little did I know that many terrorists have been

indoctrinated by false teaching, and even though what they have done is evil; I hold no right to

judge them. This is a note to the reader if he or she is a member of Christs Church. I ask the

same question that Bell asks, How seriously do we take the call to love our enemies? (Bell 42).

This is a corporate as well as individual call to confront injustice with a holy anger that does

not become hatred, [and to not] rejoice in the enemys death but truly [desire] that they come to

their senses and be reconciled in the order of a just peace (Bell 42). This is a reminder for the

American Church that ones loyalty is to the Father not the Fatherland. This one true religion is

about the Good News of reconciliation and peace through Jesus Christ not a crusade of American

freedom to the world.

In summary, it may be true that war is biblically justifiable and that retaliation was a

proper response to the unjust attacks in 2001. However, the way that the invasions of various

Middle Eastern countries were conducted is questionable, and after studying personal reports as

well as facts, the way the situation has been handled after the invasions does not measure up to

the standards set. I do believe that the actions of terrorists are evil. Yet I question the heart and

intentions of the military authorities as well as many citizens and soldiers, the spirit of this

nation, the results of the fight, and the comparative justice of it all. Also, the American Church

must know what it is supporting and ought to be cautious of harming veterans with harmful

shallow words. The Church is meant to be involved in this action of war, and as this nation is a

democratic country, it is the responsibility of citizens to seek the truth in order to have leaders

who desire justice and peace. The Church is called to love its enemies corporately and

individually, and though it is difficult, Christ loved us though we were once His enemy. Let us

follow in His example in confession, repentance, and forgiveness.

 Neumann 9

Bibliography

Bell Jr., Daniel M. "CAN A WAR AGAINST TERROR BE JUST?" Cross Currents 2006: 34+.

Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

Cobane, Craig T. "Terrorism." Encyclopedia of American Military History. P-Z ed. Vol. III. New

York: Facts on File, 2003. 847-49. Print.

Fisher, David, and Nigel Biggar. "Was Iraq An Unjust War? A Debate on The Iraq War And

Reflections On Libya." International Affairs 87.3 (2011): 687-707. Academic Search

Premier. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

Hedges, Chris. War is Betrayal. Culture: A Reader for Writers. Ed. John Mauk. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2014. 364-374. Print.

Geneva Convention. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Geneva Convention. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.

Lewis, Clive Staples. Why I Am Not a Pacifist. The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses.

1949. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001. 64-90. Print.

Lewis, Neil A. "Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantnamo." The New York Times. The

New York Times, 29 Nov. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

Mitchell, Craig. Biblical Ethics: An Overview: War. English Standard Version Study Bible.

Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008. 2554-2555. Print.

Public Broadcasting Service. Newshour. President Bush. PBS Newshour. Administrator, 12 Sept.

2001. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.

"War." Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins

Publishers. 30 Apr. 2014. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war>.