I'm a pacifist. I'm far from overjoyed at what's been done. Whenever people demand that, whatever one's position on war in general or on a given war (Iraq and Afghanistan in particular), we all have to support the troops, I find myself thinking lonely thoughts: I don't support the troops. At least, not exactly. I love the troops. I think there is an important difference. What do we mean by supporting them? I know soldiers, and I respect them, and I care deeply about them. But it seems to me that "supporting" them ultimately always means supporting their mission. I don't. I certainly don't want them to fail in it. I just don't want them to carry it out at all.
I'm also anti-nationalist. When people get excited rooting for their favorite sports team, and chant and beat their chests with pride because some other guys who wouldn't give them the time of day just won a game, I can let that slide because it's fun and it's trivial. But when people who have not themselves enlisted express pride in our troops, the same kind of misplaced pride we express in sports teams suddenly becomes more significant. I think it points to the idea that the armed forces ultimately represent an abstract construct and a need we have to feel a part of something by identifying with one abstraction - our nation - over and against another. Those seem like rather squishy reasons to kill and die.
I do, though, have enormous respect for many aspects of military life and the achievements of many men and women in uniform. Reading about Navy SEAL Team 6 today, I could not help but be awed by just how brave, disciplined, and prepared they were, and how heroically - in the Ancient Greek, if not Christian, sense of the word - they carried out their mission. For lack of a better descriptor, these guys are totally badass.
I think I can say that and still be a good pacifist. I remember going to a national conference of the Catholic Peace Fellowship early in the Iraq war. We were training to be conscientious objection counselors. We had just learned that, by law, being a C.O. requires opposition to "war in all forms," but not necessarily to violence in all forms or absolute pacifism. During a break, some of us were watching the Yankees play the Red Sox in the American League Championship Series when suddenly 72-year-old Yankees bench coach Don Zimmer charged the mound, and Boston pitcher Pedro Martinez grabbed him by his huge, bald head and effortlessly threw him to the ground. The room - like rooms all over the country - erupted into shouting and raucous laughter. It was the funniest baseball fight since Nolan Ryan vs. Robin Ventura. But our hoots and hollers soon gave way to awkward silence as we realized we were all at a pacifist gathering laughing at seeing an old man get knocked in the dirt. One of the conference organizers quickly recovered, though, saying, "Didn't we just learn that conscientious objectors only have to oppose war, specifically? That means we can still think this is funny, right?" Nervous glances were exchanged, a silent consensus was reached, and the laughing continued as the replays rolled. Even pacifists know funny - or badass - when we see it.
One of the several things that struck me in ABC's story about the SEALs was this quote:
"We are not looking for cocky kids," said Senior Chief Hans Garcia, a SEAL recruiter. "The perfect person would be a candidate who is remarkably physically fit, but is pretty humble, an analytical thinker, a problem solver -- someone who is very value-oriented, patriotic, puts service above self."
Aside from the patriotic part, this could be a missionary recruiter talking (the physical fitness part might be less necessary now, but certainly would have been important in past centuries -- see the film The Mission). Service. Selflessness. Analytical thinking. Humility. Simplicity of lifestyle (aka. poverty). Discipline. Bravery. Esprit de corps (aka. community). These are some of the things I value most. They are things the Christian disciple strives for. They are all also important characteristics of a good soldier.
So I was reminded today of one of my favorite works from the canon of great American pacifist writing: "The Moral Equivalent of War," by William James. Over 100 years ago, James looked at the weakness of the pacifist movement, and the robustness of the war machine, and called upon his fellow peace-wagers to step off their high horse and recognize what was admirable and good in those who would wage war. He did so not just out of a sense of intellectual honesty, but out of recognition that pacifism must appeal to similar values in order to capture the imagination of the majority of the people.
Some pacifists - people like the Christian Peacemaker Teams - have done this. But for most of us, we have a long way to go. So, as I lament all that is lamentable in the news about Osama bin Laden's assassination, I hope I can also remain capable of holding contradiction, embracing complexity, and admiring the commitment and the valor of the young men who carried out this sad task. And I hope that those of us who believe in peace by means of peace will be inspired to step up and make our vision a reality the way the plans of SEAL Team 6 were carried out in Pakistan this weekend.
2 comments:
Thanks for your perspective, Dan. Good to have this food for thought from a fellow Christian.
Thanks for posting so much recently. This is a great perspective that makes it much easier for me to do exactly what you talk about. War has always been anathema to me, but you cannot help admiring, and, at least personally, wishing you could go through the physical and mental training these guys commit themselves to. Love the comparison to the work of missions, at least in the commitment to service and sentiments it requires.
Post a Comment