Over at Sojourners, Brian McLaren—the emerging church and religious left’s foremost authority on foreign affairs, grand strategy, and defense policy—has weighed in on Afghanistan. In “Dear President Obama: An Open Letter on Afghanistan,” McClaren writes:
I am a loyal supporter of your presidency. I worked hard in the campaign and have never been as proud of my country as I was when we elected you.
I’m writing to ask you to find another way ahead in Afghanistan. I wrote a similar letter to President Bush when he was preparing for war in Iraq.
I believe now, as you and I both did then, that war is not the answer. Violence breeds violence, and as Dr. King said, you can murder a murderer, but you can’t murder murder. As the apostle Paul said, evil must be overcome with good, which means that violence and hate must be overcome with justice and love, not more of the same.
Obviously, you know things the rest of us don’t know. And you have pressures and responsibilities the rest of us don’t have. But we have based our lives on the moral principles that guided leaders like Dr. King, Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela. We share a profound faith in a loving, non-violent God. We share a commitment to live in the way of Jesus the peacemaker. That’s why escalation is not a change we can believe in.
Given McClaren’s commitment to nonviolent pacifism one would expect him not only to oppose escalation but to favor a unilateral military withdrawal as well. If “war is not the answer” then it is not the answer with or without the 40,000 additional troops requested by General McChrystal, General Petraeus, and the JCS. McLaren, in other words, is calling for unilateral military withdrawal from Afghanistan. In the current debate over troop strength in Afghanistan, McLaren’s proposed number is zero!
That’s just what you would expect from a pacifist, of course. But we should pause and take stock for a moment on McLaren’s comment: “I believe now, as you and I both did then, that war is not the answer.” How odd, since Obama repeatedly insisted during the campaign that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity” (and hence the good war) unlike Iraq, which was a “war of choice”, (which was Bush’s bad war). And back in March, Obama seemed to make good on his pledge to fight this “war of necessity” by substantially increasing the number of troops. In other words, throughout the campaign and early in his presidency, Obama gave every indication that he believed that war is the answer. The only debate was over the way in which the war would be waged—not whether it would be waged.
So how do we square Obama’s words and actions (“war is the answer”) with McLaren’s contrary assertion that for Obama “war is not the answer?”
It could be that despite his public stance, (1) Obama secretly believes that “war is not the answer” and privately relayed his true pacifist beliefs and commitment to unilateral military withdrawal from Afghanistan only to his “spiritual advisor,” Brian McLaren. In which case Obama was flat-out lying to the American people about Afghanistan being a war of necessity. Or, (2) Obama never really believed that “war is not the answer,” and the disconnect is because McLaren is (a) confused about Obama’s clearly stated position or (b) lying about it. Or, (3) McLaren is a half-baked moral and theological blowhard who gives lie to the common notion that the infamous “scandal of the evangelical mind” is the exclusive province of the religious right.
I’m leaning toward (3), but could be talked out of it if anyone has a better explanation for this nonsense.
October 23rd, 2009 | 9:09 am
#4: this president has, more than any other in living memory, made himself into the screen upon which all are invited to project their own views. It’s a form of wishful thinking, the kind that starts from the assumption that “since you and I are such kindred spirits, it follows that…” It’s just that when several million people do it at once, there’s bound to be some disappointment–and a drop in the poll numbers.
October 23rd, 2009 | 9:47 am
If #1 is true, then it is also true that McLaren communicated publicly something which was conveyed to him in confidence.
October 23rd, 2009 | 9:54 am
I vote for (3). One hardly need read farther than “I was never prouder of my country than when we elected you.” Elected an empty bag of wind who was known for very little in terms of real policy positions, but at least was known to be the most pro-abortion candidate for President in our history and in the 2008 campaign.
There’s plenty of evidence for (4) as well.
October 23rd, 2009 | 10:45 am
I hate to defend McLaren, but isn’t it at all possible that he fully realizes that Obama never held an anti-war position but is trying to summon some thus far unseen “better angel” of Obama’s to sway him away from his stated position? Maybe he’s just trying to guilt Obama, or at least publicly shame him, which would be a lot more “prophetic” than what McLaren has done so far.
October 23rd, 2009 | 6:43 pm
Factcheck for Mr. McLaren: Nelson Mandela was hardly “non-violent” when he didn’t have to be, and neither is God. Whatever your view on the appropriateness of war, at least don’t slander the Creator of the universe with a false compliment that is actually an insult, because it suggests that God’s true nature — being obviously not of the pacifist sort — is flawed.
If you must, you can try to distinguish the rights of God from the rights of men, but please don’t call him non-violent. Ananias and Saphira are my witnesses on this matter.
October 24th, 2009 | 9:28 am
Ah yes. Hypocrisy. Certainly First Things has none of that. You know-defenders of the papacy in the public square….except when it clashes with American conservatism. Novak, Wiegel, and the late Father Neuhaus want the Holy Father to speak out….but ignored what he said about Iraq. Weigel is even worse in his craven review on Catitas in Veritate at National Review earlier this year when he basically called for ignoring parts of that encyclical that he did not agree with. Given the choice between God and GOP, the Beltway Catholics all replied “The party, comrade!” Which is exactly what McLaren is doing here. Putting the Donkey and the Elephant before the Cross…..next up, McLaren and Weigel will be dancing before the Golden Calf of party….
October 26th, 2009 | 12:31 pm
People of goodwill can disagree on whether or not waging this war is a moral cause, can’t they?
In particular I am disappointed that even within a religious blog, partisan politics is held in higher esteem than a fearless moral inquiry.
Has anyone demonstrated that the war is necessary to our safety? Not that defeating the taliban would hold geopolitical benefits, but being absolutely necessary for our defense?
Has anyone shown that we have a reasonable chance of acheiving victory? Or for that matter, defined what victory is?
All I see are people piously intoning “decisiveness” and “strength” and even “saving face” as if they were moral pronouoncements.
We have thrown thousands of lives onto the bonfire for 8 years, and have so far nothing to show for it.
Wouldn’t the moral thing be to stop and reconsider what our goals are and if they are necessary and acheivable?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact