<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Well said.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/24/10 11:05 PM, E.Wayne Johnson wrote:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;">> ("Ecce homo."<br>
> <br>
> Some of the Christian and so-called Christian groups in the
USA are<br>
> well-meaning and many of them want nothing more than to be in
line<br>
> with the Truth. But along with the weekly serving of pap and
pablum<br>
> that they get is a shot of pseudopatriotic American jingoism
that<br>
> should come with a label warning about Death in the Kettle
for the<br>
> neoconservative venom that permeates the fare. But not every
knee in<br>
> the Church has bowed to Baal.<br>
> <br>
> While I dont agree 100% with this writer ("Come home,
America" seems<br>
> closer to the mark to me than the prolonged American
interventionism<br>
> he suggests), I do wish that this sort of talk was more
common than<br>
> the usual nonsense about the US having a Mandate from Heaven
to<br>
> Police the World.)<br>
> <br>
> *Time to End This War*<br>
> <br>
> *Soldiers are dying for a failed, arrogant, theologically
unjust, and<br>
> immoral war policy.* /By Jim Wallis/<br>
> <br>
> Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander in Afghanistan, was
pictured<br>
> in /The Washington Post /after his confirmation this summer
with a<br>
> broad smile and thumbs up, proclaiming, “We are all firmly
united in<br>
> seeking to forge unity of effort.”<br>
> <br>
> No, we’re not, general. In fact, it’s time to unite the
religious<br>
> community against the war in Afghanistan. The real issue is
not<br>
> replacing one general with another; it’s the fatally flawed
war<br>
> policy that increasingly resembles a similar policy during
the<br>
> Vietnam War. In February 1968, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong
attacks<br>
> throughout South Vietnam showed that U.S. political and
military<br>
> leaders’ optimistic pronouncements about the end of the war
being<br>
> near were not true. By then, it was clear to many that the
war was<br>
> not winnable, yet more than half of U.S. casualties in
Vietnam<br>
> occurred from that spring until the end of the war (35,000 of
the<br>
> total 58,000). I have walked the line at the Vietnam Memorial
wall<br>
> many times, with tears running down my face as I read the
names of my<br>
> generation who were killed. And the painful remorse is even
greater<br>
> when I remember that the majority of those who died were
killed after<br>
> we knew we would ultimately have to come home without
“winning.” I<br>
> recall President Nixon saying at one point that the reason
for<br>
> staying in Vietnam was so that we could come home “with our
heads<br>
> held high.” We didn’t. After 9/11, an international police
action to<br>
> bring the perpetrators of that horrible crime to justice
would have<br>
> been one thing. But to begin a war and then an occupation of<br>
> Afghanistan was the wrong policy, killing more Afghan
innocents than<br>
> American innocents who died on 9/11. It was then further
compromised<br>
> by the morally unjustifiable war in Iraq. When will we ever
learn?<br>
> The failed policies are all too familiar: a counterinsurgency<br>
> strategy requiring more and more troops, creating the
continued<br>
> presence of a large U.S. military force, increasing the
resentment<br>
> and hostility of the Afghan people at a foreign occupation,
trying to<br>
> impose a central government onto a tribal society, and
depending on<br>
> an incompetent and utterly corrupt political ruler and
regime. <br>
> Applying the usual metric for an effective anti-terrorism
policy, the<br>
> question has to be asked: Has our primarily military policy
in<br>
> Afghanistan and Iraq killed more terrorists than it has
recruited? We<br>
> know the answer—the math of terrorism is against us. And our
military<br>
> obsession has made the most important question impossible to
ask—it’s<br>
> even deemed unpatriotic to consider: How might we reduce and
defeat<br>
> the causes of terrorism in the first place? Nonmilitary
strategies<br>
> should lead the way, with the focus on humanitarian
assistance,<br>
> sustainable economic development, and international policing.
It<br>
> should be led by civilian nongovernmental organizations, both<br>
> faith-based and secular, that have been in the region for
years, are<br>
> locally rooted, and are more trusted by the people than the
U.S.<br>
> government using aid as an adjunct to military operations.
After<br>
> taking over the country, we do have a responsibility not to
simply<br>
> walk away. There are ethical and moral issues: protecting
Americans<br>
> from further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S.
servicemen and<br>
> women; defending women from the Taliban; supporting
democracy; and<br>
> saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war, to
name a<br>
> few. Effective development needs security. We should start in
areas<br>
> that are secure and then grow to additional parts of the
country,<br>
> providing only the security necessary to protect the
rebuilding. That<br>
> kind of peacekeeping would be more likely to gain the
international<br>
> support we need in Afghanistan, from Europe and even from
Arab and<br>
> Muslim countries. The current strategy will only lead to more<br>
> casualties—U.S. and Afghan—while strengthening popular
support for<br>
> the Taliban as an anti-occupation force. It is a strategy of
endless<br>
> war that is ultimately doomed to failure. A recent photo on
the front<br>
> page of /The New York Times /broke my heart. It showed the
family of<br>
> a serviceman just before he was redeployed to Afghanistan. He
was in<br>
> his fatigues, holding his 6-month-old son with a look of deep
pain on<br>
> his face, with his wife resting her head against his
shoulder. The<br>
> article told story after story about families being separated
by<br>
> repeated deployments. Soldiers who are fathers, mothers,
sons, and<br>
> daughters are dying for a failed, arrogant, theologically
unjust,<br>
> and, yes, immoral war policy. Of course, most of those dying
are not<br>
> the young people headed for our best universities and
successful<br>
> professional careers—they are rather the ones who have fewer
options,<br>
> or who see the military as their only option. Those with the
fewest<br>
> opportunities, and their families, are again the ones to
sacrifice<br>
> and suffer. It’s not right and it’s not fair. It’s time to
end this<br>
> war. Or should we just start building another memorial wall?<br>
</span><br>
</body>
</html>