tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post547195123893597332..comments2023-06-28T11:56:24.073-04:00Comments on The Lamb's War: Toward a Christian Response to the Crisis in LibyaMicah Baleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06849915973708989620noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-50509607972708198262011-03-21T12:44:59.161-04:002011-03-21T12:44:59.161-04:00"Policing" is what empires often call th..."Policing" is what empires often call their minor wars. I doubt the distinction you make is useful for several reasons:<br /><br />#1 - Inconsistency. We don't police every place that meets the reasons we say Libya needs policing. Why not Bahrain or Yemen? Why not Rwanda in the 90's? Why not the Sudan? These places are all in very similar situations to Libya in some cases much worse. I submit that the reason for going into Libya is not for Libya's sake but to do with economic and security interests of the policing states.<br /><br />#2 - Methods. You cannot police with missiles. If police surrounded a bank with robbers inside they would not shoot the place up on day 1 or even day 20. They would negotiate. They would cut off exits and put pressure on the robbers. They would ascertain the situation of hostages and do everything they could to avoid collateral damage. Even if deciding to take direct action with a swat team they would try to apprehend rather than kill suspects. They would not use cruise missiles. Even on an international scale, if this is police work, we should see a legal framework in place that allows us to hold the police accountable. You can't shoot the wrong person without consequences. You can't shoot first and ask questions later. You have to show probable cause. You have to have a warrant to go in someone's home. You have to make arrests following proper procedure and send them to the courts for a fair trial. None of these kinds of things are evident analogously in the Libya situation.<br /><br />This is long enough for now. Thanks for trying to think these things through.Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-86702788111837143522011-03-21T11:53:30.986-04:002011-03-21T11:53:30.986-04:00@Robin I, too, am torn by this entire situation, a...@Robin I, too, am torn by this entire situation, and I think it is good for those of us who are wrestling to confess our lack of clarity. We know that God has a will for this, and every, situation. I pray that we might see how we can best live into the peaceable kingdom that Christ is revealing and bringing to fruition.<br /><br />@Magdalena I do feel like I want to be part of a wrestling towards articulating a modern Friends understanding of the nature of war, peace and the legitimacy of the state's authority to use violence. At this point in time, Friends in many places seem to be locked into an ideological commitment to a strange sort of absolutist pacifism. I hope that we can break out of rigid intellectual positions and open ourselves to the way that the Spirit is calling us as Friends, and as a wider Church, today.<br /><br />@Bill That's very interesting; I didn't realize that FCNL had taken that position in the past. <br /><br />I hope I didn't unfairly denigrate FCNL's position. If I did, it was a fault in my understanding of their position. I respect FCNL greatly, and I want to work with them to articulate a Spirit-led response to violence and oppression - whether perpetrated by individuals, gangs or governments.<br /><br />I think that you're right that military intervention in Libya (now underway) will have unintended negative consequences. I don't know how to measure how this weighs against the negative consequences of non-intervention. I am the first to acknowledge that this is a complicated situation. The one thing I hope we do not do is to fall into unreflective ideological positions rather than truly wrestling with the ambiguity and difficulty of these realities.<br /><br />@Azure I think you're a bit confused. FCNL has come out in opposition of intervention in Libya. So, they seem to agree with your position.Micah Baleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849915973708989620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-90644929542141369152011-03-20T18:07:01.216-04:002011-03-20T18:07:01.216-04:00I wanted to comment about the fact that the US in ...I wanted to comment about the fact that the US in fact opted to use a blitz attack on Libya. This is not a peace testimony, it is war and FCNL should recognize this fact. The US spent more on this attack then is needed to fund PBS, Planned Patenthood, & other federal programs. We would be farther ahead by offering nonviolent solutions then by using weapons.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01966375544901815099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-51284210446905915882011-03-20T16:37:32.385-04:002011-03-20T16:37:32.385-04:00FCNL has traditionally taken the position that pol...FCNL has traditionally taken the position that police actions are legitimate and has time after time supported military intervention in countries by international forces under UN or other appropriate international body control. It has sometimes actively lobbied for such intervention. This position has been one of its most controversial among Friends, many of whom take the pacifist position. FCNL has always responded to these concerns by stating that Quakers are not historically pacifist, but rather the testimony is against war per se.<br /><br />So it makes sense that the FCNL statement (which I think you unfairly denigrated) focuses on the practicalities. Basically (while not breaking it down clearly this way) FCNL is saying 1) the action goes beyond what "police actions" traditionally do and crosses the line into war, and 2) the action will lead to bad results. I think they are "on target" in both areas.<br /><br />There is some rhetoric in the statement implying that FCNL opposes violence per se, which has never been its position. So that may be misleading. But that is not the main thrust of the statement.<br /><br />What are the limits of a police action is a difficult question. I don't see any sharp line between police action and war. It looks more like a continuum to me. I have always been more skeptical of military intervention as police action than FCNL has been.<br /><br />However, police actions (excluding here the Korean War, which is often stated to have been a UN police action) are generally stabilization measures, and the actual engagement of hostilities is usually limited to defense of the "police" forces. They have not traditionally involved active military engagement on one side of a conflict on behalf of another. While the UN resolution is not worded as doing that, there is no doubt that this is what is actually happening under its guise.Bill Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752443575410023776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-36657999115486202602011-03-18T15:03:22.075-04:002011-03-18T15:03:22.075-04:00I hope thee is willing to work toward articulating...I hope thee is willing to work toward articulating these responses, and I expect other Quakers will help thee. It could be the inspriation that the FCNL needs to make a stronger response. We will hold this in prayer. Let the Holy Spirit and our discernment as Christians work on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37106751.post-83071378555027682512011-03-18T14:14:08.054-04:002011-03-18T14:14:08.054-04:00I appreciate your post. I've been struggling ...I appreciate your post. I've been struggling with this whole situation in Libya. I do believe that as Christians we are firmly called to a nonviolent response in our witness. If we were a Christian nation (which we are not) then our witness could be accepting and protecting refugees, helping with nonviolent resistance etc. In the world as it is and with world expectations of our country as a promoter of democracy and freedom should we intervene to prevent slaughter? I am torn....Robin Vestalnoreply@blogger.com