One could construct a parallel position to my own without invoking Jesus; however, I take the teachings and example of Jesus seriously (more seriously than I take doctrines or pronouncements of religious leaders). So, in various ways, do most of the residents of Kansas. That is common ground. I might also point out that for many Jews, Jesus is a respected teacher in the rabbinic tradition. It might surprise some readers that Jesus is a major prophet of Islam, given extensive print space in the Koran. A friend of mine has observed, “You can’t pin Jesus down!” I agree. I am skeptical toward anyone who purports to speak with authority the mind or will of God or Jesus. Because I understand that Jesus taught and modeled non-violence, I believe that simply to do no harm is the “gold standard” for the Christian. Because we are “hard-wired” to survive, I believe self-defense and, by extension, defense itself are not condemned (though not the “gold standard”). I often use the term “true defense” to differentiate defense from other motives that someone might want to misrepresent as defense. Some people use the scriptural passage about Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple as evidence that Jesus approves the use of deadly force against other human beings. I think that is a bit of a stretch. I think the passage is intended to legitimize righteous indignation. (Perhaps moral indignation on the part of right-thinking people might be the factor that counterbalances the “passionate intensity” of the fascists.)

My life has not been according to the “gold standard.” As a child during World War II, I had no reason to doubt the rightness of the war against the great evil that was at large in the world. (That was when I decided to be a soldier.) I could provide historical analysis, but will not. Suffice it to say that I believe our country has a collective clear conscience regarding the causes of World War II and actions in the immediate aftermath of World War II. We may have a right to a collective clear conscience regarding much or most of the prosecution of that war. I would not care to have been complicit in the fire-bombings of Dresden, or Tokyo, or Yokohama, or the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Marshall Plan following WWII, in which we humanely and benignly occupied the defeated countries, countered hunger and privation, and restored the infrastructure and institutions of those countries, will forever be a star in our collective crown. Compare that with the occupation of Iraq, in which we merely threw money at favored corporations, without standards or enforced performance and without achieving restoration. (This is not a criticism of our uniformed forces, or those of our allies, who have done their best. Further, one can be nearly certain that it was not a soldier who decided to invade Iraq in the first place.)

Even though I do not believe defense can be condemned, it has troubled me most of my life that the Augustinian “Just War Doctrine” may be unworkable. To confine the use of deadly force to defense, to limit the use of force only to that necessary to overcome the attack, and to prohibit in all cases targeting non-combatants or placing non-combatants at risk, may not be possible, considering human nature and the evidence of human history. Jesus may have had the problem nailed – that one must avoid violence entirely in order to stay off the “slippery slope.” It may be that humans will always use force beyond the necessary to insure that they will prevail. It may be true that humans and human governments will always tend to represent discretionary uses of force for their own purposes, as defense.

If we are to engage in defense, and to do it in accordance with Augustinian “Just War” doctrine, then we must carefully meter the application of force so that it is just enough to overcome the attack. When conflicts are protracted, then societal disruption is protracted, and human suffering is multiplied. It has been proposed that it is more humane to apply maximum force over a short duration, than to apply a limited or metered force over a long duration. I might concede this, if extremes such as fire-bombings or atomic bombings of civilian population centers are disqualified. There have been British actions that were dispassionately ruthless, that probably limited the totality of human suffering involved, and that were of limited duration. The problem may be that, though individual memories are short, communal memories are long. Seeds of hate and resentment, left to fester long-term, erupt later.

It was, of course, awkward for me, as a retired soldier (but necessary for me as a citizen), to stand on the Ellis County Courthouse steps and speak against the impending invasion of Iraq. (I had no criticism of the previous invasion of Afghanistan, as that was clearly defensive in pursuit of those who had attacked us so grievously, and who vowed to do it again.) It was clear from the start that the justifications for the invasion of Iraq were untruths and distortions. In the light of subsequent revelations, I think I have been vindicated.

In conclusion, I must say that I loved the Army. I am sad that I cannot recommend, without reservation, military service to young people. The reason is that, once one takes the oath as a military member, one must carry out one’s orders and assignments. Of course, one has the obligation under law to refuse to take part in atrocities; however, there is a huge gray area between defensive military action and an atrocity. As a sworn member of the military, one has no recourse to being utilized in that entire gray range. My feeling is that, when a patriotic young person volunteers or submits to conscription in order to defend this country we all love so well, it is a breach of faith to utilize him or her in discretionary or pre-emptive warfare, or in actual aggression against another country. I am not so naïve as to think that the US has never fabricated excuses to attack another country, or that we have never engaged in secret actions of a preemptive nature, or that we have never hired mercenaries to do unspeakable things for undisclosed reasons. However, we have values that have generally prevailed throughout our history. We as a people truly want to be the “good guys.” We truly want to wear the white hats. We want to be the helpers and rescuers, not those who initiate harm. I would love to be able soon to declare that we are “back on track.”