Final Word on Life

I very much doubt we will seeing anything like this again, at least for some years.

[Issued January 15, 2009, The White House]

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
by the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

     All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection.  On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world.  We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

     The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent.  My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs.  In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt.  I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial‑birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America.  Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

     America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science.  In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals.  We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

     The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women.  On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law.  We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause.  History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

     NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.  I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Comments

[therecusant]

I would rather have had President Bush march in the Walk for Life even once in his eight years in office than this document few will read.

[GL]

As many know here, I am not a big fan of our soon-to-be former president, believing he abandoned many core principles of conservatism. I give him credit, however, where credit is due. He has been the most pro-life president we have had since that sad day in January 1973 when our Supreme Court not only abdicated its constitutional responsibility to provide protection of the right to life, but prohibited the other branches of the federal government and the states from doing likewise. For that, I give President Bush my heart-felt thanks.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I gratefully thank President George W. Bush for getting Justice Roberts and Alito onto the Supreme Court.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.I would rather have had President Bush march in the Walk for Life even once in his eight years in office than this document few will read.<<<

No, you wouldn't. The security alone would ruin the event.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>He has been the most pro-life president we have had since that sad day in January 1973 when our Supreme Court not only abdicated its constitutional responsibility to provide protection of the right to life, but prohibited the other branches of the federal government and the states from doing likewise. <<<

Recognize also that his respect for the sanctity of human life extended far beyond our borders, and to matters beyond abortion. No President in our history has done as much for the people of Africa the George W. Bush. Through economic development programs, AIDS prevention and treatment programs, and malaria eradication programs, he has saved millions of lives, and gotten scant credit for it from people who talk a much better game about the plight of the poor and downtrodden. But in Africa, President Bush is considered a very great man, with an approval rating above 70%. Parents name their sons after him. Maybe he should go into African politics after next week.

[Kamilla]

Stuart,

Thank you for beating me to it on that one.

Kamilla

[Tony Esolen]

I am glad to be reminded of his fine record on Africa. On many things President Bush was all action and no talk. He has been about the worst politician -- as a politician, I mean -- in my lifetime. The man did what he believed was correct, and took his lumps from all directions. He never stuck his finger in the wind to determine what he was going to do. I admire that. Maybe someday his detractors will get around to admitting that, while they were thinking politics and playing politics, he wasn't thinking or playing politics at all. Sometimes I almost wish he had.

[therecusant]

Thanks for speaking for me, you're too kind. But I actually do. The event is routinely ignored by the media. Most Americans have no idea the march exists, much less the large numbers it draws. He didn't have to march, but speaking at the event would have been enormously beneficial. Politicians speak at large, outdoor events all the time. Precautions can be taken without "ruining" the event, IMO.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

James Kushiner: "I very much doubt we will seeing anything like this again, at least for some years."

Dear James, unfortunately, I think you're right.

Source: Obama to name Sunstein his regulatory czar

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama has tapped legal scholar Cass Sunstein as his administration's regulatory czar, a Democratic source said Friday.

Obama hired the Harvard law professor to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the administration's central approver of rules that has say over environmental policy, workplace safety issues and federal health care policies. All major agencies' rules will pass across Sunstein's desk, giving him great influence in the new administration.

His appointment was disclosed by a Democratic source who spoke on the condition of anonymnity to discuss personnel decisions.

Sunstein's office would be the main place Obama's new administration would look to reverse executive orders issued by President George W. Bush, who leaves office Tuesday. Obama aides and advisers have their eyes on Bush's policies on stem cell research and reproductive rights, but advisers have combed Bush's record and found more than 200 rules they would like to see reversed.

Independent and advocacy groups have been lobbying Obama aides aggressively to move quickly on the policies, perhaps as early as his first full day in office, Jan. 21.

Sunstein could be the face of that effort. He's a much-quoted expert on regulation and has testified about Supreme Court nominees; Harvard touted him as the most cited law professor in the country when officials hired him last year.

Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan — who is set to become Obama's solicitor general — called him the "pre-eminent legal scholar of our time" and an "individual superstar" in her February 2008 announcement that he would join the faculty. Aside from a short stint at the Justice Department, he has never worked in government.

Sunstein previously taught at the University of Chicago, where Obama also taught law part time.

He is married to Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign policy adviser who was forced to resign from the campaign when she called Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then an Obama rival, "a monster." Power has since rejoined Obama's circle, helping his transition team assess the State Department that Clinton would lead as secretary.

Sunstein earned two degrees from Harvard and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He also advised constitution writers in Poland, South Africa and Russia.

[Bill Daugherty]

Given the Left's penchant for co-opting the prolife vocabulary for its own ends, we may see National Sanctity of Human Life Days, 2010 thru 2014 but they will be a cruel counterfeit of this one.

[Matt L]

I am rather disappointed by this, actually. The President had eight years and uses his executive privilege to establish a day? In the past the same privilege has been used to free the slaves, it is certainly within the realm of the President's power to make a declaration protecting the rights of the unborn.

[GL]

>>>In the past the same privilege has been used to free the slaves, it is certainly within the realm of the President's power to make a declaration protecting the rights of the unborn.<<<

No. No it is not, at least not beyond what President Bush has done. We live in a constitutional democratic-republic with three branches of government. The President is not a dictator; he is an executive.

[Matt L]

GL, I beg to differ, though I should clarify, it is within the authority of the President to issue an Executive Order (not privilege). It could be to the effect of granting full constitutional rights for the unborn. This isn't the making of a new law, but rather ensuring that the constitution is preserved, protected, and defended with regards to the unborn. Furthermore, as established in Marbury v. Madison, "all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Again, by Executive Order, the President would be within his power (according to Article 4 Section 4 of the constitution) to declare that Roe v. Wade overstepped its bounds by legislating via judicial fiat.

[Stuart Koehl]

Matt L is not much of a constitutional scholar, is he?

[GL]

Well, let's put it this way, Matt would not be likely to win the book award in my class.

I guess he'll have no constitutional objections to the slew of executive orders about to be signed in the coming days and weeks. (Article 4, sec. 4, you know.)

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Matt L. should have read the article above on Cass Sunstein.

Anyways, here's a good message by Touchstone editor Russell Moore:

Why I Hate Sanctity of Human Life Sunday
Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Don’t get me wrong, the call to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ is a joy. Yesterday I pronounced a godly young couple husband and wife. This morning I baptized a brother in Christ. Nothing is more thrilling than opening the Word of God to the people of Christ week-by-week. But it provoked my spirit this morning to preach the Sanctity of Human Life Sunday emphasis this morning.

I don’t hate Sanctity of Human Life Sunday because I think it, somehow, unbiblical. No, indeed. The entire canon throbs with God’s commitment to the fatherless and to the widows, his wrath at the shedding of innocent blood. I don’t hate it because I think it’s inappropriate. Just as every Lord’s Day should be Easter, with the proclamation of the Resurrection of Jesus, and Christmas, with the announcement of the Incarnation, so every Lord’s Day should highlight the worth and dignity of human life.

I hate Sanctity of Human Life Sunday because I’m reminded that we have to say things to one another that human beings shouldn’t have to say. Mothers shouldn’t kill their children. Fathers shouldn’t abandon their babies. No human life is worthless, regardless of skin color, age, disability, economic status. The very fact that these things must be proclaimed is a reminder of the horrors of this present darkness.

This morning as I opened the Bible to preach, I looked out and caught the eye of my sons. I prayed that their children wouldn’t have to hear a sermon against abortion and euthanasia. I prayed that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren would grow up in an age when abortion is, as the Feminists for Life organization put is some years ago, not just illegal but unthinkable. I prayed for my (yet to be conceived but not yet to be conceived of) great-granchildren that a Sanctity of Human Life Sunday would seem as unnecessary to them as a Reality of Gravity Emphasis Sunday.

I hate Sanctity of Human Life Sunday because I’m reminded that as I’m preaching there are babies warmly nestled in wombs who won’t be there tomorrow. I’m reminded that there are children, maybe even blocks from my pulpit, who’ll be slapped, punched, and burned with cigarettes before nightfall. I’m reminded that there are elderly men and women languishing away in loneliness, their lives pronounced to be a waste.

But I also love Sanctity of Human Life Sunday when I think about the fact that I serve a congregation with ex-orphans all around, adopted into loving families. I love to reflect on the men and women who serve every week in pregnancy centers for women in crisis. And I love to see men and women who have aborted babies find their sins forgiven, even this sin, and their consciences cleansed by Christ.

We’ll always need Christmas. We’ll always need Easter. But I hope, please Lord, someday soon, that Sanctity of Human Life Day is unnecessary.

[Ethan C.]

That's a good article by Russell Moore. Maybe Sanctity of Life Sunday will go the way of earlier commemorations of the evils of slavery.

On the other hand, given the state of the world, maybe we should instead bring back those commemorations.

[Dan Martin]

"On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person * , including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world."

* Excepting, of course, if that person happens to reside in a country determined by me to be "enemy." In that case, of course, our "way of life" trumps the sanctity of any life that might happen to catch a bullet or a fragment of bomb shrapnel.

I will believe Christians are standing for the sanctity of life when, and only when, they finally recognize that our wealth, our energy, and our national pride must also be subordinated to the sacredness of the life of anyone created in the image of God. Until then, you're just replacing one form of idolatrous human sacrifice with another.

[Nick]

Dan,

Let's take your premise at face value. That is American's are hard-bitten perpetrators of violence world-wide. Are we better off with abortion? Isn't it a greater vice since it happens here with all of our "wealth, our energy, and our national pride"?

Might I go so far as to suggest that the US isn't keen on ruining the sanctity of life with a piece of shrapnel? When engaged in war you have to assume that your side is "good" otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time. As Chesterton pointed out, bigotry is not thinking that the other guy is wrong, its not being willing to figure out how he might have gone wrong.

[Stuart Koehl]

Actually, Dan's just being stupid, so there is no point dignifying his inanity with a serious answer.

But, while I have a moment, let us not forget the service George Bush did for the cause of human life through his much reviled (on both sides) executive order on embryonic stem cell research. This banned federal funding for ESC research except for that involving a limited number of cell lines that were already in use.

On the anti-life side, this was decried as government interference in scientific research (which must never happen, unless to further the cause of the Kyoto Treaty); on the pro-life side, Bush was demonized for not banning all ESC research outright. In this, the right to life movement once again failed to take into account what was and was not politically feasible, thus making "perfect" the enemy of "good". Put another way, there are some among us who would rather half all of nothing than half of something.

An outright ban on ESC research would merely have provoked Congress to pass a law overriding the executive order, while the limited ban (far more effective than generally credited) had just enough political support in Congress and among the public to prevent such a vote.

This bought us valuable time. In the intervening years, ESC in other countries has turned up a dry hole, while adult stem cell research has moved from strength to strength and has now developed to the point of rendering ESC irrelevant. In other words, by thinking long, and working within the realm of the possible, George Bush won this war--and scant thanks he received on the pages of this blog, if I remember correctly. Some of you would rather be right than president, but we had a president who did as much as he could to further that which he saw as right, and if that meant he had to make compromises on the margins that did not meet with your approval, well, you didn't have to make the call, did you?

[GL]

Are you missing a good row in the last few days, Stuart? I kind of like the edifying nature of a less hostile exchange of ideas. Let's hope no one takes the bait.

[Stuart Koehl]

Who was baiting, me or Dan?

[margaret]

Dan was gassifying; you were baiting.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Dan was gassifying; you were baiting.<<<

Is gassification the same as inanity? Or is it more like truculent stupidity?

[Dan Martin]

Maybe I was gassifying, maybe I am just stupid, but in answer to Nick's more reasonable comment, no. I'm not suggesting Americans are "hard-bitten perpetrators of violence world-wide." What I am suggesting is that an argument against abortion (which, I acknowledge without reservation, can legitimately be criticized on numerous fronts) on the basis of the "sanctity of life" rings hollow when its strongest proponents (of the argument, that is) do not show equal revulsion for other infringements on life's sanctity. The unborn life is sacred--this I grant. The already-born life is also sacred. . .more sacred than national pride, "freedom," or any other competing (temporal) ideal. Otherwise, it's not "life" for which you're fighting, it is some other moral objective which--legitimate or not--must be argued on its own merits.

I don't expect too many readers/commenters here have much truck with Jim Wallis, but his argument (by no means his alone or first) for a "consistent life ethic" is what I'm talking about.

So sure, oppose abortion if that's the evil you wish to focus on. I'm never going to claim it's a good thing, either. But don't do it on "sanctity of life" terms unless you are more consistent in your view of just whose lives are sacred.

[Dan Martin]

Oh, and further from Nick:

"When engaged in war you have to assume that your side is "good" otherwise the whole thing is a waste of time."

Precisely. And since that assumption is fundamentally flawed in a fallen world, qed.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> The already-born life is also sacred. . .more sacred than national pride, "freedom," or any other competing (temporal) ideal. Otherwise, it's not "life" for which you're fighting, it is some other moral objective which--legitimate or not--must be argued on its own merits.<<<

This is so pretentious as to defy categorization.

[GL]

Closing the italics.

Dan,

Just so that I am clear on your point: Do you reject the proposition that some wars are just? That is, is there ever a case in which a nation is justified in going to war?

[Nick]

GL,

I'd go further. Dan's comments imply that there is nothing worth fighting for, since it might be a mistake.

[Dan Martin]

Thanks for closing the italics; I wished for an "edit" option as soon as I saw it. Sorry!

GL, no simple "yes" or "no," but:

1) Yes, I do reject the proposition that any war is "just," although I do qualify that I am unable to see a nonviolent way to stop certain violence-in-process (e.g. Dharfur, Rwanda, Nazi Germany) and therefore have to concede that a great injustice may tragically be the only way to stop an even greater one. This may be an inconsistency in my position or a failure of my imagination--I honestly have not sorted that out to my own satisfaction, let alone anyone else's.

2) Having said (1), and even for those who would hold (as I do not) to Augustine's "just war" criteria, I would submit that Christians--in particular American Christians in the 20th/21st centuries--have been remiss in failing carefully and critically to apply those criteria to the wars our own nation has waged.

3) Even if a war may be justified for a nation--which is of necessity a fallen institution--to wage, that does not (necessarily) grant the Christ-follower license to participate in the waging of that war because we are answerable to a different standard (the way of Jesus, which "the nations" do not acknowledge). The right of self-defense, universally accepted among nations, does not absolve the believer of the higher standard of not returning evil for evil, nor of the obligation to weigh the morality of his/her own actions without regard to who may have ordered them.

4) In the vein of my allegation about the sacredness of life, even if we accept the necessity of some wars, they must (appealing again to Augustine among others) be truly taken as the absolute last resort (which I maintain we have not done), and we should grieve every life lost--including those of our "enemies"--and we should be scrupulously careful to avoid both "collateral damage" and any action (e.g. torture, rendition, mission creep) which adds more death than minimally necessary to achieve the objective that was already scrutinized in (2) above. Here again, I maintain the "sanctity of life" movement fails miserably.

5) But finally and most importantly, "just" or not, I maintain that warfare is inimical to the very nature of Jesus himself, and to the standard to which he calls us. And while you may not agree with my conclusions in working out the statement, I hope you would agree that Jesus' standard has got to trump any other. . .

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'd go further. Dan's comments imply that there is nothing worth fighting for, since it might be a mistake.<<<

And, of course, if there is nothing work fighting for, there is nothing worth dying for; and if there is nothing worth dying for, there is nothing worth living for, so let's end it all right now, shall we?

>>>But finally and most importantly, "just" or not, I maintain that warfare is inimical to the very nature of Jesus himself, and to the standard to which he calls us.<<<

True enough, as far as it goes. The Eastern Christian perspective is all killing involves hamartia, which is a falling short of the mark. On the other hand, the Church has always maintained a dynamic tension between the pacifistic ideal and the necessity, in a fallen world, to take up arms to defend the weak and the innocent from the depredations of the strong and wicked. Even Jesus himself, in one of his last instructions to his Disciples, instructs them to sell their robes and buy a sword; is that merely to decorate an empty space over the mantel? No war can be "just", in the sense of conforming the the life of the Kingdom of God; but some wars are necessary, while we are living in this world, in order to defeat that which is evil. And it is a very sorry man indeed who is unable to discern between a good cause and a bad one, but rather places a pox on both houses rather than risk moral contamination. This is an abdication of moral responsibility, not a more noble or elevated form of it.

Pacifism can be, at best, a personal decision, not one that can be imposed on others, which is why the Church does NOT agree with Dan on this subject: Jesus' standard (or rather, Dan's interpretation of that standard) does not trump all others, in part because Jesus did not leave us with an absolute precept in this area, but rather several contradictory teachings which indicate something in the realm of prudential judgment.

I also reiterate, in light of the various conditions that Dan puts upon the use of force, that he is not a serious person who has given any serious consideration to the moral complexities of the world in which we live, but rather is someone content with preening and posturing, unsustained by facts, in the firm knowledge that, defended by hard men from the wolves at the door, he will never be called upon to live out the ideal he is willing to impose on others/

[Farmer Ben]

I find it all together humorous that a blog that is apparently linked with Christianity contains humans actually insulting other human beings. Simply stunning.... I encourage those who need to use that kind of rhetoric to either stop calling themselves Christians or start displaying some Christlike qualities.

" And, of course, if there is nothing work fighting for, there is nothing worth dying for; and if there is nothing worth dying for, there is nothing worth living for, so let's end it all right now, shall we?"

Of course there is Jesus did it on the cross. To first and foremost buy into the myth of redemptive violence is to buy into the exact system Jesus not only said His Kingdom counter to but to completely miss the point of cross in the first place.

To think that Christianity is also pacifism is also ridiculous. Non-violence is not pacifism it is to take a non-violent action and use it to expose the evil for what it actually is. A proper exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount would prove this point.

To hold that human life is sacred, which it is since all humans are created in the image of God and that is not a truth we should take lightly thus we be judged for it, but to also affirm that there is a time to take the life of an image bearing human is knows as cognitive dissonance in epistemology.

That being said, we as Christ followers may very well need to acknowledge that a nation's responsibility is very different then a Christ followers; But to say a citizen of the Kingdom of God, whose responsibility is to embody the future Kingdom, a Kingdom where nation doesn’t take up sword against nation and swords are beaten into plowshares etc can affirm and support the taking of an image bearers life is counter to the person we know in Jesus.
Jesus affirmed that if he wanted he could take the whole system by angelic force but that is not the way his Kingdom works. We have to wrestle with that truth and let the liberating work of the cross free us from the myth of redemptive violence.
Those who resort to violence have lost their imagination.
“(A)nd having DISARMED the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, TRIUMPHING over them on the cross” Col 2.15

The way of the cross is sacrificial love. May it be once again in our culture as we wrestle with what it means to be the people of whom the Lord Jesus Christ is Sovereign.

[GL]

So, Dan, you are a husband of one and a father of three. Let's suppose you are confronted with a man who is threatening to kill your wife and children and you have every reason to believe he will do so unless you stop him and let's say that because of his action, size and weapons, they only way you can stop him from killing your family is to kill him. What do you do? What do you believe God would have you to do?

Let's suppose that instead of it being your family, you are a police officer and you are confronted with such a situation. What do you do? What do you believe God would have you to do?

[Aleksei]

I find it all together humorous that a blog that is apparently linked with Christianity contains humans actually insulting other human beings.

What about St Nicholas and St Jerome? Or even St Stephen's testimony to the Pharisees? A timid and impotent constitution is not the sine qua non of holiness.

The way of the cross is sacrificial love. May it be once again in our culture as we wrestle with what it means to be the people of whom the Lord Jesus Christ is Sovereign.

Yes, of course. And your philosophy is perfectly willing to lovingly sacrifice people suffering under tyranny. Y'know, I'm not exactly gung-ho about the Iraq war, but the left's arguments lack the huevos of substantial moral teaching.

[Farmer Ben]

A challenge is all together different then an insult. Again the truth of humans in the image of God is a potent one and needs to be acknowledged.

So let's use our imagination about this and also the question of a police officer / self defense. Is it possible to do so without lethal force? If we as creative image bearing humans instead of spending our billions of dollars on lethal weapons spend that time, money and energy on ways to accomplish goals like removing violent dictators, the defense of our nation and others as well etc but did so non-lethally, that would truly be revolutionary.

No we may argue all day that isn't possible. I am not qualified to make that claim that it is or isn't possible. However I am not going to accept that lethal force is the only way to defend the powerless. As a matter of fact I would contend to do so non-lethally is the ultimate demonstration of true power.

[bonobo]

>>>.I would rather have had President Bush march in the Walk for Life even once in his eight years in office than this document few will read.<<<

No, you wouldn't. The security alone would ruin the event.

That's the best argument I've heard for his non-attendance. While greatly admiring the things Fmr. Pres. Bush did in office from day one for the pro-life cause, I had tended to find his absence from the Walk troubling. I do still think he could have phoned in some remarks, as Reagan did.

[Dan Martin]

So, Dan, you are a husband of one and a father of three. Let's suppose you are confronted with a man who is threatening to kill your wife and children and you have every reason to believe he will do so unless you stop him and let's say that because of his action, size and weapons, they only way you can stop him from killing your family is to kill him. What do you do? What do you believe God would have you to do?

Let's suppose that instead of it being your family, you are a police officer and you are confronted with such a situation. What do you do? What do you believe God would have you to do?

Well, this is one of the oldest straw men in the book, thrown against everyone claiming Christian peacemaking. That said, I HAVE thought about it, and the honest answer is, in the exact hypothetical situation you describe, I do not know what I would do. I might very well use lethal force, because I realized many years ago that it's all well and good for me to be willing to die for my own convictions, but a different matter entirely for me to let somebody else die for my convictions (presuming I actually have a choice in the matter, of course). But your hypothetical also has to include that I'm in a position to kill the assailant, but no other option is available to me. That pretty well presupposes that you set up the situation where I miraculously happened upon the scene with a loaded gun in my hand. . .kinda tough since the only gun I own is locked up and I don't have ammo for it. It also presupposes that I can get the drop on our hypothetical bad guy without him seeing me and taking a shot at one or more of my family first, that he's not going to return fire and take me out (or maybe get me before I can hit him), etc. etc.

If we're going to string hypotheticals together, why not add that if I don't kill him today, he would've been confronted by an evangelist who would bring him to Christ tomorrow, so by killing him today I send him to hell, while if I let him send me or my wife to heaven today, he'd be right with God tomorrow? Is my temporal life worth another's eternal damnation? How far do you want to take this? "Even the very wise cannot see all ends," and I do not presume to count myself among the very wise.

But you're missing my point. I was not talking about personal self defense, and in my earlier post I explicitly acknowledged the possibility of the need to do an injustice in order to prevent an even greater injustice. This certainly can be implied to apply to the police officer, whose rules of engagement are, after all, pretty tight compared to those of the soldier.

But that's not what war is. War is a far grander enterprise involving the taking of lives, not because they are doing anything in particular, but because of the side they are on. It also involves considerable destruction of both life and property simply because they happened to get in the way. And posturing aside, it is a very rare war (if any) throughout history for which a bright, straight line can be drawn from the actions taken, to a specific violence-in-process against innocents, which that war stopped or attempted to stop. I return again to the application of Augustine's "Just War" criteria to (for example) the current conflict in Iraq; a situation in which the majority of non-American church bodies in the world concluded the standard for a just war was emphatically NOT reached. Nevertheless among far too many "pro-life" American christians I heard unqualified support for the action, and absolutely no discussion about the application of just war criteria to test it. To American Christendom, it seems that the only criterion for a just war is that it's ordered by a Republican president. Nobody, not the most saintly of believers, deserves that kind of pass.

Finally, Stuart argues that "the Church" does not agree with me. While it's probably true that a majority of Christians do not agree with me, the church is far from monolithic on this point, either now or in history (I just read some fascinating stuff on this by Tertullian and Hippolytus yesterday). Unless you exclude from "the Church" all who come to a different conclusion than you, that statement probably deserves some degree of qualification.

[Aleksei]

Or maybe you don't kill him today, and he goes on to destroy more lives?

You evaded GL's question and ended up indicting yourself. No sane person would adopt such ineffectual criteria for making moral decisions.

[Aleksei]

No we may argue all day that isn't possible. I am not qualified to make that claim that it is or isn't possible. However I am not going to accept that lethal force is the only way to defend the powerless. As a matter of fact I would contend to do so non-lethally is the ultimate demonstration of true power.

Um...what? Stop making sense, man. Or start. I dunno.

But maybe you're right. Maybe we can use economic sanctions and diplomacy. Someone should try that.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I do still think he could have phoned in some remarks, as Reagan did.<<<

One of George Bush's shortcomings was his failure to understand the importance of talking the talk as opposed to just walking the walk. In total contrast to his liberal critics, Bush was totally unconcerned about looking good or feeling good, but merely concentrated on doing good and being good. As a result, he was misunderestimated not only by his enemies, but by his friends as well. It might have been nice for Bush to call in a few remarks, but in his mind, people should have been watching what he did rather than listening to what he said. It actually takes a combination of deeds and words to be a transformational leader. It is not enough merely to implement the right policies and set a good example: men also need inspirational words and gestures.

But, as Obama is going to find out very shortly, inspirational words and slogans get you only so far in the absence of effective action.

By the way, I was quite serious about the security. Unless you live in Washington, you have no idea what it is like.

[GL]

It is not a straw man and I know exactly what I would do. I would kill the man and do so believing fully that I was doing God's will. I will say emphatically that a man who would not do whatever it takes to defend his wife and children from a murder is not worthy of the titles husband and father. So you don't have a gun; use what you do have and either kill the man who is threatening your family or die trying.

War (if justified) is national self-defense. I am appalled that the possible justifications you list are for us to go to places like Rwanda. What has been happening there is a tragedy of immensity, but our national interests are not at stake. What justifies war is a threat to a nation's survival and/or the lives of its people. For instance, I don't believe the American Revolution was justified. I do believe WWII, in which we were attacked, was.

My examples were not straw men because, in fact, that is what a national leader must decide in some cases. Whatever faults may be properly assigned to G.W. Bush (and as many here know, I believe he was an awful president in many respects), he would have deserved impeachment for abdication of his duty and violation of his oath of office had he not sought to track down and kill those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks and the role of the Taliban fully justified our war in Afghanistan. I'll let others defend Iraq.

If you truly believe in the sanctity of INNOCENT human life, you would defend your family from a murderer, even if, God forbid, you have to kill him. If a president truly believes in the sanctity of INNOCENT human life, he will lead the nation into a war when a foreign nation bombs a naval base or terrorists fly planes into buildings in our nation killing more than 3000 people. To stand around and watch the murders unfold while doing nothing or whimpering like a whipped dog is not Christian.

When reading your Bible, might I suggest that you read the historical books in the Old Testament in which God COMMANDED Israel to go to war and in which He COMMANDED death as the penalty for certain offenses. Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

So, to get to the point. A Christian can AND SHOULD, both oppose abortion and support JUST wars. To refuse to do either is, to that extent, a refusal to uphold the sanctity of INNOCENT human life.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Is it possible to do so without lethal force? <<<

Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. But understand that the international arena is not like policing a neighborhood or city. International law is self-enforcing; states are sovereign, and don't have to obey. And the world is populated by many evil men, who are not at all concerned with man being made in God's image, or with Christ's injunction to care for the neediest among us--they only care about power, the getting of it, the increasing of it, and the keeping of it. And they stop at nothing to do so.

Again I turn to the example of Darfur. I have heard people like Dan bleating about Darfur ad nauseum for a decade. "A Call to Conscience", says a banner on the outside of a Presbyterian church I pass every day. Well, are our consciences sensitive enough, yet? For a decade, there have been resolutions, economic and diplomatic sanctions, and still the killing continues because some people won't recognize a simple truth: it won't stop until the people who are doing the killing, and the people who allow them to kill, are themselves killed or captured. They are the "root cause" of the problem, and the refusal of the international community to remove them, by force if necessary, is the moral scandal.

Dan gives himself a couple of very dubious bolt holes. First, he insists that force can only be used as a last resort. No, sorry, sometimes force is and ought to be the first resort, for the simple reason that procrastination and refusal to grasp the nettle brings you to the same place later rather than sooner, but by that time the bad guys have had time to prepare, and the result is significantly more carnage than would have resulted had force been used earlier. See, for example, what would have happened had the French and British opposed Hitler's reoccupation of the Rheinland, instead of waiting four years and opposing his invasion of Poland. "Last resort" also has a nice, open-ended sound to it: there is always SOMETHING more someone OUGHT to do before resorting to force, no matter how ridiculous or improbable. The last resort clause can thus be used to postpone conflict indefinitely, allowing the bad guys, in effect, to get away with their evil schemes.

Dan's second bolt hole is the plea of ignorance: We can't know the ultimate outcome of everything in God's plan, therefore we should do nothing lest we interfere with what God has in store for the malefactors of the world (I like the specious "He might repent" argument--especially the way it ignores what God might have had in store for the bad guy's victims--it makes the bad guy into an instrument of God, and God an accessor before the fact to evil). Taken to its logical extreme, we can never know the ultimate ramifications of ANYTHING, therefore we should do NOTHING. We have a perfect excuse for moral and personal paralysis. Just stay home, pull the blankets up over your head, and pray hard, so that you never get exposed, never take moral risks, never put your soul in jeopardy--and never do anything to right the wrongs of the world, either. But hey, if it works for you.

>>>Finally, Stuart argues that "the Church" does not agree with me. While it's probably true that a majority of Christians do not agree with me, the church is far from monolithic on this point, either now or in history (I just read some fascinating stuff on this by Tertullian and Hippolytus yesterday).<<<

As usual with people who take this line with me, Dan exhibits some highly selective reading comprehension skills. I noted that the Church holds its pacifism in dynamic tension with its recognition of the need to use force in protection of the weak and innocent. The Church has never been exclusively pacifistic, nor was Jesus, it seems, solely devoted to non-violence. Dan's choice of two ante-Nicene Fathers is instructive. Perhaps he needs to examine the situation of Christians and the ethos of the Roman Empire in the second and third centuries AD, and compare them to the position of Christians and the ethos of the Empire, say, from the fifth century onward. Context is important, and Dan usually ignores it.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is not a straw man and I know exactly what I would do. I would kill the man and do so believing fully that I was doing God's will. I will say emphatically that a man who would not do whatever it takes to defend his wife and children from a murder is not worthy of the titles husband and father. So you don't have a gun; use what you do have and either kill the man who is threatening your family or die trying.<<<

I entirely concur with GL, though afterwards, I would mourn the necessity of killing, recognizing the damage that it has done to the one I killed, to my own soul, and to the cosmos itself. Killing is always to be regretted, no matter how necessary, and the canons of the Eastern Church make clear that even justified killing requires a period of fasting and repentance. But that would not stop me from pulling the trigger again, in the same situation.

[David Gray]

>the canons of the Eastern Church make clear that even justified killing requires a period of fasting and repentance

Obedience to God does not require repentance...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Obedience to God does not require repentance...<<<

Our objective is not obedience, but perfection. I don't suppose you've ever heard of a guy named Basil the Great?

[Rob G]

I am no pacifist, and I don't subscribe to the 'Bush lied, people died' understanding of the Iraq war. I was a fairly strong supporter of the war at the beginning, but eventually I came to view it as a mess which we unwittingly created, and therefore had a responsibility to stay and help clean up.

IMO, Dan and his critics here are both partially right. He's right in the fact that many pro-life Americans jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon uncritically, and seemed to dismiss the civilian deaths and 'collateral damage' involved without much concern.

On the other hand, I believe that Stuart, GL, etc. are correct in their critique of Dan's attempt to universalize his pacifism in the defense of a 'consistent life ethic.' It is an incorrect application of the Sermon on the Mount to take its exhortations to individuals and extend them to nations.

By the way, Dan, I agree in principle with 4 out of your 5 points -- but I find No. 3 problematic with regard to its faulty application of the Sermon on the Mount as described above. Also, I'd say that the efforts of such left-leaning Christians as Jim Wallis and the 'Emergent' crowd to establish this consistent life ethic has the effect of downplaying the importance of abortion, rather than raising the awareness of other "life issues." My gut feeling is that these folks frankly do not see abortion as that big of a deal and are willing to move it down the scale of values in order to get their pet "social justice" issues a little more airtime. While castigating Evangelicals for being too hooked into the GOP party line, they don't seem to notice that their take on things looks a hell of a lot like the platform of the Democratic party.

[David Gray]

>IMO, Dan and his critics here are both partially right. He's right in the fact that many pro-life Americans jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon uncritically, and seemed to dismiss the civilian deaths and 'collateral damage' involved without much concern.

Never in the history of warfare has such care been taken to minimize civilian casualties. If you want dismissal of civilian deaths and collateral damage have a look at the liberation of Belgium and France in WWII. Nobody gets too concerned about that.

[Rob G]

"Never in the history of warfare has such care been taken to minimize civilian casualties"

I think that the (late) residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have something to say to that.

[David Gray]

>I think that the (late) residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have something to say to that.

They are part of the Iraq war how?

[Rob G]

They're not -- but neither are Belgium and France. Care to clarify?

[David Gray]

>They're not -- but neither are Belgium and France. Care to clarify?

Well here goes:

Rob: IMO, Dan and his critics here are both partially right. He's right in the fact that many pro-life Americans jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon uncritically, and seemed to dismiss the civilian deaths and 'collateral damage' involved without much concern.

Dave: Never in the history of warfare has such care been taken to minimize civilian casualties. If you want dismissal of civilian deaths and collateral damage have a look at the liberation of Belgium and France in WWII. Nobody gets too concerned about that.

What I'm stating is that during the Iraq war unprecedented care was/is taken to minimize civilian casualties. People attacking the US effort on that score are utterly lacking in historical perspective. Whereas the US war effort in WWII killed substantial numbers of civilians, including in allied countries such as France and Belgium, without any significant comment either then or now. The only part of the Allied effort to draw any comment, and that nearly entirely after the fact, was the strategic bombing effort, which has no real counterpart in the current war. Consequently one cannot take too seriously criticisms of the current US effort in regard to its attempts to minimize civilian casualties.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Stuart Koehl: "I also reiterate, in light of the various conditions that Dan puts upon the use of force, that he is not a serious person who has given any serious consideration to the moral complexities of the world in which we live, but rather is someone content with preening and posturing, unsustained by facts, in the firm knowledge that, defended by hard men from the wolves at the door, he will never be called upon to live out the ideal he is willing to impose on others."

Some things in life are priceless. (Visa Commercial)

Thank you Stuart for saying what needed to be said to a preening, posturing poser who judgmentally imposes his own self-righteous ideals upon others.

[Joe Long]

Rob, read closly. He's saying that the Iraq war compares FAVORABLY with WWII for civilian casualties and collateral damage by our side, and he's absolutely right.

Me, I've never gotten the abortion/war comparison anyway: kill enemies, not unborn babies. Where's the big disconnect there? Try hard to avoid killing non-enemies by accident; but ban killing them (born or unborn) on purpose, at war or even in a hospital bed. Surely even the pagans got that concept?

[Rob G]

What you say may or may not be accurate, David, but my point was the fact that supporters of the war often expressed a somewhat callous indifference to the fact that innocents were losing their lives. I don't know how many times I heard on talk radio the idea that, "Yes, it's sad that civilians are inadvertently being killed, but to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs" etc., etc.

[Rob G]

"Thank you Stuart for saying what needed to be said to a preening, posturing poser who judgmentally imposes his own self-righteous ideals upon others."

Physician, heal thyself. I'll take a principled dove over an unprincipled hawk any day of the week.

"He's saying that the Iraq war compares FAVORABLY with WWII for civilian casualties and collateral damage by our side, and he's absolutely right."

Yes, his follow-up post made this clear. On that ground, as I said, I'd tend to agree with him and would applaud any efforts on our part to lessen civilian casualties. But as I said above, that really wasn't my point.

[GL]

>>>Our objective is not obedience, but perfection.<<<

When we are talking about obedience to God, aren't they the same thing?

[Joe Long]

Okay, I follow it now. But...a soldier can hardly do his job without a certain cultivated distance from its unavoidable horrors - no more than a doctor can, in fact. Give me a doc with a morbid sense of humor and a serious Hippocratic oath, any day of the week. But an abortionist - I don't care if he's callous, or if he cries in his beer about it each night...

It's the same line that divides the Israelis and Hamas: regrettable accidental homicide, versus murder (with or without crocodile tears).

Now that I think about it, neither abortionists nor Islamic terrorists really bother with the crocodile tears - but if they did, it wouldn't change anything...

[Dan Martin]

Actually it may surprise a lot of you that I am impressed by much of what's being said here--including by Stuart, though I wish he could get past his unnecessary ad hominems and debate the issues. If you carefully look at what I said, I think you'll find that I'm allowing for a lot more grace and uncertainty than I am trying to impose my "liberal" views on you "conservatives," much less simply to "preen and posture." I would associate those latter terms with an attitude of moral superiority (such as, for example, the superiority one feels over the girl with the unwanted pregnancy?), as though I have it all down and am somehow holy. I most categorically am not, though I desire to be. I had hoped that my acknowledgment of my own uncertainties, but my abiding conviction that Jesus demands a different way, could at least be seen as an honest attempt at discipleship, not just posturing.

I appreciate, for example, Stuart's acknowledgment that while killing our hypothetical assailant may be necessary, even within God's will, that it should be contemplated with grief and repentance. That is a sober view and one I respect highly. And my own citing of Dharfur and Rwanda was not intended to be a call to some sort of nonviolent action, but rather the sort of exception where violent, stop-this-now action may in fact be necessary. . .and we aren't doing it.

Stuart, I also understand what you're saying about force as a last resort. You're right, sometimes violence-in-progress must simply be stopped NOW, and I thought I'd already granted that. But in the example of Iraq, where most of our treasure and blood have been spilt recently (and which you directly did NOT defend), the "last resort" case was based upon allegations some of us saw through even in 2002. There was no imminent threat to our nation from Iraq. The ultimata issued by GWB to Saddam were of the sort that essentially demanded grovelling accession to our superiority, or death. . .a choice that was pretty obvious for any middle-eastern megalomaniac. I don't know about those in your church, but the folks in mine consistently cheered on the troops and their commander-in-chief anyway.

Even in Afghanistan (which I admit is a murkier question), I think there's a legitimate debate to be had, whether our actions were defensive, or ex-post-facto retaliation which is forbidden to us (Rom. 12:19 as well as Jesus' Sermon on the Mount). Certainly the language I heard from most Americans--including many Christians--sounded a whole lot more like vengeance than self-defense to me.

And my illustration of the murder perhaps getting saved tomorrow wasn't primarily intended to be a plea of ignorance, but rather an illustration that you can build any hypothetical situation you want. The real world is a bit more complicated. GL had already set up a situation where everything converged "perfectly" to position me with only one possible choice--to kill the guy or not--with a perfect outcome if I kill him and an unacceptable one (to me, too) if I don't. Fair enough. I just added another hypothetical layer. In the real world it's at least as likely that there's two guys and not one, so if I kill the first one, the second one kills me, and now if my wife or kids survive they have to deal, not only with the trauma of the assault, but further with seeing their husband/father slain in front of their eyes. The only thing I am saying is that real life isn't as easy as any hypothetical scenario. Nothing more, nothing less. But it's NOT the same choice our president (whoever he is) has to make, as we haven't had an invasion to repel (the closest example to true self-defense I can think of) since (if you call it that) Pearl Harbor, and before that the British in 1812.

GL, regarding your appeal to the OT, God directly commanded those actions. Are you alleging that God is directly commanding OUR president to go to war? If not, we're talking apples and oranges. And unless you don't believe Jesus had the right to say "You have heard it was said. . .but I say to you," Jesus and the Gospels trump O.T. perspectives anywhere they may be seen to be in conflict. When Christ fulfilled the law, he also laid down some new standards for living, not just for justification.

I'm almost done, I promise. . .Stuart, you correctly pointed out that I referred to pre-Nicea church fathers, and that is no accident. I do so for two reasons: (1) They're closer to the time of Jesus and, it would seem to me, more likely to have some resonance/collective memory to the standards of the earliest church, and (2) they're not only pre-Nicea, they're pre-Constantine. I realize this isn't a popular position, but I believe that once Constantine had co-opted Christianity into his empire, Christian leaders who were relieved to be on the upside instead of the downside of power, allowed their message and witness likewise to be co-opted. You're absolutely right that context is important, and part of that context is (I allege) the relationship between Christian leaders and imperial power. That was true in the 4th-century church, and it's true in the 21st-century church.

Finally, Dave, I have also heard--and accept--that the U.S. military in Iraq has taken great pains to minimize civilian casualties in their operations. I don't hear the same pain being taken by American civilians and our government, weighing whether a military action (which inevitably will produce civilian casualties despite our professional military's best efforts) is worth the civilian toll it will take. Nor, as I said at the outset, do I hear the grief of the church for civilian lives lost, that I hear for the lives of the unborn. I do not claim for a moment that we should ignore the question of abortion, and I absolutely agree with RobG's contention that many of the Emergents seem to be replacing a sanctification of all things Republican with the same for all things Democratic, and this, too, is an abomination.

OK, I know I went on too long. But this stuff matters, and it's not just idle, arrogant bloviating. I hope at least some on this board can see that.

Pax Christi vobiscum,

Dan

[David Gray]

>What you say may or may not be accurate, David, but my point was the fact that supporters of the war often expressed a somewhat callous indifference to the fact that innocents were losing their lives.

No more so than in WWII and arguably less so...

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I don't know if Dan knows this, but most of the "regulars" at this site have already been over this ground several times. This is at least the fourth time since I've been paying attention (since 2003 or so). The arguments don't really change.

The proscriptions for Christian rulers (and heads of households) are different than for Christian individuals. In the case of persecution on account of our faith in Jesus Christ, any one of us might be required to give our lives as a witness. But I've got a duty, given by God, to protect my wife and children. (I cannot require *them* to witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ with their deiaths.) The best thing to do in such a case is for us all to run away. If that is impossible and somebody is going to have to die then, of course, it would be better if the person with the original intent to harm be the one that gets to meet Jesus (sooner, that is).

A Christian ruler of a nation, especially one as large and interconnected with the world as the United States has got a lot on his shoulders (God bless President Obama). In the case of the recently-departed occupant of the office, he was faced with assessing what sort of threat Iraq posed in the wake of 9/11. Nobody could wish themselves to be in that position. It wasn't probable that Iraq had atomic weapons but they were working to acquire the material necessasry to build them. He probably had chemical weapons still (though he wasn't supposed to). He might have biological weapons (which are actually the cheapest at killing large numbers of people and can be made easily). The ruler of Iraq had shown himself willing and able to target Americans for death.

I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision that GWB did, but he made it with the consent of the governmental bodies that were constitutionally necessary. As it turns out that Iraq did have chemical weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed but didn't. They also had facilities in which biological agents could have been grown. Would he have given any such to folks who might have used it against us? We'll never know. All we know is that nobody has successfully attacked us (though there have been attempts) since 9/11.

The primary job of any head of state is to assure the safety of the citizens of his country. This is a responsibility given by the governed and by Almighty God. God has also given such people the authority to kill other people in the defense of the citizens of the state (Romans 12, but I'm going from memory). Every head of state has to do the best he can with the limited information he has. And God will judge them for the use they make of it.

[Stuart Koehl]

Don't make me repeat this history lesson AGAIN!

[Joe Long]

Stuart, history needn't repeat itself, but historians ALWAYS have to, it seems.

"God has also given such people the authority to kill other people in the defense of the citizens of the state..."

In fact I have to read it that such people (legitimate authorities) often have the DUTY to do so. "An avenger to execute wrath on he who practices evil" is quite a commission to hold - and God holds rulers responsible for the acts undone.

And as I said on another thread, the chief legitimate authorities in this nation are us, the members of the electorate. I sleep easily with our Iraq War decision, personally. Whether the newest chief servant we've hired will be up to the tasks that face him, worries me more -

[W.E.D. Godbold]

This article in the WP discusses what I was aiming at in my above posting--the decisions that you need to make as head of state.

[Rob G]

No more so than in WWII and arguably less so..."

Good. Then we're making progress.

[GL]

>>>GL, regarding your appeal to the OT, God directly commanded those actions. Are you alleging that God is directly commanding OUR president to go to war? If not, we're talking apples and oranges. And unless you don't believe Jesus had the right to say "You have heard it was said. . .but I say to you," Jesus and the Gospels trump O.T. perspectives anywhere they may be seen to be in conflict. When Christ fulfilled the law, he also laid down some new standards for living, not just for justification.<<<

I am taking the liberty of adopting Gene's post of Jan 22, 2009 12:22:36 PM and Joe's post of Jan 22, 2009 12:39:41 PM as my answer.

Here is the point, however, once you admit (as Dan has) that there may be some circumstances which justify a husband and father to kill someone posing a serious threat to the life of his wife and children and once you admit that a nation may in some serious circumstances be justified in going to war, then the debate moves from whether it is ever permissible to take the life of other humans to under what circumstances it is permissible. My involvement with this discussion began with Dan's specious argument that if a Christian opposes abortion because it violates the sanctity of human life, he must also oppose war. I flat out reject that line of reasoning. Indeed, I believe anyone who believes in the sanctity of life recognizes that in some unfortunate circumstances in our fallen world killing of another human being may be required to properly act on that belief. It is true that if we oppose abortion because it violates the sanctity of human life we should oppose unjust wars and should avoid, to the extent reasonably possible, the killing of innocent humans in just wars and, indeed, even those who are fighting on the other side. That, however, is not what Dan said. Had he said that, I would not have disagreed with him and doubt anyone else here would have done so either.

The real issue behind his original post was whether a pro-life Christian could support the war in Iraq. I supported our going to war in Iraq because I believed, based on the information then available to the public, that Iraq posed a serious and near-term threat to the U.S. and our citizens and residents. Once we overthrew Saddam, I believed we owed the people of Iraq, and in particular those who supported our efforts, to not leave until a stable government was in place which has the capacity to govern over the long-term. Whether I was correct to support the war in the first instance is a matter on which I have entertained some doubts. That we must now stay the course and complete the task we began is an issue on which I have no doubt. Defeat in Iraq is not now a just option.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>When we are talking about obedience to God, aren't they the same thing?<<<

No, not entirely. Obedience given grudgingly or our of fear is not the kind of perfection God wants from us.

[Rob G]

For what it's worth, what you write in your second paragraph mirrors my view of the Iraq War almost exactly, Greg.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I do, too, with the caveat that our world is cursed (not fallen) because we humans (who were, of course, supposed to be its caretakers) are the ones who fell.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>For what it's worth, what you write in your second paragraph mirrors my view of the Iraq War almost exactly, Greg.<<<

When you consider that World War II was waged to free the Poles, I would hate to hear what you think of the conduct of that one.

[Rob G]

"When you consider that World War II was waged to free the Poles, I would hate to hear what you think of the conduct of that one."

I guess you can consider yourself blessed, then, can't you?

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Is Stuart a Pole? I thought he was part Sicilian...
:-)

[Stuart Koehl]

One fourth German, one quarter Romanian Jew, one fourth Sicilian, one fourth Neapolitan--no Calabrese, thank goodness.

The more salient point is wars begin for one reason, and usually get fought for a second reason, and are finally resolved for a third reason.

Regarding the Iraq war, the casus belli postulated by Dan and Greg are at best caricatures of the situation, but I have given up trying to talk reason on this matter to people who are in love with their own narrative, rather than the facts.

[GL]

>>>Regarding the Iraq war, the casus belli postulated by Dan and Greg are at best caricatures of the situation, but I have given up trying to talk reason on this matter to people who are in love with their own narrative, rather than the facts.<<<

You'll have to take that up with the Bush Administration. What I said made me believe beforehand that war with Saddam was justified is how they sold the war leading up to it.

>>>The more salient point is wars begin for one reason, and usually get fought for a second reason, and are finally resolved for a third reason.<<<

That's a fact well known by anyone who reads history. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it was wise to go to war with Iraq in the first instance. I'm still not sure whether it was wise to do so. The issue is whether the undoubted benefits were worth the undoubted costs. I'm simply not sure. Whether you like it or not, the war went a long ways to ruining the Bush presidency as far as accomplishing anything else. Were the benefits worth that cost? I don't know. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. Maybe history will tell us and maybe it won't.

Again, however, once we went to war, we obligated ourselves to see it through to a successful conclusion. I support our winning in Iraq and not tucking tail and running. The success of the surge may have tied Obama's hands so that he will now have no choice by see this through to a successful conclusion. I hope so.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Rob G.: "Physician, heal thyself."

Go ahead. We're waiting.

"I'll take a principled dove (Dan Martin) over an unprincipled hawk (Stuart Koehl) any day of the week."

Combo chuckle and a snicker. Dat's funny Rob. Stuart might be a "hawk", but he's certainly not "unprincipled." What a hoot that judgment is.

I still remember when you got walloped by Stuart in the following thread about the atomic bombing of Japan: Partial Birth Abortion as Contract Killing

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What you say may or may not be accurate, David, but my point was the fact that supporters of the war often expressed a somewhat callous indifference to the fact that innocents were losing their lives. <<<

Who? Be precise, please. Names and addresses, if you have them.

(By the way, shall I send you a nice selection of quotes from the Greatest Generation concerning our adversaries in the Good War? Believe me, nothing done or said in Iraq even comes close--and rather than screaming about the inhumanity of it all, we boasted about it and had pictures published in Life Magazine. I'm particularly fond of the pretty young thing gazing with admiration at the skull of a Japanese soldier sent by her boyfriend in the South Pacific.)

And where the hell were you when Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds and slaughtering the Marsh Arabs, and, in general, acting like the vest pocket Hitler that he was? We gave sanctions a chance for a decade, during which time, all we heard was how sanctions were harming poor, innocent Iraqi children. You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try. In the real world, there are seldom good choices and bad choices, just bad choices and really crappy choices. That is why we pray for our President, our civil authorities, the armed forces and all in the service of our country, in each and every liturgy we celebrate. They need all the help they can get. So, when you pray, put at the top of the list your gratitude that you are NOT in a position of responsibility. I know I will pray every night in gratitude that YOU are not in a position of responsibility.

[David Gray]

Stuart may want to reconsider having groupies...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You'll have to take that up with the Bush Administration. What I said made me believe beforehand that war with Saddam was justified is how they sold the war leading up to it.<<<

Then you are a simpleton, there is no other way to put it. That's probably why Bush fell back on one single cause (WMDs) when most of us who could were pushing for the administration to push the full strategic rationale for the war. But one thing I have learned after thirty years: thinking strategically gives Americans a headache, so best to go with what the Short Attention Span Theater generation can understand. In, fact, the United States government had written the deposition of Saddam Hussein into national law going back to 1998; Clinton lacked the intestinal fortitude to make the law anything more than talk. But if we were looking, in the days after 9/11, for a strategic rationale for attacking Iraq, there was a very strong and multidimensional one to be made, including WMDs, including the breakdown of the sanction regime and Saddam's evasion of sanctions through the wholesale corruption of the UN Oil-for-Food program; Saddam's support for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations (it was real, and much closer than, e.g., the strategic cooperation between Germany and Japan in World War II); and above all, Iraq's position as the Schwerpunkt of Islamic extremism after the fall of the Taliban.

All told, Iraq was the right place to go, and I have only two quibbles with the decision: first, that we waited far too long in our efforts to bring the UN and Western Europe on board, which gave Saddam time to prepare; second, that we had not given sufficient thought to what would happen if Saddam's army and regime just suddenly collapsed (of course, we had two years to prepare for the fall of Nazi Germany, but our first three years of occupation there were nothing short of disastrous).

You bring absolutely no historical perspective to your evaluation of the war, so I am wondering on what basis you are so ready to write off our performance in Iraq as a failure. As compared to World War II, the Bush Administration looks like a paragon of strategic wisdom and competence (I could go into long discussions about our strategy in the Pacific, the fights between Nimitz and MacArthur, the debacle of the U-boat attacks on the East and Gulf Coasts in 1942, our manifest lack of preparedness in North Africa, the material shortcomings of our tanks, ships and aircraft well into 1944, the lack of strategic vision for the invasion of Europe, and the operational bungling of almost every U.S. commander in the ETO with the exception of George Patton--but what would be the point?).

With my keen, discerning professional eye, which I am certain will be vindicated by the judgment of history, I feel safe in saying that our performance in Iraq has been nothing short of phenomenal and even awe-inspiring. I can't think of any army in modern history that has managed to quell a widespread, multi-factional insurgency in just four years (the average insurgency after World War II has lasted something more than a decade), using fewer than 175,000 troops in country (the actual number of combat troops is much smaller), suffering only some 4000 killed and 24,000 wounded, inflicting crippling losses on the enemy while at the same time protecting the civilian population and backing the emergency of a multi-party democratic state.

And, at the same time, we have been fighting a war in Afghanistan which looks likely to end with equivalent success (despite the gloominess of the mainstream press--which, let us not forget, declared Iraq irretrievably lost at the end of 2006 and called the Surge an exercise in futility). All this, for less than 1% of the GDP of the United States. What other country has done so much so quickly with so little? Inquiring minds want to know.

At the end of the day, your main complaint about the Bush Administration is they did not do a good job of communicating to you why we were in Iraq. I'll give you that--the man had very little time for small talk (we'll come to miss that, I fear, in the midst of Obama's logorrhea). But it was always possible for you to educate yourself, Greg. Far too many people I know just couldn't be bothered.

[David Gray]

>Then you are a simpleton, there is no other way to put it.

Considering how you pontificate on matters which you don't remotely grasp that seems a bit rich (besides being woefully in error).

>That's probably why Bush fell back on one single cause (WMDs) when most of us who could were pushing for the administration to push the full strategic rationale for the war.

Bush sold the war on the political cheap and then rolled craps. Bad decision.

>You bring absolutely no historical perspective to your evaluation of the war, so I am wondering on what basis you are so ready to write off our performance in Iraq as a failure.

This is genuinely stupid. He is specifically NOT doing that. How can you not understand:

"It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it was wise to go to war with Iraq in the first instance. I'm still not sure whether it was wise to do so. The issue is whether the undoubted benefits were worth the undoubted costs. I'm simply not sure. Whether you like it or not, the war went a long ways to ruining the Bush presidency as far as accomplishing anything else. Were the benefits worth that cost? I don't know. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. Maybe history will tell us and maybe it won't.

Again, however, once we went to war, we obligated ourselves to see it through to a successful conclusion. I support our winning in Iraq and not tucking tail and running."

How do you hold down a day job? (assuming you do)

>But it was always possible for you to educate yourself, Greg. Far too many people I know just couldn't be bothered.

Stuart why do you hopelessly try to demean your betters?

[GL]

>>>Then you are a simpleton, there is no other way to put it.<<<

The feeling is mutual.

>>>That's probably why Bush fell back on one single cause (WMDs) when most of us who could were pushing for the administration to push the full strategic rationale for the war.<<<

Two things come to mind. The first is that you seem to be admitting that what I said about how he sold the war is, in fact, how he sold the war. The second is that you appear to be taking credit for pushing us into war. I have no idea how much anyone in power actually listened to what you had to say on the subject as opposed to how much you want us to believe they were listening to what you had to say. At a minimum, however, you appear to be admitting that they didn't follow your advice if they were listening. I take comfort from that admission.

>>>You bring absolutely no historical perspective to your evaluation of the war, so I am wondering on what basis you are so ready to write off our performance in Iraq as a failure.<<<

In the word of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." You just can't help yourself, can you. Did I say that the war in Iraq was a failure. NO. I said I had doubts whether the undoubted benefits were worth the undoubted costs. But you must have a foil. You remind me of the kids back in school who were always looking to pick a fight so that they could prove (they thought) that they were men. In fact, they proved quite the opposite.

>>>As compared to World War II, the Bush Administration looks like a paragon of strategic wisdom and competence.<<<

Which explains, I suppose, how he managed to squander the support of the rest of the world and lose support at home. This remark is delusion. Are you a paid shill for Bush as part of the doomed legacy project or are you just one of his hanger-ons.

>>>At the end of the day, your main complaint about the Bush Administration is they did not do a good job of communicating to you why we were in Iraq. I'll give you that--the man had very little time for small talk (we'll come to miss that, I fear, in the midst of Obama's logorrhea). But it was always possible for you to educate yourself, Greg. Far too many people I know just couldn't be bothered.<<<

The fact is that Bush sold the war with Iraq on the grounds the it presented a serious, near-term threat to the U.S. After the fact, when the threat proved to be not nearly as grave as the administration would have had us believe, his shills (e.g., you) began an effort to justify it on other grounds. Some of those grounds were in fact ones that would have justified the war with me in the first instance and some were not. Unlike you, I don't believe young Americans should be sent to die to clear my conscience. But then I am not a neo-conservative; I'm just a plain, old-fashion conservative.

Once again, Stuart, you have managed to demonstrate why so many folks have decided to vacate MC. You can't carry on a civil, edifying discussion. You have to fling hash, mostly to try to prove you know more than the rest of us. Count me as one of those who isn't fooled.

[David Gray]

>But then I am not a neo-conservative

That is to your credit. A neo-con is a liberal who has decided against suicide and that guns aren't so bad, provided they don't have to use them themselves.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Heh, heh. David Gray thinks I'm a Stuart Koehl groupie!?! Dat's hilarious.

(Prior to my awakening that there's a truce on MereComments) Stuart and I have had some knock-down, drag-out, no-holds-barred arguments on several biblical issues which would then eventually branch out and have implications in other various areas as those discussions are prone to do.

Yet not once, not ever, did I ever, ever complain or whine about the manner, tone, or civility of Stuart's arguments. I asked for no quarter, and I gave none.

Mano-a-mano. No crying, no whining. Name-calling, whether justified or not, was okay with me. Other people focused on "civility" of the dialogue. Not me. I care only for the substance of the arguments.

Along with not complaining or whining about tone as others on MC are wont to do, I also did not proclaim victory (or loss, as the case may be) in my argument with Stuart.

P.S. Although some people did proclaim that I beat Stuart!

;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The first is that you seem to be admitting that what I said about how he sold the war is, in fact, how he sold the war.<<<

No, the Administration actually put on the full court press, at least initially, but then placed disproportionate weight on the WMD argument, mainly at the insistence of DCI George Tenet--a Clinton holdover, you will remember.

>>>The second is that you appear to be taking credit for pushing us into war. I have no idea how much anyone in power actually listened to what you had to say on the subject as opposed to how much you want us to believe they were listening to what you had to say.<<<

I wasn't alone. My voice was in the chorus, and yes, I am more powerful than you could ever imagine.

>>>Did I say that the war in Iraq was a failure. NO. I said I had doubts whether the undoubted benefits were worth the undoubted costs. <<<

QED from my point of view. You have no historical perspective from which to gauge either the costs or the benefits. Your historical perspective goes back to what? Desert Storm?

>>>Which explains, I suppose, how he managed to squander the support of the rest of the world and lose support at home.<<<

I doubt we ever had that much support from the rest of the world. The rest of the world never loved us and never will. I remember full well the demonstrations on Greenham Commons in the 1980s, and that most of the things said about Bush were also said about Reagan. But, if Bush squandered all of our support, why were Bush allies elected or re-elected in Germany, France, Canada and Australia? Why do we have so much support in Eastern Europe? Unless, of course, by the support of the whole world, you mean the New York Times and the BBC?

>>>The fact is that Bush sold the war with Iraq on the grounds the it presented a serious, near-term threat to the U.S. After the fact, when the threat proved to be not nearly as grave as the administration would have had us believe, his shills (e.g., you) began an effort to justify it on other grounds. Some of those grounds were in fact ones that would have justified the war with me in the first instance and some were not.<<<

You never did read the Dueffler Report in its entirety, did you? And after I went through the trouble of posting the link, too.

>>>Unlike you, I don't believe young Americans should be sent to die to clear my conscience.<<<

I am not in favor of sending American troops to die under any circumstances; I believe in sending them to make the other guy die. But, perhaps you should talk to some of the young Americans who have been there, in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can put you in touch with some who have deployed four or five times. These are my friends, the children of my friends. I have known people killed and wounded there. You must think me a particularly callous bastard if you think I would endorse sending them on a fools errand. They certainly do not think it is one--but if you do, then perhaps you also think they are fools?

[Nick]

To be fair GL I think there were more than a few people who wanted Bush to "sell" the war more widely and very early on. Among these, David, were more than a few neo-cons.

I think we all agree that he did a lousy job on this front. However, Stuart is right, there were multiple reasons for going to war. Among those that Stuart listed is also the admirable, and possibly misguided, goal of setting up a democratic government in the region. Iraq had also been in a state of war with the US since the 90's. We, after all, only had a cease-fire.

Which returns us to Dan who has created a straw man about those who supported the war. Many of us _did_ think about the dead children and innocents. However, diddling around with Iraq had already cost thousands of lives to starvation and the further privations of a mad-man. I had the choice of starving ten kids or blowing up one. Neither was particularly pleasant.

As to Rwanda and the other African disasters, the Bush and (in the case of Rwanda specifically) Clinton administrations have done time and time again everything that the peace activists have asked for. I suggest taking a gander at "Hotel Rawanda" for why that's a failed long term policy. There's plenty of African governments that I would be perfectly fine with bombing into oblivion. The problem is, the left would decry that as "colonialism".

We can see this sort of weird behavior in how the West has dealt with Gaza. The Israeli's get diplomatic protests when they target militants and go out of their way to save innocent lives. Meanwhile, when Gaza erupted into civil war and Palestinians were pulling out their neighbors kicking and screaming for street executions (feel free to watch a few on Youtube; it was a grizzly affair) we found other things to do.

[GL]

>>>I am more powerful than you could ever imagine.<<<

Yeah, right.

I really wish you would stop trying to browbeat those who don't agree 100% with your views. It shows a real lack of maturity on your part. And it is one of the reason why I am fairly certain that you are not nearly the insider you would have folks believe.

But more important to me, it has contributed to the ruination of this blog site. Who would want to contribute to a discussion in which what they say is taken out of context, blown out of proportion, and then used as a bases for personal insults? I have news for you: no one is impressed with your pontifications and insults. It demeans you far more than the folks at whom you direct it. You demonstrate that you are constitutionally incapable of civil discussion and debate.

You need to get over yourself and your delusions of grandeur. Then, perhaps, we could once again have edifying discussions on MC.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The problem is, the left would decry that as "colonialism".<<<

I'm good with colonialism. De-colonization at the end of World War II was conducted far too rapidly and in haphazard fashion, particularly in Africa. Not one country on that benighted continent was ready for independence in 1945, 1955 or even 1965. It would have required a century or more of enlightened rule to break down the barriers of tribalism, build up infrastructure and create robust civil institutions. But "self-determination" trumped all, including common sense. And what we got were countries in which one man determined by himself what would be done with his nation, its people, and its natural wealth. There are approximately one billion people in the world who live on less than a dollar a day. Most of them live in Africa.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

GL: "But more important to me, it has contributed to the ruination of this blog site. Who would want to contribute to a discussion in which what they say is taken out of context, blown out of proportion, and then used as a bases for personal insults? I have news for you: no one is impressed with your pontifications and insults. It demeans you far more than the folks at whom you direct it. You demonstrate that you are constitutionally incapable of civil discussion and debate."

#1. Are you not insulting Stuart in return, GL?

#2. IMO, always complaining, whining, and mealy-mouth beaching about the civility of tone, or the lack of it, which is subject to the subjective whims of whoever's complaining about it, IS what's contributing to the ruination of this blogsite.

[Rob G]

Q: What's the difference between a woman and a neo-con?

A: You occasionally find a woman on the battlefield.

"Who? Be precise, please. Names and addresses, if you have them."

How about Limbaugh, Hannity, Quinn, etc., and a large number of their callers? How about most of the talking heads on Fox?

"I still remember when you got walloped by Stuart in the following thread about the atomic bombing of Japan: Partial Birth Abortion as Contract Killing."

You're certain entitled to your opinion, TUAD, even if it has its basis not in reality, but in your apparent man-crush on Stuart.

Conservative blogger Jeff Martin has described neoconservatism as "the union of an interventionist foreign policy aimed at the perpetuation of American military supremacy and the hegemony of American managerial/finance/'free trade' capitalism, the embrace of the modern managerial state, and the instrumentalization of social and cultural issues, and their reduction to semiotic exercises referring ultimately to Benevolent Global Hegemony and Democratic Capitalism."

Conservative scholar and political scientist Mark Henrie has described them as "conservatives who've made peace with modernity," which amounts to the same thing.

Both of these fit you rather well, Stuart. If you're not a full-bore (no pun intended) neo-con, you undoubtedly lean in that direction.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>A: You occasionally find a woman on the battlefield.<<<

Who is calumnizing now? Do you know how many of your so-called "neo-conservatives" have sons and daughters in uniform, how many have themselves served?

>>>How about Limbaugh, Hannity, Quinn, etc., and a large number of their callers? How about most of the talking heads on Fox?<<<

Quotes, please. Waving your arms about, puffing smoke, flashing mirrors and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain aren't going to do it. Put up or shut up. Who, specifically, has expressed complete lack of concern for the deaths of civilians in Iraq?

>>>You're certain entitled to your opinion, TUAD, even if it has its basis not in reality, but in your apparent man-crush on Stuart.<<<

It's called a "bromance", and as I recall, i did clean your clock.

>>>Conservative blogger Jeff Martin has described neoconservatism as "the union of an interventionist foreign policy aimed at the perpetuation of American military supremacy and the hegemony of American managerial/finance/'free trade' capitalism, the embrace of the modern managerial state, and the instrumentalization of social and cultural issues, and their reduction to semiotic exercises referring ultimately to Benevolent Global Hegemony and Democratic Capitalism."<<<

That's one definition. Since the movement is amorphous, your mileage on this one may vary. Besides which, I can hardly be called a neo-conservative, since I was never a liberal and do not hold liberal social or economic views.

>>>Conservative scholar and political scientist Mark Henrie has described them as "conservatives who've made peace with modernity," which amounts to the same thing.<<<

You have all made peace with modernity. I don't see even the crunchiest among you giving up your modern conveniences (TV is one thing, but your car? Air conditioning? Indoor plumbing? Medical technology? Get real!). Henrie's problem is an inability to distinguish between "modernity", which is simply the material state of the world around us, and "modernism", which is an intellectual construct or zeitgeist that subjects that material reality to an overarching metanarrative based on the notions of "progress" and "enlightenment" leading to human perfection by human means.

Which is a pity, because "modernism" is so mid-20th century. As a metanarrative it has been supplanted by post-modernism, which ironically enough, denies the possibility of metanarratives, including the possibility of progress itself. Its fundamental tenet is utopianism derived from nihilism.

Talk about fighting the last war! Your conservative mentors can't even keep up with the regnant intellectual fads!

>>>Both of these fit you rather well, Stuart. If you're not a full-bore (no pun intended) neo-con, you undoubtedly lean in that direction.<<<

You just mean I'm Jewish.

[Stuart Koehl]

Getting back to Bush and his pro-life policies, the following article shows how Bush's much derided "compassionate conservatism" managed to do something three decades of liberal bromides had been unable to do; reduce the number of homeless people in the United States. And, par for the course, Bush gets no credit for his success:

The American Spectator

Special Report

Changing the Verb of Homelessness

By Daniel Allott on 1.23.09 @ 6:07AM

"If good intentions, well-meaning programs and humanitarian gestures could end homelessness, it would have been history decades ago."
-- Philip Mangano, Executive Director, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

Of all the shortcomings of the Bush presidency, perhaps none was as frustrating to conservatives as its poor communications strategy. The problem wasn't just the administration's habit of announcing policies without sufficiently explaining them, or its failure to defend unpopular policies. Most discouraging was its reluctance to talk about policies that proved wildly successful.

Last week, the president's office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives released a report called "Innovations in Compassion." The report highlights some of the triumphs of the much-maligned agency, among which is this gem: a nearly one-third decrease in chronic homelessness between 2005 and 2007.

The man most responsible for the precipitous drop in homelessness is Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. In a recent interview, Mangano talked to me about the secret to his success, which is rooted in his mission "to change the verb of homelessness. After 20 years of managing the crisis, our intent was ending the disgrace."

This small shift in emphasis has produced great results. Besides the 30 percent decrease in chronic homelessness (defined as homelessness of at least one year of a person with serious mental illness and/or drug or alcohol addiction), there was a 12 percent reduction in overall homelessness nationally (from 763,000 to 672,000). Also, there was an almost 40 percent decrease in the number of homeless veterans between 2001 and 2007.

In order to move from managing homelessness to ending it, Mangano recognized the need for his agency to get rid of the old strategies. Under President Clinton, funding was tripled for programs to decrease homelessness, but the number of homeless only increased. "We had been busy servicing homeless people," Mangano says, "spending more money without any results."

So when he was appointed by President Bush to lead the council in 2002, Mangano and his team implemented an approach to homelessness that was entirely appropriate for the administration of the first president with an MBA. "For many years," Mangano says, "the issue of homelessness was driven by anecdote, conjecture, guess work and feeling." But with Mangano at the helm, the touchy-feelyness was replaced by a results-oriented business approach rooted in evidence and data.

And, predictably, the evidence showed that moving chronically homeless people into housing units was the only reliable way to end chronic homelessness.

The council's "housing first" strategy was truly an innovation in compassion. But it also sounded expensive. And the seven consecutive years of record resources targeted to homeless people (this year's budget includes an unprecedented eighth year of record resources for homelessness) might make fiscal conservatives wince. But Mangano's position is: What's cheaper: putting homeless people in homes, or letting them cycle through shelters, hospital emergency rooms, jails and the street?

He says, "We discovered through our research that these are some of the most expensive people to the public purse, randomly ricocheting through very expensive primary health, behavioral health, law enforcement and court systems." The results of 65 cost studies revealed that the true costs of chronic homelessness are staggering, between $35,000 and $150,000 a year per person.

Consider these examples.

• Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program tracked 119 persons who were chronically homeless for 5 years and found that they made more than 18,000 emergency room visits at an average cost of $1000 per visit.

• One study found two homeless men in Reno cost the city over $100,000 each in health and law enforcement in one year.

• The University of California at San Diego followed 15 chronically homeless street people for 18 months and found that they cost the city $200,000 per person. As one official put it, "We could have placed them in condos with ocean front views for less."

Contrast those numbers with the annual cost of supportive housing for homeless people, which runs between $13,000 and $25,000 per year, per person. And, importantly, once homeless people have homes, the expense is reduced further as they build new lives and address the costly correlates of homelessness, such as mental illness, substance abuse and corrections. In Mangano's words, "A place to live is most likely to create a trajectory out of dependence, toward self-sufficiency."

The net cost savings to taxpayers is significant. In one example in Portland, Oregon, 35 homeless individuals were placed in housing. The pre-enrollment health care and incarceration costs per person, per year were $42,075. The post enrollment cost averaged $25,776. That translates into an annual cost savings $16,299 per person.

Mangano's success in reducing homelessness demonstrates the transformative power of faith-based initiatives. It also begs the question: Will Mangano and his innovative approach to homelessness find a place in the Obama White House? Mangano is unsure what will happen. Although his work has drawn praise from across the political spectrum, Mangano says there will always be "nostalgia for the old approaches."

At one point during his Inaugural Address, President Obama, directing his remarks to "the cynics," implied that bipartisanship will now be the order of the day, noting:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward."

At a time when job losses and record foreclosures threaten to slow progress in ending homelessness, preserving the Bush administration's results-oriented, housing-first strategy to combat homelessness is a way Obama can prove the cynics wrong.

Daniel Allott is senior writer at American Values, a Washington, D.C. area public policy organization.

[Rob G]

"You just mean I'm Jewish"

Yeah, that's it -- you caught me! Never mind the fact that one of the most trenchant and scholarly critics of neoconservatism, Paul Gottfried, is himself Jewish. I suggest you read his books.

"Your conservative mentors can't even keep up with the regnant intellectual fads!"

All postmodernism is, is modernism gone to seed; it's a continuation of the same thing, not a different species. Newer stem, same root. As such, certain critiques of modernism apply to postmodernism as well.

**Henrie's problem is an inability to distinguish between "modernity", which is simply the material state of the world around us, and "modernism"**

No. Henrie is smart enough to see that the two aspects of the modern have a certain amount of overlap, and are not hermetically sealed off from each other.

[David Gray]

>You just mean I'm Jewish.

Yes, anyone who recognizes that neo-cons are liberals with a less suicidal bent really believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Poor little victim.

[GL]

>>>>>>You're certain entitled to your opinion, TUAD, even if it has its basis not in reality, but in your apparent man-crush on Stuart.<<<

It's called a "bromance"<<<

Oh, so the feeling is mutual. That's so sweet.

[GL]

>>>Among those that Stuart listed is also the admirable, and possibly misguided, goal of setting up a democratic government in the region. Iraq had also been in a state of war with the US since the 90's. We, after all, only had a cease-fire.<<<

Setting up a democratic government in the region is pure Wilsonian/Neo-Conservative policy. That is to say, it proves the argument that neo-cons are just liberals who like to play with guns.

As for the cease-fire, I have noted that before on this blog, arguing that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire and so we were justified in resuming hostilities (and had been since the early days of the Clinton administration). That we were justified in resuming hostilities for that reason does not mean it was wise to do so. To answer the latter question, one must weight costs versus benefits. It's a lot more complicated than Stuart would have it, but when the only tool you can see is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

As to sending in the troops to end humanitarian crisis, I will just again say that a big difference between conservatives and neo-conservatives is that the latter believe that they have the right to send other people's sons and daughters into harms way to ease their conscience while the former believe that charity is when acts himself and not when he forces to do likewise. Yet another example of the liberal mindset that underlies neo-conservatism. In this respect, Stuart and Francesca are soul mates. The only difference between them is what vexes their consciences. Both agree, however, in forcing others to sacrifice for their ideals.

[GL]

>>>Among those that Stuart listed is also the admirable, and possibly misguided, goal of setting up a democratic government in the region. Iraq had also been in a state of war with the US since the 90's. We, after all, only had a cease-fire.<<<

Setting up a democratic government in the region is pure Wilsonian/Neo-Conservative policy. That is to say, it proves the argument that neo-cons are just liberals who like to play with guns.

As for the cease-fire, I have noted that before on this blog, arguing that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire and so we were justified in resuming hostilities (and had been since the early days of the Clinton administration). That we were justified in resuming hostilities for that reason does not mean it was wise to do so. To answer the latter question, one must weight costs versus benefits. It's a lot more complicated than Stuart would have it, but when the only tool you can see is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

As to sending in the troops to end humanitarian crisis, I will just again say that a big difference between conservatives and neo-conservatives is that the latter believe that they have the right to send other people's sons and daughters into harms way to ease their conscience while the former believe that charity is when acts himself and not when he forces to do likewise. Yet another example of the liberal mindset that underlies neo-conservatism. In this respect, Stuart and Francesca are soul mates. The only difference between them is what vexes their consciences. Both agree, however, in forcing others to sacrifice for their ideals.

[GL]

Let me repeat again that I am not saying the resuming our war against Saddam was a mistake; I am saying that I have (and do) entertain doubts about whether it was or not. We have no ethical and moral choice now, however, but to see it through to victory.

[David Gray]

>Let me repeat again that I am not saying the resuming our war against Saddam was a mistake; I am saying that I have (and do) entertain doubts about whether it was or not. We have no ethical and moral choice now, however, but to see it through to victory.

It will be some time till we know whether the war was wise policy or not. And it will also depend on what the Obama administration does as well...

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Solution.

GL, David Gray, Rob G., Dan Martin, et al., just line up peaceably and shake the magnanimous hand of Stuart Koehl, a hand that is indefatiguable in repeatedly britch-slapping you all.

Humility in acknowledging that you held erroneous views and that you were lovingly confronted with the exposure of your fallacies will be good for your souls. Gratitude will then be an overdue and welcomed virtue for you.

Also, there is a qualitative difference in the anger expressed in the debate combatants. The anger expressed by David Gray, Rob G., GL, et al is a brooding, pouting, resentful childish anger for having lost (by a clear and decisive margin) the substantive aspects of an argument. To be shown up and exposed is intellectually humiliating for David Gray, Rob G., and GL, and they don't appreciate the fatal wounding of their pride.

In contrast, the anger of Stuart Koehl's diatribes stems from having to constantly deal with seemingly unteachable stupidity. There's no anger from him regarding substance because he and his arguments haven't been refuted. Only anger from having to deal with apparently intractable denseness.

Repeating, line up and shake Stuart's hand. Thank him for taking the time to set you straight. Then thank God for sending a messenger that you never expected.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

A few points:

1) I think Stuart is right that what success we have had in Iraq has been astoundingly easy as compared to other historical circumstances.

2) I know Stuart is right about the justifications for war. I was paying attention back then and the Clinton administration and the Bush administration were essentially agreed on the case for taking out the regime of Saddam Hussein. He's also correct that the Bush administration abandoned the nuanced and crushingly detailed case and went for the easy, and emotionally-laden (but more dubious) claim that Iraq posed a clear-and-present danger to American security. In the wake of 9/11 it is, perhaps, excusable. (If our sclerotic intelligence agencies didn't know--though the intelligence was there--that these fanatics were fixing to fly planes into our buildings, then what don't we know about Iraq? Best not to take any chances...)

3) Stuart has got these arguments and the counter-positions fixed so firmly in his head that he doesn't always pay attention to what other folks have to say. He knows (when he doesn't really) what they're getting at and so he moves to the place where he knows their train of thought will be passing and ambushes it by hitting him with everything he's got...even when the arguments don't actually apply to his interlocutor. It's bad manners and pisses people off unnecessarily. He's actually at his best with new people, I think, because then he reads what they are saying without assumptions.

4) Greg has, on numerous occasions, demonstrated a nuanced grasp of historical circumstances, especially about WWII but also about that unpleasantness between the states. He isn't an idiot (despite his being a law professor :-) and it's just plain ugly for Stuart to call him a simpleton. Even if he were flat wrong instead of just expressing doubts about a particular American policy, the fact that you guys have been interacting with each other for a long time (and sometimes, it has seemed, with real esteem) should preclude Stuart from jumping down his throat. As it is, though, Stuart was reading him, apparently, with one eye closed.

5) David Gray and Stuart *like* to tick each other off. Sometimes it's funny.

6) My brain usually agrees with Stuart more than Rob G. on issues relating to modernity, but my heart is actually with Rob and I think he has the better temperament. That said, Stuart makes a good point about modernity. I'll have to think about that one some more.

7) Sometimes Stuart says stuff just for effect. That business about him being "more powerful than you can imagine" is just him being amusing as well as riffing on Obi-Wan. Don't take him so seriously.

8) Daniel's oleaginous echoes of Stuart are disgusting to anyone with an ounce of testosterone in his body.

[David Gray]

>That business about him being "more powerful than you can imagine" is just him being amusing as well as riffing on Obi-Wan.

It would have been more effective if he had simply told Greg, "no, I am your father."

And I don't like ticking Stuart off per se, it is the remarkable combination of ineptitude and arrogance combined with a punkish style that occasionally require comment.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

You're right, that would have been better. I stand corrected on your part, but I still think Stuart likes trying to tick you off. It sometimes seems as if his manic energy (perhaps bound within the fingers he types with) cannot rest until it finds something, anything that somebody has posted with which he can disagree. Too much amity and consensus plague his mind and he becomes fretful and discontented--"AHA! There on the horizon!! A foe, a foe, a foe!! Charge!!!"
:-)