Iraq war not based on [proper] principle

[AussieOi]

I am sure this will make for a great collective once you have it.

[creator]

I just found a great article by President Benson related to the topic of war.

United States Foreign Policy
by Ezra Taft Benson. Friday, June 21, 1968, Preston Idaho.
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... icleid=166

[WhisperFox]

sbenard asked

WhisperFox,

I did NOT run across this quote in my studies. Do you know where I can find the exact verbiage of this quote by Pres. Benson, so that I can add it to my document of war-related quotes?

I listed the link to it in my follow up post. It's from ETB's "An Enemy Hath Done This" Chapter 9.

I think you'll find that the talk listed above by LDSConservative is the same talk. He gave it several times and published the information. My copy of "An Enemy Hath Done This" was published while he was president of the church and while we went to war in Iraq in 1991.

Few listened to him then and even fewer are listening now. When something like going to war becomes a front page issue, I've found the prophets don't generally get caught up in the hysteria and arguing incited by the media. They expect us to read their words and then act accordingly. If something has changed doctrinally from what they have previously told us they publicly correct that, but then we are expected to study out their published words and act accordingly.

Many have used President Hinckley's conference talks in the last years to claim that he and the Lord support our involvement in the wars in the Middle East, others claim he meant just the opposite. I've listened and read hours of posts on several forums and in person where someone from one side or the other tries to use just his recent (last 10 years) talks to prove one side. In my opinion, none of his statements conflict or overturn his previous teachings or the teachings of the previous prophets and unless he definitively changed the position we have to accept that he wants us to take his words in context with the previously published positions.

That said, I believe he has spoken and is allowing us, as ETB warned us, the rope to pull our personal opinions up to square with the position of all the latter-day prophets and the Lord or to lower ourselves somewhere else.

It's a test for us, not fro the prophet to guess and hope he got his facts straight and position correct. He was intentionally vague. He is a master in the English language. IF he wanted to be clear and concise leaving no room for error, he would have been. Instead we are left discussing for hours what should be a simple, and I might add a unanimous opinion.

The church is divided on this issue. So much has been said and published on it in the past that we as a people are hanging ourselves because we choose to accept the hate being spewed by our media and national leaders instead of following what we have been taught. If we are on the wrong side in this issue we are exercising unrighteous dominion and we lose our priesthood power. A lot is at stake.

Here's the link to ETB's quote again but, as I said, it's the same talk as what was previously posted.

http://www.redhotlogo.com/AEHDT9.htm

[WYp8riot]

Yes that article states the reality quite clearly for anyone who removes the blinders from their own eyes, and the earplugs from their own ears.

[sbenard]

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

And this commentary on the above scripture was insightful to me:

John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, 2 vols., 2:, p.71

"There may be a moral for later generations of Book of Mormon readers, too. The story speaks to all who face implacable enemies, ones who are committed to aggressive incursions on peaceful peoples. The Book of Mormon tells us we may indeed have to defend ourselves with force in the face of an enemy onslaught, but it just as clearly states that militant defense will not ultimately end wars. Aggressive people, when meeting resistance, will come back generation after generation, century after century, even though soundly defeated time after time. Force, however benevolently intended, will not stop force permanently. As Christ said, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword; violence begets violence. In national as in personal affairs, kindness, truth, and service are the only avenues to lasting peace."

[AussieOi]

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

And this commentary on the above scripture was insightful to me:

John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, 2 vols., 2:, p.71
There may be a moral for later generations of Book of Mormon readers, too. The story speaks to all who face implacable enemies, ones who are committed to aggressive incursions on peaceful peoples. The Book of Mormon tells us we may indeed have to defend ourselves with force in the face of an enemy onslaught, but it just as clearly states that militant defense will not ultimately end wars. Aggressive people, when meeting resistance, will come back generation after generation, century after century, even though soundly defeated time after time. Force, however benevolently intended, will not stop force permanently. As Christ said, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword; violence begets violence. In national as in personal affairs, kindness, truth, and service are the only avenues to lasting peace.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the quote by Lundquist and Ricks is justification for wars?

Not quite sure of your angle.

Either, way, I refer you to D&C98, especially the verses in the 30's, for our context in which the lord commands us in regards to how we should worry about those we regard as our enemies.

[sbenard]

To the contrary, the quote by Hugh Nibley was saying just the opposite of what you thought. You might want to read the quote again. I think it was, in fact, supporting the point you were trying to make.

Here are a few more things that support the idea that we are forbidden from seeking retaliation, both as individuals and as nations. I think this is what you were referring to in your message above, but you somehow seemed to draw the exact opposite message of what my quote suggested. I particularly liked the last sentence, because it underscores the TRUE answer, in contrast to more and escalating violence.

I pulled this directly from the Church website.

D&C 98: 23, 25
23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;
• • •
25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.
D&C 31: 9
9 Be patient in afflictions, revile not against those that revile. Govern your house in meekness, and be steadfast.

[sbenard]

It occurs to me more potently than ever before that we, in our modern era, have responded to terrorism and aggressive attacks in precisely the same way that the Nephites did anciently -- with pride and retaliation. We will ultimately reap the same fruits also.

[sbenard]

Pres. Benson quoted this in his June 21, 1968 in Preston Idaho. That makes it not only a quote from Sen. Taft, but also the words of our prophet.

Senator Robert A. Taft clearly explained our traditional foreign policy:
Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand. (A Foreign Policy for Americans, p. 12)

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

President Benson didn't mix any words when he said that we don't have the right as a nation to go to war or in any way interfere nationally with a foreign government, even if the are a dictatorship keeping their own people in bondage. If we were to follow his, and George Washington's council, we would be protected as a nation, and we would be able to do much good around the world.

WhisperFox,

I did NOT run across this quote in my studies. Do you know where I can find the exact verbiage of this quote by Pres. Benson, so that I can add it to my document of war-related quotes?

loved your comments blogged them and emailed them

[sbenard]

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .

Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This

[Army Of Truth]

Great book! Great quote! Here is the full quote from our 4th President, James Madison:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." – James Madison, 1795

[Army Of Truth]

Here are some words from President Spencer W. Kimball in the June 1976 Ensign from a speech entitled "The False Gods We Worship":

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 5:44–45.)

That is my biggest beef against all the NeoNazis who are pro-Iraq/Iran/Syria War. I can't stand when they all try to brainwash us and tell us that Islam is our biggest threat and that we should hate Muslims and be scared of them. They couldn't be further from the truth. I've lived in Saudi Arabia for 8 years and know Muslims and their culture and only have the greatest love for the Arabs and the Muslims in general. I never had any Muslim attack me for being American nor for being a Christian. Anyone telling you to hate Islam and Muslims is simply spewing the same HATE that Hitler spewed about the Jews. This isn't Christ's doctrine, but Satan's.

[sbenard]

I shared that last quote with my fellow brethren in the High Priest group when they brought up the subject, but they simply ignored the message. I just realized, however, that I forgot to copy it down into my notes. Thanks for posting it! I think this quote -- in whole or part -- was included this year in the Priesthood/RS Manual in a chapter named "The False GOds We Worship", because it fell on me to teach that one.

I pointed out to the brethren that other false gods include:
government, welfare programs, arms (military), technology, etc. I think most Americans trust more in our status as "the world's only super-power" than in God.

I know that if that trust in these false gods persists, God will humble America by brining upon us other nations just as he did the Nephites and Jaredites. In 2 Ne 1:11, He told the Nephites he would do that. Interestingly, He uses the plural, "nations", even though the only other nation in the Americas at the time was the Lamanites. Could this be a shadow warning to US in our day? I've wondered, especially since the scriptures are filled with types and shadows and prophecies that are fulfilled in multiple periods of history, with Isaiah being perhaps the most prolific in this literary style.

We'll learn one way or another, and I fear it will be in the way George Santayana indicated -- because we refuse to learn the lessons of history, we'll be doomed to repeat them.

[sbenard]

In reading that Matt 5:44-45 scripture above, why is it that we have no difficulty believing that we must not hate our enemies individually, but think it is ok to revile and retaliate against them as a nation? Is not the principle the same? I found this theme also when I studied Mormon 3: 15. When I studied the footnotes to learn what was meant when the Lord said, "Vengeance is mine", I learned that He was forbidding us from retaliation (revile not, etc.).

[John Adams]

I was thinking about the topic of this thread again and came across this article.

So does the Iraq War meet the criteria for the "exception"?



If There Must Needs Be Offense
By Hugh Nibley


Hugh Nibley, “If There Must Needs Be Offense,” Ensign, Jul 1971, 53

It has been a quarter of a century since the end of a war that involved nearly the whole world. And yet there has been no peace since that great tragedy was concluded. Men continue to fight, blood is spilled, lives are lost, and the world totters again on the brink of a massive conflagration.

What are the answers to war and peace for Latter-day Saints? Does the Lord suggest a position to be taken by members of the Church?

The word of prophecy is final: “… with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; … until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations.” (D&C 87:6.) And yet in the same breath in which he declares that God “foresaw that war should come upon all nations,” President Joseph F. Smith declared all this warlike activity to be strictly contrary to the will of God, who “is not pleased, nor was it his purpose or design or intent to foreordain the condition [of war] that the world is in today,” since wars come “not to fulfil the purposes of God, but the purposes of the nations of the earth in consequence of their wickedness.” 1

With the First Vision it was revealed that the two great events lying ahead for mankind in these last days are the building of Zion and the overthrow of Babylon, two developments working in opposite directions and with opposite spirits, excluding compromise. The prophecy on war ends with explicit instructions: “Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come. …” (D&C 87:8.)

But until the day of the Lord comes, we live in a wicked world, and to that degree in which we partake of the sins of Babylon, we needs must receive of her plagues. (See Rev. 18:4.) We may not indulge our covetousness in time of peace and fastidiously disdain to share in the discomforts and perils of war. The Saints, by no means immune to the vices of the world, have often had to assume a warlike posture; yet considering the terrible and ceaseless tensions and provocations that surrounded the Church in its early days, and the “wild spirit of ambition” that animated some of its members, “suggesting schemes of blood and empire,” 2 it is a marvel how little fighting was done. The Saints were told time and again to stand still and let God fight their battles, and whenever they obeyed they were always saved. Brigham Young’s instructions to the Mormon Battalion tell us how to behave when we are forced to fight:

“I instructed the captains to be fathers to their companies, and manage their affairs by the power and influence of their priesthood, then they would have power to preserve their lives and the lives of their companies and escape difficulties. I told them I would not be afraid to pledge my right hand that every man will return alive, if they will perform their duties faithfully, without murmuring, and go in the name of the Lord. … Let no man be without his undergarment, and always wear a coat or vest; keep neat and clean, teach chastity, gentility, and civility; swearing must not be admitted, insult no man; have no contentious conversation with any [type] of people. … Should the battalion engage with the enemy and be successful, treat prisoners with the greatest civility, and never take life, if it can be avoided.” 3

When Daniel H. Wells, the commander of the Mormon military army during “Johnston’s War,” issued written orders, they bore “on the back … the usual inscription, ‘Shed no blood!’ ” 4 What a strange way to wage war!

Recently I received from a Brigham Young University professor a list of scriptural passages in which God seemed to favor war; matching it on the other side of the page was another list of passages in which conflict was forbidden. This seems like a deadlock, a basic contradiction. But the contradiction is only apparent, for if one examines the passages on both sides throughout the scriptures, they fall clearly into two categories: general principles and special instances. The verses forbidding conflict are of a general and universal nature, while those which countenance it all refer to exceptional cases. Karl von Clausewitz, the greatest of all students of war, says it is all-important in making war to distinguish between the general principles, which always apply, and the special instances and exceptions, which are dictated by expediency and are never exactly the same twice. It is dangerous and foolish, he says, to lay down rules based on inference from special cases. 5

The same applies to the scriptures. It is human nature to search out of the scriptures special cases to justify whatever one wants to do; this belongs to what President Joseph F. Smith calls the dangerous indulging of “religious hobbies.” 6 For example, Nephi beheaded a helpless man, a general in his country’s employ; but he takes great pains to explain that this was a special case, a painful episode in which he acted only with the greatest reluctance. I may not appeal to this instance, therefore, as justifying the murder of any government official whom I find obnoxious. On the other hand, when Nephi cries out, “Why am I angry because of mine enemy?” (2 Ne. 4:27), he is proclaiming the universal principle that it is wrong to be angry—even with an enemy. 7 When Mormon reports that the Nephites lost their last campaign because they “went up unto the Lamanites,” he is reviewing a particular case—there may be times when offensive action is indicated in war.

One can easily distinguish between general principles and special exceptions because the former are stated in general terms and as direct commands of God: “Thou shalt not kill.” “Man shall not smite, neither shall he judge.” “Cursed is he that puts his trust in the arm of flesh.” “We believe in doing good to all men.” “Contention is not of me but of the devil.” “Blessed are the peacemakers.” “It is the wicked who stir up the hearts of the children of men to bloodshed.” “Love thine enemy.” “Nought but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne.” Such statements allow of no qualification or modification.

True, there are times when one is forced to drive through a red light in order to avoid disaster or save a life, but such exceptions do not for a moment abrogate the rule against driving through red lights—the law remains in full force, even when it is broken. Even when God recognizes extenuating circumstances, he still gives us a choice, with precedence going always to the general rule. Thus, in Doctrine and Covenants 98 he allows us to fight our enemies under very special circumstances; i.e., after they have attacked us and been warned by us three times, they may be repulsed the fourth time. Yet even here, while God acknowledges “I have delivered thine enemy unto thine hands” (D&C 98:29), he promises a special blessing if we do not choose to take advantage of our option: “… then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness” (D&C 98:30); and if the fourth time he still does not repent, but you choose to forgive him, “I the Lord will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundredfold” (D&C 98:45)—his own mighty intervention rewards our forbearance.

The main thing, of course, is the spirit in which things are done. We have Mormon both sparing his enemies every time he gets a chance and putting down a coalition by force of arms with some bloodshed. But there is no doubt in the world which course he would prefer. Though they fought a duel, David and Goliath were not animated by the same spirit. And why did the first Moroni (about 63 b.c.) give the attitude that he “did not delight in the shedding of blood”? (Alma 55:19.) Because there are people who do delight in it. There were such men even around Joseph Smith, and they were a grief to his soul: “When you find a spirit that wants bloodshed—murder,” he said, “the same is not of God but of the devil.” 8 In the movie Patton, that general on a corpse-strewn and stinking field says, “I love it! God forgive me, but I love it!” He delighted in bloodshed—and knew it was wrong, even in wartime. The popularity of that film is a reminder that the Nephites acquired their fatal appetite for bloodshed in a very short time: “And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and delightsome people.” In the course of one long war they become “without principle and past feeling; … without order and without mercy … they have lost their love, one towards another; and they thirst after blood and revenge continually.” (Moro. 9:12, 20, 18, 5.)

Nothing is easier, Clausewitz notes, than to justify bloodshed. One Latter-day Saint correspondent writes to me that First Samuel 15:2–3 [1 Sam. 15:2–3] is proof that Christ commands a scorched-earth policy for us, and that Matthew 10:34 [Matt. 10:34] is proof that “Christ … advocated war within families.” The first instance is a very special case, unique in history; in the second an ambiguous English translation confuses a result-clause (the plain statement of fact that the preaching of the gospel divides families) with a purpose-clause (that Christ came with the express wish and purpose to destroy families); and so a determined exegesis can twist this one verse into making the Prince of Peace an author of contention. Such an act is a clear demonstration not of logic or philology but of the spirit.

Men have even used the expulsion of Satan from heaven—“the peaceable kingdom”—“thrust down in a twinkling,” for resorting to violence, as an argument that violence is the order of heaven. There is no limit to the acts of depravity that might be justified and sanctified by appeal to specific instances in scripture. It is best to allow no latitude whatever to individual interpretation, with its easy rationalizations and sophistries, as long as we have an abundance of clear and specific statements of just what pleases and displeases our Heavenly Father. (Read Moses 7:29–34.) It is significant that Mormon did not for a moment condone the Nephite search for blood and vengeance because it was directed against the Lamanites; it did not mitigate the shedding of blood for him because it was Lamanite blood that was being shed.

Clausewitz describes the motivating forces and objectives of war and the means by which they are achieved and the spirit in which war must be undertaken (this he considers the most important of all) with that devastating honesty that has made him the prince of military analysts. The same list may be found, exactly reversed, setting forth in the Doctrine and Covenants the nature of that power by which God operates, by which the worlds are created and sustained.

Admittedly we are faced with grim situations—these are not called the last days for nothing! How we react to these situations is part of the test we undergo in this time of probation. In the darkest period of the history of the Church, when the Saints were nearer than they ever were before or after to extermination by force of arms, Joseph Smith appeared to Brigham Young in a dream with the instructions that alone could save them: “Tell the brethren to get the Spirit of the Lord,” he said three times and with great emphasis. “They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their hearts.” 9

In the end the most desperate military situation imaginable is still to be met with the spirit of peace and love.

[illustration] Art by Richard Hull

Notes
1. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine (course of study for the Melchizedek Priesthood quorums, 1970–71), vol. 1, p. 131.

2. Manuscript History of Brigham Young, January 25, 1845.

3. Ibid., July 7, 1846, pp. 86–87.

4. Deseret News, May 23, 1877.

5. Karl von Clausewitz, War, Politics, and Power, ed. Col. E. M. Collins (Chicago: Gateway Books, 1962), pp. 38f, 50–59.

6. Joseph F. Smith, op. cit., pp. 163–64.

7. Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Deseret Book Co., 1938), p. 358; King Follett Discourse.

8. Ibid.

9. Young, op. cit., February 24, 1847, p. 57.

Notes
Dr. Nibley, professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University, author of several Church books and hundreds of articles and monographs, received the David O. McKay Humanities Award at Brigham Young University this year. Currently working on the Joseph Smith papyrii and related documents, he does research in ten languages. He serves as teacher of the high priests quorum in Manavu Ward, Provo Stake. He and Sister Nibley are the parents of eight children.

^ Back to top

[sbenard]

Wow, that's fantastic! I had seen excerpts of that Nibley article, but what a great addition to our thread!

[jbalm]

Wouldn't it be great to have a mind like Nibley's?

[Army Of Truth]

Great article by Hugh Nibley, John Adams!

I like that "Law of Battle" threepercentite. Never realized that. Now I have something else to show the members that still think that we as LDS should be a "warlike" people. Members like this don't know the Book of Mormon and/or are beginning to apostacize.

[sbenard]

I ran across this link today. I am amazed that Dr. Ron Paul has been so unflinching and unwavering in his support of Constitutional principles. You'd have thought he wrote it yesterday. I'm convinced he's the George Washington of our era.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=755

Also:
I have stopped watching Bill Orielly entirely, since he constantly denigrates and ridicules Dr. Paul. I have noticed that rather than refute a person's views, the enemies of truth -- including those of the Church -- engage in personal attacks, half-truths, ridicule, and name-calling. They have no honest or compelling rebuttal to the ideas, so they show hostility to the person. The Devil's children never change their tactics. I am now convinced Oreilly is in the hip pocket of the powers that are opposing the Constitution.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Yep.. mocking.. the greatest tool they use is mocking..

Just like the spacious building in Lehi's dream.

[Army Of Truth]

Yep.. mocking.. the greatest tool they use is mocking..

Just like the spacious building in Lehi's dream.

Exactly. The same M.O. every time. Ad hominem attacks while disregarding facts.

[sbenard]

I had noticed a few ideas from earlier posts in this thread and wanted to add a few additional thoughts because I had been thinking along similar parallel lines myself.

Earlier posters had compared the war in Iraq to someone -- a neighbor, perhaps -- who lives down the street and threatens us in our homes. Ironically, I had been thinking somewhat along the same lines, but with a slightly different perspective.

I am doing this along the lines of the principles embodied in the Constitution that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Pres. Benson said that all powers of government are merely a societal extension of the rights of the individuals in that society. Therefore, we can legitimately draw parallels between our rights and powers and individuals, and the powers that we give to our government. Thus, a comparison between individual circumstances, and national circumstances, is legitimate!

If a neighbor down the street talks threateningly toward me, my family, and my property, I should legitimately be concerned. If that neighbor breaks into my home and seeks to destroy me and my family, I will respond with all the force and firepower I can muster. I would do so legitimately. This is true self defense. Let's suppose that my neighbor attempts to carry out just such an attack. I successfully defend my home and family, perhaps even with the help of my other neighbors on the street. Whew! The immediate crisis is averted!

I then begin to think to myself, "That guy is still living down the street. He could attack me again!" I then justify to myself that the only way to prevent another such attack is to take my guns, go down the street to his house, and destroy him in his own home.I justify this by telling myself that only THEN can I and my family live in peace. I am doing this with the intent to prevent further attacks on my own home and family. This is precisely the line of reasoning that the Nephites used in 3 Ne 3 and Mormon (chapter) 3. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

However, I have now crossed a line. I have changed from being the victim to being the aggressor. I am now the perpetrator of the crime, not the injured party.

And may I also suggest that the attitude that inspires us to take an aggressive posture toward our enemies is one of pride, not humility. It is our pride that causes us to refuse to acknowledge how we have offended our neighbor. It is pride that tells us that it was an unprovoked attack from our neighbor. Wouldn't it instead be better to ask ourselves, "Why would he want to do this to me and my family? What have I done to merit this awful treatment? How could I avoid this in the future?"

Furthermore, how will my neighbor respond to my assault on him in HIS home? He will respond, as (I think it was) Dr. Nibley's quote from an earlier post in this thread suggested -- with further aggression. His hatred of me is now reinforced, and he will seek to destroy me with ever more fervor and force. Perhaps he will, instead of invading my home with guns blazing, seek instead to blow up my home with even greater firepower, perhaps even from a distance! The war has now escalated even more! The Savior spoke with great wisdom when he taught Peter that responding with violence only begets more violence. This is a true and eternal principle!

Furthermore, if I attempt to retaliate and destroy my neighbor in his home, justifying it as a "defensive attack" (a contradiction in terms), the other neighbors on the street will now perceive me as the aggressor and will see me as the threat to peace -- not him. They may even turn on me and defend him, now! This also helps to explain somewhat why America has now become the perceived aggressor and threat to peace in the War on Terror, even by some of our allies!

Suppose, however, that instead of responding with violence and force in a retaliatory attack, I instead respond to him as the Savior would. Wouldn't it make sense to ask my neighbor why he attacked me, and address the reasons why he took offense in the first place? Any wise person would. How wise is it to ignore our own role in the conditions that lead to the initial violence in the first place? It would also be unwise to believe what someone else says is the reason for my neighbor's attack. Wisdom suggests that the person to ask about my neighbor's hostility towards me is my neighbor, not what someone else thinks my neighbor feels. (For example, instead of listening to what Pres. Bush thinks our enemies reasons are for attacking us -- that we're democratic -- we should look at Bin Laden's reasons why he attacks us -- that we interfere in their countries. What? He attacks us because we interfere, so we just interfere all the more! What a great way to bring further attacks upon us!)

Back to our example: After investigating my neighbor's reasons for hating me, and still in the spirit of Christ-like treatment of enemies, I therefore attempt to contact him and seek to understand why he attacked me. I show a conciliatory, rather than a retaliatory, spirit toward him. I accept that I may have done something to offend or hurt him, even though unintentionally, and seek his forgiveness and to repair the damage in the relationship. I strive to build bridges of love, forgiveness, and understanding. I serve him and his family. Now this take humility! It means that we must strip ourselves of pride! Tough medicine, this! But it is Christ's way. It is the medicine that will heal the hate and perfect the Saints! I take a more humble approach towards him instead of an aggressive one!

I also strive to improve security at my own home so that any further attacks will be discouraged. I secure the perimeter of my own home and property with a home alarm, safe, etc.

I hope this parallel helps to improve our discussion on why retaliatory warfare is, in the end, so self destructive.

Regardless of the temporary success of the "surge" in Iraq (even the Book of Mormon in Hel 11 acknowledges that the Nephite aggression met with some success), we are only repeating the mistake that America tends to win the battles, but lose the war. The ultimate end is not simply to "beat" the terrorists, which we have had some success in doing with the "surge", but to also nullify the conditions that created the conflict. We have not done that in Iraq. We have instead reinforced the perceptions and hatred behind those perceptions that created the violence in the first place. And now, with current proposals by McCain and Giuliani that we increase our military presence in Afghanistan, we are on the cusp of reinforcing our error. We are literally multiplying the very perceptions that initiated the round of violence and warfare in the first place!

We are driving away even our allies with our aggressiveness, and more importantly, from a purely defensive military perspective, we are opening ourselves to catastrophic vulnerability. I read just the other day that there are now more U.S. military divisions in Iraq than the number of military divisions that are located here in the United States. We, as a nation, are amplifying our error and will eventually bring down the hand of God's justice upon THIS nation.

[lundbaek]

Just suspose that one of your kids came to you and said that another family member or another person outside the family had told that neighbor that you had been badmouthing him and/or his family. Now if there had been for years evidence that the rumour monger had reason to want the breakup of your family. Would you not try to identife and focus attention on the trouble maker in your own camp before attacking the guy uo the street?

[sbenard]

Very good point, lundbaek!