War --- what is it good for?

Jimmy Carter steps into the Hollywood spotlight

In a stinging attack on US President George W. Bush and his Christian supporters, he said: "I worship Christ who was the prince of peace, not pre-emptive war."

"A superpower like the United States should use all of its resources ... to promote peace," he said.

The “he” in this case is former President of the United States Jimmy Carter, who I don’t claim to know a substantial amount about, except what’s been said in asides by high school teachers and political columnists. (I really should study more about the history of the United States, but that’s a whole other subject.) And if my college teachers ever mentioned anything about him, then I really don’t remember. As if I’ve ever cared about public education. But I digress.

Anyway (“anyways” is the “nonstandard” use of “anyway” according to multiple dictionaries; thus, I shall not use it), let’s say I know nothing about Jimmy Carter except that he was once the President of the United States and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and take what he says by itself.

First paragraph: Apparently Jimmy Carter worshiped a political Christ, not a spiritual Christ. The Christ I worship spoke of spiritual things, and stayed out of the political sphere, except when he said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17).

I find it interesting that he used the word “superpower” to describe the United States. A country is a superpower when, presumably, it dominates the international bloc economically and militarily. Well, how did we get to grow to such status? Perhaps through such evils as capitalism and our strong military?

Let’s notice the sentiment expressed in that line: Jimmy Carter doesn’t think we’re “promoting peace” right now...then what ARE we doing? Promoting violence? Promoting conflict and strife? Well, how would us withdrawing from Iraq promote international peace? We might be quite peaceful at home, yes...but what about Iraq and its inhabitants? I don’t imagine it would be too peaceful with al Qaeda in charge with copious amounts of power in their dirty hands. (By the way, for those of you who still think we’re fighting Baathist insurgents leftover from Saddam’s regime, you’re wrong. It’s al Qaeda.) So to sum up, Jimmy Carter thinks peace is to be gained from running away from letting crime and violence take place, as long as it’s not perpetrated by us. Because THAT’S peaceful. /wink

On the other hand, how IS peace gained? How CAN we “promote peace”? I’m not saying having a massive world war is the answer, but look at two of the most peaceful, prosperous, happy times in our nation’s history — the 1920s and 1950s.

The following is an excerpt from my unpublished novel, Sea of Chaos:

War, like all troubled times, inspires the greatest and worst in all of us. There is violence and terrible carnage, yes, but there is also the courage and bravery of mankind exemplified in all who fight for their cause in the midst of such violence. There is coarseness and baseness in every soldier, yes, but there is also the willingness to die for one’s country. There are those who will shoot their friend in the back for a penny, yes, or those who surrender to the enemy at first sight, or even those that will steal articles off of dead men. But with these sights, the reader is forgetting the opposition to these evils: the soldiers who refuse to surrender no matter what the cost, even unto terrible, terrible pain and torture, or the soldier who risks or even gives his life to save his friend, or those that give everything they have to fight evil. “There must needs be opposition in all things,” saith the scripture. And so there must be. There are two sides to every coin, after all.

Without evil, there would be no good. Without fear, there would be no courage. Without indulgence, there would be no discipline. Without dishonor, there would be no honor, etc., etc.

The standing up to of evil is also one of the most beautiful things on this earth. There are those with self-interest purely in mind, thinking that if they appease those in charge, no matter they be good or evil, they will live a safe and secure life. This may be true. But is a “safe and secure” life worth the selling of one’s soul? Is the pleasure of survival worth the guilt one would feel? Is the comfort of this life, as short as it is, worth the pains of the damned for eternity?

I should think not.

It’s like those stupid t-shirts and bumper stickers — “War is not the answer!” — well, what’s the question? How can you say something is NOT the answer when there’s no QUESTION to answer in the first place? I mean, look at all the things war has accomplished in just the last 150 years! It has destructed slavery, fascism, Nazism, communism, and oppressive rule the world over, causing millions of lives to end, but also causing perhaps hundreds of millions of lives to be free.

And yes, it’s very easy for me to type this, sitting in a comfortable chair at a nice dining room table in a sometimes-air-conditioned house. But that’s not the issue — I am doing my best to make this world a better place via other means, better suited to my particular talents. Not everybody is a soldier, or would be able to make a viable contribution in such a manner.

War shouldn’t be sought after. Diplomacy is always be preferable, as long as the works of good are not compromised in the effort. And if they are, if evil ends up conqueror, war should not be cowardly ran away from. To paraphrase scripture, it’s better that a few evil men should die than a whole nation dwindle and perish.

I think an excellent example of this whole issue is the climax of Star Wars Episode III. Obi-Wan, upon learning of Anakin’s transformation into evil incarnate Darth Vader, goes to where Vader is to destroy him. Before he starts the fight (and keep in mind, HE starts the fight — he ignites his lightsaber first, probably in defense), he tries to talk to him, to bring him back over to the side of good — but he does not, and Obi-Wan is forced to fight.

And guess what? Peace reigned after the Emperor and Darth Vader took over. It was a “safe and secure society.” But then — then those evil Rebels came and started the star wars, causing conflict and strife and death and destruction to reign for a while. Curse those rebels! They should have “use[d] all [their] resources to promote peace,” like Darth Sidious did. That’s a good idea, former President Jimmy Carter!

Say, I think I’ll extend this Star Wars analogy into a full-length essay....

Stay tuned. Star Wars essay to come.

-SALVARE