swordpentrumpet.com

As the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues unabated, the opposition to the war increases from all segments of society and from all political persuasions. With the reality of this war continuing for the foreseeable future, it is important to understand the proper biblical relationship between the Christian and a country prosecuting a war outside its actual territory. There are many crucial elements to understand surrounding war, the overarching consideration being the loss of human life – life created in the image of an Almighty God – on the battlefield, as well as within the outreaches we refer to as collateral damage. Some of the other topics related to any war this country becomes involved are Just War Theory, the United States Constitution, the biblical approval to conduct war, and the individual’s responsibilities with respect to their citizenry of a country involved in a war.

Although many of these issues were addressed from many different religious and political groups before the United States launched its first ground campaign in Afghanistan, it is important to revisit some of these in the light of recent allegations against the current administration, as well as re-looking some of the earlier commentary made by the aforementioned groups. Moreover, it is important to understand this writer’s presuppositional framework cloistering my comments.

Despite a contemporary viewpoint that focuses on man’s “rights” to do just about anything he or she wishes, I think ethics is theonomic, based on what I read in Holy Scripture. This does not mean I am a theonomist (one who believes the penalties described in the Old Testament should be enforced today). Frankly, the theonomic position subscribed to by Christian Reconstructionists, Dominionists, neo-Puritans and other groups such as the Patriarchy movement, are problematic for a number of reasons. First, theonomists over generalize in their categories of the law. On one hand they wish to stone adulterers to death, but they are unwilling to celebrate the Passover meal in accordance with proscribed biblical standards, claiming the ceremonial law is no longer valid, when what they are really saying is the sacrificial law has been satisfied by the sacrificial death of Christ. This is no mere hairsplitting because it underscores a very tenuous position on the part of the theonomist, who happens to represent Christendom’s most vocal opposition to the current war.

The second presupposition I write from is what I refer to as the Razor’s Edge, a term used by the Reformed theologian John Murray to describe the line that sometimes exists between right and wrong. This particular presupposition applies to those areas where the Bible is not explicitly clear in what we should do in a given situation. This does not suggest, however, that a situation exists that is so gray we cannot determine what would please God. It means that even though we are not omniscient and we will operate without complete knowledge, there is always a course of action that pleases God, even if we do not know what that action is at some given point in the time continuum.

With these prefatory thoughts is mind, let’s jump into the discussion at hand.

To begin with, it is important to realize that providing for the country’s “common defense” is one of the few constitutional responsibilities of the federal government. When the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution, the federal government was much weaker than the respective state governments embodied and protected within the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. Furthermore, it is fundamental to our comprehension of this complex issue to conceptualize this radical difference within the relationship between the states and the federal government. The reality is this: The federal government was intentionally weak, with the new country’s power decentralized and a balance between the federal branches in place. Our Founding Fathers purposely designed the constitution in this manner after a long, bitter fight, and it was not until the aftermath of the War Between the States that our country began to take on its contemporary look, exemplified by a strong centralized government in Washington D.C.

Another point to keep in mind is this: Although there were many God-fearing men involved in the construct of the US Constitution, it is a flawed document and, though portions can be traced to the Bible, it is not a biblical document. Yes, the laws at the time were significantly different (Patrick Henry was able to pass the Virginia Bar Exam in less than a half-year’s study solely based on his study of the Bible and a few documents), however, the influence of the English Common Law began to wane early in our nation’s history. Furthermore, the oaths that public officials (civil magistrates) took, oaths that tied a public servant’s conduct with a final accountability to God, are not even mandatory today. Although our theonomist friends would like to see the 18th Century constraints on the civil magistrate reintroduced, I think it would be better for our friends to re-examine the eschatology that drives their position.

Furthermore, despite a resurgence of neo-Puritan influence within Christian homseschooling, as well as a conservative “dominionist” perspective within the same circle, it is highly unlikely these groups will be able to establish a theonomic government within the United States. Although this sub-category of subject matter demands its own epistle, for the purpose of this essay, it is not necessary. However, it is important to note that I am not using the term “neo-Puritan” in a pejorative sense, as I see the self-policing of the Puritans to bring about the end of the Salem Witch Trials as a positive aspect of their biblical devotion. Even though historians and the mainstream media (MSM) have slammed the Puritans for years (based on the Salem Witch Trials and the fictional work titled The Scarlet Letter), the Puritans did return to the Bible for guidance and stopped the trials. This reality stands in stark contrast to the long-running Roman Catholic Inquisition that resulted in thousands of lives lost for non-biblical reasons. A final thought on this sub-topic is this: Contemporary Christians might fare much better if they took the Bible’s warnings on witchcraft a little more seriously. Today’s Christian “love affair” with such works as Narnia and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is not biblical in the least, and their inclusion of so much witchcraft should give any sober Christian pause. On the other hand, I think the dominionists (represented by Replacement, Covenantal, and certain neo-Patriarchy theologies) are problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is their implicit anti-Semitism, which has been a centuries old problem in the Roman Catholic Church.

So what are the divergent views of the two main political parties and third parties, as it relates to the ongoing Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)? Their views, in a word, are weak; as each of the political parties rhetoric and actions regarding defense of America have resulted in a continuing vulnerability to terrorist attack, despite taking the fight to the terrorists on their home turf. Furthermore, many pundits and politicians display an enormous lack of understanding concerning the functions of the Commander-in-Chief (president) during a time of war. Lastly, despite their vocal positions supporting the troops, very few of those opposed to the war have displayed an iota of true support for the men and women doing the fighting. Talk is cheap, and the “we oppose the war but support the troops” is some of the cheapest talk making its rounds in America.

Besides very inexpensive posturing, there has been a great deal of rhetoric concerning a lack of weapons of mass destruction being found in Iraq, which is ostensibly the reason America invaded this particular country under a new policy of “pre-emption.” However, it is important to start at the beginning, and the 2003 Iraq War is hardly that place.

For years, radical Islamists have been deliberately attacking the United States abroad, killing military and civilian personnel alike. Whether the attacks were on embassies, naval vessels, or US military facilities overseas, the Islamists murdered many Americans and many more foreign nationals. During this time, the US administrations viewed these attacks as a law enforcement issue instead of what it truly was: A new global jihad to instill Islam as a one-world religion. Since the United States is the only superpower, we are its primary target, although Russia, the Philippines, and a number of other countries have been under Islamic attack for as many years as the US.

This is not the first time Muslims have attempted to force their religion upon all the world’s known people groups. Despite the self-flagellation of American and European historians, the Muslims began the conflict that resulted in The Crusades. In other words, just as the historians deceived themselves, successive administrations, as well as the US Congress, failed to comprehend the true nature of the threat. The legislative and executive branches also failed to act on known intelligence, while allowing a Fifth Column of Muslims to become US citizens, allegedly based on the sacrosanct “right” to practice one’s religion in America. Republican and Democrat administrations alike failed to deal with the enemy – period.

For their part, the Republicans did wake from their slumber after the attack of September 11, 2001. Yet, the majority of the administration (then and now) ignored the advice of General (Retired) Shinseki, Secretary of State Powell (formerly General Powell), and a host of others who were very reluctant to prosecute the GWOT in the manner we now see. Moreover, the Republican president took the politically correct stance of distinguishing between radical and non-radical Muslims. This distinction was and is fallacious, and it has been the Republican’s most significant failure in understanding the threat against our country – a threat that is primarily a religious threat on what remains of our Constitutional Republic. Thus, we come to the first fundamental issue concerning the GWOT, and we find that, since our very existence is threatened, there is a reason to wage war. How we wage that war, however, is the contentious issue between the two primary parties, while the third party candidates concern themselves with the constitutionality of an undeclared war.

For their part, many members of all parties have been concerned with this lack of a declared war. Yet, this is argument is without merit, since the threat is transnational, operating within a guerilla warfare infrastructure. Although these groups receive succor from known governments, it would be impossible (from a legal perspective) to make the case for declaring war on these countries, because their military personnel are not attacking our country. Those insisting the US declare war before dispatching troops often use a straw man argument for said insistence and, therefore, it is easily demonstrable to show how those insisting on such a course would seemingly prefer to see thousands of American civilians dead while waiting for the definitive act (if it ever came) to declare war on a uniformed enemy. This desirable reality conflicts with the superseded principle of US conduct, which is not only necessary to continue our survival as a nation and protect its citizens (a charge the Chief Executive enjoys), but can be biblically justified on an extrapolation from the obvious examples of when it is justifiable to lie – to protect another’s life (Jewish midwives in Egypt, Christians protecting Jews during the 1930-40’s time period, etc.), as well as numerous biblical principles of self-defense. What is that superseded principle? The War Powers Act. Simply stated, if the people’s representatives give the Commander-in-Chief certain powers and the US Supreme Court does not find those powers to be unconstitutional, then no “it’s unconstitutional” argument will change the present reality. Again, it is prudent to keep in mind the balance of powers does just that – it balances power. If congress chooses to rein in the president, it merely cuts off funding for the so-called “president’s war.” It is just that simple. Furthermore, if we desire to be “strict constructionists,” then we would quickly realize that nearly every declared war the US has been involved with since the Mexican American War has been unconstitutional, for more than one reason. Yet, I have noticed the strict constructionists are not too enamored with visiting this truth in their assertions the current war is unconstitutional

Another sub-issue that the constitutionalists employ is their suspicion of the Council of Foreign Relations and its agenda. Although their concern is understood, it should be noted that a lot of this concern is actually religiously based, specifically their view of eschatology (end times). Again, we are looking here at dominionists and their view of “taking dominion” for Christ, which is driven by a post-mill eschatology.

Another issue we repeatedly hear discussed is how our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has only served to inflame Muslim sensibilities more than they were already inflamed by our actions before 9/11 and the resulting war on terrorism. We hear this most often from the political left and leading Democrats. This particular argument is based on the assumption that America has caused its problems with the Muslim world before 9/11 instead of the reality that Muslims were already engaged in a global jihad. The reality is this: Muslims are going to attack America, Russia, England, France, Germany, and anywhere else they think they can gain a foothold, as long as these countries entertain the delusion that Muslim actions are predicated on our actions instead of accepting that Muslims, at every level of their society, are deliberately orchestrating this war against the west. On a lighter note, some would argue the phrase “Muslim sensibilities” is an example of a classic oxymoron.

Lastly, the real issue Americans as a group should be addressing is not whether the war is unconstitutional, based on a lie (this deserves its own essay), or inflaming Muslims, but how to win. We have already sacrificed more than 2,500 dead American soldiers, since 2003, a few hundred before 2003, more than 20,000 wounded, as well as more than 3,000 civilian casualties between the different acts of Muslim aggression and the 9/11 attack. To cut and run at this point would be cowardly, something the Bible and all societies condemn. The ultimate truth is this: Americans need to search for solutions together, not attack one another in political sound bites.

One of the differences I’ve noticed between military heroes and the anti-war crowd is the military person understands honor and duty. Many people hide behind liberal mantras, accusations the war was/is mismanaged (how do you “manage” a war?), while some Christians hide behind Just War rhetoric, and many politically correct General Officers refused to say anything while on active duty, they waited until their pensions were secure before joining in the attacks on the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Yet, despite all the protestors, despite the confused people who do not understand a nation’s right to defend itself, despite the outright cowards that exist in America (and elsewhere), despite those who voice opposition to the task set before the Soldier (while refusing to don boots and a helmet themselves), and despite those who refuse to listen to the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and Afghanis, there are men who not only listen, they act. Today’s Ultimate Truth is this: There are men in our country’s Army, as well as the Armies of our allies who live by the axiom Deeds not Words. I can only think of one phrase to describe the actions of these honorable men (in their own words): “No drama.” If you don’t know what this means, then you probably need to don a uniform and hang out with some SAS types.

Sergeant McGough, we salute you. Well done.

Sergeant Paul “Scruff” Mcgough, who has died aged 41, was a member of the Special Boat Service unit which took part in the siege of Qala-i-Janghi, Afghanistan, one of the most highly decorated missions in the recent history of the British special forces.

In November 2001 McGough was with C Company, SBS, when it flew unannounced into the former Soviet airbase at Bagram. A key strategic objective in north-east Afghanistan, it was disputed by thousands of Afghan government fighters, and the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, led by the Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum.

Though vastly outnumbered, the SBS held the huge airbase for a day and a night, to the fury of both armies, and to the chagrin of the Americans, who had expected to be first there.
Once relieved by the much larger US 10th Mountain Division and Delta Force (the American equivalent of the SAS) McGough, in local dress, undertook intelligence-gathering patrols in the mountains.

On November 25, as his team returned to the Anglo-American special forces base in the newly captured town of Mazar-i-Sharif, McGough heard the sound of battle at Dostum’s sprawling headquarters in the mud-built prison-fortress of Qala-i-Jangi, known as the “Fort of War”.
Several hundred prisoners had revolted while being interrogated by the CIA, and, overpowering their Northern Alliance guards, armed themselves with AK47s, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades from Dostum’s huge armoury.

They killed Captain “Mike” Spann, a former member of the US Marine Corps with the CIA, and cornered another agent, Dave Dawson, in a blockhouse.

McGough was one of eight SBS men in two armed Land Rovers under a British commander, and nine US special forces, led by Major Mark Mitchell, who raced to prevent the Taliban from breaking out of the jail to retake Mazar-i-Sharif.

Using only Leatherman handtools, McGough and a comrade stripped two general purpose machine-guns (known as “jimpies”) from their vehicle mountings and carried them with ammunition to the ramparts. McGough stood silhouetted against the sky firing his heavy jimpy from the hip to halt a determined charge by scores of screaming warriors, despite a hail of bullets which tore up the battlements under his feet.

Next he and another SBS man set alight three pick-up trucks. As the guns in the fort fell silent for first time since the battle had started, Dawson made his escape.

McGough’s action marked a turning point, and for two days he and the other seven SBS men displayed extraordinary heroism in the face of hundreds of fanatical Taliban. A man of few words, he chain-smoked while repelling charges by the tribesmen for several days until the US Special Forces called in air strikes.

Chief Petty Officer Stephen Bass (USN), who was attached to the SBS, received the Navy Cross from the American President and the Military Cross from the Queen.

Mitchell received the US Distinguished Service Cross from his government, and two SBS men received the British Conspicuous Gallantry Cross.

Despite reports to the contrary no Britons received any foreign awards, and McGough, though rumoured to have been recommended for the award of the Military Cross and the Congressional Medal of Honor, received a mention in dispatches.

True to the cloak of secrecy which surrounds all operations of the SBS, whose motto is “By Strength and Guile”, little else is known about Paul McGough.

He was one of the most respected men to serve with the SBS and fought in Operation Barras during September 2000, when 11 members of the Royal Irish Regiment and a Sierra Leonean soldier were being held hostage by “the West Side Boys”, former members of the Sierra Leone Army.

Some of McGough’s exploits were described in Damien Lewis’s Bloody Heroes, published earlier this month.

He was killed in a hang gliding accident on Cyprus on June 1, and leaves a widow and children.

(For comments on this story, see America’s North Shore Journal.)

On January 20, 2007, I will return to writing on this site. It will feature the men and women of America’s armed forces serving in combat and the combat zone. In addition to articles honoring the heroic sacrifice of these great Americans, you will find an occasional analysis of the shooting portion of the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as commentary concerning events in Iran, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and Israel.

This personal account appeared in the NY Times this morning. It is a fitting tribute to the sacrifice of our Soldiers.

January 1, 2007
An Appreciation

From Father to Son, Last Words to Live By

By Dana Canedy

He drew pictures of himself with angel wings. He left a set of his dog tags on a nightstand in my Manhattan apartment. He bought a tiny blue sweat suit for our baby to wear home from the hospital.

Then he began to write what would become a 200-page journal for our son, in case he did not make it back from the desert in Iraq.

For months before my fiancé, First Sgt. Charles Monroe King, kissed my swollen stomach and said goodbye, he had been preparing for the beginning of the life we had created and for the end of his own.

He boarded a plane in December 2005 with two missions, really — to lead his young soldiers in combat and to prepare our boy for a life without him.

Dear son, Charles wrote on the last page of the journal, “I hope this book is somewhat helpful to you. Please forgive me for the poor handwriting and grammar. I tried to finish this book before I was deployed to Iraq. It has to be something special to you. I’ve been writing it in the states, Kuwait and Iraq.

The journal will have to speak for Charles now. He was killed Oct. 14 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his armored vehicle in Baghdad. Charles, 48, had been assigned to the Army’s First Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, based in Fort Hood, Tex. He was a month from completing his tour of duty.

For our son’s first Christmas, Charles had hoped to take him on a carriage ride through Central Park. Instead, Jordan, now 9 months old, and I snuggled under a blanket in a horse-drawn buggy. The driver seemed puzzled about why I was riding alone with a baby and crying on Christmas Day. I told him.

“No charge,” he said at the end of the ride, an act of kindness in a city that can magnify loneliness.

On paper, Charles revealed himself in a way he rarely did in person. He thought hard about what to say to a son who would have no memory of him. Even if Jordan will never hear the cadence of his father’s voice, he will know the wisdom of his words.

Never be ashamed to cry. No man is too good to get on his knee and humble himself to God. Follow your heart and look for the strength of a woman.

Charles tried to anticipate questions in the years to come. Favorite team? I am a diehard Cleveland Browns fan. Favorite meal? Chicken, fried or baked, candied yams, collard greens and cornbread. Childhood chores? Shoveling snow and cutting grass. First kiss? Eighth grade.

In neat block letters, he wrote about faith and failure, heartache and hope. He offered tips on how to behave on a date and where to hide money on vacation. Rainy days have their pleasures, he noted: Every now and then you get lucky and catch a rainbow.

Charles mailed the book to me in July, after one of his soldiers was killed and he had recovered the body from a tank. The journal was incomplete, but the horror of the young man’s death shook Charles so deeply that he wanted to send it even though he had more to say. He finished it when he came home on a two-week leave in August to meet Jordan, then 5 months old. He was so intoxicated by love for his son that he barely slept, instead keeping vigil over the baby.

I can fill in some of the blanks left for Jordan about his father. When we met in my hometown of Radcliff, Ky., near Fort Knox, I did not consider Charles my type at first. He was bashful, a homebody and got his news from television rather than newspapers (heresy, since I’m a New York Times editor).

But he won me over. One day a couple of years ago, I pulled out a list of the traits I wanted in a husband and realized that Charles had almost all of them. He rose early to begin each day with prayers and a list of goals that he ticked off as he accomplished them. He was meticulous, even insisting on doing my ironing because he deemed my wrinkle-removing skills deficient. His rock-hard warrior’s body made him appear tough, but he had a tender heart.

He doted on Christina, now 16, his daughter from a marriage that ended in divorce. He made her blush when he showed her a tattoo with her name on his arm. Toward women, he displayed an old-fashioned chivalry, something he expected of our son. Remember who taught you to speak, to walk and to be a gentleman, he wrote to Jordan in his journal. These are your first teachers, my little prince. Protect them, embrace them and always treat them like a queen.

Though as a black man he sometimes felt the sting of discrimination, Charles betrayed no bitterness. It’s not fair to judge someone by the color of their skin, where they’re raised or their religious beliefs, he wrote. Appreciate people for who they are and learn from their differences.

He had his faults, of course. Charles could be moody, easily wounded and infuriatingly quiet, especially during an argument. And at times, I felt, he put the military ahead of family.

He had enlisted in 1987, drawn by the discipline and challenges. Charles had other options — he was a gifted artist who had trained at the Art Institute of Chicago — but felt fulfilled as a soldier, something I respected but never really understood. He had a chest full of medals and a fierce devotion to his men.

He taught the youngest, barely out of high school, to balance their checkbooks, counseled them about girlfriends and sometimes bailed them out of jail. When he was home in August, I had a baby shower for him. One guest recently reminded me that he had spent much of the evening worrying about his troops back in Iraq.

Charles knew the perils of war. During the months before he went away and the days he returned on leave, we talked often about what might happen. In his journal, he wrote about the loss of fellow soldiers. Still, I could not bear to answer when Charles turned to me one day and asked, “You don’t think I’m coming back, do you?” We never said aloud that the fear that he might not return was why we decided to have a child before we planned a wedding, rather than risk never having the chance.

But Charles missed Jordan’s birth because he refused to take a leave from Iraq until all of his soldiers had gone home first, a decision that hurt me at first. And he volunteered for the mission on which he died, a military official told his sister, Gail T. King. Although he was not required to join the resupply convoy in Baghdad, he believed that his soldiers needed someone experienced with them. “He would say, ‘My boys are out there, I’ve got to go check on my boys,’ ” said First Sgt. Arenteanis A. Jenkins, Charles’s roommate in Iraq.

In my grief, that decision haunts me. Charles’s father faults himself for not begging his son to avoid taking unnecessary risks. But he acknowledges that it would not have made a difference. “He was a born leader,” said his father, Charlie J. King. “And he believed what he was doing was right.”

Back in April, after a roadside bombing remarkably similar to that which would claim him, Charles wrote about death and duty.

The 18th was a long, solemn night, he wrote in Jordan’s journal. We had a memorial for two soldiers who were killed by an improvised explosive device. None of my soldiers went to the memorial. Their excuse was that they didn’t want to go because it was depressing. I told them it was selfish of them not to pay their respects to two men who were selfless in giving their lives for their country.

Things may not always be easy or pleasant for you, that’s life, but always pay your respects for the way people lived and what they stood for. It’s the honorable thing to do.

When Jordan is old enough to ask how his father died, I will tell him of Charles’s courage and assure him of Charles’s love. And I will try to comfort him with his father’s words.

God blessed me above all I could imagine, Charles wrote in the journal. I have no regrets, serving your country is great.

He had tucked a message to me in the front of Jordan’s journal. This is the letter every soldier should write, he said. For us, life will move on through Jordan. He will be an extension of us and hopefully everything that we stand for. … I would like to see him grow up to be a man, but only God knows what the future holds.