Count the Cost in Syria

Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace.  Luke 14: 31 – 32

I know that Jesus gave this illustration as a parabolic teaching about the cost of discipleship, but I think there is much to learn from its surface level meaning – especially considering current events.

Our nation is poised at the brink of yet another war.  President Obama believes that the United States must use its military to intervene in the Syrian crisis, but he has called for Congress to give approval for this intervention.  Before we launch any missile strikes and before we put any boots on the ground (because the one will lead inevitably to the other…) we must count the cost.

Fiscally this will be expensive.  Can we afford it?  We’re only just now beginning to claw our way out of the hole we dug with two costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our economy is fragile, some would say already broken. Can we afford another war?  I do not think we can.  Not while there are so many other pressing concerns.  How is that we always seem to find money for war and killing people but there’s never enough money for health care or education? 

But there are other costs besides the fiscal.  Morally this will be costly as well. 

I am a pacifist.  I do not believe that war is ever justified.  But even if one holds to the “just war” theory – there is no justification for military intervention.  Going to war should be the last and final option.  Not the first and only. 

We have a long history of thinking that we can solve these sorts of crisis by dropping bombs or firing missiles.  We also have a long history of not learning that this has never solved the problems – only exacerbated them.  We bomb the crap out of it, and then spend years afterward trying to deal with the “unexpected” consequences. 

Before we do this we must count the cost.  Can we afford it?  We may have the world’s largest (I will not use the word “greatest”) military.  We may have high-tech weaponry.  We may have numerical and tactical advantage – but can we afford it?

Much of the world already sees the United States as a military thug, constantly invading country after country.  Do we want to continue to perpetuate that impression?

Is it worth it?

Even if we “win” against Bashar Assad, we still lose… 

We must count the cost.

I Didn't Join the Military to Fight Wars...

Have you seen this image

?  It's been burning up the internets in the past couple of days. The picture shows a man in a Navy uniform with Chief Petty Officer insignia holding a handwritten sign in front of his face, "I didn't join the navy to fight for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war!"

We will, for now, assume that the photo is of an actual factual enlisted Navy man, and that it isn't a staged propaganda photo.

I appreciate that you don't want to fight in Syria.  I don't want you to have to fight there either.  But as long as you wear that uniform you don't get to pick and choose which battles you will fight.  As long as you are a member of the United States armed forces you will have to salute, say "yes sir!" and do as you're told.

You don't get to say "I didn't join the Navy to fight...."  of course you did.  That's why the Navy (and all the branches of the military) exist - to fight.  And while you wear the Navy uniform you will be compelled to fight.

If you really don't want to fight in Syria (or anywhere else for that matter) put down the sign and take off the uniform.    Resign from the military.

The Cost of Doing Nothing

I have been, for several days now, increasingly nervous that the United States would begin launching military strikes into Syria.  When I saw the announcement that President Obama would be speaking today at 1:15 about the Syrian conflict I felt my stomach drop.  I waited and waited and waited as that 1:15 time came and went and President still hadn’t come out to the Rose Garden to make his announcement.   When finally he did, I was partially relieved. 

And, disappointed at the same time.

I voted for President Obama – in large part because of his opposition to and his pledge to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I have, in the years since, hoped for more rapid progress in these promises.  I have also been angered by our increasing use of attack drones to target and kill our ‘enemies’ – as well as numerous other ‘unintended targets.’

This afternoon when President Barack Obama laid out his plans for Syria I was angered to hear him declare that he has “decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.”  Even if, as he said, “[t]his would not be an open-ended intervention.  We would not put boots on the ground.  Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope,” it felt like a betrayal of my vote. 

This is not what a Nobel Peace Prize recipient does.

And yet, I was partially relieved to hear the President continue, “But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  And that’s why I've made a second decision:  I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.”

We can still stop any American escalation of this tragedy.  Please write, call, stalk your congressional representatives and let them know that you oppose any U.S. military action in Syria.

But the part of President Obama’s speech that disgusted and disappointed me the most was the following:

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited.  I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end.  But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Why is it that not “using military force” is automatically equated with “doing nothing”?  Are we so limited in our thinking?  To the one with a hammer, everything looks like a nail and to the nation with a massive military everything looks like a reason for war. 

But there must be alternatives. 

There can be no doubt that what is transpiring in Syria is “an assault on human dignity” but sending missile strikes will only further compound that situation.   (And, I am not at all convinced that missile strikes would be the end of it.  We may say “limited in duration and scope” now, but those who have lead nations into every war ever fought have promised that it would be over quickly…) 

As a Christian, as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, I believe that we are called to be Peacemakers – and this is no easy thing.  War is easy.  Fighting is easy because it comes naturally to us.  It’s one of our two automatic responses – the other being to run away.  But being a Peacemaker requires us to find a different response.

I agree that we can’t “do nothing.”  We should do something – but this emotional plea to do something about the many thousands that have been murdered in Syria, should not be used to compel us to actions that will only lead to more death and suffering.  We must find another way – we should find many more other ways. 

Doing nothing is not an option.  Neither is military intervention.  But these are not our only alternatives.  This is not a binary, black or white, all or nothing situation. 

Let us be Peacemakers for a change.

To read a full transcript of the President’s remarks click here: