Resident Pacifist

This post has been a long time in coming.

Recently, a friend and colleague at work brought an Economist article to my attention about the US military's strategic response to the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not an untypical encounter.

I have been at Fuller now for over a year and a common interaction with other co-workers and fellow students revolves around the issues of war and pacifism. As a “resident pacifist,” I frequently get questions that thrust me in excruciating hypothetical situations, suddenly put me in charge of solving/clarifying the problems that stump most world leaders, or invite me to take strolls down horrible moments on history lane. Besides having the worst experiences of humanity and the thorniest moral issues constantly thrown into my lap, I don’t mind this really and actually enjoy the opportunity to explore my faith while being solidly engaged in the realities of our world. This interaction compels me to be humble in my pacifism.

I appreciate my friend’s inquiry. We have a great rapport and can debate this stuff with genuine curiosity. Plus, I am a huge military history nerd and jump at the chance to discuss such issues.

More often than not, the questions or comments thrown at me reveal a common assumption. Because I am Mennonite/pacifist, I hold the default role of explaining myself. The interaction often unfolds with the assumption that they speak from a normative Christian perspective, and that I, as the pacifist, am in the position of exception. My friend Matt Krabill taught me a way to engage in this dialogue as not taking this “explaining role” for granted. He says that pacifism should be reduced to a “Mennonite thing.” This is a “Christian thing.”

This mutuality is what I have learned to strive for when exploring issues of war and pacifism in conversation with other Christians.

Now, to the article…

Should the US military be strategically adapting to and committed to fighting guerilla, non-conventional wars down the road? Is a larger troop force needed rather than a tech savvy smaller force advocated by Rumsfeld? Should the military rely less on fire power but more on smarts in an occupation situation (a gentler, more compassionate occupier)?

The adjustments, from a military perspective, are probably appropriate and fitting as a response to the prospect of fighting a drawn out guerilla warfare in future conflicts. Interestingly, these voices urging patience, extended commitment, strategy of long tem occupation were derisively dismissed at the onset of the war. The article outlines a basic shift in strategy to (finally) meet the reality of a protracted, “nation building” situation.

Another interesting point is the fact that the military is preparing for protracted engagements, assembling a force that can be effective in occupation. This is an assumption of a role that till now has only been thinly veiled. A military preparing to occupy is the quintessential definition of a military that is in empire mode. I am sure the British had to adapt similarly during their period of colonialism. Hmmmm…

No matter what though, I still have to raise two issues: those engaged in Guerilla warfare have 1) the initiative and 2) they will continuously provoke. Will the new military’s strategy of “if we are smarter, we will win” work? The (very bloody) jury is still out.