Five and Counting

First, I was listening to the news this morning and I was yanked out of my semi-sleep state of mind by one report. This week denotes the 5 year mark of the beginning of the war in Iraq. The swell of emotion that accompanied the mere mention of that fact lingered in me for the rest of the morning. Five years… It has been a long time!

I remember the time preceding the war very well. I had moved to Germany a half year after 9/11 and spent the first year of my acclimation to Europe in the charged context of the build up to the war in Iraq. I remember it being a very difficult period for me. On the one hand, I was dealing with all the outrage and emotion leveraged against the US by my European friends and then on the other hand trying to sort out my own reaction and outrage at what my country was doing. I felt helpless to do anything and yet I felt the brunt end of the raw frustration directed towards US geo-politics. I was deeply distressed by the decisions being made, but at the same time felt defensive at the wholesale criticism of the US. In the end, I think I experienced what many US ex-pats, who were opposed to the war: I was confused.

Since having moved back to the US in 2006, it has been remarkable how far off and distant the Iraq War has become. My work with the Military Counseling Network in Germany had me dealing first hand with US soldiers returning from, going to or deployed in Iraq. I was very close to the gravity and intensity of the war. Here it seems so very far away, neatly tucked away in intermittent news reports.

The nature of this war is that the domestic experience is disconnected with what is directly happening overseas. Yet the subtext of this war is that it is directly shaping our society. The current war in Iraq is the major world issue of our time and it is having a profound influence on our lives in the US from economics, culture, politics, to religion. Although this war is disconnected with most American’s immediate lives and lifestyles (other than those serving in the armed forces or military families), the war is producing a strong undercurrent of change, particularly in the younger generations.

I am studying at a Christian seminary. We talk a lot about the changing nature of Christianity in our society. If there is one thing that hardly gets mentioned at all, it is the war in Iraq. It strikes me how very little it comes up in conversation or in class. I understand it is a scary and explosive topic. I know that people here have passionate opinions about the war that go either way and include all the in-between. However, five years ago Christians were at the center of the debate about the war. Today it is hard to talk about.

I find it interesting, form all the stuff I am learning at seminary, that the church is undergoing a period of tremendous change as the centrality and role of the church is being re-evaluated and marginalized. From what I can tell, there are seismic shifts in the way young Christians understand church. For my generation, the landscape of American Christianity is changing, particularly in the case of how Christians understand their role in society and in the world. It seems to me like there are more young people interested in engaging and taking holistic responsibility for the problems of the world beyond their own countries international policy and involvement. (Politically, there are more young adults voting and involved in political campaigns than ever before.)

The funny thing is that I hardly hear Christians in my context tangibly connect the situation in Iraq to the changing conception of the church and its role. Of course it is more complicated than reducing it to politics. However, I feel the confusion of the debacle of Iraq has permeated the consciousness of young Christians and they are not taking the role of American civil religion, consciously or unconsciously, for granted in the same way as they did five years ago.

A lot has changed in five years.

Second, in regards to attaining a resolution to the conflict, why have we not deployed Chuck Norris yet?

MCN on TV

Here is a ABC Dateline report about desertion in the US military during the Iraq War and it features Michael, introduced as a "Mennonite Christian," who is a good friend and a former colleague at the Military Counseling Network. The report shows several soldiers I worked with in Germany during my time with MCN. There is a particular tense moment in the course of the interview when Michael says, "take the highest number [of AWOL soldiers] the military gives you and double it. There is no reason for the military to give out that information." To which a Lt. Colonel responds by admitting that he is the only soldier left in the military and runs around to be in different places which makes it only appear that there are 500,000 soldiers in the military. First of all, that cannot be true. No way! I just don't believe him. Come to think of it this is a very smart response. Somehow this will confuse the terrorists. Good thinking, dude!

However, the MOST IMPORTANT point to this post is that you can see ME at the press conference standing behind the podium, off in the crowd, for the briefest of moments.

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.