Nov 10, 2009
How Our Economic Decisions Undermine Support for Our Soldiers and Peace
I used to live 15 minutes from a naval air force base. Large military escort planes often hummed over our neighborhood, and some evenings I would drive by as they swooped in over the road. All around the base a series of shopping malls and various businesses offered everything a military base could need.
Over the years the local politicians debated the wisdom of having a military base on the edge of Philadelphia. Throughout the region similar debates cropped up from time to time about similar bases.
More often than not, the bases remained open. While some could make an argument for each base’s importance and function in the grand military scheme of things (though a “naval” base north of Philly strikes me as a hard sell), the loudest and most repeated argument proposed for keeping the bases was the local economy.
“If our little Naval Air base closed down, the local businesses around the base would experience a loss in business and put a lot of hard-working Americans out of work.” So we almost always kept the bases, kept spending our tax dollars on them, and kept folks employed.
A few years later, I began to notice that a lot of my friends had fathers who worked for a local business that built all kinds of stuff for the military. In fact, one of these companies still employs thousands of people in the Philadelphia area, doing business in both the civilian and military sectors.
A few years after that I began to notice that a lot of scientific research at universities is also funded by the United States Defense Department—which used to be aptly named the “War” Department. Some folks at universities can’t talk about their research projects from time to time because they are classified.
These scattered memories came to mind while I watched several commercials during the World Series that aim to support our troops and their families. It’s a nice sentiment to wish them well with the fast approaching holiday season and to pray for their safe return to their families.
However, while we may sing Christmas carols about peace on earth, pray for the safety of our soldiers, and the coming of the Prince of Peace, the three examples above hint that the stability of our economy depends on none of those things taking place. We need our soldiers to be placed into harm’s way even as we wish them the best. We need wars, we need enemies, and we need a military to fight them all so that we can keep our bases, businesses, and overall economy running.
I’m not willing to say that we need to scrap the entire military of the United States. Every secular state needs to make provisions for national defense (though the nature of that defense is debatable). What bothers me is the way our nation’s economy depends so heavily on military spending, keeping our soldiers in harm’s way, even while we’re told to honor them and to wish them season’s greetings
We could invest more money into nation-building, diplomacy, education, and development, but we already have an economy that depends on defense spending, so it’s way more comfortable to keep manufacturing arms and tearing apart families through lengthy deployments. But don’t worry! We are united in the support of our soldiers and wish them a happy holidays.
That should make things better, right?
The truth is that America has become cowardly and defeatist in its approach to the economy and to innovation. We have bought into the fear that we can’t survive economically by supporting global education, development, and peace. War can be good for business, and so we stay addicted to it.
Save an unnecessary military base for the sake of local jobs? Absolutely. Pump money out to defense contractors as we continue our fight in Afghanistan and keep Americans working in the production of war material? Of course! Seek other options for global peace and local economic development?
Nah. Let’s just keep putting our soldiers in harm’s way.
We tell ourselves that our soldiers like being honored, even if they have to risk their lives, get exposed to carcinogenic explosives, endure post-traumatic stress disorders, and miss out on irreplaceable time with their families. The American soldier is no doubt courageous, but in the midst of honoring them we fail to discuss our nation’s cowardice, our unwillingness to make sacrifices, and our fear of changing our systems and economy.
Perhaps we are guilty of hiding behind the bravery of our soldiers because we fear being exposed for what we are. Before we rush to honor the sacrifices of our soldiers, perhaps we should first ask what we are willing to sacrifice.
“I’m not willing to say that we need to scrap the entire military of the United States. Every secular state needs to make provisions for national defense (though the nature of that defense is debatable). What bothers me is the way our nation’s economy depends so heavily on military spending, keeping our soldiers in harm’s way, even while we’re told to honor them and to wish them season’s greetings.”
Point taken. However, I am willing to say that, while it may be true that nations need to make provisions for national defense, that point is irrelevant to what it means for Christians to “seek peace and pursue it.” The earliest Christians viewed nonviolence and Christian obedience as nearly synonymous. In the first three centuries at least, when a Roman soldier became a Christian it was assumed that part of his response to God’s work in his life would be to resign his military post and work for peace in ways that don’t involve killing or physically harming others. So, while I agree that nations may need to make provisions for national defense, I would say that Christians ought to give a lot more thought to whether they can – in good conscience and in obedience to Christ – work for peace by serving in the military. I have come to believe that the two are mutually exclusive and I’m beginning to think that this isn’t just a private, personal calling but is, rather, part and parcel of what Christian obedience is all about.
[Reply]
Before launching into my opinions, I should’ve noted that I believe your critique of American / local economic practices and the ways in which people expect soldiers to not only defend them but also to make sure that their businesses keep running. All the while, most folks take no concrete action – christian or otherwise – to “seek peace and pursue it” beyond relying on the violence of others to achieve it – a process which, incidentally, almost never achieves lasting peace (something war has never been able to do).
[Reply]
Andrew,
Thanks for your comment. I’ve written quite a bit more elsewhere on this blog fleshing out that bit about a provision for national defense. I’m not 100% certain on this one, but I think we need some basic policing/peace-keeping forces in place. For example, I think there’s a place for navies to keep the oceans safe–though we should not neglect the economic injustices that prompt many to adopt piracy as a business.
The trouble is that governments will certainly abuse their armies for selfish gains, and even the process of training a soldier to kill is quite troubling. However, I’m not quite sure how to balance the idealism of pacifism with our world’s self-serving realities.
The example of the early church has one key difference from today in that emperor worship was a key part of the Roman military. That may not change things, but it needs to be part of the discussion. I for one am not comfortable with the place of the military today, don’t support the twisted theology of good and evil that is prevalent among evangelical soldiers, and want to raise the profile of peace activists and groups working toward education and reconciliation.
Having said that, we need to ask why we may support a police officer with a gun vs. a soldier with a gun. If we can use a soldier much like we use a police officer, just on a global scale, then we may be able to discuss a limited role for the armed forces today.
[Reply]
Ed,
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my quite hasty comment. You bring up some issues that are often left out in discussion of war and peace among folks who oppose war. I have been helped in this regard by Mennonite-turned-Catholic theologian named Gerald Schlabach called Just Policing, Not War (http://bit.ly/2pWPkj)and by Glenn Stassen and David Gushee in their book Kingdom Ethics (http://bit.ly/3yfn7o).
The possibility of limiting the role of armed forces – especially the sort which the US has maintained and continues to expand – is necessary. However – on the question of Christian service in the US military – when we consider the role of the US Military in training mercenaries and oppressive pseudo-police forces in Latin America and elsewhere, I think Christian service becomes a non-option. When a force – such as the US military – can so easily mix “peacekeeping” with violent occupation and world control it becomes difficult to reconcile a Christian worldview with service in the US military. For more information on US activities throughout the world in this vein, check out School of the America’s Watch @ http://soaw.org/.
Although emperor worship is not compulsory in today’s military it could easily be argued that service in the US military constitutes a form of empire worship – especially given the theological assumptions inherent within the evangelical military culture (assumptions which, incidentally, are exploited in military recruitment efforts among young people in our schools).
I’ve got to reiterate that I greatly respect the sacrifices that military service people and their families make – it’s just that I find it nearly impossible to reconcile service in the military as it currently exists with the peacemaking vocation of the Christian disciple.
[Reply]
Just noticed one of the first links is broken. Here’s the link the Schlabach book: http://bit.ly/2pWPkj.
Peace, A.T.
[Reply]
Andrew,
It is interesting to think of this in terms of two issues:
1) Should we even have an army and if so, what kind of army?
2) Should Christians serve in an army? If so, under what circumstances?
I like where you’re going with this and agree that it’s awfully hard to reconcile the call to be peacemakers with the military today. I can’t offer much of a resolution to all of this, but I appreciate the fact that we’re hitting on some real important, core ideas here.
[Reply]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by edcyzewski, edcyzewski. edcyzewski said: New blog post: How Our Economic Decisions Undermine Support for Our Soldiers and Peace – http://tinyurl.com/yg54n7s [...]
Thanks Ed. Very thought provoking. However,while I think this an important issue to discuss I must say that I am uncomfortable with the certainties that seem (and no doubt I could be mistaken) to underlie the questions here. The questions in the post and the replies feel almost rhetorical to me and that makes engagement with the issue(s) very difficult. In addition to the questions above there are the theological questions that result because we live in fallen world and the fact that there is real evil in the world(i.e. senseless power grabbing and brutality for no other reason than someone can) and not just misguided energy brought about by economic or politcal injustice. What does justice (justice being another concept that has no short, single definition) demand in the face of real evil? This, it seems to me, is an enormously complex issue about which we do need to have a discussion and the role of the military is not out of bounds and is in fact central but I am not sure that the tone set here is conducive to such a discussion. With that said, I am not sure how to frame the questions in a way that is not advesarial and accusatory of those serving in the military who do seek to follow Jesus. If scripture teaches us anything it is that there are no easy answers to living as a faithful follower in a fallen world.
[Reply]
Tim,
Thanks for always wrestling with these tough issues with me. I certainly don’t want to make it MORE difficult to think through these issues, so I apologize about that. Perhaps the problem here is that we are dealing with matters so complex, difficult, and, in my opinion, neglected that it’s hard to really do it justice without writing a series of posts. I took similar stabs at this in this post:
http://inamirrordimly.com/2009/09/11/taking-jesus-at-his-word-loving-our-enemies-and-9-11/
So I apologize for the tone. I’m still working on that. I don’t want to favor either side over the other or present false dichotomies. At this point I feel like the pro-military side has had a monopoly on the conversation for the most part, so it’s hard to carve out a place for the pacifist perspective. I addressed some of this tension in this post:
http://inamirrordimly.com/2009/08/26/why-many-christians-dont-talk-about-war/
Thanks for the challenge. I, like you, have no clue about the best way to frame this, but I think this topic is important enough to risk making some mistakes along the way. Sadly, there may be no way to discuss this without it becoming uncomfortable among soldiers. I don’t think that is a reason to avoid the discussion, but I agree that we want to do everything we can to avoid becoming accusatory and judgmental.
[Reply]