Pat Robertson: War? With Whom?
When the clock radio goes off in the morning, the news occasionally brings something that shocks or surprises enough to make my mind race past all the fog and actually focus. Sometimes it’s something tragic, sometimes just stupid, but it’s generally bad news. Well, Tuesday was the latest instance of this, as I woke up hearing of Pat Robertson’s call to assassinate Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
There’s so much wrong with this, both theologically and politically, that I immediately wanted to write about it, but after a while I figured most everything had been said. Marvin Olasky has a pretty good article, for example. As often happens, though, I realize after a while that there’s another side to the story that’s not really being told, but needs to so we can understand what’s truly going on. Of course, that’s the main reason I started this blog.
Because assassination is generally an act of war, the real issue here is the definition of war, and what it means to enter into and to end a state of war. Unfortunately, since the end of World War II and the formation of the U.N., the constitutional process of Congress’ declaring a war has been set aside. This has caused all sorts of problems, with various ill-defined “police actions”, both large and small, ensuing over the past 60 years.
Since 9/11, things have gotten even more muddled, as we fight a “war on terrorism”. I don’t use the quotes sarcastically, but simply to point out that nobody really knows what a “war on terrorism” is! This is a new kind of war, at least at the level of weaponry terrorists either have or are thought to be seeking. It’s understandable that things must be worked out somewhat as we go along.
On the other hand, there’s a tremendous danger here as we pursue such an ill-defined “war”, and Rev. Robertson’s unfortunate comments point right to it. The danger is, the longer we go without clearly defining what the war on terror is, the easier it will be to justify all sorts of mischief. Chavez supposedly is friendly to terrorist types, etc., so if we simply brand him a terrorist, then we can justify getting rid of him. Never mind that we’re not at war with Venezuela.
This is a serious problem. As we muddle along, ultimately we effectively risk putting the U.S. at war with potentially most everyone and everybody. Is there not really a point at which even the British would say we’ve gone too far? Would we then label them friends of terrorists for disagreeing with us? Obviously I’m exaggerating to make a point, but there’s a sort of open-ended logic that needs to be closed, the sooner the better. In other words, we can’t really define what a war on terror is until we clearly define what it is not. We need limits, and since we’ve chucked requiring a congressional declaration of war, we don’t have any except public opinion.
Indeed, we don’t really have enough political will to efficiently carry out a long war, yet we do have enough to start a lot of things. Surely, the goal behind requiring a congressional declaration of war was just the opposite of our present situation: to make it politically difficult to get into a war, but then easier, politically, to stay in it and carry it out properly once the line was passed. Now we cross the line back and forth and don’t even know where we are much of the time.
It doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to figure that the Bush administration is trying to strike a delicate balance between applying enough resources in Iraq to do the job, but not so much as to cause a political backlash. Unfortunately, this this kind of politics-driving-strategy will eventually break down. The longer a war goes (and they have indicated the overall war on terror will be long), the more resources (and lives) will be squandered, and the weaker our position will become.
Pat Robertson’s remarks beg the question, “Do you want to start a war with Venezuela?” Of course, this sounds preposterous, but without a clear structure for defining why and how we would decide to start a war, is it just a matter of time, or pressing circumstances, before the U.S. stumbles into a dumb call such as this?
Pat Robertson calls himself a christian yet calls for the assination of a foreign leader. Pat Robertson is NOT christian nor is he even a believer. If he were he would certainly not have spoken those words. Most of the so called evangelical christians you see on TV with the Tammy Faye Baker hair and make up are only con artists out to rob the poor in spirit. Something needs to be done to preserve the christian faith against these crooks. The 700 club needs to be removed from television and all assets seized and sold. The money should them be used to build shelters in this country for our homeless and to at least assist them in finding some sort of job. I am so disgusted with these demons in disguise that call themselves christians but are unwilling to move against what is wrong and assist those that are struggling to do what is right. Our country is a moral cesspool and we as christians only have ourselves to blame.
Comment by Noel Singletary — August 30, 2005 @ 1:47 am
Thanks for your comment, Noel. I’m not ready to go so far concerning Robertson and a lot of the other folks on Christian TV. It wasn’t really my purpose to bash Robertson so much, though he really does need to be called on the carpet over this (I did use both the words “stupid” and “preposterous”).
I don’t really have any reason to think Pat Robertson isn’t a Christian, and he has done a lot to build Christian TV and other ministries, yet like a lot of Christian leaders, he has some real strengths but also considerable blind spots and/or weaknesses. Any person who really accomplishes much is going to have weaknesses; the problem is when they aren’t recognized and compensated for.
I am one of those folks trying hard to train the next generation, who will hopefully be solid Christian leaders able to succeed in accomplishing much without forgetting the weak and powerless in our society and throughout the world. This will take a measure of humility and virtue uncommon today.
Comment by Gordon — August 31, 2005 @ 3:23 am
Britain’s Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, is now arguing that the ‘War on Terror’ was a mistake that may have caused more harm than good.
The above-linked article notes that “British officials quietly stopped using the phrase ‘war on terror’ in 2006, but this is the first time it has been comprehensively discarded in the most outspoken remarks on US counterterrorism strategy to date by a British minister.”
I’m glad the British are finally stirring up some discussion of this terminology, which has been used to justify all sorts of misguided U.S. policies. Here is Miliband’s own article, dated Jan. 15th.
Comment by Gordon R. Vaughan — January 16, 2009 @ 12:31 am