Category Archives: Military

All that is necessary is God

16 Replies

I’m wanting to spend some time this week with a much-repeated phrase: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” We hear that phrase time again, used to justify this action or that one. As I pointed out yesterday, everyone assumes that they are the “good men” and their rivals the “evil.”

I don’t like the saying. I used to. But the more I hear it used and abused, the more I feel a need to analyze it. And under analysis, it just doesn’t hold up.

Even though it probably wasn’t created by Edmund Burke, this saying does seem to have arisen out of ideas that were popular in the 18th and 19th centuries. Man was king. There seemed to be no limit to what men could do. Who needed God? God could be acknowledged as a creator who set in motion a marvelous creation… and nothing more. If anything was going to be accomplished, it would be done by men.

If evil was to be defeated, it would be by good men, unfettered by the need to look to God for approval of their actions.

All of which makes me understand why non-Christians spout such phrases and marvel at the fact that Christians will repeat them. All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is God. It begins and ends there.

Look at the book of Revelation. What would the recipients of that book/letter have thought if someone had come and said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I think they’d have said, “Here, read this. It says something different.” They were being called to “do nothing” in the eyes of the world. They were to pray. They were to be faithful. They were to expel false teachings from within their own community, but as far as the evil empire was concerned, they were to do nothing. (which would have drawn the ire of the “all that is necessary” crowd)

For God had promised to take care of evil. Maybe not as quickly as we’d like, hence the cry “How long?”. But it is God who is responsible for stemming the advance of evil. Even when we are called to be help in that, we need to understand that the victory does not hinge on our action. As Mordecai told Esther, “If you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place.” (Esther 4:14) If good men “do nothing,” God will raise up deliverance from another place. It doesn’t depend on us.

All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is God. It begins and ends there.

That’s my first criticism of this saying. It’s godless. We live in a society where saying we trust in God is admired and actually trusting in him is ridiculed. Sadly, that “god-free” attitude has permeated the church, as well.

Let’s make “In God We Trust” more than a phrase stamped on a coin. All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is God. Let’s act like we believe it.

Good men, evil’s triumph, and a spurious quote

8 Replies

Edmund Burke

There is a saying, usually attributed to Edmund Burke, that has been called “the commonest political quote you will find anywhere on the World Wide Web.”* It goes something like this:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

It goes “something like this” because the statement exists in many different forms:

  • All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
  • All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing
  • All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for a few good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for the evil to succeed is that good men do nothing

And so on.

It’s rather obviously an apocryphal quote. In fact, you can’t find anything of the sort by Edmund Burke, unless you count the quote: “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”(Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents) You can find, interestingly enough, his thoughts on maxims in general:

It is an advantage to all narrow wisdom and narrow morals that their maxims have a plausible air; and, on a cursory view, appear equal to first principles. They are light and portable. They are as current as copper coin; and about as valuable. They serve equally the first capacities and the lowest; and they are, at least, as useful to the worst men as to the best. Of this stamp is the cant of not man, but measures; a sort of charm by which many people get loose from every honourable engagement.
(Edmund Burke, “Thoughts on the cause of the present discontents,” 1770. In The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, edited by Henry Froude, Oxford University Press, 1909, Volume 2, page 83, lines 7 to 16.)

The saying that evil men will triumph if good men do nothing is a good illustration of what Burke is saying. At first blush, it sounds reasonable enough. It’s easy to remember, at least in general terms. It’s general enough that it’s been used as a rallying cry for human movements of all stripes, for almost everyone considers themselves to be “good” and their opponents “evil.” It can be used to justify almost any action as long as the person doing it considers himself good.

I’d like to spend a few days talking about the concept, since I’ve heard it used to promote all sorts of political, social and military action on the part of Christians. Before I begin to analyze what’s being said, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the inactivity of good men and the triumph of evil.

Appendix: Martin Porter offered some helpful suggestions for avoiding bogus quotes:
Principle 1 (for readers)
Whenever you see a quotation given with an author but no source assume that it is probably bogus.
Principle 2 (for readers)
Whenever you see a quotation given with a full source assume that it is probably being misused, unless you find good evidence that the quoter has read it in the source.
Principle 3 (for quoters)
Whenever you make a quotation, give the exact source.
Principle 4 (for quoters)
Only quote from works that you have read.

*This phrase comes from an analysis of the many variations of the Burke quote: http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html

Does Just War Theory bring peace or just war?

15 Replies

I saw a question asked online the other day which I found to be quite compelling. I read Rex Butts’ blog post on “The Evangelistic Scandal,” which led me to Scot McKnight’s discussion of Lee Camp’s new book.

The interview refers to “Just War Theory.” If you’re not familiar with Just War Theory, the idea is that there should be a set of criteria to apply to any conflict to determine if it is just or not. Proponents argue that Christians may participate in a just war, but not an unjust one. As far as I know, Augustine borrowed the principles from some Roman philosophers, then Thomas Aquinas further refined Augustine’s work. (Someone please correct that in the comments if my history is wrong; this is off the top of my head)

The basic principles of just war, as commonly expressed, are:

  • A just cause is basically defensive in posture, not aggressive.
  • The intent must also be just—the objectives must be peace and the protection of innocent lives.
  • War must be a matter of last resort when all attempts at reconciliation or peaceful resolution are exhausted.
  • A just war must be accompanied by a formal declaration by a properly constituted and authorized body.
  • The objectives must be limited. Unconditional surrender or total destruction are unjust means.
  • Military action must be proportionate both in the weaponry employed and the troops deployed.
  • Non-combatants must be protected and military operations must demonstrate the highest possible degree of discrimination.
  • Without a reasonable hope for success, no military action should be launched.

There is nothing set in stone as THE Just War Theory, but those principles are widely used.

Or are they? The question that was asked in the comments section of the McKnight article was this:

Has there ever been a war that Christians were considering entering into, but applying the criteria for “just war” talked them out of?

That’s a great question. I can’t think of an example. Can you? Has “Just War Theory” ever been used for anything other than justifying participation in conflict?

Does Just War Theory bring peace or just war?

Sleight of mouth

2 Replies

When I was a kid, I really enjoyed magicians. Even though I knew it was a trick, I still became a part of the illusion.

Sleight of hand, or prestidigitation for those who like using big words, is usually a big part of any magician’s act. A lot of it depends on getting people to look at the wrong thing, on distracting your audience with a diversion while you are doing something else.

I think that we need to create a new term: sleight of mouth. To really catch what’s important, we often have to look at what people don’t say, rather than what they do.

One place where I think this is true is war. There is a natural fog of war that clouds the information process; even those involved don’t know everything that’s going on. There’s also a manmade fog of war, where those involved practice sleight of mouth, saying only what they want people to hear.

One of my language teachers in Argentina was able to illustrate this for me. She was living in Los Angeles during the 1982 Malvinas (Falklands) War between Argentina and Great Britain. She said that she heard news from three sources: the United States (which she could hear for herself), Argentina (which she heard from friends there), and Germany (thanks to a neighbor). The U.S. news consistently presented the news from the viewpoint of Great Britain. The Argentine news was slanted toward Argentina, so much so that when Argentina surrendered, her friends wouldn’t believe her when she called them. (“How can that be? We’re winning.”) In the end, it was the German news that seemed to be the most objective.

What makes me wonder is why it’s so hard to find out civilian death totals from Iraq and Afghanistan. I can understand the difficulty in knowing how many enemy fighters have been killed, but it seems like our government could present a clearer picture of how many bystanders have been killed. Actually, we know that they can: the Wikileaks documents confirmed the numbers that non-government sites have reported.

So why doesn’t our government talk about this? Sleight of mouth. Nobody wants people thinking about the tens of thousands of people who have died. Let’s focus on the three thousand or so that died 9/11 or the four thousand or so U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Talking about the deaths of over one hundred thousand civilians might dampen the enthusiasm for the war. Let’s talk about something else.

We should mourn those one hundred thousand as strongly as we do the ones who died 10 years ago in the terrorist attacks. That needs to be said time and again. Let’s not be children who are deceived by a magician’s tricks. Let’s not just look where they tell us to look. Let’s look at the whole picture.

There’s a reason why we keep saying we want to “fight them over there.” Because if those one hundred thousand dead were American citizens, this country would look at things in a whole different light.

Honoring the sacrifices of war

4 Replies

There’s an aspect of the U.S. military’s actions overseas that is continually hidden by proponents of military participation: the cost in human lives in other countries. When discussing the sacrifices of war, so many Christians in America focus on our soldiers and their families. They are to be considered, naturally, but so are the tens of thousands of people affected by those wars we fight. (It’s extremely difficult to get good numbers on that. I have been chastised for referring to the site Iraq Body Count, but the material released by WikiLeaks has shown that, if anything, that site is conservative in its counting.)

One reason that 9/11 impacted this country in such a strong way was the fact that it happened on American soil. We’ve worked hard throughout the years to keep all fighting limited to somebody else’s home, not ours. This morning on the news, as the proposed reduction of troops in Afghanistan was being discussed, people expressed the fear that the fighting might come here. “Better to fight them over there” has always been a popular slogan.

As Christians, I think we’re obligated in such a situation to consider those who live “over there.” Consider the Afghani people. In the late 1970s, the Soviets became involved in Afghanistan as military advisers. The U.S. saw the chance to lure the Soviets into a military quagmire, so operations were undertaken to escalate the fighting in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets invaded, the U.S. began arming Afghani warlords to fight the Soviets (When asked about the dangers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, responded “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”). When that war came to an end, these armed strongmen continued to dominate the regions where they lived. Then after 9/11, the United States invaded, fighting against many of the same people we had helped arm and train. And throughout it all, the civilian population suffered destruction of property, serious injury and death.

When we speak of sacrifice, do we think of those people? Do we consider the mothers who lost sons, the children who lost parents, the villagers who lost everything? Where are their parades? Who raises memorials in their honor? Where are the churches that send them care packages and stand and clap for them during worship?

But they’re not “our people.” No, of course not… unless you’re a Christian. Unless you believe that there is no “Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free.” Then, of course, those people are as much “our people” as any freckle-faced American soldier.

On Memorial Day, I was accused of not honoring the sacrifice of those who have lost loved ones in war. I respond that I honor many more of those people than do those who march down Main Street and salute the flag.

When we count the costs of war, let’s count all the costs of war.