War in Gaza

[RZehr]

Militaries shouldn't be killing anyone gratuitously. They should be engaging in military operations (war) in the manner that results in the least loss of life and destruction on both sides while achieving the military objective. Killing soldiers sometimes has a place in that calculation if that is what is necessary to achieve the military objective. Sometimes it doesn't (for example killing prisoners). But killing civilians has no place in war.

This sounds real good, and I’m for it, but…

In reality, why shouldn’t and don’t armies kill civilians like they did in the Old Testament times? I propose that the biggest reason for militaries not to do it, is not simple ethics, but instead that it is bad strategy, ineffective use of resources.
This is why the ethics get quickly swept away by every nation when the calculation for winning changes. Rules of war are subservient to winning.

Killing civilians unfortunately does have a place in every war. Why would we pretend that isn’t the case? It is usually called collateral damage, i.e., the bombs dropped, the mussels fired, the bullets shot, were done so because there was a calculation made that the target was important enough to destroy that civilian deaths didn’t matter enough. And in the cases mentioned of Dresden, Hiroshima, civilian deaths mattered even less.

The US and probably every nation, values their soldiers lives higher than the enemies civilian lives. Remember why the atomic bombs were dropped? The US was already winning the war at that point. But the US didn’t want to lose the soldiers it would take to storm Japan proper. In other words, the US decided Japanese civilian lives lost didn’t matter as much as losing American soldier lives.

There are thousands of Americans who would immediately kill enemy civilians if the stakes were high enough. And that is my point. Soldiers who are shooting and killing people are already so very morally compromised, that killing a civilian is a terribly small step. This is why soldiers are known to rape, plunder, kidnap, etc. throughout the earth and back through history. Their conscience is seared.

[Ernie]

Do you support the use of the sword to kill evil people who want to destroy the enemy while hiding behind their own civilians?

No. I do not support the use of the sword.
I'm simply stating what the apostle Paul says the purpose of the sword is.
Yes, I am making conclusions about what is evil.

What about Jewish soldiers who want to kill Hamas soldiers without harming the rest of the population - or vice versa? Are they evil?

Some are evil for reasons other than this, I am fairly certain, but I don't know if being a soldier is evil.

I do know that being a soldier requires becoming the opposite of what humans were created to be. I think every soldier should lay down his sword and take up the cross of Jesus.
Will they?
No.
So I think God uses them to accomplish certain tasks based on their choice to be a soldier, not that he wants them to be a soldier.

[temporal1]

Will they?
No.

some do and some of these are MN members.

[ken_sylvania]

Do you support the use of the sword to kill evil people who want to destroy the enemy while hiding behind their own civilians?

No. I do not support the use of the sword.
I'm simply stating what the apostle Paul says the purpose of the sword is.
Yes, I am making conclusions about what is evil.

What about Jewish soldiers who want to kill Hamas soldiers without harming the rest of the population - or vice versa? Are they evil?

Some are evil for reasons other than this, I am fairly certain, but I don't know if being a soldier is evil.

I do know that being a soldier requires becoming the opposite of what humans were created to be. I think every soldier should lay down his sword and take up the cross of Jesus.
Will they?
No.
So I think God uses them to accomplish certain tasks based on their choice to be a soldier, not that he wants them to be a soldier.

I think that God does use unregenerate persons to do His will even when they have no desire to do so, but I'm not sure how a person can go to war and kill other people without being evil. Is it not evil to reject Jesus and his way?

[Szdfan]

Militaries shouldn't be killing anyone gratuitously. They should be engaging in military operations (war) in the manner that results in the least loss of life and destruction on both sides while achieving the military objective. Killing soldiers sometimes has a place in that calculation if that is what is necessary to achieve the military objective. Sometimes it doesn't (for example killing prisoners). But killing civilians has no place in war.

This sounds real good, and I’m for it, but…

In reality, why shouldn’t and don’t armies kill civilians like they did in the Old Testament times? I propose that the biggest reason for militaries not to do it, is not simple ethics, but instead that it is bad strategy, ineffective use of resources.
This is why the ethics get quickly swept away by every nation when the calculation for winning changes. Rules of war are subservient to winning.

Killing civilians unfortunately does have a place in every war. Why would we pretend that isn’t the case? It is usually called collateral damage, i.e., the bombs dropped, the mussels fired, the bullets shot, were done so because there was a calculation made that the target was important enough to destroy that civilian deaths didn’t matter enough. And in the cases mentioned of Dresden, Hiroshima, civilian deaths mattered even less.

The US and probably every nation, values their soldiers lives higher than the enemies civilian lives. Remember why the atomic bombs were dropped? The US was already winning the war at that point. But the US didn’t want to lose the soldiers it would take to storm Japan proper. In other words, the US decided Japanese civilian lives lost didn’t matter as much as losing American soldier lives.

There are thousands of Americans who would immediately kill enemy civilians if the stakes were high enough. And that is my point. Soldiers who are shooting and killing people are already so very morally compromised, that killing a civilian is a terribly small step. This is why soldiers are known to rape, plunder, kidnap, etc. throughout the earth and back through history. Their conscience is seared.

So do you think that because the US military is hypocritical and morally compromised and dropped the atomic bomb, that the Nuremberg Trials shouldn't have happened? By your logic, since ancient militaries killed civilians and all armies care more about winning than civilian deaths, why shouldn't Nazi Germany be able to systemically murder 6 million Jews? How could the US and its allies prosecute Nazi leadership after the war because of Hiroshima and Dresden?

[Robert]

I think this is one of the most cynical things I've read on MN -- it's the kind of thinking that justifies war atrocities. At least 30,000 Gazans have died so far and the IDF has destroyed or damaged between 35% and 50% of structures in Gaza. It's beyond "pressure."

I was just sharing what I have heard and learned. I am not saying I support this train of thought. I was just speaking matter of fact of how the world works and how others view things. War always minimizes their opponents. I think that is wrong, but it is a fact of life.

[Bootstrap]

I don’t know if it is cynicism or callousness. Maybe hopeless. Maybe acceptance.

It's a decision to not hunger and thirst for righteousness, a decision to not mourn what really should be mourned, a decision to justify truly horrible things and let one side off the hook - but not the other side. I don't think that's what the Kingdom of God does.

Is this response because I mentioned 10/7 as an example of what I was talking about? No one is saying what Israel is doing is a good thing. I could have given another example, but this thread is about this war.

First off, I'm sorry if this felt like I was singling you out. That's not my intent. But I do want to think deeply about our role in the Kingdom of God.

I think we need to talk about both 10/7 and Gaza. I think what I am responding to is this: when I talk about what these Gazan civilians are experiencing, some people don't seem to be expressing concern for them, saying that they also find it awful. The response often shifts attention away from the suffering of these noncombatant civilians and does not hold Israel accountable.

For 10/7, I think we would all say it was horrible, we know that the victims did nothing to deserve it, and we think Hamas bears responsibility for these atrocities.

In both cases, there is massive injustice. In both cases, there is much to mourn. In both cases, there are real victims who need help. To me, that's where our focus should be. In both cases, we should have the compassion of Jesus. In both cases, we should pray for these victims and ask if there are ways we can help.

Do you think the invention of “rules of war” have reduced casualties? Or do you think that they have served as an umbrella, as a license for war, as long as “the rules” are followed, thus possibly contributing to even more war than otherwise might happen if there were no rules, only total war? Giving a veneer of respectability to war making, a facade of honor that allows the countries civilians to believe that every war they are a part of is justified as long as the rules apply to everyone and they are followed; that cheating is worse morally than killing the enemy. War is not a child’s board game, a sport, or tiddlywinks, where rules are followed to play, and cheating ruins the play. There used to be a saying that said, all is fair in love and war, which sort of captures the true essence of war.

Mourning victims does not justify war. And in general, I think the "well, that's what war is" tends to justify even the worst atrocities, saying they are no worse than, say, defending yourself against a direct attack against your country without endangering civilians. Even Caesar has said that some things are way out of bounds. I don't think we should minimize these atrocities.

Sometimes we seem to have a hard time mourning even those cases on MN, directly and openly, praying for the victims, speaking of them as human beings whom we care about. I think we should have the compassion of Jesus for these victims. To me, that's an important aspect of the Kingdom of God. And it's more than just declaring that we will not fight in any war - we should do that, but we should also go beyond that.

[ken_sylvania]

So do you think that because the US military is hypocritical and morally compromised and dropped the atomic bomb, that the Nuremberg Trials shouldn't have happened? By your logic, since ancient militaries killed civilians and all armies care more about winning than civilian deaths, why shouldn't Nazi Germany be able to systemically murder 6 million Jews? How could the US and its allies prosecute Nazi leadership after the war because of Hiroshima and Dresden?

The problem with the Nuremberg Trials is not that they should not have happened, but that whether you were prosecuted and punished had as much to do with who you were and who you worked for as with what you did. The message of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, loud and clear, was that if you're going to commit war crimes you had better win the war because it's the victors who get to avoid being prosecuted for their crimes.

[Szdfan]

So do you think that because the US military is hypocritical and morally compromised and dropped the atomic bomb, that the Nuremberg Trials shouldn't have happened? By your logic, since ancient militaries killed civilians and all armies care more about winning than civilian deaths, why shouldn't Nazi Germany be able to systemically murder 6 million Jews? How could the US and its allies prosecute Nazi leadership after the war because of Hiroshima and Dresden?

The problem with the Nuremberg Trials is not that they should not have happened, but that whether you were prosecuted and punished had as much to do with who you were and who you worked for as with what you did. The message of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, loud and clear, was that if you're going to commit war crimes you had better win the war because it's the victors who get to avoid being prosecuted for their crimes.

On the one hand, I don't disagree on one level, but on the other hand, I think this is a deeply cynical take on things. I would rather live in a world where there are norms and international law, even if these norms and laws are applied inconsistently and hypocritically. I think the alternative -- no norms and no laws regarding warfare -- is a lot worse.

[RZehr]

So do you think that because the US military is hypocritical and morally compromised and dropped the atomic bomb, that the Nuremberg Trials shouldn't have happened? By your logic, since ancient militaries killed civilians and all armies care more about winning than civilian deaths, why shouldn't Nazi Germany be able to systemically murder 6 million Jews? How could the US and its allies prosecute Nazi leadership after the war because of Hiroshima and Dresden?

Let’s turn that around. Are you saying that the Nuremberg trials prove that the US is not morally compromised and was justified in dropping the atomic bombs?

I think that that what Germany did was quite wicked. But I’m saying that if Germany won, there wouldn’t have been trials, much like later Russias Stalin has never been on trial and just like the US wasn’t. If Germany and Japan had won, the US soldiers would have paid accordingly for their deeds. Germany and Japan would have argued that they would never do such a thing as destroying American cities.

My point isn’t to argue what should or shouldn’t happen, (violence shouldn’t) but to say that no waring country is morally just because it is (temporarily and conditionally) killing people according to rules and codes that the made up.

And I’d like to see some evidence that rules of war, have actual reduced killing instead of any reduction in killing being attributed more accurately to economics or other factors.
It gets murky. I can imagine a military command center calling off an air strike because of 10 civilians. That’s a plus. But then if the military target was valuable enough, I can see the same military command being willing to strike in spite of the 10 civilians.
Such is the dilemma we find ourselves in once we venture away from Gods will. Once we are so far outside of Gods will that we think it is okay to kill people because of a magic combination of (a) someone in fancy clothes told me to, and (b) I am wearing matching fancy clothes as him, this gives me license to kill other people as long as they are wearing different fancy clothes.
But if we all take off our fancy clothes and wear normal clothes, it would make this same killing murder, and I may be killed myself by people wearing certain special clothing.

Each culture probably has slightly different takes on what sort of behavior is bad in war. Islamic militants included, tribal people, cannibals too. And Christians have a completely different take, which I think, should not give quarter to the argument that having rules of engagement and war, makes our version of war making more justified and civilized. We call a cannibal tribe barbaric for eating their enemy. They may call the US barbaric for bombing entire cities.