Israel And The Nuance Of War
“I have directed the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group to begin moving into the Eastern Mediterranean,” with those words, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin signaled that the full power and might of the United States would come to the support of Israel, in its hostilities with Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement.
With three major surface vessels, nine aircraft squadrons, and logistics and support personnel and ships, more than 7,500 sailors, marines, and airmen will be involved. Incredibly, this is only one of two Carrier Strike Groups in this operation; the other is the Gerald R Ford, which was already in the theater. These two Carrier Strike Groups represent more sheer firepower than our entire Pacific Fleet in World War II.
So, the question naturally arises: are we at War with Hamas? That used to have a straightforward answer. According to the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war (Article I, Section 8). Yet, with each passing year, those old sentiments from the 18th Century have less and less relevance. The last “War” the Congress declared was World War II. But we seem mired in “war” after “War” with no end in sight. Whether we call it a “police action” as in Korea or “The Maintenance of International Peace…” as in Vietnam, it still seems to cost this country dearly in blood and fortune.
World War II, Korea, and Vietnam were all traditional wars, wars fought between nations and governments. The 21st Century saw the very first instance of a non-state foe: al-Qaeda, or more specifically, a concept: “terror.” President George W. Bush first used the term “Global War on Terror” in response to the September 11, 2001, destruction of the World Trade Center in New York.
Later, it would become official US Policy under President Obama to identify the foe as: “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.” (May 23, 2013). While more specific, it was still apparent that the United States was a “war” with not another nation but with a loosely associated group of terrorists. And just like that, the United States could mobilize its vast resources of men, weapons, and equipment to fight against an amalgamation of associated peoples.
Obama’s comments came five years after the Twin Towers were destroyed, and the American people were becoming weary of this “war” without a visible foe. Hidden in the caves and crevasses of mountainous Afghanistan, the Taliban were primarily invisible to the outside world.
As Obama ascended the podium that day, he must have been sensitive to America’s growing restlessness. So, in addition to specifically “calling out” al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Obama also appealed to the Christian Tradition of a “Just War.” Obama proposed that this newly reformulated “War on Terror,” now a “War on al-Qaeda and the Taliban” was:
So this is a just war — a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.” Remarks at the National Defense University 23, May 2013)
You may find Obama’s use of the term “proportionally” particularly intriguing; on the one side, the world’s military superpower, and on the other, a loosely aligned paramilitary. Proportional? You decide.
The “Cost of War” Project at Brown University estimates that at least 4.5 million people have died, 38 million have lost their homes, and it has cost the United States more than 8 trillion dollars to fight this war — one of the bloodiest, most costly “wars” in our history.
Be that as it may, while we were told our cause was “just,” current President Biden abandoned that cause, as he summarily pulled our troops and equipment out of Afghanistan in 2021.
It’s increasingly apparent that we live in a time of ever-increasing war. Just six months after the Afghanistan occupation/war ended, Russia invaded Ukraine. As President Biden said:
“…for weeks, we have been warning this would happen. And now it’s unfolding largely as we predicted.” White House remarks February 24, 2022.
The American President was remarkably prescient.
In the predawn hours of Thursday, February 24, 2022, President Vladimir Putin took to Russian Television to announce the launch of a “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine. In his address to the nation, Putin indicated two objectives: first, to protect those of Russian heritage living in the Donbas Region, and second, to DE-militarize Ukraine. He concluded by saying that reaching an agreement with NATO had become impossible.
A few short hours later came the response from the American President Joe Biden. His speech was remarkable in its scope. President Biden was executing a well-planned, comprehensive opposition to the Russian incursion. Less than half a day following the SMO, the American President had personally talked to all the leaders of the G7 and convened a meeting of NATO the following day. He had spoken to Ukraine President Zelenskyy, begun isolating Russia financially (which would later include cutting Russia from SWIFT), and identified and guaranteed certain Russian “elites.” Biden began prohibiting the transfer or sale of high-tech materials to Russia, ordered troops to Germany and other NATO countries to support aid to Ukraine, and ordered the first $650 million in assistance to Ukraine.
For those of us who have come to know our President over the past couple of years, we realize what a herculean effort this must have been. In less than half a day, Biden had mobilized the Western World to counter Russia financially, militarily, diplomatically, and economically. He had done everything short of declaring war to oppose Russia’s incursion.
Most importantly, he had opened up lines of communication with all the Western leaders, an essential step in coordinating the opposition. There was only one world leader that Biden shunned that fateful day. The one leader that the US President had refused to speak to for months. The one man who might have made a difference was Vladimir Putin.
Biden refused to speak to the Russian leader on February 24, in the days leading up to that historic day, or in the days since.
We rely on our leaders to seek peace and negotiate with everyone in any conflict our nation may face.
Joe Biden was the Vice President the day that Barack Obama evoked the Just War principle. Obama spoke of “proportionality,” a concept that stems from the Biblical Maxim: “an eye for an eye.”(Exodus 21: 23–27). That punishment must be proportional to the crime. There is no doubt that the terrorists who killed those innocent Israelis deserve the full measure of justice, but not their families, their clans, or their nation — the killer’s lives for the ones they killed, but no more.
Today, President Biden has mobilized more than sufficient military power to meet such justice in what Lloyd Austin called a Mission to deter Aggression.
Let us pray that our justice remains proportional to the crime and that peace may prevail.
Follow me here on Medium for more stories from the ValueSide.
