Saturday, March 25, 2017

National Security and Military Legitimacy: When Might Must Be Right

 By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Military power is the hard power that complements the softer powers of foreign policy to promote and protect U.S. national security interests.  When the legitimacy of U.S. military power depends on public support in the area of operations—as it does in the Islamic nations of the Middle East—large numbers of U.S. combat forces can make that public support elusive.  

            Standards of legitimacy in Islamic nations differ from those in the U.S.  For example, the freedoms of religion and speech are precluded by apostasy and blasphemy laws, and women and non-Muslims are denied equal protection of the law; and since non-Muslims are considered infidels in Islamic nations, a large U.S. military presence can undermine the public support and legitimacy needed to achieve strategic political objectives.

Following the brief combat phase of military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, military operations evolved into counterinsurgency operations (COIN), in which U.S. political objectives became paramount.  Those objectives have depended more on public perceptions of legitimacy than on military might, and that has necessitated a drawdown of U.S. combat forces.
           
            Unlike COIN, counterterrorist operations (CT) involve military strikes or raids against terrorists.  They are brief in duration and conducted by small contingents of special operations forces or drones; but like COIN, excessive force in CT can cause collateral damage that can turn an otherwise successful military raid into a political defeat.

            Military might must be right when U.S. national security objectives require public support.  Lethal force must be restrained to avoid the collateral damage that undermines public perceptions of military legitimacy, and military operations must be closely coordinated with other elements of U.S. foreign policy to build the public support needed for mission success.

            The U.S. has the most powerful military forces in the world, but overwhelming military force can never be a substitute for political legitimacy—and it is often lacking in governments in the Middle East and Africa.  To protect vital U.S. national security interests in those regions, diplomat warriors are needed to work closely with indigenous forces and U.S. civilian resources to deny insurgent forces the legitimacy they need to recruit followers and succeed.

            President Trump’s call to “start winning wars again” by spending more for conventional military weaponry and combat operations and cutting the State Department budget for foreign assistance is wrong-headed.  The protection of U.S. national security interests requires a national strategy to identify threats and the military capabilities and operations needed to counter them.
                       
Before President Trump’s first address to Congress, his national security advisor, General H. R. McMaster, reportedly advised him to “describe the battle against The Islamic State and al-Qaeda as a global and generational war that the U.S. should fight in partnership with its Muslim allies.”  Trump ignored McMaster’s advice and asserted an America First national strategy that was more focused on nation destruction than nation building in Islamic cultures.

Radical Islamist terrorism is a major threat to U.S. national security.  To counter that threat the U.S. must provide military aid and security assistance to Islamic nations.  Only Muslims can undermine the legitimacy of radical Islamism.  It is the religious ideal that drives Islamist terrorism.  President Trump’s defense and budget proposals ignore that reality and other lessons learned in legitimacy, jeopardizing U.S. national security and military legitimacy.

            
Notes and commentary on related topics:
On Trump’s pledge to ‘start winning wars again’ as “ignorant and delusional—and highly dangerous,” see http://www.salon.com/2017/02/28/trumps-pledge-to-start-winning-wars-again-is-ignorant-and-delusional-and-highly-dangerous/.




On how the battle to define an “America First” foreign policy (and military legitimacy) divides

On military legitimacy generally, see Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium (Frank Cass, 1996), manuscript posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-VmpMUV9sSU9kaDA/view under Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/.  On the diplomat-warrior, see chapter 5; on lessons learned in legitimacy, see chapter 6. 

On the application of legitimacy to the  special operations training and advisory mission, see Back to the Future: Human Rights and Legitimacy in the Training and Advisory Mission in Special Warfare, January/March 2013, posted in Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/p/resources.html (See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-eVRlcWFENHNUVUE/view).



On a containment strategy to defeat Islamist terrorism, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/11/a-containment-strategy-to-defeat.html.



On the diplomat-warrior: a military capability for reconciliation and peace, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/09/the-diplomat-warrior-military.html.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

Religion is the primary source of the moral standards of legitimacy that define what is right.  Ancient Judaism, Christianity and Islam emphasized the moral obligation to provide for the common good, especially caring for the poor and helpless.  The Enlightenment of the 18th century shifted the focus in politics from providing for the common good to individual rights, and that, coupled with capitalism, created moral ambiguity in both religion and politics.

Moral ambiguity pervades American politics today.  Voters who elected Donald Trump put their individual rights and wants ahead of their responsibility to provide for the common good, and most of those voters were white Christians.  The irony is that Trump’s self-centered narcissism and nativism is the antithesis of the altruistic morality taught by Jesus. 

Most Americans claim to be Christians, but there is great diversity among them on the moral standards they apply to their politics.  That diversity ranges between the altruistic morality of the gospel of Jesus and the self-centered prosperity gospel.  Trump tapped into the prosperity gospel, which accommodates objectivist moral standards that even Ayn Rand could embrace.

The prosperity gospel is the unlikely progeny of a Christian religion that evolved from the altruistic morality in the greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, to a gospel of individual salvation and worldly success.  The social and moral norms of American politics and religion were transformed by the “the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” coupled with capitalism and the Puritan work ethic.

The institutional church has fostered moral ambiguity in religion and politics.  The strength of the church, like other social institutions, depends on its popularity; and religious beliefs that emphasize individual salvation and worldly success are more popular that the moral teachings of Jesus that emphasize self-denial and helping the poor and needy.        

The moral teachings of Jesus have never been popular, so that followers of Jesus are not likely to be successful politicians.  Jesus was a Jew who never promoted any religion, not even his own—much less an exclusivist religion like Christianity—and those who try to follow his moral teachings today are not likely to achieve any worldly success that requires popularity.

America’s individualistic values contrast sharply with the more collective values in Europe and Islamic cultures.  European nations emphasize individual freedom, but their socialist political values are less influenced by religion than those in America.  And in most Islamic nations individual rights and freedom are subordinated to Islamic law, or shari’a.

In America, some Christians have used the free exercise of religion to deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law, and concepts of morality that ignore the common good are complicating issues of health care, climate change, national security, human rights and immigration policies.  In Islamic nations apostasy and blasphemy laws deny any freedom of religion or speech, and shari’a denies women and non-Muslims the equal protection of law.          

Christians and Muslims make up well over half the population in a world of increasing religious diversity, and the greatest commandment is a common word of faith of Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.   If people of faith were to affirm its altruistic moral standard and balance individual rights and wants with providing for the common good, they could stem the tide of dysfunction and division caused by moral ambiguity in religion and politics.          

  
Notes and commentary on related topics:


On Americans losing trust in their institutions as a result of a shift from collective to individualistic values, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/03/americans-have-lost-faith-in-institutions-thats-not-because-of-trump-or-fake-news/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On a current trend among conservatives beyond the objectivist, individualistic views of Ayn Rand toward a Dark Enlightenment of nationalism and fascism, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/03/ayn-rand-is-dead-liberals-are-going-to-miss-her/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.


 




On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On love over law: a principle at the heart of legitimacy, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/love-over-law-principle-at-heart-of.html.


On God and country: conflicting concepts of sovereignty, see     http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/03/god-and-country-resolving-conflicting.html.



On freedom and fundamentalism, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/freedom-and-fundamentalism.html

On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.

On legitimacy as a context and paradigm to resolve religious conflict, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/legitimacy-as-context-and-paradigm-to.html.
  







On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On discipleship in a democracy: a test of faith, legitimacy and politics, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/12/discipleship-in-democracy-test-of-faith.html.




Saturday, March 11, 2017

Accountability and the Stewardship of Democracy

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

The quality of government in a democracy depends upon the accountability of elected officials to voters, and also the accountability of voters to God’s will—which is that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  That is the moral imperative of the greatest commandment, which is a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

The accountability of voters to God’s will is a matter of stewardship, and stewardship in a democracy requires that the resources of government are used to make a better world for everyone.  Americans have been given much, so that much is expected from them.  That is the message of the parable of the talents at Matthew 25:14-30 (see commentary in Notes below). 

America is more divided and polarized by politics today than since the Civil War.  That is not so much the fault of Donald Trump as it is of those voters who gave Trump the power of the presidency.  To be good stewards of democracy voters must support candidates who promote a politics of reconciliation based on the shared values of the greatest commandment.  

Accountability and stewardship in democracy are based on a voter’s standards of legitimacy, and those standards are shaped by religion.  Most Americans claim to be Christians, but in their politics they have ignored the moral imperative of their faith to love others as they love themselves.  To be accountable as good stewards of democracy, Americans must elect leaders who balance individual rights and wants with providing for the common good.
             
Nicholas Kristof has asserted that those who voted for Trump out of frustration with their unfortunate circumstances should not be considered “bigoted, unthinking lizard brains” by their neighbors.  I beg to disagree.  Anyone who voted for a “…demagogue who vilifies and scapegoats refugees, Muslims, undocumented immigrants, racial minorities [and] who strikes me [in Kristof’s words] as a danger to national security” is either a bigot or is inexcusably ignorant.

Those voters who supported Donald Trump should be held accountable for acts that threaten to unravel the fabric of American democracy.  They cannot claim ignorance of his corrupt character or the importance of the office he sought.  His notorious business dealings, his reality TV show and his rude, crude and divisive campaign rhetoric clearly revealed a man unsuited to be our nation’s leader—unless you happen to be a Wall Street billionaire.

It is especially ironic that most Trump supporters were white Christians who voted for a man who is the antithesis of Christian morality.  The church bears some accountability for this political fiasco, both in the religion it promotes and the politics it often ignores.  The prosperity gospel of Trump supporters is idolatrous.  It promotes belief in a plastic Jesus devoid of altruistic moral standards and a false god that rewards such belief with worldly success.

Idolatry is the worship of a false god, and any religion that promotes a corrupt populist demagogue like Donald Trump is idolatrous.  Given the corrupt nature of politics with its competition for popularity, money and power, voters cannot expect Christ-like candidates; but the stewardship of democracy requires that they reject populist demagogues like Donald Trump.

The privileges of freedom and democracy depend on voters exercising their responsibility to be good stewards of their democracy and being accountable to God’s will to love their neighbors as they love themselves.  The election of Donald Trump was a failure of stewardship and accountability.  It portends the demise of freedom and democracy unless voters can become accountable to God as better stewards of democracy in both their religion and politics. 


Notes and commentary on related topics:

On Nicholas Kristof’s view that Trump voters are not the enemy, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opinion/even-if-trump-is-the-enemy-his-voters-arent.html.

For commentary on the parable of the talents at Matthew 25:14-30 as a matter of Christian stewardship, see pp 192-195 of The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, a primary resource at  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/ that is posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-aTJubVlISnpQc1U/view.

On Matthew Fox describing how idolatry affects us today, especially in our politics, see https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=mm#inbox/15ab286074673e6b.


On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On love over law: a principle at the heart of legitimacy, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/love-over-law-principle-at-heart-of.html.


On God and country: conflicting concepts of sovereignty, see     http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/03/god-and-country-resolving-conflicting.html.




On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.

On legitimacy as a context and paradigm to resolve religious conflict, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/legitimacy-as-context-and-paradigm-to.html.
  




On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On discipleship in a democracy: a test of faith, legitimacy and politics, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/12/discipleship-in-democracy-test-of-faith.html.




Saturday, March 4, 2017

Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.  So it was for a man who reportedly walked away from a missionary who told him he would go to hell if he didn’t accept Jesus Christ as his savior, but that those who did not know about Jesus would not be condemned.

Religion is based on ignorance, but not ignorance in a pejorative sense.  Religion defines truths not yet illuminated by actual knowledge and reason in order to give believers a sense of spiritual security in faith.  The Enlightenment of the 18th century transformed both politics and religion in the West with advances in knowledge and reason that dispelled much ignorance and gave birth to the libertarian ideals of democracy, human rights and the secular rule of law.

The Enlightenment liberated progressive religions, but it also created reactionary fundamentalist religions that rejected new knowledge and reason as a threat to the truth of their ancient holy scriptures.  Fundamentalists use deductive logic with their holy scriptures as the sole source of God’s truth.  Progressives use deductive logic in mystical matters, but they give precedence to advances in knowledge and reason when in conflict with ancient religious truths.

The recent election of Donald Trump was made possible by evangelical Christians who must have been blissfully ignorant of the teachings of Jesus.  It is supremely ironic that so many white Christians abandoned the altruistic teachings of Jesus and reason to support a man who is the antithesis of Christian morality.  The Christian religion can be ridiculous when it rejects knowledge and reason and ignores the moral stewardship of democracy.

Christianity is not the only religion that can be ridiculous.  While Christians in America have substituted self-centered gospels for the altruistic gospel of Jesus and use religious freedom to discriminate against those they consider sinners, Muslims in Islamic nations continue to deny the fundamental freedoms of religion and speech with apostasy and blasphemy laws, and discriminate against women and non-Muslims under the dictates of ancient Islamic law (shari’a). 

Religion continues to be a powerful force in America and throughout the world.  The inexorable effects of globalization have increased religious diversity, and competitive religions have resisted a politics of reconciliation.  Religions must become less exclusivist and competitive and more tolerant and cooperative to coexist and promote peace in a globalized world.

The challenge for religions today is to balance individual rights with providing for the common good in politics.  Ancient religions provided for the common good with authoritarian laws that denied individual rights.  In a world of increasing religious diversity and libertarian values, religions must define their religious rules as voluntary moral standards of legitimacy rather than obligatory standards of law that preclude individual freedom.

Ignorance is not bliss when it denies knowledge and reason.  Jesus taught love over law and the greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It is a common word of faith for Jews Christians and Muslims alike that can dispel the darkness of ignorance with the light of knowledge, reason and love for others.


Notes and commentary on related topics:

"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." is from Thomas Gray's poem, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1742).  See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignorance_is_bliss.



On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith, see    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/the-greatest-commandment-common-word-of.html.

On love over law: a principle at the heart of legitimacy, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/love-over-law-principle-at-heart-of.html.

On Jesus meets Muhammad: Is there a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims today? see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.html.


On God and country: conflicting concepts of sovereignty, see     http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/03/god-and-country-resolving-conflicting.html.

On Jesus: a prophet, God’s only son, or the Logos, see      http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/04/jesus-prophet-god-only-son-or-logos.html.
  



On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.

On how religious fundamentalism and secularism shape politics and human rights, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/how-religious-fundamentalism-and.html.

On legitimacy as a context and paradigm to resolve religious conflict, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/08/legitimacy-as-context-and-paradigm-to.html.
  




On the future of religion: in decline and growing, see



On religious fundamentalism and a politics of reconciliation, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/05/religious-fundamentalism-and-politics.html.

On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation_19.html.

On irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.

On religion and reason redux: religion is ridiculous and corrupts our politics, see  http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/01/religion-and-reason-redux-religion-is.html.