(Yes, this is another long one. It contains 2 items. I think they*re both worth your time. Enjoy!)
GOLD STAR MOTHER (A Gold Star Mother is any American woman whose child has died in the line of duty of the United States Armed Forces.)
By Keo R. Gathman
(Keo herself is a former Marine, the sister of a soldier killed in Viet Nam ('70), and her son is in the Army.)
As she stands beside his grave
On yet another Memorial Day,
She remembers the boy she sent away
And how he became the man resting here today.
His heroes didn't become famous playing ball.
In fact most of their names were never well known at all.
They went to work wearing camouflage green and desert brown,
Earning their reputation as the toughest warriors around.
When he first saw them in dress blues
The heart within her little boy knew,
That nothing short of becoming one of them would do.
Time all too quickly passed by
As childhood things were put aside,
And his heart's desire would not be denied.
"I love you, Mom" he said one day
"But the time has come for me to go away,"
And she knew his decision she couldn't sway.
Through tears she tried so hard to keep inside
She told her baby boy goodbye.
Writing him letters nearly every day
She often took the time to pray,
"Lord be with my boy today."
"Help him clearly see the man I know that he can be,
Grant him his most cherished dream,
Let him come home, a United States Marine."
When the time came for him to go to war
She feared as she had never feared before,
Prayed there would be no knock on her front door.
They came that day dressed in their blues
And though in her heart she already knew,
She cried out "No, it can't be true."
The man child she had sent away
Was at last coming home to stay.
He never doubted what they did was right,
And he never wavered in the fight.
Forever and always as in his childhood dreams,
Her boy remains a United States Marine.
Copyright 2006 Keo R. Gathman ( beakerless@hotmail.com ). Permission is granted to send this to others, with attribution, but not for commercial purposes.
P.S. - *A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to The United States of America for an amount up to and including their life.* (author unknown)
Memorial Day 2010, Gratitude
by Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com May 28, 2010
Memorial Day is when we honor the men and women of our Armed Services who have made "the supreme sacrifice;" who gave their lives for their country.Especially these days, when Memorial Day seems nothing more than a time for cookouts and swim parties, we cannot be reminded often enough about how great a debt we owe our war dead.
They gave up their hopes and dreams, families and friends. They submitted themselves to rigorous discipline—something I understand as a former Marine—24-hour a day duty, and placed their lives in great peril. "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Their sacrifice should inspire in us a profound sense of gratitude. Gratitude for the freedoms we enjoy, bought with a price. And that gratitude should compel us to lives of service as well. Serving Christ, our neighbor, and yes, our nation.
I can't help but recall the brilliant film Saving Private Ryan. James Ryan, now in his seventies, has returned with his family to the military cemetery in Normandy. He visits the grave of Captain John Miller, the man who, a half a century before, led the mission to retrieve—to save—Private Ryan. At the end of the mission, Miller was fatally wounded. As he lay dying, his final words to Private Ryan were, "James. Earn this...earn it." We then see Ryan kneeling at Captain Miller's grave, marked by a cross. Ryan, his voice trembling with emotion, says, "Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me." Red-eyed, Ryan turns to his wife and says, "Tell me I've led a good life...tell me I am a good man." With great dignity, she says, "You are." With that, James Ryan salutes the grave of Captain Miller.( I tell this story in greater detail in my book The Good Life, which you can purchase at ColsonCenter.org.)
You see, Private Ryan, out of gratitude for Captain Miller's sacrifice, did all in his power to live a good life. And Memorial Day is a great time for each of us to look into the mirror...to examine our own lives. Are we living good lives in gratitude for all those who have sacrificed for us—including our men and women in the military, our families, our friends, and most of all Christ?Are we, like Ryan, kneeling before the cross—Spielberg, a master cinematographer had to realize the power of this imagery. Are we, out of gratitude, doing our duty for Christ, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ministering to those in prison, in whatever harvest field to which the Lord has called us? Examine your life.
And this Memorial Day, at the very least, thank those who have sacrificed for you and those you know who have served in our nation's armed forces. Maybe you'll do what I do when you see a guy or gal in uniform...at the airport, at the store, wherever...walk up to them and thank them for their service. And then go and remember Whom it is you serve.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
#83 - Looking At Natural Disasters Biblically
[Note: The following commentary was posted in the wake of the Alabama tornado destruction earlier this month but it has obvious application to the continued devastating natural disasters rocking our nation.]
1. Don't forget to check out "The Coral Ridge (half) Hour" this Sunday (in Orlando, 5 p.m., channel 55.1 In partiuclar, the later portion of the broadcast will contain an excerpt from a highly acclaimed documentary caled "Agenda" that exposes what many believe is behind the many unwelcome challenges to our nation the past 20 years. A fascinating, incredible presentation. Please don't miss this!)
2. Don't forget to view the editorial cartoons at http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/ Always great stuff!
In the Aftermath of the Tornadoes
By: Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, May 2, 2011
Once again, nature has brought devastation to the lives of men.... As terrible as the Tuscaloosa tornado was -- and watching the video, it looked like one of plagues of Egypt -- it was only part of an outbreak that killed at least 263 people in six states. It was deadliest outbreak of tornadoes since 1974, when a storm system in the Midwest killed 315 people. It is natural to try and make sense of out terrible events such as this. Some people will see it as a sign of the end times. That’s always speculative. It would be presumptuous to offer definitive lessons, but there are eternal truths that calamities like this should bring to mind.
The first is that, as theologian David Bentley Hart once put it, we “exist in the long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe.” The result is that “this is a broken and wounded world” and “that the universe languishes in bondage to ‘powers’ and ‘principalities’ -- spiritual and terrestrial -- alien to God.” Thus, the world that is our home, that nourishes and sustains us, can turn on us, kill us, and destroy the work of our hands, as the people of Alabama and Japan have recently learned in such a tragic way.
The second lesson is that there is little, if anything, we can do about it. To think we can control nature or, “heal the planet” (as President Obama once said in a public address), is folly. For starters, we simply don’t possess that kind of knowledge or power. We can barely warn people to seek shelter immediately, whether in Japan or Alabama. We’re not as clever as we like to think. More importantly, creation doesn’t need to be “healed,” much less controlled -- it needs to be redeemed. In Romans, the apostle Paul speaks of creation "groaning," of it being “subjected to frustration” and in “bondage to decay,” a frustration and bondage that will only end when the children of God are fully revealed. Its destiny and ours are inextricably intertwined until Christ’s return.
The third lesson is about the fragility of human life. On the same day that hundreds were killed by tornadoes, evangelist and pastor David Wilkerson died in an automobile accident. The one thing I’m fairly certain they had in common was that none of them woke up and said, “Today is the day I will die.” But they did. And some day, so will we. We should live our lives in light of that fragility. Not in a morbid sense, but as motivation to love God and our neighbor. We shouldn’t go to bed without asking, “Did I walk as a Child of the Light today? Did I serve Christ in whatever guise he came to me?” No one is promised another chance to answer those questions in the affirmative, so let’s get it right today. Getting it right means, as Hart put it, “[hating] death and waste and the imbecile forces of chance that shatter living souls.”
And it means being in solidarity with those who have been shattered -- by prayer and works of mercy that bind the wounds inflicted by those imbecilic forces -- always aware that before we know it, we may not have another chance to do so.
1. Don't forget to check out "The Coral Ridge (half) Hour" this Sunday (in Orlando, 5 p.m., channel 55.1 In partiuclar, the later portion of the broadcast will contain an excerpt from a highly acclaimed documentary caled "Agenda" that exposes what many believe is behind the many unwelcome challenges to our nation the past 20 years. A fascinating, incredible presentation. Please don't miss this!)
2. Don't forget to view the editorial cartoons at http://www.worldmag.com/editorialcartoons/ Always great stuff!
In the Aftermath of the Tornadoes
By: Chuck Colson, Breakpoint.com, May 2, 2011
Once again, nature has brought devastation to the lives of men.... As terrible as the Tuscaloosa tornado was -- and watching the video, it looked like one of plagues of Egypt -- it was only part of an outbreak that killed at least 263 people in six states. It was deadliest outbreak of tornadoes since 1974, when a storm system in the Midwest killed 315 people. It is natural to try and make sense of out terrible events such as this. Some people will see it as a sign of the end times. That’s always speculative. It would be presumptuous to offer definitive lessons, but there are eternal truths that calamities like this should bring to mind.
The first is that, as theologian David Bentley Hart once put it, we “exist in the long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe.” The result is that “this is a broken and wounded world” and “that the universe languishes in bondage to ‘powers’ and ‘principalities’ -- spiritual and terrestrial -- alien to God.” Thus, the world that is our home, that nourishes and sustains us, can turn on us, kill us, and destroy the work of our hands, as the people of Alabama and Japan have recently learned in such a tragic way.
The second lesson is that there is little, if anything, we can do about it. To think we can control nature or, “heal the planet” (as President Obama once said in a public address), is folly. For starters, we simply don’t possess that kind of knowledge or power. We can barely warn people to seek shelter immediately, whether in Japan or Alabama. We’re not as clever as we like to think. More importantly, creation doesn’t need to be “healed,” much less controlled -- it needs to be redeemed. In Romans, the apostle Paul speaks of creation "groaning," of it being “subjected to frustration” and in “bondage to decay,” a frustration and bondage that will only end when the children of God are fully revealed. Its destiny and ours are inextricably intertwined until Christ’s return.
The third lesson is about the fragility of human life. On the same day that hundreds were killed by tornadoes, evangelist and pastor David Wilkerson died in an automobile accident. The one thing I’m fairly certain they had in common was that none of them woke up and said, “Today is the day I will die.” But they did. And some day, so will we. We should live our lives in light of that fragility. Not in a morbid sense, but as motivation to love God and our neighbor. We shouldn’t go to bed without asking, “Did I walk as a Child of the Light today? Did I serve Christ in whatever guise he came to me?” No one is promised another chance to answer those questions in the affirmative, so let’s get it right today. Getting it right means, as Hart put it, “[hating] death and waste and the imbecile forces of chance that shatter living souls.”
And it means being in solidarity with those who have been shattered -- by prayer and works of mercy that bind the wounds inflicted by those imbecilic forces -- always aware that before we know it, we may not have another chance to do so.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
#82 – A Sunday Special – Is Marriage A “Dying Institution”?
[Once again, please check into “The Coral Ridge (half) Hour” today (Orlando, 5 p.m., Ch. 55.1) The message will be about the Christian roots of the United States. Also, for some other great teaching on having a Christian worldview, check out Coral Ridge Ministries’ www.Crossexamine.com and their broadcast (in Orlando, Mondays, 7 –7-30 pm, Ch.55.2 (?)]
A Sunday Funny - From MickeysFunnies.com
After church one Sunday morning, a mother commented, "The choir was awful this morning."
The father commented, "The sermon was too long."
Their 7-year-old daughter added, "You've got to admit it was a pretty good show for a dollar."
The Essence of Fidelity
Marriage and loyalty still matter.
by John Hayward
05/19/2011 (from HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com)
The news this week is dominated by two cases of sexual impropriety involving famous and powerful men. There are many differences between Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not least of which is the difference between the former’s consensual affair, and the charges of sexual assault filed against the latter. One notable similarity is that both are married, and each has four children with his wife.
The French press has been mocking Americans for caring about that sort of thing, all the way back to the Bill Clinton impeachment saga. Why make such a big deal about minor complications like marriage? Our cultural and political elites have made much progress toward overcoming these awkward hang-ups. Actress Cameron Diaz, for example, recently dismissed marriage as a “dying institution,” and thinks “we have to make our own rules,” rather than living our lives “in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer.”
Meanwhile, the President of the United States unilaterally decided the Defense of Marriage Act – passed into law, as fate would have it, by President Bill Clinton – is a dead letter that he doesn’t want to enforce any more. If you want to soak in those old traditions about marriage involving exactly one man and one woman, you can run back to your little church and do so, but less uptight Americans will be following Cameron Diaz’s advice and making their own rules.
It’s funny how so many Americans refuse to follow these exciting new cultural directives, and cling to their old marriage superstitions. There’s a certain flavor of shame that attaches to a man who betrays his wife, or a wife who betrays her husband. It has resisted all attempts to blend it with other flavors, or dilute it out of existence. It is often suggested that modern science and economic power have erased the original rationales for monogamous relationships. They’re not strictly necessary for procreation any more. Men and women no longer find themselves huddled in frontier cabins, sharing the arduous chores required to maintain a decent life.
And yet… men and women still need each other, and for most of us, the enduring emotional needs of a loyal relationship cannot be replaced by the momentary fulfillment of random desire. When we learn of someone who doesn’t feel that way, but still pretends to observe the traditions of marriage, we recoil in disgust. Trust is not easily given to a man who betrays his wife and children. We are wise to feel that way. It was always foolish to think the importance of marriage would be diminished by the removal of biological necessity and physical hardships. They were not the factors which made marriage indispensable, after all. Even a rich and powerful man, with all the science of the twenty-first century at his disposal, is still left in spiritual poverty when he discards the vows he made to his wife.
We need marriage because a society of free men and women depends on trust, and marriage is the essence of fidelity. It does not degrade the value of other relationships, or people who choose to remain single, to note that something special occurs when a man and woman promise their eternal devotion to each other. That union kindles the flame of commitment, which spreads from marriage, to family, and onward to illuminate communities and nations. There really is no substitute, no matter how hard various ideologies work to manufacture one.
The power of this relationship is sanctified by religious traditions, but it was not artificially created by them. Marriage is not an illusion sold by priests and rabbis. If you could somehow populate an island with completely innocent, newborn children, and leave them to their own devices for a generation or two, you would return one day to find husbands and wives working together to raise their children… or you would find savagery and devastation. Marriage is a core component of civilization, not an accidental byproduct. This is a truth that requires a great deal of careful conditioning to obscure.
We’re baffled and disgusted to learn about the tawdry misadventures of a popular figure like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Tiger Woods. We are also saddened, because we know their betrayal has taken something special from their wives and children, and no cash value can be assigned to the loss. The rest of us lose a highly visible example of wonderful and admirable trust. The world needs more examples of fidelity.
[bold emphasis MINE]
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub
A Sunday Funny - From MickeysFunnies.com
After church one Sunday morning, a mother commented, "The choir was awful this morning."
The father commented, "The sermon was too long."
Their 7-year-old daughter added, "You've got to admit it was a pretty good show for a dollar."
The Essence of Fidelity
Marriage and loyalty still matter.
by John Hayward
05/19/2011 (from HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com)
The news this week is dominated by two cases of sexual impropriety involving famous and powerful men. There are many differences between Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not least of which is the difference between the former’s consensual affair, and the charges of sexual assault filed against the latter. One notable similarity is that both are married, and each has four children with his wife.
The French press has been mocking Americans for caring about that sort of thing, all the way back to the Bill Clinton impeachment saga. Why make such a big deal about minor complications like marriage? Our cultural and political elites have made much progress toward overcoming these awkward hang-ups. Actress Cameron Diaz, for example, recently dismissed marriage as a “dying institution,” and thinks “we have to make our own rules,” rather than living our lives “in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer.”
Meanwhile, the President of the United States unilaterally decided the Defense of Marriage Act – passed into law, as fate would have it, by President Bill Clinton – is a dead letter that he doesn’t want to enforce any more. If you want to soak in those old traditions about marriage involving exactly one man and one woman, you can run back to your little church and do so, but less uptight Americans will be following Cameron Diaz’s advice and making their own rules.
It’s funny how so many Americans refuse to follow these exciting new cultural directives, and cling to their old marriage superstitions. There’s a certain flavor of shame that attaches to a man who betrays his wife, or a wife who betrays her husband. It has resisted all attempts to blend it with other flavors, or dilute it out of existence. It is often suggested that modern science and economic power have erased the original rationales for monogamous relationships. They’re not strictly necessary for procreation any more. Men and women no longer find themselves huddled in frontier cabins, sharing the arduous chores required to maintain a decent life.
And yet… men and women still need each other, and for most of us, the enduring emotional needs of a loyal relationship cannot be replaced by the momentary fulfillment of random desire. When we learn of someone who doesn’t feel that way, but still pretends to observe the traditions of marriage, we recoil in disgust. Trust is not easily given to a man who betrays his wife and children. We are wise to feel that way. It was always foolish to think the importance of marriage would be diminished by the removal of biological necessity and physical hardships. They were not the factors which made marriage indispensable, after all. Even a rich and powerful man, with all the science of the twenty-first century at his disposal, is still left in spiritual poverty when he discards the vows he made to his wife.
We need marriage because a society of free men and women depends on trust, and marriage is the essence of fidelity. It does not degrade the value of other relationships, or people who choose to remain single, to note that something special occurs when a man and woman promise their eternal devotion to each other. That union kindles the flame of commitment, which spreads from marriage, to family, and onward to illuminate communities and nations. There really is no substitute, no matter how hard various ideologies work to manufacture one.
The power of this relationship is sanctified by religious traditions, but it was not artificially created by them. Marriage is not an illusion sold by priests and rabbis. If you could somehow populate an island with completely innocent, newborn children, and leave them to their own devices for a generation or two, you would return one day to find husbands and wives working together to raise their children… or you would find savagery and devastation. Marriage is a core component of civilization, not an accidental byproduct. This is a truth that requires a great deal of careful conditioning to obscure.
We’re baffled and disgusted to learn about the tawdry misadventures of a popular figure like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Tiger Woods. We are also saddened, because we know their betrayal has taken something special from their wives and children, and no cash value can be assigned to the loss. The rest of us lose a highly visible example of wonderful and admirable trust. The world needs more examples of fidelity.
[bold emphasis MINE]
John Hayward is a staff writer for HUMAN EVENTS, and author of the recently published Doctor Zero: Year One. Follow him on Twitter: Doc_0. Contact him by email at jhayward@eaglepub
Friday, May 20, 2011
#81 - Ah, Yes, HIgh Gas Prices? Must Be Those Corporations!
[(1)Be sure to check out "The Coral Ridge (Half) Hour" this Sunday.(10 am and 5 pm on Sundays)Should be an especially eye-opening message and video excerpt); (2) Check this blog site on Sunday as well for a "Sunday Special."]
What’s The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies
(AskHeritage.com; May, 2011 – The Heritage Foundation)
It’s easy to take shots at oil companies, especially when gas prices are rising over $4 per gallon. Playing the role of David against an enormous corporate Goliath is a great way to score political points, so it’s no wonder that President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress have issued a clarion call for the end to oil subsidies as a way of wreaking revenge against those they say are responsible for the high cost of energy. The truth, though, isn’t as simple as the good-versus evil fable the left would have you believe.
On Wednesday, five Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the CEOs of the country’s five largest oil companies declaring, ”[I]f we are truly serious about cutting our deficit, it is imperative that we start by getting rid of wasteful and ineffective corporate subsidies that have outlived their usefulness.”
The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.
There’s another problem with the left’s crusade against the oil industry. The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris and Curtis Dubay explain that the broad calls for an end to oil subsidies is really code for targeted tax hikes against companies they don’t like:
"The President overreaches on what truly is a subsidy for oil and ignores the fact that the government does far more to hurt oil production than help it. He singles out the oil industry, which already faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500."
To make matters worse, the tax hikes on the oil and gas industry proposed in the president’s fiscal year 2012 budget would increase the price of oil and gas for American consumers, according to the Congressional Research Service. Loris and Dubay conclude:
Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. However, Congress should not punish the oil and gas industry with targeted tax hikes, nor should it reward other parts of the energy industry favored by the Administration.
There’s much the president and Congress could do if they truly wanted to give Americans a break at the gas pump. For starters, they could provide access to our country’s domestic energy reserves, roll back regulatory burdens on companies and lift the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits. Attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left’s bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. It might feel good in the short run, but it’s not a long-term solution to America’s energy problems.
[bold and italics emphases mine]
What’s The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies
(AskHeritage.com; May, 2011 – The Heritage Foundation)
It’s easy to take shots at oil companies, especially when gas prices are rising over $4 per gallon. Playing the role of David against an enormous corporate Goliath is a great way to score political points, so it’s no wonder that President Barack Obama and liberals in Congress have issued a clarion call for the end to oil subsidies as a way of wreaking revenge against those they say are responsible for the high cost of energy. The truth, though, isn’t as simple as the good-versus evil fable the left would have you believe.
On Wednesday, five Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the CEOs of the country’s five largest oil companies declaring, ”[I]f we are truly serious about cutting our deficit, it is imperative that we start by getting rid of wasteful and ineffective corporate subsidies that have outlived their usefulness.”
The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.
There’s another problem with the left’s crusade against the oil industry. The Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris and Curtis Dubay explain that the broad calls for an end to oil subsidies is really code for targeted tax hikes against companies they don’t like:
"The President overreaches on what truly is a subsidy for oil and ignores the fact that the government does far more to hurt oil production than help it. He singles out the oil industry, which already faces a higher marginal tax rate at 41 percent compared to 26 percent for the rest of businesses in Standard & Poor’s 500."
To make matters worse, the tax hikes on the oil and gas industry proposed in the president’s fiscal year 2012 budget would increase the price of oil and gas for American consumers, according to the Congressional Research Service. Loris and Dubay conclude:
Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. However, Congress should not punish the oil and gas industry with targeted tax hikes, nor should it reward other parts of the energy industry favored by the Administration.
There’s much the president and Congress could do if they truly wanted to give Americans a break at the gas pump. For starters, they could provide access to our country’s domestic energy reserves, roll back regulatory burdens on companies and lift the de facto moratorium on offshore drilling permits. Attacking the oil industry might satisfy the left’s bloodlust against corporate America, and it might play well in press conferences. But targeted tax hikes against industries one might not like is not an answer to the high price of gas. It might feel good in the short run, but it’s not a long-term solution to America’s energy problems.
[bold and italics emphases mine]
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
#80 - We Got Him! - Bin Laden, Just War, and the War on Terror
[You know that I have great respect for Chuck Colson*s Christian commentary on the news. You will find his comments on the killing of Osama Bin Laden. However, this time, I found a comment attached to his posting that I found to be an interesting counterpoint. It makes this for a rather long blog but I think you*ll find the counterargument interesting.]
By: Chuck Colson| Breakpoint.com; May 3, 2011
… When I heard the news, my heart was filled with pride in my country. This is an enormous victory, and can be a major turning point in the war against terrorism. But not just in the obvious way: Yes, Al Qaeda has been dealt a tremendous blow -- practically and symbolically.
But the real turning point could be in how we conduct this war hereafter. As I have said on BreakPoint previously, maintaining 100,000 troops in Afghanistan no longer meets the just war criteria. Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building -- transforming Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society. Our chances of succeeding in transforming a society that has resisted change for nearly two millennia are just north of zero, which is why I believe that our efforts in Afghanistan are no longer just. That’s because Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.
The just war doctrine also does not say that the United States has the moral right or duty to go into other countries and force them to conform to our strategic plan. Yet that’s what we’re doing in Afghanistan. Oh sure, our invasion of Afghanistan was a just response to the terror attacks of 9/11, aided and abetted by the Taliban. But we’re well past that. The brave men and women of our armed forces went in and threw the Taliban out. And we still could keep the Taliban terrorist movement under control with covert forces, but we don’t need 100,000 troops on the ground to do that.
The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists. It’s like using a rifle instead of a shotgun. It is not only a more just and appropriate response to terrorism, but it could save billions upon billions of dollars -- 100 billion this year alone -- at a time when our nation is teetering on the edge of fiscal insolvency. The president deserves enormous credit for what he’s done. I should also mention that just two weeks ago, I hailed the President’s decision not to try Al Qaeda mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City -- and to instead try him instead at Guantanamo. Of course, we now know that the information about Bin Laden’s whereabouts came from detainees at Guantanamo. I can’t help but wonder if that was one reason for the administration’s decision to try Muhammad there.
But again, this is a time to celebrate America’s victory over bin Laden. And it’s also a time to see a just way forward in the war on terror, which can save billions of dollars and untold lives.
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
No Confidence: Afghanistan and Christians;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | February 22, 2011
Obama's Wars, America's Problem;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | September 29, 2011
Osama bin Laden Operation Ended with Coded Message "Geronimo-E-KIA"; Jake Tapper, ABC News | May 02, 2011
Sorry Chuck, you're wrong on this one
Chuck Colson,
I respect you tremendously, and quote your application of worldview to current events frequently. You are one of the most potent moral thinkers of today. But no one is 100% perfect, and in today’s Breakpoint, you are just plain wrong.
You say, “Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building,” – well, yes. We removed the evil, old system, and have some moral responsibility to help them rebuild with something better. Similar to the US occupation of Germany and rebuilding of Europe after WWII. We had learned after WWI that leaving a vacuum allows the worst elements to walk in. Just as we found that leaving Afghanistan after the Soviets left, opened the door to takeover by the most extreme elements in the Taliban.
“Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.” How can you be so pessimistic, when Afghanistan has conducted 2 national elections (albeit flawed). We are not going to “transform Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society.” But we can support the reform elements and give them the protection and training to achieve their own version of a developing free country. Remember, the lack of any history or social understanding of freedom was the argument against transforming Japan and Korea after WWII. It will take time, and yes money and sacrifice, but the goal is very realistic.
“The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists.” This is the most wrong statement of the entire commentary. The intelligence to root out bin Laden was gained through aggressive military action within Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
Osama was found by tracking down his personal courier, which was extremely difficult because of the security precautions they enacted. The pseudonym “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti” was provided by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in Pakistan in 2003), and Abu Faraj al-Libbi (captured in Pakistan in 2005). It took more traditional sleuthing to get al-Kuwaiti’s real name, according to the NY Times. That meant putting more operatives on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan to track him, yielding a partial name. A file released by WikiLeaks suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA.
In fact, Osama was holed up in his compound (and largely ineffective in leading further terrorism) because of the on-going military operations partnering with counter-terrorism efforts. Plus the “targeted” operation was from a base in Afghanistan which would not exist without our presence there. We cannot gain intelligence without the larger effort, and without our active military partnership with the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
The fact is, that without the heartbreaking sacrifice of so many US Soldiers and Marines, the people of Afghanistan would be enslaved by the worst kind of terrorists. And freeing the enslaved is one of the most Christian (and “Just War Doctrine”) goals I can think of.
Respectfully, Norman Wolfe, Denver, Colorado
Some sources I used to develop the above information:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/05/03/inconvenient-facts-about-the-takedown-of-osama-bin-laden/#comment-8556
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html?hp
Posted By: YnotNOW on May 03, 2011 4:26 PM
By: Chuck Colson| Breakpoint.com; May 3, 2011
… When I heard the news, my heart was filled with pride in my country. This is an enormous victory, and can be a major turning point in the war against terrorism. But not just in the obvious way: Yes, Al Qaeda has been dealt a tremendous blow -- practically and symbolically.
But the real turning point could be in how we conduct this war hereafter. As I have said on BreakPoint previously, maintaining 100,000 troops in Afghanistan no longer meets the just war criteria. Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building -- transforming Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society. Our chances of succeeding in transforming a society that has resisted change for nearly two millennia are just north of zero, which is why I believe that our efforts in Afghanistan are no longer just. That’s because Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.
The just war doctrine also does not say that the United States has the moral right or duty to go into other countries and force them to conform to our strategic plan. Yet that’s what we’re doing in Afghanistan. Oh sure, our invasion of Afghanistan was a just response to the terror attacks of 9/11, aided and abetted by the Taliban. But we’re well past that. The brave men and women of our armed forces went in and threw the Taliban out. And we still could keep the Taliban terrorist movement under control with covert forces, but we don’t need 100,000 troops on the ground to do that.
The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists. It’s like using a rifle instead of a shotgun. It is not only a more just and appropriate response to terrorism, but it could save billions upon billions of dollars -- 100 billion this year alone -- at a time when our nation is teetering on the edge of fiscal insolvency. The president deserves enormous credit for what he’s done. I should also mention that just two weeks ago, I hailed the President’s decision not to try Al Qaeda mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City -- and to instead try him instead at Guantanamo. Of course, we now know that the information about Bin Laden’s whereabouts came from detainees at Guantanamo. I can’t help but wonder if that was one reason for the administration’s decision to try Muhammad there.
But again, this is a time to celebrate America’s victory over bin Laden. And it’s also a time to see a just way forward in the war on terror, which can save billions of dollars and untold lives.
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
No Confidence: Afghanistan and Christians;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | February 22, 2011
Obama's Wars, America's Problem;Chuck Colson | BreakPoint | September 29, 2011
Osama bin Laden Operation Ended with Coded Message "Geronimo-E-KIA"; Jake Tapper, ABC News | May 02, 2011
Sorry Chuck, you're wrong on this one
Chuck Colson,
I respect you tremendously, and quote your application of worldview to current events frequently. You are one of the most potent moral thinkers of today. But no one is 100% perfect, and in today’s Breakpoint, you are just plain wrong.
You say, “Our goal in Afghanistan seems to have morphed from destroying the Taliban to nation-building,” – well, yes. We removed the evil, old system, and have some moral responsibility to help them rebuild with something better. Similar to the US occupation of Germany and rebuilding of Europe after WWII. We had learned after WWI that leaving a vacuum allows the worst elements to walk in. Just as we found that leaving Afghanistan after the Soviets left, opened the door to takeover by the most extreme elements in the Taliban.
“Christian just war doctrine demands that war be waged only when a reasonable probability of success exists.” How can you be so pessimistic, when Afghanistan has conducted 2 national elections (albeit flawed). We are not going to “transform Afghanistan into a pro-Western, pro-democratic society.” But we can support the reform elements and give them the protection and training to achieve their own version of a developing free country. Remember, the lack of any history or social understanding of freedom was the argument against transforming Japan and Korea after WWII. It will take time, and yes money and sacrifice, but the goal is very realistic.
“The success of the operation against bin Laden proves that targeted, behind-the-scenes operations based on solid intelligence give us the best chance to eliminate the terrorists.” This is the most wrong statement of the entire commentary. The intelligence to root out bin Laden was gained through aggressive military action within Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
Osama was found by tracking down his personal courier, which was extremely difficult because of the security precautions they enacted. The pseudonym “Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti” was provided by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in Pakistan in 2003), and Abu Faraj al-Libbi (captured in Pakistan in 2005). It took more traditional sleuthing to get al-Kuwaiti’s real name, according to the NY Times. That meant putting more operatives on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan to track him, yielding a partial name. A file released by WikiLeaks suggests that the courier’s identity was provided to the US by another key source, the al-Qaida facilitator Hassan Ghul, who was captured in Iraq in 2004 and interrogated by the CIA.
In fact, Osama was holed up in his compound (and largely ineffective in leading further terrorism) because of the on-going military operations partnering with counter-terrorism efforts. Plus the “targeted” operation was from a base in Afghanistan which would not exist without our presence there. We cannot gain intelligence without the larger effort, and without our active military partnership with the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
The fact is, that without the heartbreaking sacrifice of so many US Soldiers and Marines, the people of Afghanistan would be enslaved by the worst kind of terrorists. And freeing the enslaved is one of the most Christian (and “Just War Doctrine”) goals I can think of.
Respectfully, Norman Wolfe, Denver, Colorado
Some sources I used to develop the above information:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/05/03/inconvenient-facts-about-the-takedown-of-osama-bin-laden/#comment-8556
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02reconstruct-capture-osama-bin-laden.html?hp
Posted By: YnotNOW on May 03, 2011 4:26 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
