War and Spirit

In a spiritual world, everything is connected.

When political powers give authority to a powerful spirit, their power enhances its power. So if a nation engages in violent conflict and war, a spirit of violence will also be released at home.

If a nation sets out to be the preeminent military power in the world, enforcing its dominance with violent military force, it should not be surprised if gun violence explodes in its towns, schools and homes.

If a nation like New Zealand backs war as the solution to disputes between nations, and engages in a war by training participants to use powerful artillery, it should not be surprised if a violent spirit takes hold at home and releases violence in society (and its parliament).

Negotiations not War

Jesus did not say much about war, because he was not interested in it as a method for advancing his cause. He refused to start a war to protect his life or to advance his kingdom. Human kingdoms are worth less than the Kingdom of God, so it is not worth fighting a war for, then no other human government is worth it.

However, the one time that Jesus did talk about war, he gave some really good advice that Christians should heed.

Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace (Luke 14:31-32).

The principle in Jesus parable is very restrictive. War is only justified if the benefits are greater than the total cost. Most wars fail to deliver the hoped-for benefits, so very few problems can justify the cost of war.

If all governments applied Jesus’ principle, then war would be rare. Enemies with weaker military forces would be unlikely to attack stronger nations. And if a stronger nation is threatening a weaker nation, its enemy would generally have overwhelmingly superior forces, so any attempt at defence would be pointless and produce unnecessary suffering.

There are generally very few winners in war. The cost for the families of those who die is enormous. For the soldiers who survive the cost is also be high because many will have physical and mental injuries that blight their lives. War never produces benefits that justify the cost, so I am surprised that so many Christians are enthusiastic about war.

Jesus' principle applies to the current war in Ukraine. Despite what the western news media are saying, the Ukrainians lost the war almost as soon as it started. Their air forces and navy were destroyed in the first few days. Most of the Ukrainian army is in the east of the country because the US had encouraged their political leaders to break the Minsk peace agreements and take back control of the rebel Donbas provinces by military force. These forces are now surrounded and cut off (possibly with some of their American trainers). They can keep firing artillery in the Donbas region for a while but when their ammunition runs out, they will have no choice but to surrender.

The only sensible thing that the Ukrainian president can do is follow Jesus’ advice and sue for peace. The sooner he does, the better conditions he will be able to negotiate. The longer he leaves it, the weaker his bargaining position will be. Saying that you will fight to the last man for your democracy is stupid. No democracy is worth thousands of lives. Paul lived the Christian life effectively under emperor Nero, so no political system is essential for the advance of the gospel.

The US and UK leaders are doing huge harm by preventing the Ukrainian from negotiating seriously. They learned to hate “the Russians” when they were growing up, and they still want to put them down (they have lost sight of the fact that our real enemy is the spiritual powers of evil and that Jesus loves Russians as much as he loves Anglo-saxons). Unfortunately, these western leaders don’t really care about the Ukrainian people and are quite happy to use them as pawns in their bigger power game.

And the Western news media are also doing serious harm with their messaging.

• Training old women how to fire a rifle looks good on television but it will not change anything on the ground, except cause unnecessary suffering.

• Training young women how to throw Molotov cocktails at tanks is a romantic idea, but it will just produce more unnecessary suffering.

• Handing out guns to untrained civilians and telling them to defend their cities is foolish and will only lead to unnecessary loss of life.

• Sending thousands of right-wing crazies from all over Europe to fight in Ukraine is as stupid as training and equipping the Sunni Sons of Iraq, who morphed into ISIS. Blowback into the countries that they came from is inevitable..

• Allowing women and children to leave as refugees while making their husbands and father remain to fight will end in tragedy for many families.

• Telling the Ukrainian people that they are winning a war that they have already lost is doing them a disservice. The American and British military experts who say that Ukraine is winning are the same ones that said that the war in Afghanistan was being on the verge of being won, so they have no credibility.

• David's defeat of Goliath was a wonderful event, but it only applies when the Holy Spirit's annointing is on God's man. It does not apply to nations, no matter how plucky they are.

• Sending massive numbers of rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine is foolish, because they won't all be used there. They will leak into the rest of Europe and getting into the wrong hands there.

• Encouraging an insurgency in Ukrainian cities will only add to the pain and suffering, and for very little benefit.

The only way to end the suffering in Ukraine is to negotiate a peace settlement and stick to it.

The sad thing is that this is another unnecessary war. There were plenty of opportunities to negotiate a peace settlement in the months before it began. The Russian president described the issues that needed to be resolved and repeatedly asked for serious negotiations, but the US, UK and NATO leaders were too arrogant to engage seriously. Instead, they goaded the Russian president to invade because they thought he would be too scared, but that gambit failed. These leaders persuaded the Ukrainian leaders not to engage either. This was reckless because encouraging the Ukrainians to resist Russia and then refusing them to support them when it went wrong was an ugly betrayal.

The NZ foreign minister says that the window for a diplomatic solution is closing. That is not true. Diplomacy is always the only solution to war. Even when the guns go silent, a diplomatic solution to establish peace is needed. Jesus’ advice to negotiate for peace when you are likely to lose is as urgent as ever. President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov claim that they want a diplomatic solution. The best solution would be to seriously test that commitment.

War

I hate war. In my studies of history, I have never discovered one where the cause justified the cost in terms of suffering that war produces. The decision that a war was worth the price is made by the living who did not lose their lives. The people who died don’t get a voice. I think it is arrogant to say that my freedom is worth another person's life, and the lives of all their descendents.

Jesus’ death on the cross set me completely free. The death of no other person is needed to make me freer. If we believe that Jesus made us truly free, why do we want other people to die for our freedom.

The current war is no different. It is an unnecessary war that could have been avoided if leaders on all sides had not been intransigent.

What I find disconcerting is the number of Christian celebrities speaking out against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, whom I have not heard speaking against war before. I am pleased to see their oppostion to this war, but I can’t help feeling that their angst is a bit selective.

• These people were mostly silent when the US, France and the UK invaded Libya and wrecked the most prosperous nation in Africa.

• They have been silent about the Saudi invasion of Yemen, one of the poorest nations in the world, with the logistical support of the United States. They call Putin a dictator, but they don’t throw the same barbs at the ruler of Saudi Arabia, because he is a US ally.

• They have been silent about the illegal US invasion of Syria.

• They cheered on the US invasion of Iraq, which caused nearly a million deaths, and spawned ISIS.

• They remained silent during the twenty-year war of destruction and revenge for 9/11 against the people of Afghanistan who had nothing to do with it.

• They are silent about the United States stealing $9 billion dollars from the Afghan central bank, money that belongs to the Afghan people, which is needed to keep them from starvation.

• They did not care about the US bombing of Belgrade to split up Yugoslavia with no suggestion that the old borders were sacrosanct.

• Evangelical Christians cheered on the invasion of Vietnam, and the bombing of Laos and Cambodia for no useful purpose.

• Christians have remained silent about Israel’s continuous, brutal mistreatment of the Palestinian people with military equipment supplied by the United States.

• They have ignored Israel’s illegal bombing of Syria and Lebanon.

• They ignore the pain, suffering and death caused by economic sanctions, and pretend that economic war is good and military war is bad, while claiming to support freedom.

It seems that celebrity Christians don’t care about US and UK aggression nearly as much as they care about Russian aggression. Is it because the victims are white Europeans. I can’t help wondering if the virulence of their verbal attacks on Russian are driven more by racism and xenophobia than by Christian concern and compassion?

There are a few exceptions. Roger E Olson's article about Russia’s and America’s Invasions is pertinent, but it has been severly criticised.

Wrong War

Commenting on the death of a priest at the hands of ISIS terrorists, the Pope said,

This is war. There was the war of 1914, with its methods; then that of 1939-45, another great war in the world; and now there is this one. It is not perhaps so organic; organized, yes, but organic… I say… But it is war.

He is wrong. This is not a war. It is a sign of a lost spiritual battle.

There is only one war that counts, and that is the spiritual battle taking place in the spiritual realms (Eph 6:12).

The spiritual war for the Middle East was lost many centuries ago. The Western powers have engaged in numerous costly and physical wars in the Middle East during the the past century, but they have just strengthened the defeat in the spiritual realms.

The spiritual forces that reign in the Middle East are now attacking Europe. That battle is already lost in the spiritual realms. Recent events in France are a sign of that defeat, not the beginning of a new war. Fighting against this spiritual attack with military force will strengthen the hand of the spiritual powers of evil.

The same spiritual forces are attacking the United States. That battle is close to being lost, too. Those with their eyes open are already seeing the signs of defeat.

Instead of looking to political and military solutions that will inevitably fail, God’s people should wake up and engage the spiritual war that Jesus has already won for them.

Lies and War

Lies and war march together.

Lies are needed to get a war started.

Lies are needed to get young men and women to kill each other, because very few people will kill each other for the truth.

Lies continue when the war has finished, to bury the anger, hatred, pain, sorrow and suffering.

Lies are created to allow people to remember the war as glorious and celebrate with pride.

Myth and Reality

A common factor in accounts of experiences of during World War 1 is that the men who returned never talked about what happened, to either their wives or their families. Most remained silent for the rest of their lives.

One reason for their silence was that their experience did not fit with the public narrative that prevailed at the time.

The government had promised that the war would be short and the victory quick and easy. The British Empire would put those cheeky Germans back in their place by Christmas.

The war against the Ottoman Turks would be easier still. The primitive Turkish heathen peasants would have no show against the sophistication of the British Empire. The men who volunteered to fight were promised a great adventure. They would come back as heroes, having assured the victory of empire and civilisation.

Unfortunately, reality did not match the rhetoric. The British Empire was soon bogged down in France, and the Gallipoli invasion was a disaster from the first day. The population back in New Zealand was shocked at the number of their sons being killed, injured and maimed.

Up against this raw reality of death and defeat, the public narrative had to change. The men who died were turned into heroes. They had sacrificed their lives for empire and for God. Dying for your country was the most noble thing that any young men could do. Those who gave their lives were following the example of Christ and dying for their friends.

This new narrative sustained the war effort and persuaded the people to keep sending their sons to serve and die in the war. By the end of the war, the casualties were so terrible that the narrative of sacrifice essential to justify it. The sacrifices were worth it, because the men died for their country.

The problem for the men returning home was that their experience did not match with the public narrative. Some of those who died were heroes, but many were not. Some died through stupidity, of their officers, or their own mistakes. Some of those who returned survived, because they found a way of keeping out of danger. Other had survived, because they had pushed their bayonets in their attackers, before they got them. Killing another men in hand-to-hand did not feel like sacrifice.

Like any other group of young men, they were a mixture of personalities, character and motivation. Some of their officers were thoughtful and caring, but many were callous and cruel, taking advantage of weakness and looking after their mates. Many of the survivors had seen men sent on futile sorties that they knew would fail before they started. Many knew that some of the men who died only went over the top, because they were afraid of being accused of cowardice, or before shot for treason if they refused to obey orders.

The young men thrust into war, found themselves living in hell on earth. Some lost their minds and fell apart. Many wished that they had never volunteered, and long to be home. Some injured themselves deliberately, so they could be evacuated. A few realised that they were invading a country where they had no right to be.

When they returned home, the men could not talk about what had happened, because they official narrative comforted the mothers who had lost their sons. They did not want to cause these mothers and families further pain, so they went along with the public narrative, and remained silent. Some accepted the narrative, as a way of coping with what had happened to them.

As time went on, the public myth of glory and sacrifice grew stronger and stronger, and is still the dominant narrative.

However, the men who fought in the First World War chose to remain silent, so their descendants do not respect their loss of lives, by talking up what they did. We should respect their silence, and remain silent too.

God and Violence (1)

In the Old Testament, God seems to be a warring God, but that is an earthly perspective. God will not impose his authority on humans. He does not want his people on earth using war to accomplish his purposes. He wants his followers on earth to be people of peace.

In the Old Testament age, God had only a few people who walked in the Spirit, because the Holy Spirit could not be released in fullness until after the cross. However, there is a massive battle going on in the spiritual realms. God does not use imposed authority and power to constrain the evil spiritual powers. He uses his authority in the spiritual realms to release his angels to manipulate the struggles between the evil spiritual powers to accomplish his purposes. God does not start wars. He manipulates the outcomes of the wars that have been started by evil spiritual powers.

The powers of evil are not united. They often fight against each other to get better positions in the hierarchy of evil. The Prince of Persia and his followers fought against the Assyrian Spirit and his cohorts.

God mostly accomplished his purposes by sending his angels to fight against the principalities and powers and not letting a different one win. He fought against the spiritual power of Babylon, which allowed the spiritual Prince of Persia to defeat it. This allowed the Persian armies to conquer and destroy Babylon.

Anzac Day

I do not like war. I hate the terrible death and suffering. I also dislike the political propaganda that tries to turn something dreadful and awful into something to be celebrated. I particularly dislike the way that the media try to make war appear to be noble and good.

Yesterday was ANZAC day. 25 April was the first day of the Gallipoli campaign at the beginning of the First World War. I dislike the way that this day been captured by the military, and has changed from a day of grieving for lost family and friends into a celebration of the glories of war. Truth suffers in the process. Nothing is said about the folly of war. The disasters and evils that always accompany it are masqueraded as heroism and sacrifice.

Most wars are stupid, but the first World War was particularly stupid. It started when an Austrian archduke was shot by a Serbian in Sarajevo. Most Europeans could not tell an archduke from an archdeacon and no one cared about the Serbs or Sarajevo, but their political leaders decided they would have a jolly good old war anyway.

The politicians and kings started a stupid war and millions of ordinary young men paid full price for it. When the war finally ground to a halt five years later, nothing had been achieved, but 20 million people had died and another 20 million carried serious injuries.

The politicians and leaders never apologized for their mistake. Instead they turned the dead and injured into heroes. This distracted attention from their stupid decisions and made people feel better about an event that was really a terrible disaster. Calling the soldiers heroes makes it seem that what they had done was worthwhile.

I know that many were heroes, but the line between heroism and stupidity is a fine one. No doubt some were cowards. I presume that most just kept their heads down and avoided trouble. The hero story is not totally true, but it fulfils a political purpose.

The Gallipoli campaign was one of those stupid battles thought up by a politician in London that was never going to work in practice. The Australian and New Zealand troops ended up on stuck on a narrow beach in Turkey. The Turkish soldiers at the top of the cliffs were armed with machine guns and fighting to defend their homes and families. They were never going to lose.

Several months later, the Australian and New Zealand troops withdrew having achieved nothing for a terrible price. One hundred thousand people were dead and another two hundred thousand were injured. The most embarrassing aspect of the fiasco was that white Christian people were supposed to be superior to the Turkish Moslems.

The loss of so many young men was a terrible sacrifice, but sacrifice for what. We say now that they died for their country, but that is not true, either. The people of New Zealand had no interest in what happened in Sarajevo. Most did not know it even existed. The first time New Zealanders heard of it was when the Winter Olympics were held there.

The New Zealand soldiers went to defend the British Empire. When the British Empire called, the young men of New Zealand left their families and marched off to war without hesitation, on an imperialistic adventure. The thought of fighting for an empire is not very nice, so dying for your country sounds much better.

We can honour the bravery of the soldiers.
We can honour loyalty to their mates.

We should not honour their blind obedience to the arrogant and foolish political leaders told them to go and fight a stupid war.

Justification for War - Syria

I really dislike war on principle, but I acknowledge that there are a few situations where war is justified. The Bible provides principles that clarify the rare circumstances when war is justified. I describe these principles in detail in Defence and War.

The major weakness with these biblical principles is that they are rarely applied seriously, even by Christians. Most of the wars throughout history that have been supported by Christians would not be justified, if the biblical principles were applied correctly.

1. Defence
The first principle is that war is only justified for the defence of a local community. The people from several communities might join together to impose and external enemy, but the decision to join the battle must be made within the local community. People cannot be conscripted into fighting a war, by a greater political power.

This principle of defence only rules out pre-emptive strikes against nations that might be a threat in the future. It prevents political leaders from acting as judge of the nations, and punishing nations that do not comply with their stands of behaviour.

2. Last Resort
War should always be the last resort. Before starting a war, civil leaders should try every means possible to obtain peace (Deut 20:10). Until every possible means of obtaining peace is exhausted, war is not justified.

3. Benefits Exceed the Cost
War is only justified, if the benefits of the desired objective clearly outweigh the potential cost of the war. If the cost exceeds the benefit it is better to sue for peace (Luke 14:31-32).

This is a killer principle. As the cost of most wars are horrendous, so very few wars pass this test. Counting the cost of war is not just a matter of estimating how many soldiers will be lost. The full cost of the war should be counted. The cost for the families of those who die is enormous. For the soldiers who survive the cost can also be high. Many will have injuries that blight their lives. Worse still, war has a desensitising effect on its participants, and good men can be drawn into doing great evil. They will have to live with their consciences. The value of one life is significant. The value of several thousand lives is immense. War is also a waste of economic resources, so when the full cost is counted, very few wars can offer benefits that justify their cost. The more I read the history of war, the harder I find it to think of a situation serious enough to justify the enormous costs of war.

Defence is rarely a practical option. Enemies with weaker military forces are unlikely to attack. (Some radical religious or political groups may be foolish enough to attack a stronger nation, but this will also be rare). The enemies that do threaten us will generally have an overwhelming superiority of forces, so an attempt at defence would be pointless. This means that there will be very few situations where a nation can defend itself against attack. War is justified if we are attacked by an army that is weaker than ours. If invaded by a stronger army, we would be better to surrender and sue for peace.

Conduct of War
The Bible also gives principles that should govern the way that war is conducted. Attacks on civilians are forbidden. Those engaged in war also are prohibited from attacking and damaging the land (Deut 20:19-20). The land belongs to God, so humans must not attack it.

This rules out total war in which an entire nation and its economy is a valid war target. Nuclear weapons do not meet this standard. Most missile and bombing attacks do not comply, because the harm civilians and the land.

Syria
The proposed war on Syria fails all these principles.

1. The war is not for defence. Syria is not that to the United States. God is still the Judge of the Nations. He has not delegated responsibility for judging Syria to Obama Barack.

2. Opportunities still exist for negotiating a solution. We are not yet at the last resort.

3. What can be accomplished by bombing Syria is very uncertain. It could well make the situation far worse. Such uncertain benefits do not outweigh the cost in human lives of a bombing attack.

4. The planned attack will use weapons that do not comply with the biblical principles governing the conduct of war.

ANZAC Day

Today is ANZAC day, the official memorial day in Australia and New Zealand. It marks the launch of the Gallipoli campaign during the First World War.

The First World War was a total waste and nothing good was achieved at an enormous cost.

The Gallipoli campaign was the mad plan of a crazy young warmonger called Winston Churchill. He seemed to have an obsession for war, but did not care about the human cost.

The war was a battle between the four, dying, Christian empires of Europe. Turkey had no interest in the dispute, but Britain and Germany bullied it into taking sides, because they wanted access to its resources. The Ottoman Empire was already on its last legs. The war killed the last Moslem empire, and the new nation state of Turkey emerged in its place.

The leaders of Europe blundered into war because they made threats against each other and then were too arrogant to back down. France and England had dominated Western Europe since the Spanish Empire collapsed, and they were threatened by the rising star of the united German nation. They seemed to want beat it up before it became too strong. All pointless posturing of pompous politicians.

The British reasons for joining this strange terrible war are even more obscure. They had the world’s largest empire, so they might look weak, if they did not join the fight.

The embarrassing question that no one dares to ask is why young Christian men from New Zealand, a small nation in the South pacific were attacking and invading a Moslem nation just off the Mediterranean. New Zealand soldiers had no justification for invading and killing the Turkish people defending their homeland. We should be embarrassed by this event. If a Moslem army from the Middle East tried to invade New Zealand, we would kick up a great fuss, so why was it alright for us.

I presume it was justified for us to invade a distant Moslem nation, because we are British, and God is on our side.

Despite our legends, the Turks proved to be the better fighters, and after months trapped on the beach and clinging to the rough hillsides above it, the British forces had to withdraw after the Turks inflicted massive casualties on the trapped armies.

The official line is that they gave their lives for their nation, but their lives were stolen for a political lie.

New Zealand celebrates a defeat by people we considered inferior for our national day. What does that say about us as a nation? If we had learned from our mistake and were looking back with humility, that would be okay, but to look back on a defeat and pretend that it makes us a great nation is a bit warped.

Spiritual Shift (3) War

A war between two nations is also a spiritual war between two principalities and their followers. The outcome of the war will often be determined by which of the principalities has the strongest powers supporting it. The principalities mostly use deceit to achieve their goals, by blinding military leaders to opportunities and deceiving them into actions that will fail.

Anyone who participates in a physical war is also participating in a spiritual struggle, whether they recognise it or not. The outcome of the war will be influenced by the strength of the spiritual forces engaged on each side. Spiritual powers like to be on the winning side, so groups of them will often switch allegiance to join the winner. When the nation or empire that a principality controls is defeated, it may shift to the winning nation and attempt to gain a place of control in the winning empire.

The trauma and chaos of war provides great opportunities for evil spirits to shift from one person to another. The intense fear that pervade before and after battle leave soldiers open to spiritual attack. Anger in the battle also leaves them vulnerable. Soldiers rarely think about spiritual protection, because their officers are stirring them up with anger and hatred.

The spiritual side of war make it an extremely dangerous activity. The nation winning a war celebrates as if it has achieved something great. The hidden truth is that an army that successfully invades an evil nation and defeats it carries a great host of evil spirits and their controlling principalities and powers back to their homeland. The people who win the physical war usually lose the spiritual war. Principalities and powers often shift from one area to another by moving with the winning armies.

Suffering and the Kingdom (3) - Politics and War

Political power cannot defeat evil.

• When Christians rely on political power, the Holy Spirit flees.
• When we use coercion against evil, God is squeezed out.
• Whenever we resist evil by with force, anger and hatred are empowered.

When the Christians takes up the cross follows Jesus, the Holy Spirit is released, and he is able to defeat the principalities and powers will be defeated.

The Kingdom of God will be established by the Holy Spirit working through the church. Unfortunately, he has been hamstrung by our tendency to rely political power to deal with evil.

When we fight evil with violence and war, the Holy Spirit retreats. This creates a vacuum that is filled by evil spiritual forces. The kingdom of God cannot be established by war, because when war starts, the Holy Spirit withdraws and the principalities and powers move in. This is why war invariably makes the situation worse, even if the cause appears to be good. Evil wins, because the Holy Spirit has to withdraw.

In the struggle between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Darkness, the Holy Spirit will always be the winner, if he he has freedom to move. When the church commits to suffering in the face of evil, the principalities and powers will be defeated.

Service is the key to the Kingdom. It often leads to suffering. Suffering releases the Holy Spirit, allowing him to achieve victory.

Christians often misunderstand the Holy Spirit. We have these false assumptions.

• We must resist evil, or be overcome by evil.
• Violence must be destroyed, before it destroys us.
• If we do not defend our way of life, we will be forced to surrender our faith.
• We must use force against those who hate the gospel, or it might be lost.
• We must defeat those who would harm us, before they destroy.

At the physical level, these statements appear to be true. Violent people often harm good people. Evil nations sometimes invade peaceful nations. However, this is only half the picture.

When the spiritual dimension is taken into account the shape of the struggle is different. First of all, Christians have eternal life, so they cannot be destroyed by evil. More importantly, what happens in the spiritual dimension determines who gets victory on earth. When Christians use force and political power, the Holy Spirit is constrained. When Christians choose love, compassion and service, the power of the Holy Spirit is released.

Giving the Holy Spirit freedom to act is the key to the victory of the Kingdom. Anything that restrains the Holy Spirit holds back the kingdom of God. Using force to protect lives or to protect our nation, may make sense at the physical level, but it hinders the coming of the Kingdom of God. Before the Kingdom can be established, God will have to shake our faith in human power, and teach us to trust the Holy Spirit. Given the immensity of his power, any other course of action is foolish.

We must trust the cross. Jesus went to the cross to defeat the principalities, abolish the political powers and establish the kingdom of Gods. We must follow his example. The Kingdom comes when we take up the cross and follow Jesus.

Quantitative Easing

In the past kings used to debase their currencies to pay for their wars.

Now Big Ben is debasing the dollar to boost the American economy.

Or maybe he is just doing it to pay for George and Obama's wars. Maybe nothing has changed.

The Good Soldiers

Another recent good read was David Finkel’s book called The Good Soldiers.

This book tells the story of a battalion of soldiers sent to Baghdad during the early stages of the surge. It illustrates the horror and futility of war. Most of the soldiers were not killed or injured in actual battle, but by IEDs that destroyed their Humvees while out on patrol. Injuries were often horrendous and permanent. It all seemed a bit pointless, but most believed they were serving their nation.

The soldiers did not see to have a clue who their enemy was or what they were fighting for. Their commanders did not understand the various factions operating in Iraq, so they did not know whether they were fighting against Sunni insurgents opposing the Iraqi government or Shia militia ethnically cleansing the city, or both.

This is not way to run an empire.

Eschatology and War

Some of the strongest support for war comes from the “End-times industry”. Part of the reason for this that they no longer believe in power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit to overcome evil. They teach that, despite the gospel, the power of evil will increase as history progresses. Evil will only be overcome when Jesus returns to conquer the world using force (a rod of iron).

The idea of Jesus using force to make people accept his authority is a not only a distortion of the gospel, but it has dangerous consequence. If Christians believe that the only way for God to overcome evil is using brute force, then we should not be surprised if Christians want the United States to use force to overcome evil in this age.

Jehu's Methods are Redundant

Elijah anointed Jehu as king, be he did not turn Israel around. He and his son continued in the sins of Jeroboam. In 2 Kings 17:16, Israel was still worshipping Baal. They eventually went into exile. Jehu’s killings did not bring blessing to Israel.

There are two reasons. Firstly, you cannot beat evil with evil; violence just produces more violence. Jesus rebuked those who wanted to use violence to advance his cause (Luke 9:54-55).

Secondly, guns and bullets kill people, but they cannot change the spirits that are at work in a place. Elijah and Jehu were unable to bind the spirits that controlled Israel.

Post Jesus, that has changed. Spiritual warfare is now more effective than physical warfare, unless you belong to a nation that trusts in war, and are weak in dealing with spirits of hatred and violence. Using Old Testament methods is pointless now we have the new covenant.

War does not Work (4) - Siachen Glacier

Eric Margolis tells the story of a ridiculous little war over the Siachen Glacier in the area where the borders of India, Pakistan and China meet on the slopes of the Himalayas. The altitude is so high that the air is almost to thin to breath. Soldiers who spent too long there are at risk of going blind or suffering from altitude sickness. Access is so difficult that only a few hardy, experienced mountaineers have ever been there. Yet the Pakistan and Indian armies moved into the area and fought a mini war to gain control of the region. They built rough tracks up into the mountains, pulled their weapons and started lobbing shells at each other.

The native people who do live there have no connection and no allegiance to any of the governments that sought to control their villages. Life is tough at this altitude, so they mostly just got on with the struggle to survive and ignored the soldiers. The armies did nothing to relieve their poverty and sickness.

What was the point of fighting over an area where it is nearly impossible to live? What is the point of maintaining permanent military bases at 20,000 feet. What was the point of spending so much money on a pointless war, when many of their people are living in poverty? Political posturing, I presume?

Siachen was another war that did not work.

War does not Work (3) - Afghanistan

War will not work in Afghanistan. I cannot believe that American mothers are happy for their sons to die in such a pointless war.

I have been reading some history of Afghanistan over the past few days. The period after the Soviet invasion at the beginning of the eighties is intriguing. During their occupation the Russians killed between half and two million Afghanis. It is not surprising that they were hated.

The mujahedeen rose in rebellion, but their situation was futile until the gained support from the Pakistan security services (ISI). They became more effective when the CIA and MI6 started training the mujahedeen and Saudi Arabia funded weapons imported from China.

One important development was the International Brigade, a group of young Moslems from all over the Middle East who came to support the Afghans in their struggle against the Russians. They were trained and equipped by the CIA. Among them was Osama bin Laden, who came from Yemen. He was trained by CIA operatives to fight against the Russians.

The turning point in the war came when the US supplied stinger missile launcher to the Mujahieen and ISI operatives trained them how to use them. This neutralised the Russian fighter and helicopter support, which had give them superiority. Within a couple of years the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan and the Soviet Union collapsed.

After the war most of the International Brigade left Afghanistan and become key fighters in hotspots all over the Middle East. Osama bin Laden remained in Afghanistan and started Al Qaida. Training your enemies is really clever.

I am not sure why the United State is now fighting in Afghanistan. I presume they are supporting democracy, but western democracy does not work in a place with such diverse cultures.

Afghanistan is divided through the middle by high mountains at the western end of the Himalayas. The people to the north of the mountains are Tajik and directly related to the people in the north. The people to the south are the Pashtun. During the nineteenth century, when Russia was pushing south, the British were worried about the security of the Indian empire. They created Afghanistan as a buffer between the Russian and British empires, by pushing two different tribal groups into one nation.

Worse still the boundary between Afghanistan and the Indian empire left half of the Pashtun people on the British side in what is now Pakistan. Putting the border right through the middle of a people group is not clever and is one reason why the Pakistan is so unstable today.

The government of Afghanistan that was set up after the war with Russia is dominated by Tajik warlords who fought against Russia too. Many of them are corrupt, some are drug dealers and others are enriching themselves by creaming of the foreign aid money. The Pashtun, who are the largest people group in Afghanistan, are mostly excluded from the government. I do not understand why the United States and Britain are fighting to support a corrupt government that allows one tribal group to profit at the expense another. That policy will never produce peace.

Some Americans think that they are fighting against Al Qaida. The problem is that the Taliban is not the same as Al Qaida. Al Qaida consisted of only a few hundred people and almost none of them were Afghanis. Most of those few hundred people are now dead or have escaped through Pakistan. The centre of gravity of Al Qaida has now moved west to Iraq and beyond, so Al Qaida cannot be defeated in Afghanistan.

The Taliban is different to Al Qaida. It is a Pashtun movement that emerged during the war with Soviet Union when the Russian were attempted to impose atheism onto Afghani culture. The Afghans were mostly only cultural Moslems, but they did not want to be atheists. The Taliban became more fundamentalist as their resistance to the atheistic Russians hardened.

The Taliban protected Al Qaida while they were useful to their cause, but the Pashtuns are independent people who do not want to be ruled by foreign Arabs any more than they wanted to be ruled by Russians or Tajiks.

The Taliban have grown in popularity in the southern part of Afghanistan for three reasons.

1. The Taliban is the only group pushing Pashtun cause. The Pashtuns are tired of the corruption and lawlessness of their government.
2. The Taliban is Moslem movement and not atheistic or Christian.
3. The Taliban are resisting the invaders. The Pashtun people have a long history of attacking invaders, so the Taliban is just doing what the Pashtun people have always done.

The Taliban is not a nice group and I would not like to be under their control. However, nasty religious groups exist all over the world, but that is not a reason to go to war with them. Religious movements cannot be changed by Thunderbolt fighters and Hawk helicopter's. Afghanistan is a desolate place with very little strategic value. I cannot understand what the American military expects to achieve there. This is another war that will not work.

War does not Work (1) – Hamas

Hamas has a lot of justice on its side in the current dispute.

The Palestinian refugees in Gaza were victims of injustice. They lost their homes and farms to make room for the new Israeli nation. The Jews were tormented by the Europeans for over hundreds of years, but the Palestinians paid the price for a solution to the Jewish problem, while the Germans still have their homes.

Hamas is relatively free from the corruption that permeated the leadership of previous Palestinian organisations. Whereas the leaders of the PLO and Fatah used their positions to enrich themselves and their families, Hamas have mostly been successful in getting aid to the people who need it. Their effective system social of social support is one reason for their popularity.

Unlike most modern governments, Hamas won a democratic election that was not rigged in their favour, and despite American funding and Israel television support for the opposition.

Israel has kept a chokehold on Gaza by limiting trade and imports of fuel and food. Electricity supply is intermittent and many children are malnourished. I presume a people under siege are entitled to defend themselves.

Hamas established a ceasefire for most of 2008. This ceasefire was broken first by the IDF in June 2008, when an elderly Gazan farmer was injured by Israeli rifle fire.

The ceasefire was killed at the beginning of November by an Israel airstrike that killed four people in southern Gaza, while Americans were to busy voting to notice. Hamas responded by resuming the fire rockets at Israel.

Unfortunately, justice does not guarantee victory.

Launching rockets against Israel was a foolish mistake. The reality is that Palestinians in Gaza will never take back their homes and land by military means. Israel has the most powerful military machine in the Middle East. They made fools of themselves in Lebanon in 2006, but they are not going to be beaten on their home soil. There are only three nations in the world that are capable of invading Israel and none of them will support the Palestinians.

Whatever the justice of their situation, attacks on Israel will only produce further disasters for the Palestinian people. This is the reality of war. Skinny people should not pick fights with bullies. Weak people should not start wars with strong nations. War is a futile option when your enemy is more poweful than you.

Sometimes the better course is to walk away from injustice and wait for justice in heaven. Reality dictates that the Palestinian refugees will never return to their homes in Israel. Clinging to that hope just locks them into the past that has already disappeared. Their only viable hope is to start building a new life in Gaza where they now live.

Hamas would be wiser to focus on building up the economy of Gaza and building a better life for their people. That will be difficult as Israeli control will continue to be suffocating. I cannot see the Israelis allowing them to establish an airport or seaport in the foreseeable future, so trade will continue to be different. However, despite the obstacles, a strong economy is a better hope than futile wars.

I suspect that they will need to know Jesus of Nazareth to choose that hope. I wonder what would have happened, if a tenth of the Christians who visited Israel had visited and served in Gaza instead; if a tenth of the money that has gone to supporting Israel had gone towards Christian missions in Gaza. The situation might be quite different from what we are seeing today.

For God so loved ?....

Aborted in Italy

When I visited Italy a couple of years ago, I saw plenty of materialism, a lot of religion, quite a bit of atheism and tonnes of dead cultures from earlier ages. I did not see much evidence of the Kingdom of God.

My father’s younger brother died in Italy during the Second World War. He was a kind, peaceful young men who loved God and was skilled at growing vegetables and raising animals. I sometimes wonder what he died for. He death did not advance the Kingdom of God. I suppose that he must have died to advance materialism and atheism. I wonder if he looks down from paradise, if he thinks that it was worth the cost. We do not have the right to say that it was.

A young life was lost, but that was not all. A young woman lost the husband that God had prepared for her. The children and grandchildren whom God knew before the foundation of the world had their lives cut off. An entirely family line was aborted in Italy.

I am constantly amazed that those who are most angry about abortion are often those who are quite happy for an entire family line to be aborted when a young man or women is sent to fight in pointless war. I wonder how many children will not be born, as a consequence of the war in Iraq.