Neither idolizing nor ignoring history
I am beginning to see two mistakes in by two Republicans seeking their party's nomination. First, Rudy Guiliani is putting too much stock in history. I don't think he is "using" 9/11 to bolster his candidacy; I think he believes the world changed that day. As a Christian, I cannot say the world changed on 9/11. The world changed on Easter morning and will not change again until the Parousia.
However, as part of history, 9/11 is part of the created universe and must be interpreted and a response developed. This brings me to the second mistake. This one by Mike Huckabee. Huckabee believes that America should hold the strongest army in the world so that no one will want to engage it. The problem is that 9/11 shows a political enemy who doesn't care about a military's strength. If you face an enemy doesn't care whether s/he lives or dies, then having the power to kill every one of them is pointless. There has to be a stronger and wiser way to defeat your enemy.
However, as part of history, 9/11 is part of the created universe and must be interpreted and a response developed. This brings me to the second mistake. This one by Mike Huckabee. Huckabee believes that America should hold the strongest army in the world so that no one will want to engage it. The problem is that 9/11 shows a political enemy who doesn't care about a military's strength. If you face an enemy doesn't care whether s/he lives or dies, then having the power to kill every one of them is pointless. There has to be a stronger and wiser way to defeat your enemy.
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:45 PM
3 Comments:
What do you think of Ron Paul's take on this issue (whether you think he'd be a good president or not)? He said the other day that the best way to defeat terrorism is not via the military, but by example.
It's interesting. Some of the republicans think the terrorists hate us b/c we are free. Ron Paul thinks the best way to defeat terrorism is to actually practice freedom. The only way for the former to defeat terrorism is, basically, kill the terrorists (and, ironically, limiting american freedom to accomplish this).
I think Ron Paul is right that we have a responsibility to look at our own foreign policy as a partial cause for terrorism. One of the reasons they hate us, he says, is b/c we occupy their land. We have troops in 130+ countries. So for Paul, the 'stronger and wiser way to defeat your enemy' is to have a non-interventionist foreign policy and by setting an example of what freedom and liberty have to offer.
I like Paul's foreign policy more than, say, Guiliani's, no question. I am not a total non-interventionist, but I think the temptation to intervene constantly is strong. (This is an area on which my mind has been changed over the last few years.)
And I expect that Paul is right in part of the animosity directed toward the USA. He is certainly a breath of fresh air to some of the others running. Although Fred Thompson started sounding like a real politician again on Saturday night.
I think one way to defeat terrorism is to flood poorer nations with shoe boxes of gifts every Christmas.
Paul does classify himself as a non-interventionist. But I don't think he's call himself absolute non-interventionist. He just thinks we should only go to war when congress and the president agree together and declare as much.
I thought Fred Thompson won the debate Saturday night, at least in terms of style.
And I agree with the Samaritan's purse idea. I love how our church takes part in that ministry each November/December.
Sunday night I started a 4 week series informing our congregation on the 9 top candidates. It was our highest attended Sunday evening service in quite some time. hmm.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home