Why am I so often talking about foreign policy on here?

1. What the state does in my or your name is not a matter of indifference, but rather a grave matter. Even a just war has grave consequences, let alone an unjust one. And the consequences trickle down to everyone, not just the ones that wage the war. In fact, arguably, in many circumstances the decision makers face less of the blowback personally than your average citizen, even if the decision makes acts were criminal (or near criminal). Foreign policy has consequences on you and I, our children, our grandchildren, etc.
2. I want government powers to obey Proverbs 20:18 “Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war.”. I believe wisdom in war means, first of all determining whether it is really necessary and then proceeding to avoid all wars that are unjust. I believe there has been a marked lack of wisdom in the foreign policy of the Western powers, especially in the past 50-60 years. And its not just “the right” or “the left”, its systemic.
3. Not only is it of importance to know what the state I live in does in my name, but also the foreign policy of other countries greatly affects me in the ways mentioned in #1.
4. If it were a merely political partisan issue, I would have less interest in it. But its important, relevant, and facts clearly transcend partisanship. When I say XYZ as foreign policy, I’m not saying this as a particular party position but rather a heartfelt conviction based on the information I have.
5. So many other important and commonly explored and lamented political issues are related to (and adversely affected by) a bad foreign policy. Economics, excessive taxation, liberty of conscience, liberty of free expression, etc.  all relate to the issue.
6. If you (or your kids or grandkids) plan to travel and do international business safely and without restrictions,  foreign policy matters.
7. Due to the amount of hubris and propaganda circulated regarding foreign policy and war, usually there are vast areas or subjects or approaches that are vastly ignored and need exploration.
8. War is the health of the big-government state and so I can’t consistently be against “big government” without being critical of the modern warfare state. I can’t complain about spending if I’m unwilling to advocate cutting one of the biggest expenses ever (military/foreign-aid/foreign-meddling spending).
9. There are many interesting angles to the question(s) involved (ie. history, technology, movements, disputes, land features, different cultures, etc.)
10. I feel that there is a remarkable shortage of theologically-conservative Christian, non-pacifist, pro-freemarket people who consistently speak out against imperialism, wars of aggression, foreign policies of meddling, etc. regardless of what political party or philosophy they come from. Not that they don’t exist, but they seem to be marginalized by folks who are crying out for war, aggression, intervention, etc.
11. I’ve seen enough history (repeating itself) to see that so many of the prevailing approaches to foreign policy just don’t get it…
12. Domestic policy tends to mirror foreign policy in some sort of way (so if your foreign policy is tyrannical, eventually or in some fashion your domestic policy will be similar or become similar). And we can’t consistently object to the poor treatment of our citizens if we advocated that treatment to others just because they happened to be in another country and on the other side of a controversy. Bad foreign policy brings about many temptations towards statism: suppression of dissent, restriction of free speech, conscription, etc.
13. There is almost always blowback and if we want to minimize our countries risk of negative effects, we must study our actions and examine them in light of the consequences (for us and others).

Contrary to what one might think by reading some of what I write, I am not a pacifist. My stance against many particular wars should not be interpreted as an overall position of pacifism. I would describe myself as an instinctive peacemaker and non-interventionist who would support a just war with a very steep burden of proof.

I believe that all Christians should be peacemakers, not necessarily meaning that they be pacifists, but rather that they are reluctant towards war and only willing to pursue it as a last resort.  I also believe that Christians can’t abstract away the morality and ethics of war. As a non-pacifist, I maintain that one can kill in war in a way that is not murder. However, that doesn’t not mean that all killing in war is not murder. If something is murder, it does not unbecome murder just because someone else ordered it. So, a big part of the reason why we should have a steep burden of proof for waging war is this–like every other area of life, the battle field is an area where we can be held accountable for–not only possibly by courts–but also by God. “Someone else told me to do it” is not an excuse.

I would ask these 7 questions (and suggest that others ask them also before signing up for any war).

1. THE ENEMY TEST. Does the enemy meet the three-fold criteria of INTENT, CAPABILITY, and REALITY? (In other words: the enemy is disposed toward mounting a serious and perilous attack on my country AND the enemy is capable of defeating my country in some measure AND the real, definable, identifiable enemy is in some real/direct way waging war against MY country–not some sort of potential threat)
2. THE ACTION TEST. Does the military action meet the three-fold criteria of PROPORTIONAL, TARGETED, LIMITED, and GOAL-ORIENTED? (In other words: Is the level of force we are applying morally justifiable in terms of being a proportional response to the aggression against us? Is the operation targeted so that it narrowly focuses on rational targets pertaining to a specific enemy under question and specific objectives under question?  Are its scope, tactics, and duration specifically limited with clear bondaries? Is it goal-oriented in the sense that there is a clear and specific outline of realistic conditions in which the war is considered complete and full disengagement will happen?)
3. THE KNOWLEDGE TEST. Do I know everything I need to know about this conflict and the enemy and the planned military operation? Am I being manipulated in regard being given incomplete or false information? Am I willing to stake my life on this information? (because in some cases you could die for a cause that turns out to be fraudulent)
4. THE WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL TEST. Would I be capable of standing up (before a court of the land or the judgement throne of God) and making a sincere, public oral defense of my actions without hiding behind “I was following orders”. In other words, can I own up to what I am doing on a personal level? (though commanding officers have higher responsibility, whether or not the nation recognizes it, at least before God you have responsibility for what you do in uniform)
5. THE VOLUNTARY TEST. Will I have the personal liberty, should the nature of the operations change or should I be called on to do something immoral/sinful, to drop out and not participate any more.
6. THE LOVED ONES TEST. If I am a parent and/or spouse, is the threat to my country of such a serious nature that THEY would rather become a widow/widower/orphan than have me not valiantly join in resistance against the enemy? If there is danger to the level that they feel seriously and direly threatened, they are much more likely to be supportive. (it is sort of interesting to see some people using “render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is Gods” to argue against government education, and then turn around and render themselves and maybe even their children to government wars without thinking twice about it)
7. THE POWERS THAT BE TEST. Have the powers that are waging the war done their due diligence in terms exhausting every avenue of finding a peaceful resolution, and that failing, doing their due diligence to wage the war lawfully under the laws and constitution of the land? Is this truly a war your country is waging, or is it a unilateral movement of a particular party or particular person or particular segment of the country? And this takes us back to #4, if the war is waged illegally and you are called to account for your participation (even though it would likely not happen because you are not a high decision maker), would you be able to make a justifiable defense for your actions?

Are all these 7 lights are green? Then it sounds like you should go to war. People could still quibble with your particular interpretation of one or two of these points, but I think this is a pretty good guide overall.

From oldest to newest:

• “Israeli intelligence branches spoke of Iran’s making a bomb before the end of the decade“- Early 2000′s
• “Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said he thought Iran could do it by 2011” – 2009
• “About a year ago, Mr. Dagan told a parliamentary committee that Iran would not have the ability to fire a nuclear missile until 2014” – January 2010? (“about a year ago” from January 2011)
• “Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, said he believed Iran was at least three years away from a nuclear bomb” – December 2010
• “Israel’s departing intelligence chief said he believes Iran will not be able to build a nuclear weapon before 2015 at the earliest” – January 2011

Source: New York Times

• “In the 1970′s, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld went to Tehran to offer to sell the Shah 31 nuclear reactors. ” – Eric Margolis
• “Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium — the two pathways to a nuclear bomb. Either can be shaped into the core of a nuclear warhead, and obtaining one or the other is generally considered the most significant obstacle to would-be weapons builders.Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington….The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb. ” – Dafna Linzer (Washington Post)
• “Iran’s quest for nuclear energy began under the Shah, who planned to build 23 nuclear power plants throughout Iran by the mid-1990s. The Shah established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) in 1974 and immediately began to negotiate with the United States, France, and West Germany for nuclear power reactors. In 1967, Iran purchased from the United States a five-megawatt research reactor, located at the Amirabad Technical College in Tehran, which runs on 93 percent highly-enriched uranium. Iran simultaneously purchased hot cells from the United States, which can be used in the process to separate plutonium from spent fuel.” - Mark D. Skootsky

The Telegraph is indicating that a pact is close to being finalized between Obama’s administration and Mr. Karzai which would allow “military trainers to stay to build up the Afghan army and police, but also American special forces soldiers and air power to remain”.

The article continues to indicate that “Afghans [who are] wary of being abandoned are keen to lock America into a longer partnership after the deadline.”

Mr. Karzai’s top security advisor said “If [the Americans] provide us weapons and equipment, they need facilities to bring that equipment,” he said. “If they train our police and soldiers, then those trainers will not be 10 or 20, they will be thousands.”

(As a side note, history has shown repeatedly that the U.S. trains, arms, and enables countries and then comes to very much regard it. Is this going to happen again?)

The article goes on to indicate that American officials are saying that around 25,000 more troops will be required.