• “At all events, Canada must be ours [say those who support the war]; and this is to be the sovereign balm, the universal panacea, which is to heal all the wounds we have received…This is to…secure the liberty of the seas hereafter…The conquest of Canada has been represented to be so easy as to be little more than a party of pleasure. We have, it has been said, nothing to do but to march an army into the country…and the Canadians will immediately flock to it and place themselves under our protection. They have been represented as ripe for revolt, panting for emancipation from a tyrannical Government…the mere sight of an army of the United States would immediately put an end to all thoughts of resistance, that we had little else to do only to march…This subject deserves a moment’s consideration”

[Quotes from Samuel Taggart, Massachusetts Congressman and Presbyterian Pastor, in a letter published in the Alexandria Gazette on June 24, 1812.]

Here are some interesting stats (though not necessarily drawn exclusively from that particular image).

Regarding U.S. military overseas:

• Number of independent countries recognized by the State Department: 195. Number of countries with U.S. Armed Forces stationed there: 150.
• U.S. Armed Forces stationed in Italy: over 9,000.
• U.S. Troops overseas: approximately 500,000
•  Number of U.S. military bases around the world: 700-1000.
• Number of bases in Afghanistan: 400
• Percentage of U.S. share of world military spending:43%

Regarding Israel’s enemies

• According to Global Fire Power, Israel’s military strength exceeds that of Iran, Germany, Pakistan, Italy, Egypt, France, and Japan.
• Running some math on Global Fire Power’s numbers. Israel spends 138 times more per square kilometer on defense than Iran does.
• Israel spends about 6.3% of its GDP on the military, Saudi Arabia about 11%. Iran spends 1.8%. Syria spends 4%.
• Number of nuclear weapons Israel has: Unknown, but likely between 75–200. Number of nuclear weapons Iran: None, but allegedly working on their first one for possibly over 30 years.

In light of these figures, import questions to ask are:

1. Is this  (U.S. military sprawl) sustainable in light of the current economic and geopolitical climate?
2. At what point does overseas military over-extension become a threat to national defense rather than an aid to it?
3. Why is Iran portrayed in American foreign policy coverage as being an existential threat to Israel (and to some degree even a threat to the U.S.)?
4. At what point does a militarized country (such as Israel) become self-sustaining and no longer needs U.S. aid?

“The president is usurping his powers as commander in chief. There is no legal authority for what he has done. If the president can intervene in Korea without congressional approval, he can go to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.” – Robert Taft, Senator from Ohio in 1950 in response to Trueman’s intervention in Korea.

1. What is the evidence that the protection of the country is the object principally regarded? (Webster)
2. When it [the country] calls thus loudly for the treasure and lives of the people, what pledge does it offer that it will not waste all in the same preposterous pursuits which have hitherto engaged it? (Webster)
3. In the failure of all past promises, do we see any assurance of future performance? (Webster)
4. [I]s war the true remedy? (Randolph)
5. Who will profit by it? (Randolph)
6. Who must suffer by it? (Randolph)
7. Will it render us more respected among foreign nations..? (Taggart)
8. [Will it render other countries] less disposed to make encroachments on our rights in [the] future? (Taggart)

Daniel Webster: Senator of Massachusetts

John Randolph: VA Congressman

Samuel Taggart: Massachusetts Congressman

“Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?”

- Senator of Massachusetts, Daniel Webster (opposing a bill proposing enacting a draft with eye towards conquering Canada)

Here are some of these basic points extracted (only the items in quotes are Eric’s direct words):

1. There is nothing fundamentally new in the IAEA report, its the same stuff that has been talked about for a long time. No new case for war with Iran here..
2. “In 1992, Natanyahu claimed Iran would have nuclear weapons in 3-5 years. Shimon Peres, now Israel’s president, insisted Iran would have nukes by 1999. In 1995, the New York Times claimed Iran was only 5 years from nuclear weapons. In 1998, US Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld claimed Iran was fielding a nuclear-armed ICBM that could hit the United States……”  Is Iran that incompetent that, had they wanted nuclear weapons, they wouldn’t have been able to develop them by now? If they are that incompetent, then what are we worrying about?….South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Taiwan, and Switzerland could all produce a nuclear device within six months of making the decision to do so…..If Iran really wanted nuclear weapons 20 years ago, why on earth has it taken so long to develop a 1940’s technology?”
3. Why did “Ali Khamenei, who is also commander of Iran’s armed forces, [issue] a fatwa, or religious decree, banning nuclear weapons”?
4. If Iran is an existential threat to Israel, then the U.S. and Israel are even more of an existential threat to Iran.
1. “In 1953, US and British intelligence overthrew Iran’s democratic leader…the US and Britain got Saddam, Hussein’s Iraq to invade Iran….After eight years of bloody trench warfare, in which Iraq was financed and armed by the western powers and their Arab oil allies, Iran suffered at least 500,000 casualties. Iran’s western cities were laid waste. Iraq showered poison and burning gas on the Iranians that was supplied by the western powers.”
2. “Last week, Israel launched a new missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere in Iran and Pakistan. Israel’s German-supplied submarines lie off Iran’s coast, ready to launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.”
5. “The big nuclear powers – the US, Russia, China, Britain, France – are in violation of the 1995 UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty that mandated eliminating all nuclear weapons within five years.” How can they complain about Iran?

Refuges International in November: “The National Transitional Council (NTC), the current de facto government of Libya, lacks command and control over all armed groups, including those responsible for revenge attacks. As such, the NTC cannot yet establish or maintain the rule of law. The plight of these vulnerable civilians foreshadows challenges to reconciliation, integration, and equal treatment of all in the new Libya. Further, civilians suffering losses during hostilities have not been properly recognized or assisted.

As the rebel-led siege began, civilians were indiscriminately shot at, and many residents without access to communications believed regime propaganda that rebels would kill them if they dared leave. Many rebels and their supporters believed that all civilians remaining in Sirte were loyalists linked to Gaddafi and ‘were getting what they deserved.’”

(HT: John Glasser)

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).

- Robert Taft (three term U.S. Republican senator from Ohio)

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.

“They give you ninety days for quoting the Declaration of Independence, six months for quoting the Bible, and pretty soon somebody is going to get a life sentence for quoting Woodrow Wilson in the wrong connection.” – Max Eastman (regarding the state of censorship during the World War I fervor in the U.S.)

II. Our day is all about choices
diversity, variety, various voices
frankly, though I’m not a fan,
for who do you vote for
if you don’t want to bomb Iran?

III. Obama, the lefts boy, is quite the hawk
I know, I know, some look at that with shock
but I saw it coming from the start
he played the election, then he just plays his part
it isn’t a conspiracy or anything that great
just the thing that comes naturally to the state.

IV. The left and right of distinctions make much
but a new, different foreign policy none will touch
they all want to live in a country that’s the world’s cop
if the election features Obama and mainstream GOP
it’s a setup where there’ll be no alternative scheme
to Hillary Clinton’s Iran-attacking dream.

V. Romney thinks Iran is an “Existential threat”
a nuclear weapon, it is said, they can’t be let to get
so he thinks we should deal with it via surgical strikes
and bombardment, yikes!

VI. Bauchmann and her vision of Iran
is one ruled by Marxists who were in league with Saddam
she thinks to help Iran’s Mujahideen group
the U.S. should stoop
even though they are designated a terrorist group
and their human rights abuses are no soup
and in her view if that fails to change Iran’s ways
perhaps the U.S. will have to nuke ‘em for days.

VII. Perry would attack Iran too
and he condemns businesses for dealing with Iran
in spite of a ban
and yet it is interesting also
that he’s received thousands from company that broke that embargo you know.

VIII. How will this turn out in Iran?
I don’t want to be an alarmist man
but my best guess
is this will be a mess.

IX. I often wonder what would be the case
if American policy on Iran had worked in different ways
what if the the coup was not backed by the CIA
what if the U.S. didn’t support the nuclear program back in day?
What if biological weapons were not provided to Iran’s foe
What if the U.S. saw back then that non-intervention was the way to go?
It seems to me that bad foreign policy tooth and nail
created a country where a tyrannical government would prevail
and when you create a monster for one reason or another
don’t be surprised when it doesn’t follow your druthers.

X. The prevailing politic
won’t quit
piling debt upon debt
basic financial obligations
can’t be met
and yet
they lead us war-ward
prosecuting wars no one can afford
trying to achieve doubtful gains
muddled by ignorance
and immeasurable pains.

• “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

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.