Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil;, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…
To write to an audience of fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the topic of modern American wars should be an easy task since we share so many beliefs in common, but having spent so much time on this topic in discussion among Church members and yet often having found a great gulf between us in our convictions, I find this a surprisingly challenging task.
“Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil;, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20) We are reminded by the Holy Scriptures to be careful in our judgments so that we do not mistakenly or intentionally support evil and call it good, are we not? So are members of our faith careful in discerning the truth surrounding the modern wars our national leaders engage us as a nation in, or are we quick to jump on the band wagon of media enthusiasm to support every war as if it were good simply because a few men who desire war call it good?
To me it appears that if a war is made popular through propaganda and media hoopla, many in our communities go along to get along and to be seen as “patriotic.” But, is militarism the same as patriotism? I find some such Americans cheer for each new war as if it were merely another football game with no deadly consequences, just something they are duty-bound to cheer for because their particular political party initiated that particular war. It's “our war” right or wrong, so I'll support it in either case, seems to be their conviction. Too few are courageous enough to buck the popular sentiment in order to search for a moral stance concerning a given war. Too many are quick to brand someone as disloyal if they don't approve of a war because of their personal moral convictions.
Have we been careful to discover the true reasons behind the launching of wars we have been led into? Is war a choice the Lord our God approves of and if so, when? The Scriptures and Christian theologians have supplied many answers to that last question.
Most Christians have heard of the “Just War” (Justum Bellum) principles that St. Thomas Aquinas (St. Augustine) put forward over 1,000 years ago to provide guidelines for national governments to adhere to when deciding on the issue of whether to go to war or not.
The first principle St. Thomas Aquinas pointed to was that there must be proper authority in the government for waging war to defend the city, or kingdom, or province. In his day that authority resided in the Princes who ruled. (Romans 13:4) Where does the authority for war reside in America's federal government?
In a free-Republic such as ours, do the people at large have some responsibility over their own governmental decision to wage war or not? Yes, that's why the Constitution provides for a House of Representatives to represent the people and why our U.S. Senate was originally elected by our State Legislatures, to make the federal government accountable both to the people and to the State governments in such matters. It was an inspired and ingenious governmental design to provide checks on federal power and a balance of power to prevent any faction or combination from taking all the political, economic, or military power into their hands and thus bringing a tyranny upon our nation. But, for the system to work, the people and the legislatures had to be eternally vigilant in upholding their constitution.
In a second principle, there must be a just cause; or in other words, those who are to be attacked must, being at fault, deserve to be attacked. Defense of a community against aggression is just. (Ezekiel 33:3-6) What are the true causes for our recent wars? Can we discover causes before a war is engaged in? Yes, if we investigate and take the time and effort to do so. Did our Constitution provide for debate and investigation before war is declared? Indeed our Congress had investigational powers to search out the causes and justifications for a war before it is decided upon, and we the people are privy to those documents resulting from such investigations if we will avail ourselves of them and if our free press acts as a watchdog for us.
Are our wars waged for just and defensive causes or are we waging war merely to dominate others? Are we waging war for retribution of a wrong to teach offenders a lesson or to recover territory stolen from us through fraud or aggressive war, or are we using war as predators to steal territory, or resources, or to gain political domination of mankind? Is “support of a war” equal to “support of the troops” in every case? These are questions Christians could ask before they lend their support to a war through their voices in letters, phone calls, e-mails, etc. to Congress and the President and through their votes. These are questions State Legislators were concerned with as well, before the 17th amendment stripped them of power over the U.S. Senate.
The golden rule should be considered by those who decide on the question of war. Recently I saw a cartoon that illustrated the point. As a seeker of wisdom climbed a mountain to ask a wise man on its summit his question, he asked, “What is wisdom?” The wise man answered, “Bomb thy neighbor as thou would be bombed.” Should we wonder at consequences of our war-like foreign policy when weaker nations use “terror attacks” upon us in retribution for our military acts abroad? The CIA calls such consequences “blowback.” Weaker nations cannot confront us directly and as has been demonstrated certain nations (i.e. Pakistan and Afghanistan), not including Iraq, provided support for the 19 conspirators who hijacked airliners and then perpetrated the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on America.
In the third place, according to Just War theory, it is necessary that those who are in authority and thus are deciding upon waging war have an intention underpinning their decision that is right or just. St. Augustine believed that war is waged that peace may be obtained. If a war is an aggression fought to gain an empire or the resources of another people, or is initiated against a people that have done our nation no harm, then is the intention of our leaders right or just? Again, should not such questions be investigated and answers for them sought out before a war is engaged in?
Fourth, a war must not have an end in sight of mere plundering, slaying or other deprivations of those who will be the object of such war. Such causes for conducting war on another nation are by Christ's teachings manifestly unjust and immoral in themselves.
Wouldn't it be logical to assume that many well read members of our Church have also studied these principles and found moral agreement with them? Are we not Christians, individuals guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament, and should we not apply his teaching to our choices regarding war? As members of the LDS Faith, are we not also privileged to have additional scriptural teachings of the subject of war that other Christian denominations lack?
We read in Doctrine and Covenants 98:16 “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;” which is surely an admonition to us as followers of Jesus Christ to avoid as a nation the historical blood-thirstiness displayed by many nations and political leaders throughout human history. The justification for resorting to violence to defend one's family or making war as a nation is further elucidated upon in Section 98 in verses 23-48. The Lord, in these verses, admonishes us to use both forgiveness and patience when dealing with enemies.
Yet we are also taught in Alma Chapter 43 that we have a duty to God to defend our families, our liberty, and to fight to avoid being brought into bondage even to fight unto bloodshed. And in Alma48:14 we are taught that we may defend ourselves as a nation against an enemy to preserve life using violence if necessary, but not to give offense that would bring such wars upon us. Thus we see the principle of self defense is justifiable if it is genuine self defense. That is where care must be taken. Can we be truly defending our nation if we are intervening militarily in the internal affairs of another far off nation? Is such meddling justified by our Constitution?
Would you agree with the Founding Fathers, the Prophets, and the Scriptures that the decision to go to war is one of the most serious decisions a nation can make? Then, as citizens don't we have an obligation and a responsibility to lend our voices to the decision making process and to see that the process is lawful and careful when war is the question being decided? Obviously yes, we should be watchdogs over our own government to hold our Congressmen and Presidents accountable to the Constitution, the law.
Now let us consider some answers to some of the questions above which are as yet unanswered. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have been taught by all of the modern-day prophets that the Constitution is a sacred document that was inspired by the Lord in order to establish this free nation. In fact their quotes have been assembled for us in the new book A Glorious Standard by Christopher Bentley. (www.freedomslight.net )
We are taught in Section 98 that the Lord justifies us in “befriending that law which is constitutional law of the land;” so what is constitutional law? Isn't it that law that conforms to the Constitution, which Constitution is acknowledged as the Supreme Law of the land?
Ok, then, what does our Constitution say concerning war? And what did the Founding Fathers who established our Constitution say concerning war?
The chief provisions concerning war written in our Constitution are found in Article I, Section 8 of that sacred document. Therein we are told that “The Congress shall have power…To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies….To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia,…”Â
It is plain that the decision to “declare war,” that is to engage our nation in war with another nation or more than one nation, is the sole power and responsibility of our Congress under authority from our Constitution. Thus, we can see that the war making power and even power to raise and manage military bodies rests with Congress, not the President, not the “Commander in Chief.” Our Founding Fathers were careful to vest the war power in the deliberative body of Congress, not in the executive power.
If our government operated properly, within the confines of the Constitution's delegation of powers, we would see that Congress debates and makes the choice on war, then, if war is necessary, Congress legislates to declare war. At that point, the “Commander in Chief” executes a war that has been properly declared by Congressional legislation. The Constitution provided a most civilized arrangement concerning war choices designed to keep us from launching our military into unjust wars and designed to keep one man alone, a president, from declaring war on his sole judgment or lack thereof.
You will note that there are also provisions in our Constitution for separate military organizations including an army, a navy, and the militia. It is very important to understand the differences in these military bodies as well. The navy and army are professional bodies of soldiers on the land, air, and sea. The navy that surrounds our nation's coasts protects us from foreign aggressors. The standing army was feared so its appropriations were reconsidered by Congress every two years. The militia is made up of adult American citizens, with a few exceptions granted to some who hold public office. Each of the Free-State's citizens is thus considered part of the State's militia. Congress may call up the militia, not the President. Therefore, the National Guard is part of the standing army of the United States; it is not the militia; we are the militia. Some states still keep a State Guard which is their portion of their militia which constitutes an organized militia. The Governor of the State presides over the entire state militia; the president only has authority over that part of the militia that is called into service by Congress.
So if the power to decide upon the question of war belongs to Congress, is it constitutional or legal for the President, or Commander in Chief, to launch our nation into war without a declaration of war having been first passed by Congress? The obvious answer is “No!” Yet, the last time the U.S. Congress passed a formal declaration of war was December 8, 1941, the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.
Before we go further, let us consider what is war? My old dictionary defines war as “open armed conflict between countries or between factions within the same country.” So what is included in war? Certainly armed battles between nations, governments, or factions that result in deaths of either armed combatants or civilians would constitute acts of war, even if called by some other name such as “police action.” An armed conflict between nations may not have continuous or constant killing in formal battles, but may also include long rather quiet periods of occupation of one nation's military of another nation's territory, but typically a guerilla war against the occupier will continue within the occupied nation as we see in Iraq today. War is usually formally brought to an end through an armistice treaty, or temporarily brought to a cessation of overt acts of violence through a truce as we see in the Korean War.
Have we as a nation, as an American people, been engaged in wars since 1941 even though Congress has not declared war on any nation since December 8th of that year? The obvious answer is “Yes!” I'm not sure that I desire to list all of our wars, but here's a partial list: Korean war (U.N. Police action), The Vietnam War (under authority from SEATO a UN subsidiary), Bosnia (a NATO action), Kosovo (a NATO action), Somalia (a UN humanitarian action), Haiti (a UN action), Iraq (1st Gulf War in compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions), Afghanistan (on usurped presidential authority alone), and our present war with Iraq (2nd Gulf War justified based on UN Security Council Resolutions). The above are long-term conflicts that involved deaths; I won't try to list the dozens of short military forays and military occupations our nation has engaged in such as on the Island of Grenada and elsewhere since World War II.
So, let us ask, if Congress has the lawful Constitutional authority to declare war, but Congress has not issued any formal declarations of war since 1941, just who has been engaging us in wars? Who has launched America into wars without the required declarations of war by Congress? The short answer is that presidents of these United States have engaged us in such wars beginning with President Harry S. Truman and continuing on to President George W. Bush. Thus, as Americans, are we upset, should we be upset at all that times our Congress has abdicated the war power that was delegated to it through the Constitution? And how should we feel when we see that the office of president has usurped such authority? If we are the watchdogs of our Constitutional Republic we should be upset at this breaking of the law, shouldn't we? Shouldn't we be demanding that Congress take back its power over war and do away with the War Power Act and the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 which Acts have been used to justify presidential usurpation of war powers from Congress? Should we be demanding that our presidents be punished if they initiate war on usurped authority? Yes, if we are vigilant citizens.
In 1945, J. Reuben Clark warned Americans about the danger of joining the new United Nations Organization because it would lead us as a nation into wars, wars that we did not declare. Was Brother Clark correct in his assessment of the United Nations Charter as a war document, not a peace document? Indeed he was.
In my pocket I carry a copy of the U.N. Charter and a copy of the Constitution for comparison's sake. If you would like to view the Charter visit the UN's website. (www.un.org ) The Charter of the U.N. provides for regional arrangements such as NATO and the now defunct SEATO in its Chapter VIII, titled “Regional Arrangements.” We have conducted acts of war in Europe under authority of NATO, not a Congressional declaration of war. We conducted acts of war in Southeast Asia under authority of SEATO, again not with a Congressional declaration of war as required by our Constitution. The operation of law under our Constitution has been trumped or circumvented by the UN's Charter provisions.
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter provides for Security Council determinations of when war should be instituted against any nation on earth. Article 42 provides power to the U.N. Security Council to decide what measures it decides are adequate, “it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces….” Whose air, sea, or land forces are used? Certainly since 1951, the forces of the United States have been a key choice, but other national governments have also supplied military forces as “peacekeepers” for the United Nations.
Space does not allow us to consider each war since 1941 to discuss its constitutional basis. But let us look at some history regarding the Iraq conflict. First, in 1920, the League of Nations, a predecessor of the United Nations, gave a mandate to Great Britain to militarily occupy the region of Mesopotamia now called Iraq. Britain had already occupied that region after seizing it from the Ottoman Empire. Great Britain continued on and off occupations of Iraq until 1948. In the process, thousands of Iraqi's were killed and thousands of British soldiers also lost their lives. Oh, and oil flowed from the region into England and England brought British governmental institutions into being in Iraq whether the people of Iraq desired them or not.
Later, in 1990, as Iraq invaded Kuwait a half a world away, Americans were told we needed to intervene in this far off war as part of a U.N. sanctioned “Peacekeeping coalition.” President George H. W. Bush ordered our military into the region as operation Desert Shield. From the League of Nations to the United Nations, from England to America, interventionism had become the common foreign policy, not the neutrality of traditional American foreign policy.
During a televised address on September 11, 1990, President George H. W. Bush stated: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective- a new world order – can emerge… We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders.” Have Americans asked themselves what the “new world order” is? Have we Latter-day Saints investigated the founders of the United Nations to discover who they were, what their vision was for the U.N they founded, or whether we should agree with their vision?
Months passed, and on January 15, 1991, American forces were ordered to launch a war against Iraqi military forces in Kuwait. They obeyed their orders as we expect them to, but had we as watchdogs protected our soldiers from potential misuse by objecting to our Congressmen against involving our military in an interventionist foreign war? If this war was the duty of nations from our hemisphere to conduct where were the soldiers of Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Columbia, Brazil, Peru, Chili, etc. Why weren't those nations' military forces intervening in Kuwait against Iraq? And from Europe where were the military forces of Switzerland for fighting that war? Were they not present because their governments saw such intervention as meddling in affairs on the other side of the planet that were not their business? Do all wars need to become world wars?
Over the next 12 years, from 1991 to 2003, America's military continued war operations in the region to enforce “no fly zones” over Iraq and a UN sanctioned embargo that is estimated to have cost 1-million Iraqi lives. Then, in March of 2003, President George W. Bush launched an escalation of war on Iraq as he ordered our military to invade Iraq, conquer its military forces, and occupy Iraq. Our military did so.
Why did President Bush order this 2003 invasion? Because, Congress told us, he desired to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolutions # 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 667, 669,670, 674, 677, and 678. And later, he also desired to enforce UN Security Council Resolution #1441. Is this the cause for which our sons and daughters should be asked to give their lives, the enforcement of UN mandates? How many LDS Church members have asked themselves this question as their patriotic sons and daughters join our military to serve our country and then are switched to the service of the United Nations or its subsidiary NATO?
So I ask, do the LDS people question this ongoing war on Iraq? Do they ask themselves has America's military become the enforcement arm of the United Nations Security Council? Are we paying our soldiers, airmen, and sailors to act as the mercenary enforcement force for the United Nations rather than as the military of the United States of America? If so, is it moral to enlist American youth into our American armed forces, ask them to take an oath to protect our Constitution, and then turn around and order them to carry out tasks of violence on behalf of the United Nations would be world government?
There's much more that could be said on this topic, but this will suffice for now. I would urge any reader to find PUBLIC LAW 107-243 as enrolled October 15, 2002, the law that abdicated Congress' power over war to the President's determination as to whether or not he would decide to launch war on Iraq. It was passed as H.J. Res. 114. Read it to see if the UN Security Council Resolutions were not the excuse for war. As you read it you will see that it is not a declaration of war, but an abdication of war power from Congress to the President's determination.
This is just one example of how our Constitution hangs by a thread today. Will we as Latter-day Saints hold up that heavenly banner, the Constitution, again and defend it? I agree with J. Reuben Clark, when he said in the October 1942 General Conference, “I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part.” Let us stand by our Constitution so that the rule of law protects us and others. Let us publish peace, not cheer for war.
- – -
Bliss Tew is currently the Regional Field Director over a
nine state area for The John Birch Society (JBS). For the previous
nine-years he served as JBS Coordinator for Utah, parts of Nevada, and
Southwestern Wyoming. Bliss earned an Associate in Applied Science
degree in Business Management and a Bachelor of Science degree with a
double major in marketing and in Education.
