The War of Words

I wrote the following as part of my free lance position at Opslens. Frequent readers of this blog will notice how many of my points builds upon what I've wrote. For those that deal with radical libertarians and others the first part about the word "war monger" is especially needed. Because its not as though I've ever been called a warmonger, the term has been used with reckless abandon, and those kind of people like to compare their opponents to Nazis, or Gadianton Robbers as a way to avoid substantive cross examination of their positions.]

   

In the battle of competing ideas sometimes words can be the first casualty. The abuse of the word establishment was so rampant during the election that I joked I should have started a restaurant with that name so I could get free advertising.  All joking aside, misapplying words as pejoratives can muddle the debate, obscure real threats, or become a tool of hysteria. 

Many of these words aren’t necessarily used with ill intent, but as a way to illicit an emotional response and compensate for poor arguments. For example, anti-war advocates like to use the word war monger to insult people or positions they don’t like without having to engage the relative merits of the proposed action. In trying to ask them for a definition I have never received a clear definition except one who supports war. But plenty of Americans generally oppose war while recognizing that terrorists, dictators, mad men, and those that want to use weapons of mass destruction should be stopped. That desire doesn’t warrant the insulting term war monger. Their misuse of warmonger means that anti-war advocates don’t have to answer for the inaction they propose which allows genocides to occur.

Moreover, there are policies and positions that sometimes run the risk of war that actually support peace.  America for example, continues to support Freedom of Navigation patrols in the South China Sea which are attacked as war mongering and “picking a fight” with China. But supporting freedom of the seas prevents a violent free for all in the region where disputes over territory would be settled by those most willing and able to use force.  This applies to Syria as well. Hillary Clinton proposed a no fly zone which was roundelay attacked by Trump and isolationists.  It’s true that a no fly zone carries the risk of war, but it has many benefits with great humanitarian value. A no fly zone or safe area will help the millions of displaced persons and increasing numbers of persecuted minority groups, some of which have been turned into sex slaves. It would prevent the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by the Assad regime, and it has a great chance to weaken ISIS and other radical groups. But instead of engaging the merits of a no fly zone, Freedom of Seas Operations, possible NATO operations, and so many other items, critics would rather launch rhetorical bombs that shut down discussion. 

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter

One of the biggest misuses of words in the modern world, and one of the biggest threats America faces is that of terrorism.  It’s very popular to repeat the cliché that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This argument was used often during the war in Iraq to denigrate American military intervention abroad and simultaneously bolster the insurgents fighting America.  In the sense that words themselves are weapons, this is entirely true.  Various revolutionary groups, terrorists, and the governments that oppose them can use the terms to either bolster their position or undermine their opponents. Yet, despite the manipulation of words, and despite some of the disputes over the definition of terrorism, it’s still entirely possible to tell the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.  Behaviors like donning a uniform, discrimination between military and nonmilitary targets, discernment against or deliberate targeting of civilians, and declarations of war from recognized heads of state, makes it very easy to distinguish between George Washington and Abu Al Baghdadi. There is some overlap between insurgents and terrorism, but it’s not nearly as indistinguishable as the purveyors of the cliché would lead you to believe. 

This means we should be very careful in the words we use in discussing policy. Policy makers debated over whether to call anti-American forces in Iraq “insurgents” or “terrorists.”   (In truth it was a complex mixture of both.) Many Americans felt a great deal of frustration when the sectarian conflict in Iraq was labeled the demoralizing term “civil war.” It explains why the surge led by General Petraeus was labeled an escalation by some critics who were trying to invoke the ghoul of Vietnam. A blockade during the Cuban Missile crisis would have been an act of war, but a quarantine of the island prescribed the same action without the accompanying baggage.  In the prelude to the Bosnia deployment, each side for and against it, avoided the term “genocide” to evade the treaty obligations associated with it. In all of these debates the very words used and choosing one that stigmatized tried to shape the contours of the debate in a duplicitous way.

Jihad

This is most important when it comes to matters of jihad. The strict definition of the word is rather innocuous. It means to assume a burden or struggle against unrighteousness. This is little different than the Christian phrase to take up your cross.  But many terrorists are called some variation of radical jihadists. This leads to a superficial debate where one side argues that war mongers are unfairly targeting peaceful religionists. On the other side foreign policy hawks accuse their opponents of trying to deny the existence of a radical threat. The reality is a bit more complicated. There a hundreds of millions of Muslims around the word that peacefully struggle against unrighteousness.  But if even only 1% of Muslims are radical that means thousands of potential attackers. The difficulty comes when the radicals deliberately claim the peaceful definition for themselves knowing that many in the media would like to call those warning against militant groups racists or islamophobic.  The discussion then gets shut down between the various sides using contested and sometimes manipulated definitions.  

These few examples could be expanded to included words like establishment, liberal, neocon, and even moderate. While they might sound nice and authoritative many of these words are used as personal insults or to obscures sound assessments.  Terrorists and jihadists call themselves freedom fighters or peaceful to avoid arousing a vigorous response from their targets.  The media call foreign policy hawks racists or warmongers to stigmatize their position. Yet the threats remain. Hopefully those that want to formulate substantive policy can use words for their clinical precision and not their value as a pejorative. 

[Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this work please consider subscribing or making a lump sum donation using the paypal buttons below.] 

Those Who Say Wrong Things Righteously

Greetings! I hope you are having a good holiday.  This is a brief update and collection of links about what I've been writing and studying, as well as a brief note about how I choose my topics.

I have a position writing military and national security commentary with Opslens.  I discuss items ranging from the US military budget, the history of Taiwan and why their phone call to Trump was such a big deal, the confirmation of General Mattis (because I just happened to do an award winning paper on the previous confirmation hearing of a Secretary of Defense that needed a waiver), drones, and the futility of a hash tag against Boko Harram.  Its been fun and rewarding to write about what I love and not have to write click bait trash for ranker, or what bordered on fake news (and was definitely click bait trash) for a Donald Trump news site.

I've sometimes wondered how I could write so much and meet my deadlines.  But I remembered something that Jonah Goldberg wrote: According to legend, when George Will signed up to become a syndicated columnist in the 1970s, he asked his friend William F. Buckley, Jr. — the founder of National Review and a columnist himself — “How will I ever write two columns a week?” Buckley responded (I’m paraphrasing), “Oh it will be easy. At least two things a week will annoy you, and you’ll write about them.” Buckley was right. Annoyance is an inspiration, aggravation a muse. That which gets your blood up, also gets the ink — or these, days, pixels — flowing. Show me an author without passion for what he holds to be the truth and I will show you either a boring writer or someone who misses a lot of deadlines, or both. Nothing writes itself, and what gets the writer to push that boulder uphill is more often than not irritation with those saying wrong things righteously.

I have plenty that I could write about, but when I hit a road block I think of somebody who "said wrong things righteously."  Sometimes I worry this tends to bring out my worst tendencies. Like most people, I have my faults and I was keenly aware of them, even before my ex wife reminded me! lol. For me, applying Buckley's advice to respond to those who annoy me reminds me of scripture! Ether 12:27 reminds us that as we realize our weak things we can bring them to Christ and he will make them strong. Instead of indulging in my weaker tendencies like getting in a flame war, writing comments that will probably be deleted, stewing about it in the shower, holding a grudge, or generally putting way too much emotional energy into worthless pursuits. I channel that negative energy into a dogged determination that sustains my research and propels my writing. The final results are thoughtful and substantive pieces that respond to the original annoyance, but are published in venues that advances my career and promotes civil discussion.  (With the added benefit of boycotting the people and sites that bug me in the first place.)

I've written several op eds which were responses to arguments that annoyed me. I have a regular free lance gig that is quite enjoyable where I get to explore and explain the topics that are dear to me and respond to ideas that aren't.  I have several journal articles and books, including a contract with Westholme Press, that explain my arguments in far more substantive ways than a deleted post ever could. And I do it in a way that is both enjoyable and advances my career. Thanks for letting me explain a bit of my approach, and thanks for reading!

[I work as a freelance writer and military historian. If you found value in this post please consider making a one time donation or subscribing using the buttons below. Thank you.] 

Take up arms and destroy or be smitten against the wall: Preemptive War in the Book of Mormon

            I'm working on several exciting projects.  My paper on the Nephite experience in battle is about to be published with The Interpreter. I signed a contract to produce a book on decisive battles in Chinese history, and I'm working on a new paper on preemptive war.  Of course I've written about this before, but I've noticed several more verses where it was mentioned. As I considered the matter I found several more, and given my additional research and though on the topic I thought it was worth organzing into a paper that I think will make an extremely meaningful contribution to the subject. I still have to make the bibliography, and tinker with a few things here and there, but overall I think its ready to submit to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.  This is the section that summarizes the verses I analyze:

            The verses will be analyzed in more detail below and only summarized briefly here. In the Book of Omni the Nephites fled the Land of Nephi. A few verses later and within a short space of time, and then in greater detail in Zeniff’s record, the Nephites sent scouts to spy on the Lamanites, that they might “come upon and destroy them” (Mosiah 9:1).  The Nephites had already committed to launch a sneak attack, and they were looking for the best location. Zeniff changed his mind after seeing what was good in the Lamanites, but with the benefit of hindsight he also admitted his decisions were overzealous and naïve. The entire account suggests a need to reassess his description of the other Nephite commander as blood thirsty and austere, and that the offensive strategy had merits. 

             Shortly later Ammon recorded, using almost the same words as Zeniff, that the Nephites wanted to “take up arms” and destroy the Lamanites instead of send missionaries to them (Alma 26:25).  This fabulous success of his missionary work is commonly cited as repudiation of the supposedly war mongering tendencies.[1] But various unexamined items that undermine this interpretation include the martial skills used by Ammon, the need for the new Lamanite king to legitimize his rule, the innocent victims in the city of Noah, and the soldiers who died retrieving them suggest unexamined consequences of Ammon’s actions and an under appreciation of Nephite offensive plans.  Defenders of preemptive war and national security practitioners most commonly cite Moroni’s preemptive attack in support of preemptive war.[2] Though there are strong elements in Moroni’s past that support such behavior and even stronger negative consequences of this policy that remain unexamined. While the text says that Moroni was making plans to secure the Nephites, a careful look at his behavior suggests that Moroni’s aggressive tactics contributed significantly to the start of the last phase of the war. The arguments from the people speaking in towers for example (Alma 48:1), would have been much more effective as only slightly more sinister variations of what actually happened or was about to happen. This includes items such as the possible militarization of the vote (Alma 46:21), and the seizure of lands during what was nominally a time of peace, though it might be termed a lull in one long war (Alma 50:7).  Amalickiah would have presented the proposed action to the Lamanite king in the starkest terms. Then it when it actually happened and a flood of Lamanite refugees were entering Lamanite lands, Amalickiah’s position would have been strengthened a great deal.

            The next examples are recorded in Helaman 1.  As discussed above, the same chapter contains both the dangers against and motivation for using preemptive war.  The Nephites faced a serious challenge to leadership and executed somebody for being “about” flatter the people.  But a few verses later the Lamanites, with both political and military positions filled by dissenters, the Lamanites capture Zarahemla and smite the Nephite chief judge against the wall. These verses provide an example of how the distinction between unrighteous and aggressive preventive wars and increasingly justified preemptive wars is incredibly thin, and becomes thinner with the rise of modern technology.

The next two verses are the most cited against offensive warfare.[3] The chief captain Gidgiddoni said “the Lord forbid” in response to offensive action (3 Nephi 3:21). And Mormon was supposedly so disgusted with the Nephites desire for offensive warfare that he resigned his command (Mormon 3:11).  Yet, Gidgiddoni’s command is likely a strategic observation more than command from the Lord. He likely witnessed disastrous Nephite attempts to root out the robbers before (Helaman 11:25-28), and he used offensive actions as part of an overall defensive posture to maneuver and “cut off” the robbers (3 Nephi 4: 24, 26). Mormon moreover, attacked the Nephites bloodlust, vengeance and false oaths and not their strategic decisions (Mormon 3:9-10, 14).  Viewing the Nephites outside of the lens of Mormon’s spiritual denunciations a person sees that the Nephite soldiers actually performed with great skill and élan.  A few verses after their disastrous offensive they actually ended up at the same place as they started.  Faced with endemic warfare against a stronger enemy, absent the Nephite’s blood lust, this was actually their most justified preemptive action. Of course, none of this excuses their rape and cannibalism, but it does suggest we can assess the effectiveness of their strategy apart from their apostasy.

[Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider subscribing or making a small donation below.] 

********

---

[1] Joshua Madsen, “A Non Violent Reading of the Book of Mormon,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Richard Bushman eds, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015.) 24. “The mission of Ammon and his brothers to the Lamanites, specifically in defiance of Nephite cultural stereotypes, ultimately demonstrates that acts of love and service can break through false cultural narratives, unite kingdoms, and converts thousand to Christianity where violence could not…In the end, Nephite just wars did not bring peace, whereas those like Ammon who rejected their culture’s political narratives and hatred did.” 

[2] Mark Henshaw, Valerie Hudson et. Al. “War and the Gospel: Perspectives from Latter day Saint National Security Practitioners,” Square Two, v.2 no.2 (Summer 2009.)

[3] Jeffrey Johanson, “Wars of Preemption Wars of Revenge,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol.35, no.3 (Fall 202), 244-247. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_244.pdf

My Research on Preemptive War in Cambridge University Press

I'm working on what I hope will be a new journal article on preemptive war. It is coming along nicely and I hope to post a preview here soon. I came across a rather great book called, The Ethics of Preventive War. Its a collected volume from Cambridge University Press. I was rather excited to come across this book because its a frank, calm, and rational discussion about the topic, which is rather lacking. In fact, during my research I found a quote that talks about the "demonic hatred" that many have for the practice. (As a frequent object of that hatred I can relate.)   But here is an author, Chris Brown, who discusses the topic using language very similar to mine: 

[W]hat is different today is the combination of speed and destructiveness; in the Caroline case a decision had to be taken very quickly by the man on the spot, but although the volunteers carried by the Caroline would have been a nuisance had they landed on the Canadian side of the river, they did not pose an existential threat to large numbers of civilians, or to the colony or...to Britain itself. The stakes today are potentially a great deal higher. 9/11 killed nearly 3,000 people and could easily have killed more; the use of some form of WMD could push the death toll much higher, and there is no reason to think that potential terrorists would be loath to cause such mayhem. The central point is that although "instant, overwhelming....[leaving] no time for deliberation" sound like absolute criteria they are in fact, and must be, relative terms- a second was, in practice, a meaningless unit of time in 1839, but in 2007, the average laptop can carry out a billion or more "instructions per second." (34)

Although the new world in which we have to live is not quite as different from the old as it might, at first sight, seem to be, nonetheless there are organizations (state and non-state) in the world whose ideological foundations make them difficult to deter, and whose potential capacity to deliver serious damage to the infrastructure of industrial societies and to their populations make them difficult to ignore. It does seem plausible that some kind of rethinking of the notion of preemption is required... (36)

I wrote the following back in 2009. In fact, this was one of the ideas I wanted to explore, which made me start the blog in the first place.   It turned out to be the basis for my first presentation in the Mormon world and became part of a publication of which I'm rather proud.  Notice how I use follow the author's point about how technology and the threat of terrorists armed with WMDs to meet the justification for preemptive war:

Today battlefields stretch over many miles. The personal weapon of an infantrymen, the M-16, has an effective range of roughly a third of a mile. Jet fighters, stealth bombers, and cruise missiles can launch from one location and strike 6,000 miles away. And Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles can truly live up to their name and strike from continents away.

World wide airline and naval travel easily transport dangerous people and material. The Nephites must have been surprised at how narrow their strip of wilderness could be at times, our protection is just as thin if we do not set proper guards (Hel 1:18) or be "up and doing" in defense of our liberty(Alma 60:24).

During the Cold War we could nominally count on the international order to restrain the actions of our enemy. But even this existence led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Krushchev threatening to "swat America's ass" with the weapons he inserted there. Now we face regimes that explicitly reject that world order, support terrorism as an arm of foreign policy, and seek the most devastating weapons known to man.

The threat is just as real and apparent as the Lamanites marching on Zarahemla. Yet if we wait for the launch of nuclear missiles, or a terrorist attack using the same, we will be lamenting the desolation of Ammonihah instead. Arguing for a neo isolationist foreign policy based on The Book of Mormon ignores the strategic realities that both nations faced as a result of geography and technology. The nature of modern technology, the connection of rogue regimes with terrorist organizations, the precedent re enforced by 9/11, and the shrinking world of globalization demand that pursue an "offensive defensive" like the Nephites of old.

Thanks for reading! Who do you think said it better?  

[If you found value in this blog post please consider subscribing or making a one time donation.]