# Self-Defense applied at an international political level--is it justified?



## RamistThomist (Aug 2, 2013)

I take it as a truism ala Rutherford that natural law allows us to defend our person in terms of self-defense. Human decency says we should also defend the weaker neighbor when he is threatened (other things being equal). While I am not a neo-con (e.g., "Bomb 'em for Jesus' sake"), I really can't find a good rebuttal to the argument that we should intervene in a country's behalf when a meaner, bigger other country invades. I suppose the response, and the one I used to use, is "You are just asserting that the situations have a 1:1 correspondence. I deny the assertion." I am not satisfied with that reasoning anymore. 

What are the pros and cons of seeing a 1:1 correspondence between an individual's defending his weaker neighbor, and America defending a weaker nation (preferably oil-rich) from other nations/tyrants?

Title should be edited: Defending one's neighbor at the international level?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 2, 2013)

Jacob,

Throwing in the term "preferably oil-rich" sort of poisons the well with a cynical view. Leave that out and one might say, if we are informal allies with a nation, or are in a mutual self-defense alliance – all things being equal – one might say we are obligated to help, humanly speaking.

But we have appointed ourselves a sort of World Policeman and interfere in many situations in the name of "human rights". In the Arab world our interference – in the name of democracy and human rights – has unleashed a groundswell of Islamic revolt that has come upon our Christian brethren in those lands with a "religious cleansing / genocide" that our State Dept hasn't really touched; the secular citizens of those lands are likewise imperiled. Our president's apparent favoring of the Islamic world has destabilized the entire region. He is more a "change agent" of the Sovereign who is bringing the age to a climax and close.

We are so morally polluted – America – that most of what we touch we harm. I'm afraid that _my_ cynicism with regard to my nation is far more severe than yours, though I think it eminently warranted, and also that what we have become warrants special judgment from the Holy One, which I believe is forthcoming.


----------



## Edward (Aug 2, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> What are the pros and cons of seeing a 1:1 correspondence between an individual's defending his weaker neighbor, and America defending a weaker nation (preferably oil-rich) from other nations/tyrants?



It is generally better to view such a question in a longer historical perspective, rather than one still buried in propaganda from both sides. 

So I'd re-cast your question as 'Was England justified in starting World War I when the Kaiser violated the neutrality of Belgium? '


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 2, 2013)

Collective action has individual consequences.

Just because the general populace is "signed-on" for one kind of collective purpose (defensive solidarity, single-currency exchange, etc.) doesn't mean that some heads-of-state are legitimately freed up to decide to part with the lives of a certain number of "expendable units" of divine image-bearers (not their own lives, mind you, but "less important" lives of their own soldiery and those belonging to the benighted heathen masses, of either side) in pursuit of policy decisions that are either hubristic or altruistic.

If a single or a whole host of "Rough-rider" Volunteer types want to form up, or join up with some foreign quarrel, by intervening on the side of whichever they think is the oppressed, each man should be free to "go to the aid of his neighbor," at personal cost.

It's real easy to assuage one's conscience that "WE'VE got to do something," and later, "HEY! I did something," by a risk-free parting with someone else' life and time. How nice. It happens these days with disturbing regularity; and the "average American" gets right on board with his elected and non-elected masters. Regardless of whether the enterprise is a moral idea or not, it becomes terrifically important for the conscience of the public that it be _perceived_ as a morally justifiable crusade in defense of Right.

The view that the military is just a faceless, impersonal CLUB to be swung in support of some individual decision (or group's vote) in support of it's notion of "virtue" is, in fact, callous and typically self-serving political decision. How could it be otherwise?

The epidemic of suicides of military personnel, both active duty and released, is mute and horrible witness to the scars upon the psyche of men (and now women also) who cannot live with the consequences of what they were encouraged to do, in the name of an defeating an "evil" they could not in the end identify. If you have to destroy the village in order to save it, then you most likely should not be trying to save it to begin with.

"Solving" massive, society-wide problems with the application of force is scarcely conceivable in one's own backyard, without incurring incalculable unforeseen problems that will most likely negate the benefits conceived by such an application. The USA is still recovering from the lingering aftereffects of the WBtS. In the case of intervening into an alien culture, using _overwhelming force_ in order to impose a putative Righteous Will, the Law of Unintended Consequences seems like the one *sure thing* destined to ruin the rosy ruminations of the risk-free entrepreneurs who expect to reap the glory-dividend at the end of the conflict.

If it were only a parade through the streets of "The Eternal City," glory for those who risked their lives, their shameless plunder, and their enslavement of the defeated, it might be slightly more bearable. But instead, it is socialized self-congratulations in the name of "virtue," something C.S. Lewis once remarked was the hallmark of the worst sort of repression. Because those who inflict the suffering (or applaud it) are only doing it for the "common good."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 2, 2013)

Bruce, what you wrote reminded me of Dylan's song, "Masters of War".


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2013)

Edward said:


> So I'd re-cast your question as 'Was England justified in starting World War I when the Kaiser violated the neutrality of Belgium? '



Let's get one thing clear: England -or Great Britain - didn't start WW I (LOL). 

If you've promised to protect a rather small and vulnerable nation against a large and bullying aggressor, you should make good your promises, even although it may be partly in your own interest and not just that of, e.g. Belgium, to set up such an attempt at deterring such aggression, or make good the promise.



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> Let's get one thing clear: England -or Great Britain - didn't start WW I (LOL).



No, it would have been at most a regional war - and ended much more quickly with much less bloodshed - if England hadn't jumped in. Japan and the US certainly wouldn't have been involved. I'll have to look at Italy more closely. 




Peairtach said:


> If you've promised to protect a rather small and vulnerable nation against a large and bullying aggressor, you should make good your promises, even although it may be partly in your own interest



And that pretty much focuses the discussion where it should be. 

We can probably leave a discussion of whether England started World War II to another thread.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2013)

Edward said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get one thing clear: England -or Great Britain - didn't start WW I (LOL).
> ...



That is a big "What if?" Anyway, the question in entering a war isn't just whether the war would be shorter or longer depending on whether you enter it, but what the end result of the war is more likely to be depending on whether you enter it or stay out.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Reformed Reaction (Aug 3, 2013)

The comparison is flawed because it infers that any major conflict in the past 125 years involved noble intentions of "defending one's neighbor".


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2013)

Motivation is always impure even in the individual, although there may be a dominant motivation. National self interest may be an appropriate motivation of any national administration.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Brian Bosse (Aug 3, 2013)

Hello Everyone,

What I understand Cameronian to be asking is, "Given the natural law principle allowing individuals to defend themselves, is there necessarily a corresponding application to groups of individuals - like nations?" It is a good question. To answer the question, it seems to me the first thing that needs to be done is to get clear on what this individual law looks like. This is where things get sticky for me. For example... 



Cameronian said:


> I take it as a truism...that natural law allows us to defend our person in terms of self-defense.



What is meant by "natural law allows us to..."? Presumably, it means that in some sense individuals have the moral right to defend themselves when threatened. But is this the case under any circumstance? And, what type of defense is warranted in a given situation? If someone tries to drown me because he does not like the fact that I am a Baptist, then presumably, given natural law, it would be within my moral rights to resist and defend myself. May I go so far in my resistance and defense as to kill the one trying to drown me? What if the situation is that the church along with the civil magistrates find me guilty of a credo-Baptist heresy, and determines that the punishment should be drowning? Do I have the natural law right to resist? Here, a padeo-Baptist may argue that the judgment is righteous but the punishment does not fit the crime, and based on this I may resist. But, may I resist in every case where the punishment does not fit the crime? What if the punishment does fit the crime, but it will bring to me bodily harm, may I resist? What if there is genuine disagreement as to whether or not the punishment fits the crime, am I within my moral rights to resist? What if there is genuine disagreement as to whether or not someone is guilty, am I within my moral rights to resist? Who is the final arbiter in these judgments?


----------



## Philip (Aug 3, 2013)

Reformed Reaction said:


> The comparison is flawed because it infers that any major conflict in the past 125 years involved noble intentions of "defending one's neighbor".



I believe defending Poland during WWII involved that---or at least a sense of remorse at not having defended Czechoslovakia.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2013)

Yes. But, even leaving aside Poland for a second, which sadly had to be eventually "sold out" to Communism, there was the noble self-interest of Britain and France of not wanting Germany "having a free reign" and -eventually - threatening their interests.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PreservedKillick (Aug 3, 2013)

Is there a formal treaty or alliance pledging mutual defense? If so, then, yes, it is justifiable for one ally to defend another when facing clear and unprovoked aggression. Is that what is being argued against? Or is the argument concerning grayer areas where no treaty obligation exists, but it would be in the national interest to intervene? Or is the argument concerning more general calls for intervention even outside of the national interest, such as in Syria?


----------



## Loopie (Aug 4, 2013)

I do not doubt that perhaps some individuals in both England and France had inappropriate reasons for going to war with Germany, yet I would have to say that defending Poland was a noble cause. It is clear that both England and France promised to come to Poland's aid should she be attacked by Germany. Furthermore, the Western Allies gave Hitler an ultimatum to withdraw his troops before they declared war upon Germany (obviously Hitler ignored the ultimatum). Finally, Hitler had promised at the Munich Conference that his acquisition of the Sudetenland would be his final land grab in Europe. So clearly, Hitler violated his promises, and England and France kept theirs, which was the noble thing to do.


----------



## MW (Aug 4, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> defending a weaker nation (preferably oil-rich) from other nations/tyrants?



This may or may not have been intended as cynical but as far as the commercial interests of a nation are concerned it is in fact a valid reason for making a treaty and defending its terms according to the morality of the eighth commandment. I especially recommend the explanations and Scripture references in the Shorter and Larger Catechisms for what this commandment requires. There is nothing moral about altruism even when applied to individuals, but when applied to a collective body of people it is positively immoral in governors to seek the benefit of those they do not govern to the detriment of those they are office and oath-bound to protect.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2013)

These are good responses and offer much tot hink on. My "oil-rich" nations wasn't meant to be cynical, but realist. It puts the past few decades of US policy into perspective.


----------



## Edward (Aug 5, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> My "oil-rich" nations wasn't meant to be cynical, but realist. It puts the past few decades of US policy into perspective.



Again, I would urge a focus other than the 21st century, perhaps Central America and the Caribbean between 1890 and 1990, the highlights of which were probably the taking of Cuba from Spain and Panama from Columbia, but there are many other police actions, very few of which involved oil.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 6, 2013)

Edward said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> > My "oil-rich" nations wasn't meant to be cynical, but realist. It puts the past few decades of US policy into perspective.
> ...


But most involved some sort of commodity. The Dulles brothers' United Fruit and other banana importers had a lot to do with US actions in Central and South America.


----------



## Edward (Aug 6, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> But most involved some sort of commodity. The Dulles brothers' United Fruit and other banana importers had a lot to do with US actions in Central and South America.



Yes, or other economic interests - such as the Panama Canal or earlier, the railroad.


----------



## Reformed Reaction (Aug 7, 2013)

Cameronian said:


> These are good responses and offer much tot hink on. My "oil-rich" nations wasn't meant to be cynical, but realist. It puts the past few decades of US policy into perspective.



There is nothing real about your statement whatsoever. There is more oil in North Dakota than in all of Saudi Arabia. 

America does not go to war on behalf of its own interests, unless you count the military industrial complex.

The falsely perpetuated idea that America goes to war to secure oil for itself is inane and sophomoric.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 7, 2013)

I wasn't saying we go to war to secure oil-resources. I was just pointing out that we happen to liberate a lot of countries who are wealthy in oil. Not to mention that Halliburton and Cheney made profits in Iraq.


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 7, 2013)

Reformed Reaction said:


> Cameronian said:
> 
> 
> > These are good responses and offer much tot hink on. My "oil-rich" nations wasn't meant to be cynical, but realist. It puts the past few decades of US policy into perspective.
> ...



Huh? Nothing real at all?

When President Carter implemented the "Carter Doctrine" expressly promising to use military force to protect US interest in international oil, that really didn't happen? When President HW Bush invoked that precedent as one reason for the 1990 Gulf War, that didn't really happen either?

Jacob's comment, while admittedly sort of a throw-away comment, does have historical foundation. 

As for the rest of your post, I am befuddled. It sounds as if you seek to defend the US's war efforts on the grounds that it is never self-interested, yet the force of that statement is taken away by the seemingly cynical reference to the military industrial complex. 

In any event, invoking Moderation powers here, I remind posters to refrain from gratuitous name calling.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 7, 2013)

Reformed Reaction said:


> There is more oil in North Dakota than in all of Saudi Arabia.



Besides being a non sequitur, this is not even close to being true. The most optimistic figure I've seen is 24 billion barrels in total. Saudi Arabia has over ten times that in recoverable oil.


----------



## Reformed Reaction (Aug 8, 2013)

VictorBravo said:


> Reformed Reaction said:
> 
> 
> > Cameronian said:
> ...



I would urge you to read my comment again. You will find that I referred to the idea by several names, NOT the person.


----------



## Reformed Reaction (Aug 8, 2013)

VictorBravo said:


> Reformed Reaction said:
> 
> 
> > Cameronian said:
> ...



Yourself and no doubt several others have completely missed, misinterpreted, or ignored my point.

My view is that America does not go to war for its own interests, meaning the interests of the American people.

This argument is far too politically sensitive and thus I do not wish to argue it further.

Back to op's original question: Defending one's neighbor at the international level?

I think it's a great idea, someone should start.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 8, 2013)

When I see a large man beating a little man with a stick on the street, the implications of the 6th commandment would infer that I should intervene in the little man's defense if I can - except if the bigger man is wearing a state costume and the stick is his state-issued baton, right? If we agree with that, then since all nations are led by providentially ordained authorities, wouldn't the same exception apply? If I don't have the right to decide the cop is in the wrong and interfere, where does one nation get off deciding the legitimacy of another when they are executing their version of punishing the evil-doer?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2013)

For the record i wasn't necessarily impugning America's motives vis-a-vis oil. I thought I was just stating a fact.


----------



## Philip (Aug 8, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> If I don't have the right to decide the cop is in the wrong and interfere, where does one nation get off deciding the legitimacy of another when they are executing their version of punishing the evil-doer?



This is not the topic under discussion. We are discussing whether if nation X invades nation Y, nation Z may reasonably interfere on behalf of nation Y. Your question is certainly an interesting one, but not the one we're talking about.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 8, 2013)

Philip said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> > If I don't have the right to decide the cop is in the wrong and interfere, where does one nation get off deciding the legitimacy of another when they are executing their version of punishing the evil-doer?
> ...


You're a pretty sharp fellow, Philip, so I'm confused as to how this is not exactly the topic you present. Big guy = invader X, little guy = invaded nation Y, me deciding to intervene = nation Z. The OP asked if the individual inferences of defense of the weaker of the 6th commandment could be extrapolated to the relations of nations. If nations possess the authority of sword-bearing per Romans 12, what gives one nation the authority to decide which one in a conflict is the 'good guy' vs, the 'bad guy'? That would be the main differentiation in speaking of nations as opposed to individuals, would it not?


----------



## Loopie (Aug 8, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> You're a pretty sharp fellow, Philip, so I'm confused as to how this is not exactly the topic you present. Big guy = invader X, little guy = invaded nation Y, me deciding to intervene = nation Z. The OP asked if the individual inferences of defense of the weaker of the 6th commandment could be extrapolated to the relations of nations. If nations possess the authority of sword-bearing per Romans 12, what gives one nation the authority to decide which one in a conflict is the 'good guy' vs, the 'bad guy'? That would be the main differentiation in speaking of nations as opposed to individuals, would it not?



But Brad, what if the guy with the state costume and state baton is actually not acting on behalf of the state in that moment, but is abusing his authority that he has been given? If we see a cop beating a guy on the street, and we suspect that foul play is involved, we have every right as citizens to call the police authorities (who hopefully are not corrupt) in order to stop one of their own members from abusing the power he has been given.

It would be similar to me as a military member abusing the authority given to me. The things that I am authorized to do are set forth not only by the UCMJ but also the Constitution (as well as other supporting documents). If ANYONE were to see me abusing my power, they would be obligated to contact my superiors, and to seek my removal from a position of authority and power. 

The problem on the international level is the fact that there is no authority to appeal to, other than God. We could speculate that the United Nations is a 'higher' earthly authority than an individual nation. But if an aggressive nation like Nazi Germany decides to start conquering and enslaving the various peoples of Europe, who is going to go up to them and say that they are abusing their God-given authority? Who is going to actually stop them from exterminating whole people-groups? Should we even try to stop them? I think it would be hard for us to come to terms with the fact that if no nation stood up against Nazi Germany, then the world would be a much different place today. Could any nation standby while their neighboring nation is burnt to ashes by an aggressor (who is essentially a thug on a grand scale)? Is that a decision that would be pleasing to God?


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 9, 2013)

I agree, Eric. When governments of men embark on conquering and enslaving other nations it is incumbent upon godly men and states to intervene where they are able. But isn't it a little complicated? If that cop is beating the skinny kid with his baton seconds count, and the hopefully uncorrupted police are only minutes away. And how do I determine if the cop is justified in his use of force or not? And if I've been in the habit of going around beating up skinny kids for fun and profit, do I have the moral standing to intervene at all?

So to carry these complexities to the level of states, let's use a not-so-fictional example. Say weaker godless state A has been stealing the wealth of stronger godless state B through surreptitious means for years. Godless state B has complained to every international body on earth to no avail, sent ample warnings that retaliation is imminent if the theft doesn't stop, even inquires of super-strong godless state C if they would mind said retaliation and is told state C doesn't want to get involved. State B embarks upon this retaliation. States A & C conspire to misrepresent the situation to the entire world, especially to the citizens of state C, who then overwhelmingly support bringing all the might of state C and its other godless state allies to bear upon state B, even to the point of slaughtering retreating troops of state B while they are submitting to international injunctions to withdraw, and by doing so have exposed themselves like fish in the proverbial barrel. Which of these states is the biggest bad guy? They are all godless, A & B by open admission, while state C is more duplicitous, giving lip-service to some form of godliness while bathing in a vast pool of the blood of innocents. Which of these states should a Christian come to the defense of, and which should he defend against?

Even WWII was more complicated than what you present (gee, I miss Tim Vaughn). I've been accused of being anabaptist in my views of human governments because I am loathe to defend those that are godless, but I think that's an erroneous inference. I'm not unwilling to defend the weaker man or state, and I have no compunction against taking up arms against an unrighteous aggressor, but I think these little 'complications' require that Christian men exercise due diligence in determining exactly who is guilty or innocent before taking other men's lives on behalf of any state, particularly godless ones. And I think the default mode should be to refuse to do that unless that guilt and innocence can be convincingly ascertained, whether in the microcosm of individuals or the macrocosm of nations.


----------



## Loopie (Aug 9, 2013)

Brad, even though I agree that WWII was complicated, I was not wrong in any of the assertions that I have made. I am not trying to over simplify the situation surrounding WWII, but it is historically verifiable that Hitler promised not to take any more territory in Europe after the Munich Agreement. Furthermore, it is historically verifiable that both England and France promised to come to the aid of Poland. Furthermore, they did indeed give Hitler an ultimatum. 

One of the books I highly recommend is John Toland's book Adolf Hitler. There are some very interesting insights into Hitler's personality and some of this thought processes. For instance, Hitler suggested to some of his closest circle that if France had stood up to him militarily when he remilitarized the Rhineland, he would have had to back down (due to the relative weakness of the German military). In fact, Hitler was actually surprised that England and France declared war on him after he invaded Poland. The reason for this is because he thought it was simply impossible that they could actually get troops into the field fast enough to stop him from overrunning the Poles. That is, he figured that once Poland was essentially wiped off the map, there would be no reason for England and France to continue the war, since from a practical standpoint, they wouldn't be able to save Poland. 

Of course, he was obviously wrong about that. Furthermore, he thought that Britain would sue for peace after France surrendered. Again, he was wrong about that too. His entire worldview was not at all on the same page as that of the British and French leaders. He simply expected them to act in their self-interests, and focus on what was pragmatic, not necessarily what was right. 

Now, I do agree that in the hypothetical situation you presented above, nearly every nation was wrong at some point. But here is the key, a Christian soldier on the front line is not going to know all the specific details, information, and motives of their leaders. Obviously one could assume wrong doing, or assume good motives. But a Christian, in my opinion, needs to act based on the information that they have available to them. They should do the best they can to gather all of the information before making a decision, but they cannot expect the head of state to bring them into their office and tell them the entire situation. Ultimately, we should seek justice on all sides. If Nation A promises to do something for right reasons, but instead does them for wrong reasons, they should be held accountable for lying to the people. That does not mean that the action itself is wrong, or should not have been done. Perhaps there were perfectly legitimate reasons to do something, but Nation A was not motivated by them, but rather by illegitimate reasons. 

So in the end, did England and France declare war on Germany for the wrong reasons? Perhaps they did, but there were enough legitimate reasons to justify them trying to stop someone like Hitler. In that case, if I were a British soldier, I would feel perfectly justified in going into battle against the Germans, even if my leaders might be motivated by the wrong reasons.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 9, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> I miss Tim Vaughn



You and me both. He was great at pointing out that things weren't always that simple.


----------



## Philip (Aug 9, 2013)

Mushroom said:


> If that cop is beating the skinny kid with his baton seconds count, and the hopefully uncorrupted police are only minutes away. And how do I determine if the cop is justified in his use of force or not? And if I've been in the habit of going around beating up skinny kids for fun and profit, do I have the moral standing to intervene at all?



Why does moral standing matter? What matters is doing what is right in the present circumstance. Too much introspection can keep us from doing what is right.



Mushroom said:


> So to carry these complexities to the level of states, let's use a not-so-fictional example.



You example is indeed a conundrum. Do you have an answer other than "a pox upon all their houses"?



Mushroom said:


> And I think the default mode should be to refuse to do that unless that guilt and innocence can be convincingly ascertained, whether in the microcosm of individuals or the macrocosm of nations.



I'm going to disagree here. I take it as a given that the only defensible war is a war of defense, either of one's own home or that of another. If the US is invaded, I don't care how corrupt it is, I'm defending it, much as the Christians in the Roman Army fought Germanic invaders in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, before Constantine (Marcus Aurelius called the Christians his "thundering legion"). And if the US is warring on behalf of another nation against and aggressor, I'm fine with that.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 9, 2013)

Philip said:


> Too much introspection can keep us from doing what is right.


And not enough introspection can lead us to do wrong because we are uninformed and believe it to be right.


Philip said:


> Do you have an answer other than "a pox upon all their houses"?


Nope. Sounds about right to me. Won't join any of them in their misdeeds.


----------

