TOWARD TRANSFORMATION OF
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
By Edward E. Winchester, C.M.
Origin of “Just War Doctrine”
Something seems to be missing in Defense Planning Guidance and U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS). This essay considers arguments for and against the "Just War" concept (Jus Ad Bellum), while suggesting a transformational approach to supplant entrenched thinking about wars in general. At the same time the aim is to support U.S. military forces by adding a spiritual orientation to U.S. National Security Strategy and Department of Defense military doctrine.
Wars are first and foremost due to deficits in thinking. Wars reflect deficiencies in understanding mankind’s spiritual nature. Since 1990 each of the U.S. Military Departments is seeking to institutionalize and rationalize a transformation program as a continuous process for advancement of military capabilities. The stated goal of the current Administration is to provide new capabilities to assure our allies and friends, dissuade terrorist activities, deter aggression, and if necessary defeat aggressors. Progress is being made toward attainment of critical operational goals for transformation as reported in the Quadrennial Defense Review published by the U.S. Department of Defense. A new goal for spiritual defense suggested here will be to engage enemies and threats to national security from an inner battle-space, and decisively win the “war on evil” through a process of transformation of human character and consciousness.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) was the theologian who originated the doctrine of “Just War,” a doctrine which still influences military thinking today. Consequently, a transformational process brought forward by Christianity failed more often than not as an operational doctrine for preventing war and for peacemaking. Eventually the Christian doctrine for peacemaking gave way to the doctrine of a “Just War.” This change originated by Augustine was reinforced by another theologian, Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274 AD).
The theology they formulated provided kings and emperors for centuries with a rational and politically acceptable justification for warfare based on a blending of scriptural and secular values. Their conception of what constitutes a “Just War” has been used by governments and war planners to justify an endless series of wars.
The most systematic exposition of “Just War” theory was given by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. Since then, the moral theory underpinning the “Just War” doctrine” has been expounded and expanded upon by other theologians and legalists such as Francisco de Vitoria (1548-1617), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767). Moreover, contemporary literature is replete with texts and articles on the subject. The essence of the argument is that war is permissible, and sometimes necessary, when it cannot be rationally avoided. That is when there are strong and compelling reasons that conditions for war exist. Advocates of “Just War” maintain that self-defense against physical aggression is generally considered to be the only sufficient reason for endorsing aggressive military actions.
Expansion of “Just War Doctrine”
Never before now has there been a justification for war for the express purpose of spreading democracy to other countries. The idea of initiating a pre-emptive first strike may seem to some people to be “common sense self-defense," but expansion of “Just War” doctrine calling for a pre-emptive strike as part of the U.S. National Security Strategy is cause for general alarm. Moreover, it runs contrary to the notion of spiritual defense.
In February 2002 the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican organized a symposium to consider the threat of U. S. military action in Iraq. To legitimize this new policy of initiating preventive war the U.S. State Department sent theologian Michael Novak to Rome to present the moral case for expansion of “Just War” doctrine. The principles for justifying a “Just War” were officially incorporated in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America and adopted by the President of the United States. United States policy for national security as articulated by President Bush is summarized as follows:
“As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action.”
“In building a balance of power that favors freedom, The United States is guided by the conviction that all nations have important responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.”
Military Model Based on Transformation of Human Character
There is an urgent need to transform thinking about U.S. National Security Strategy. The more enlightened strategy is to properly support U.S. military forces in ways that do not involve bloodshed. Further evolution of the NSS to include a new paradigm with spiritual underpinnings could conceivably turn enemies of the United States to being friends.
The relevance of a doctrine for transformation as a model for defense, and for ensuring personal and national security is an enigma to war planners. Spiritual defense is misunderstood, ignored and neglected by diplomats, politicians, and military leaders and the general public alike. The idea is not ludicrous and should not be rejected without thorough investigation. For centuries those who accepted the Christian doctrine for peacemaking were put to the test by being horribly tortured and martyred. Those people who do accept the Christian doctrine of “love thy neighbor, do good to those who persecute you” do so primarily on faith, rather than on any objective evidence that the world will in fact be a safer place or that their personal safety and security is assured. Believers tend to be resigned to the consequences of wars and suffering. Their hope for the future is to look instead for salvation in an after life existence.
A strategy for national security that is based on transformation of human character, on non-violence, love of the enemy, and doing good to an adversary, was misunderstood, when it was first introduced about 2000 years ago. It was radically new and different. Since then, leaders of governments have not accepted or adopted for practical military purposes any doctrine for transformation of adversaries based on faith and Christian doctrine. There simply was no evidence of any model or mechanism for transformation of human behavior or any suggestion of how the Christian doctrine works. There must be more to it than the grace of God and the power of faith. Nevertheless, the process for individual transformation is cloaked in this kind of religious rhetoric.
Author Gregory J. Rummo goes much further than most apologists to justify America’s involvement in Iraq by asserting that “Jesus would have bombed Baghdad.” He concluded that the US’s invasion of Iraq clearly meets the necessary criteria for a “Just War,” and concludes that Jesus was the same God who throughout much of the Old Testament sanctioned war against those nations which threatened Israel’s national security. On the other hand, it seems more likely that he might have called for forgiveness, just as he did for adulterers, thieves, and the murderers who tortured and put him to death.
This convoluted argument that the God of the Jews who inspired warfare and the God of the Christians are the same being only provokes more controversy about who Jesus really was. The argument fails to come to grips with the question of how to transform human character, and whether there is a process for transformation implicit in the teachings of Jesus, albeit still veiled and obscured by centuries of theological mis-representations.
One contemporary scholar and well known author, Hal Lindsay, traces the ethical rationale for “Just War” doctrine further back in time to a former Roman soldier and to the Christian bible. Elaborating on this theme of a “Just War” Lindsay holds to the limiting view and commonly held belief that,
“There will always be those who are violent and seek to take the life, liberty and property of others. This applies to both person-to-person and nation-to-nation crimes. God tells us that He has established duly formed government to keep peace, security and order. This behavior is rooted in our faith in the Bible.”
The foundation for “Just War” doctrine according to Lindsay is a letter Paul wrote to a community of Romans (Romans 13:3-5). The letter of Paul offers the following guidance and warning:
“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, FOR HE DOES NOT BEAR THE SWORD FOR NOTHING. HE IS GOD'S SERVANT, AN AGENT OF WRATH TO BRING PUNISHMENT ON THE WRONGDOER. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.” (Romans 13:3-5 NIV)
In support of President Bush’s arguments for “Just War” Lindsay makes other plausible observations.
“From the foundation of the United States of America, our leaders have invoked the guidance and blessing of God, especially in the wars we have fought. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, to name a few, all sought God’ s protection, guidance and blessings as they sent our soldiers into war. They did this because this country was founded on faith in God and the Lord Jesus Christ by the majority. They also did this because we only went to war when the majority of Americans believed it was a just war. [underscoring supplied] It was our faith in God that motivated us to come to the aid of Europe particularly France and Belgium in World Wars 1 and 2.
“So President George W. Bush is not acting in an aberrant way from our history when he seeks God’s guidance and blessings. No, he is following the very essence of what made this country what it is. We have fought with fury against aggressors, but been merciful to the vanquished. We have not kept any of the lands we liberated. We helped even our enemies to rebuild. This behavior is rooted in our faith in the Bible. If we drift from this faith, we too will be destroyed.
“Government agents such as policemen and soldiers do not bear the sword for nothing. Now you don’t spank people with swords. It is a symbol of deadly force. . . . Many of the first believers in Jesus Christ in the New Testament were Roman military officers and soldiers. They were never told to quit the military, but simply urged to do their duty honestly and justly.”
It is interesting that Paul himself being a former Roman soldier was in the passage cited sending a politically correct message to a Christian community of Roman citizens. Of course, he does not suggest fighting aggressors, or civil disobedience, and does not call for inappropriate behavior and demonstrations to oppose Roman authorities. Such actions would have been regarded by authorities as deserving imprisonment or even death. The Bible passage quoted by Lindsay does not provide sufficient information for concluding that citizens of that day, or at any time, are obliged in conscience to support or fight in a “Just War,” nor does it imply that people are obliged in conscience to regard evil despots and dictators as “God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
The arguments in favor of “Just War” fall short of addressing the seemingly impossible idea that the tyrant Saddam Hussein or terrorist Osama Bin Lauden could experience a transformation just as did Paul of Tarsus as a result of concentrated collective thoughts (prayers) of millions of people. According to Bible history Paul experienced a remarkable transformation. He had been a butcher and scourge of Christians, but came to be exalted as a saint.
Did the legacy to Christianity from its founder include a process for human transformation that held the promise of changing hearts and minds so as to avoid future wars; and support peacemaking? One can not help but wonder whether carnage and deaths resulting from past wars might have been avoided or at least mitigated, if that is true.
Further examination of the same letter of Paul to Romans supports a conclusion completely opposite to entrenched “Just War” doctrine. It is evident that Paul was a proponent of a fundamental a principle of Christian doctrine calling believers to:
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay not evil with evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. No, ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by doing so you will heap burning coals upon his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans Ch 12: v.14-2).
This doctrine is accepted at least in theory even by Christian believers, who in actual practice, adhere to the opposite “Just War” doctrine. Failure to walk the talk justifying war, whether to kill Al Qaeda terrorists or administer the death penalty for criminals could be considered apostasy in terms of Jesus’ admonition to all to be peacemakers.
The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal; you shall not covet’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [Underscoring supplied]
Romans Ch 13: v 9-10
Paul dramatically transformed his own thinking and behavior after witnessing a brilliant white light according to the Biblical account. He also instructed people to put on the "armor of light." What does “Putting on the armor of Light” mean in practical terms? Now it can be demonstrated that there is a simple process for acquiring and putting on "armor of Light." The idea of a protective shield is more than a belief, or a figure of speech, or a metaphor. It has a sound basis in reality supported by scientific evidence!
(For an in depth explanation of the procedure for activating shields of “armor of light” see Technology for Transformation and Peace Shield on the internet.) http://pentagonmeditationclub.org
U.S. military war planners, National Security Council advisers, and White House policy makers need a Technology for Transformation to bridge the chasm between advocates for, and opponents of, the “Just War” doctrine. A series of investigations of a Technology for Transformation began at the Pentagon over twenty years ago. The results of those investigations, called Spiritual Defense Initiatives, and independent evaluations of that technology are well documented. Those findings resulted from re-interpretation of passages of the Bible and a 2000 year-old prayer recited daily by many Christians. Based on those investigations and demonstrations the term spiritual defense can be defined.
Spiritual defense is the application of non-lethal, non-invasive, and non-physical distance influencing (DI) – thought technology, which provides real protection and shielding. It works by a mental process for increasing wisdom, thereby empowering people to make choices which effectively screen and block harmful influences of a destructive or evil nature. Spiritual defense employs a thought process, which increases foresight, hindsight , and insight, and can at times result in thought communication between a sender(s) and a receiver (s), whether perceived consciously or not, involving for example light and sound, prayer and meditation, and collective mental synchronization to augment and help insure security and well-being.
An exciting possibility for avoiding armed conflicts and transforming relationships with adversaries is to take control of the inner battle-space as a strategy in the U.S. led war on evil. The mission must be to reorient thinking about strategic initiatives, and control and direct military operations to more effectively deal with transformation of perceived sources of evil before hostilities occur.
The inner battle-space is located in the mind of each human being. It can be systematically transformed in silence. Just beyond the finite limits and awareness of small, narrow, and shallow minds and beyond limited thinking can be found a source of peace and creativity, a source of wisdom needed to solve problems that could lead to wars. Inner space extends beyond the boundaries and range of mental activity (thoughts) to an infinite space just beyond and adjacent to the range of ordinary conscious thinking. . The ability to consciously enter this domain of “pure thought” and simply “Be” in absolute silence has the potential for simultaneously transforming minds and hearts of people on opposite sides of a conflict.
The mission then is to heal nations in conflict. Every person must take responsibility for transforming their individual segment of the battlefield of consciousness by becoming permanently established in a peaceful state of mind. Each and every human being on earth draws creative thoughts and life-energy from being in silence in this limitless inner space. Inner space may well be a medium through which thoughts (prayers) are transmitted instantaneously to any place, giving humanity the ability to influence enemies at a distance and in daily life to bring either a little bit of heaven or hell on earth.
A new paradigm for transformation with a spiritual dimension has emerged that contributes to reshaping and refocusing popular thinking and attitudes today about strategies for removing dangers cited in the U.S. Department of Defense policy paper National Security for A New Century. This Technology for Transformation has the potential for defusing terrorism and crime fueled by negative emotions and destructive thinking, dissent, and violence in hot spots around the world. This elusive goal is achievable by adding a spiritual (non-religious) component to National Security in the 21st century.
References:
1. A comprehensive treatment of Technology for Transformation referred to throughout this essay, and of Spiritual Defense Initiatives can be found on the internet. http://pentagonmeditationclub.org
2. Transformation the Ultimate Maneuver In War, Statement for the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees and Select Committees on Intelligence Concerning Investigations of Prisoner Deaths and Abuses, by Edward E. Winchester, C.M., May 7, 2004
See Copyright Ed Winchester / Pentagon Meditation Club -PMC 2004©
Back to Part 1