The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Bishops back Obama Afghanistan strategy
"Our nation must respond to indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians'
Dec. 21, 2009
A U.S. Army soldier fires a mortar during a patrol at Nadir-Chawcod district in Khowst province, Afghanistan, Dec. 16.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionWASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's goal of a "responsible transition" in Afghanistan must serve as the "overall ethical framework for U.S. actions" there, the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on International Justice and Peace told the national security adviser.
In a Dec. 18 letter to retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, N.Y., called for the development of "specific criteria" for troop withdrawal, as well as efforts to help the Afghanis "secure an adequate basis for future political and economic stability."
He urged that "each course of action taken by the U.S." in Afghanistan be "weighed in light of the traditional moral principle of 'probability of success.'"
"In other words, will this action contribute to a 'responsible transition' and withdrawal as soon as appropriate and possible?" the bishop said. "Will it improve Afghan security and minimize loss of life? Will it provide an adequate foundation for long-term development?"
Bishop Hubbard said the international policy committee met Dec. 2 to discuss the revised Afghan strategy outlined by Obama the night before in a talk at West Point. At that meeting, the committee "affirmed and extended" the themes of an Oct. 6 letter from the bishop to Jones.
"In the face of terrorist threats, our nation must respond to indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians in ways that combine a resolve to do what is necessary, the restraint to ensure that we act justly, and the vision to focus on broader issues of poverty and injustice that are unscrupulously exploited by terrorists in gaining recruits," Bishop Hubbard wrote in both letters.
He reiterated several principles outlined in the earlier letter:
- "Restrain use of military force and ensure that civilians are not targeted."
- "Address the root causes of terrorism rather than relying solely on military means to solve conflict."
- Encourage international collaboration to provide humanitarian assistance and rebuild Afghanistan."
He urged the Obama administration "to continually review the use of military force -- whether and when force is necessary to protect the innocent and resist terrorism -- to ensure that it is proportionate and discriminate, and to develop concrete criteria for when it is appropriate to end direct U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan."
"The goal of a 'responsible transition' should be carefully defined and limited to permit a timely withdrawal," the bishop said. "But having initiated military action in Afghanistan, our nation must be committed to fostering good governance, respect for human rights and religious freedom, and economic and agricultural development long after direct military engagement ends."
Bishop Hubbard said the U.S. bishops "do not have expertise on military strategies" but speak based on "a moral tradition that can inform military decisions and on-the-ground experience in development through Catholic Relief Services."
CRS is the bishops' overseas relief and development agency.
"While neither our teaching nor our experience suggest easy answers, they raise key questions with which we must struggle as a nation as we work toward a 'responsible transition' in Afghanistan," he said.
Obama's plan to add 30,000 troops to the war effort in Afghanistan "focuses our attention on those who risk their lives in the service of our nation," the bishop said.
"U.S. policy must take into account the growing costs and consequences of continued deployments on military personnel, their families and our nation," he wrote. "There is a moral obligation to deal with the human, medical, mental health and social costs of military action."
He also urged that provisions be made "for those who exercise their right to conscientious objection or selective conscientious objection."
USCCB = GOP!
USCCB = GOP!
From the article: "U.S.
From the article:
"U.S. policy must take into account the growing costs and consequences of continued deployments on military personnel, their families and our nation," he wrote. "There is a moral obligation to deal with the human, medical, mental health and social costs of military action."
He also urged that provisions be made "for those who exercise their right to conscientious objection or selective conscientious objection."
That doesn't sound like the GOP to me. Quite the opposite in fact.
I think there is a distinct possibility that you don't know what you're talking about.
I do my homework before one
I do my homework before one keystroke:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whipwars
http://www.democrats.com/war-whip-0911
Maybe you haven't gotten the
Maybe you haven't gotten the news in Hong Kong, but the GOP isn't in power anymore. This is the policy of a democratic president with a democratic congress and senate.
The Bishops talk of an
The Bishops talk of an "overall ethical framework for U.S. actions" in Afganistan is like laying out an "ethical framework" for Al Capone's actions in 1920's Chicago. For the Americans the "responsible transition" that the Bishops advocate is the transition of Afganistan into a compliant lackey that takes its orders from the White House and the Pentagon. The Bishops naively seek from the Americans an appropriate exit strategy while the U.S. plans a permanent military presence there to fulfill the mission of laying the oil and gas pipelines and having Dick Cheney's Haliburton people build and service "enduring" military bases to enforce our hegemon over Central Asia. In 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks correctly predicted that U.S. soldiers would be in Afganistan for "a long, long time", and the American presence there is just in its early stages.
Shall we follow the bouncing
Shall we follow the bouncing ball of history regarding terrorists. Why don't we start off w/ President Clinton: the World Trade Center, 1993; Khobar towers, 1996; US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, 1998; USS Cole, 2000; and WTC attack on 9/11. As an aside, I blamed all Obama's problems his first year in office on President Bush. All of these deaths were preventable involving unarmed military and civilian people. In following the Clinton Doctrine (thanks Charles Gibson), which is to treat these individuals as criminals of an illegal act, rather than enemy combatants in an act of war, a trail of dead bodies was left behind.
Let's follow President Bush down the bouncing ball of history. Bush change the Clinton Doctrine to engaging in a war against unjust aggressor. No innocent, unarmed individuals are killed under his watch. Now this should not trivialize the sacrifice of our great military personnel have made in this war on terror but they were armed and heroically fighting in battle.
Moving to present day and President Obama. He immediately changes direction signs an executive order to close Club Gitmo in 1 year, begins investigating those Americans involved interrogating enemy combatants, brings forth sensitivity training for Americans involved in the military and covert operations to ensure there isn't any profiling and instructs Eric Holder to treat enemy combatants as criminals.
Now we begin to have a string of dead Americans starting with military personnel in Fort Hood to CIA agents and now a near miss of an American airliner carrying over 300 innocent people. Oh don't forget we will be bringing these lovely people onto the mainland where their fellow believers will have 360 degree access to the prisons where they can wage war.
I almost forgot!! If poverty and injustice are the root causes of terrorism in the Muslim community, aren't there more Christians who are poor and being treated unjustly? When one Googles "Christian Terrorist" there are 116,000 hits. One must acknowledge there are Christian terrorists. For instance in Uganda or Arians and others. Interestingly, when one Googles "Islamic Terrorist" there are 623,000 hits with a 6:1 margin. However there is only a 2:1 margin of Christians over Muslims worldwide.
Let's take this fallacious argument of poverty and injustice being the root cause of Islamic terrorist a step further. In the 20th century there where 45.5 Christian martyrs to a total of 70 million martyrs over the past 2000 years! This means of all the Christian martyrs in Christianity over 65% were martyred in the 20th century alone!!! Talk about injustice!!! With numbers like this why aren't there more Christian martyrs? Because we are asked to love our enemies.
No the numbers speak for themselves. The good and peaceful Muslims, and there are many many more good and peaceful Muslims than terrorists, must rise up against this disproportionate amount violence seen in their religion. If the shoe were on the other foot, the same responsibility would fall to the Christians.
Senator McCain and most
Senator McCain and most Republicans also support Obama re Afghanistan, increasing violence to supposedly achieve "peace." The "morality" of the bishops is so utterly conventional. To believe the bishops are magically inspired by the Holy Spirit is a fantasy entertained mostly by peple who know no bishops personally. There are people who are genuninely inspired by the Holy Spirit, people genuinely in touch with higher spiritual realms. But there are scarcely any bishops among them. The bishops are "religious" leaders, institutional bureaucrats. By and large, they are not "spiritual" leaders in any real sense. No wonder the Church is, every day, declining as the spiritual engine of the West. It is tragic. But it is what is. And, absent a miracle, I see no hope at all for Roman Catholicism in the West.
Post new comment