Can Drone Warfare Be Just?

In the third presidential debate, President Obama and Governor Romney found common ground on a few issues of foreign policy.  One case in particular, the use of drone attacks on terror suspects, stands out because Governor Romney stated simply that he agrees with the President’s policy.   Some commentators have latched on to that to show how conservative the President is on national security or how Governor Romney is more moderate than some of his advisers   Beneath it all, the question is not one of liberal/moderate/conservative.  It is a question of right or wrong.

Drone attacks are, by any reasonable measure, theologically and morally wrong.

Drones, the unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV, are a creation of the intelligence community and have become the front line troops in the seemingly endless “war on terror.” Drones are designed to be precise (though they have proven not to be), to be secure (though their security has been called into serious question) and a means of winning the war on terror (though there is no end in sight). 

In truth, drones are the modern equivalent of a societal prefrontal lobotomy about war.  By removing the “human element” and replacing it with non-emotional machines freed from the constraints of moral cognizance, we have moved war from the realm of human tragedy to one of rationalized and sterilized policy-making.  It is far easier to send a machine, more of which can easily be made, into war than it is to risk the lives of our sons and daughters.  And to be fair, drones do limit the exposure and risk to our military and civilian personnel.  The trouble is that as advanced and celebrated as they are, drones do not always work.  In fact they often do not work.   Some investigations claim that up to 25% of drone related deaths are accidental.   

Still, if they limit the exposure of Americans and limit the extent of the war zones in Pakistan and Afghanistan, don’t the advantages outweigh the drawbacks?  In other words, in the messy reality of war, aren’t drones at least a little more moral?

If the only gauge of morality in war was protection of “our side,” they certainly would be.  However, under the principles of nearly 1600 years of Christian Just War theory, drones are, in fact, a less moral way of waging war. 

Just War theory can generally be divided into two categories: jus ad bellum (reasons to go to war) and jus in bello (behavior in war).  Since the argument about going to war has long since been made irrelevant in the present war, our attention is best directed to jus in bello.  How, having gone to war, must nations and people behave in war?

The general theory of jus ad bello lists five general categories of behavior morally regulated by just war theory: distinction (distinguishing civilians from combatants), proportionality (an act of war must not be disproportionate to the precipitating act), military necessity (the act must be necessary to defeat the enemy and end the conflict), fair treatment of prisoners and the use of no means malum in se (no means that are evil/immoral in and of themselves or the effects of which cannot be controlled once used).[i]

The use of unmanned drones violates at least three of these principles.

·         Distinction:  The evidence is clear that drone attacks kill civilians.  Drones are neither limited enough in their power nor precise enough in their guidance to ensure that only the target is killed.  While studies have claimed that up to 25% of drones miss their targets and kill unintended civilian populations, civilians are often the victims of successful drone attacks.  In 2011 a drone hit a tribal council meeting in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan.  The four terrorist targets were killed, but so were 38 others. Nearly 90% of those killed in the attack were not targets but by-standers.  

·         Proportionality: The question of proportionality is complicated.  As the example above shows, drone attacks can be overkill.  The drone attack that killed 42 in Northwest Frontier Province was the equivalent of killing an ant with a brick.  It lacked restraint and proportionality.

Another issue of proportionality concerns the targets themselves.  Often drone attacks target “terror suspects.” They are executions carried out on suspects of terrorism rather than those proven to have committed acts of terror.  There is no question that global terror is vastly different than a war of opposing armies.  The question for us as a culture is whether or not that reality will so radically change the metrics of our moral vision.  We think this person is a terrorist so we will kill him and his neighbors just in case seems less than ideal as a moral foundation.

·         No Means Malum in Se: It is an overstatement to say that drones are evil in and of themselves the way mass rape, child conscription or the use of weapons of mass destruction are.  Nonetheless, because they are free from the moral difficulty of directly causing the death of another, drones are innately free from moral inhibition and decision making.  Making war easier and less costly to wage has a coarsening effect on the society fighting the war.  Anything that makes the commission of sin easier cannot, by definition, be anything but less moral. 

Do drone attacks make the “war on terror” immoral?  Is President Obama evil for pursuing a policy of drone warfare?   Is Governor Romney evil for agreeing with him?  Are the men and women who direct the drone attacks evil for participating in such an immoral system?  These and other questions that continue to explore the morality of our current national security policies are (or at least should be) of great concern to the church and people of faith. 

Any war waged for any reason has dehumanizes and violates the most basic principle of Christian love.  As 2000 years of history has taught us, though the community of Christ exists in the world the perfect peace of Christ does not yet.  Just War theory has been an effective, if imperfect, check on our propensity for war.  Restraint in war is one of the most enduring theological and philosophical legacies of Christendom.  If we, as a community of faith, will not stand up for our own historic principles, who is left? 

There is no war that is free from sin.  There is only the degree to which we submit to it.  The larger question of the morality of the “war on terror” will likely occupy the church for a generation.  The morality of drone warfare should not.   

---

[i] A reasonable argument could be made that drones violate all five areas of Just War theory concerning conduct in warfare.  Prisoners are mistreated in the fact that they are never taken prisoner nor given the opportunity to surrender themselves.  That drone attacks have been used since 2004 without great effect could reasonably argued as a violation of the principle of military necessity.  These are hardly clear and reasonable arguments can be made on the other side of each.  The same cannot be said for the other three principles outlined above.

Would You Baptize Exxon?

In 2010 the Supreme Court decided a case popularly called Citizens United.  In a nutshell, it says that individuals, corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect or defeat a candidate for office as long as it is not coordinated by the candidate.  (Much of the nonsense of this election season is brought to you by the Supreme Court of the United States.)  Enough ink has been spilled on whether or not Citizens United was a good decision (I think not).  I want to address an underlying issue raised by the ruling.

Part of the logic in Citizens United is that corporations are, for the purposes of speech in elections, persons and afforded the same protections of speech that an individual person is.  Corporations are persons?  What makes a person a person is a matter of deep philosophical debate.  From a theological perspective, the answer is no easier.  What makes a person a person?

When I was in seminary, this question came up in the context of a discussion about baptism.  In my tradition we practice infant baptism rather than adult or "believer's" baptism.  Underlying the theology of infant baptism is the notion that baptism is an act of faithfulness by the church in response to the faithfulness of God.  The sacrament does not require any belief or comprehension on the part of the baptized as it does in "believer's" baptism.  The question came up concerning whether or not it is appropriate to baptize an individual who cannot comprehend the sacrament.  As someone who believes in infant baptism, the answer to that question is easy.  For others it is not.  

The court and much of the political community argue that corporations are persons.  So my question is this, would you baptize Exxon?  

Calling corporations people demeans what it is to be a person.  People, homo sapiens, are created in the image of God.  Whatever race, nationality, physical or mental disability or other characteristic or station in life, we are all created in the image of God.  But is Wal-Mart or the AFL-CIO or even a non-profit like the United Way?  Are these "persons" created in the image of God?

I realize that baptism is not a universal measuring stick to determine person-hood.  You can be unbaptized and still be human (a child of God).  It is, however, a helpful way of thinking about who and what might reasonably be included in the category of "person." 

As a man of faith, I believe that calling corporations "persons" both misunderstands what it means to be human and demeans the person-hood of every one of God's children. You and I are made in the image of God, wonderfully made in fact and held in the heart of God since the beginning of time.  I simply cannot believe that the same can be said of Best Buy or BP or even the Nature Conservancy.

I am not anti-corporation.  I am against some of the abuses corporations commit and some of the dehumanizing policies of some corporations.  On the whole, however, I have no moral objection to corporations as such.  I just cannot get behind the idea that a corporation deserves the same consideration and rights as a child of God.  

Whether Citizens United is good policy or good law is left to be decided.  

That it is theologically troubling is clear.  

Politics and Playgrounds

In separate posts that appeared on my Facebook news feed today friends shared links to articles that, in one case, called President Obama anti-Christian and in the other case called Governor Romney un-Christian.  On one hand, I smiled a little in the realization that my friends are so diverse in their opinions.  On the other, I found myself feeling frustrated that this sort of language is being thrown around in such personal terms.

I am not going to dignify the arguments in the articles with a reply.  I do want to address this continual tendency to demonize political opponents with religious and personal epithets.  We have, in our culture, lost the ability to separate opinion from character.

The vocabulary of our political debate has degraded to the level of an elementary school playground.  You don't agree with me?  Well then you are just a big poopy-head!  It is all or nothing.  It is reasonable to expect kids on the playground to lack nuance in disagreements, but these politicians and commentators are adults.  Aren't we supposed to outgrow the reactionary absolutism of playground disagreements?

To be sure, there are policies from both Obama and Romney that I find theologically questionable.  Earlier this year I posted an entry about what is popularly known as the "Ryan Budget,"the budget plan passed by the House of Representatives.  I still believe that there are some serious theological problems with that budget's policies and the philosophy behind it.  I do not, however, believe that makes the men and women who voted for it or wrote it un-Christian.  I disagree with their policy positions and their philosophy.  But I don't hate them and, in general, I do not doubt their sincerity of belief.

This is not the first time I have posted on this topic and I am sure that it will not be the last.  We must find a way to separate opinions from character.  I have friends who support political and policy ideas that I disagree with deeply.  Does that mean we cannot be friends?  Does it mean that they are somehow bad people?  Does it mean that they are un-Christian or anti-Christian? NO!  We simply disagree on some issues. It is not up to me to decide whether they are faithful Christians.  It is not up to them to decide if I am.

I have a good friend whom I value greatly.  We disagree on just about everything political.  If I am for X, she is probably against it and if she is for Y, I am probably going to rail against it.  We disagree but we don't hate one another.  She is a wise, thoughtful and faithful Christian.  We see the world differently.  Or to put it in more biblical terms, we see through the glass dimly.

To refer to either the President or Mr. Romney as anti or un-Christian because of their beliefs is to set oneself up as the mind of God.  Disagree.  Disagree passionately.  But do not mistake your own opinion as the final opinion of God.  None of us has a monopoly on the truth.

Toxic Preaching: Partisan Politics and the Pulpit

Today is "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."  Organized a number of years ago, Pulpit Freedom Sunday is a day when pastors across the nation intentionally violate the Johnson Amendment making it against the law for non-profit organizations to endorse political candidates.  Each election year, thousands of pastors participate and after preaching their offending sermons they mail them to the IRS.

To the unending frustration of the organizers of Pulpit Freedom Sunday, the IRS has yet to show any signs of caring.  No prosecutions have taken place.  No pastors clapped in irons.  No churches seized for violation of some sacred code.  These pastors are fighting a war against what they perceive as a government trying to silence them and the government won't fight back.

The non-existent war on religion in this country is the product of a half-century of political rhetoric aimed at preventing "Soviet-style" atheism in America.  For decades the John Birch Society and others railed against the threat of atheism.  As the Supreme Court continued to uphold the freedom of all Americans to worship as they choose and to untangle religion from government, a myth was born.  The myth of the war against religion.

Today that war is fought on many fronts.  There is the war on Christmas, the war on Sunday, the war on values and, in recent years, the war on "religious freedom."  This new front has grown into the great "Western Front" of the imaginary war. 

Religious freedom is the new buzzword for a particularly narrow segment of the Christian community's protest against some government actions.  Generally speaking, what they perceive as "religious freedom" is in fact the freedom to impose their religion on the rest of us.  Thus, Pulpit Freedom Sunday, the day when preachers declare what candidates are and are not faithful Christian choices.

The Johnson Amendment, passed at the height of the red scare as a protection measure for Lyndon Johnson's re-election campaign, states that non-profit organizations cannot endorse a particular candidate.  The law was aimed at right-wing anti-communist organizations working against Johnson's re-election, however churches were swept up in the mix as well.  It is against the law for a pastor to stand in the pulpit and say "vote for X."

My question is this.  Who cares?  Who cares if pastors cannot stand up in the pulpit and say "vote for X because it is the Christian thing to do?"  What pastor in his or her right mind would want to do that in the first place?!

To be sure there are almost certainly pastors who serve congregations more politically homogeneous than my own.  Not all congregations run the gamut from center-left to center-right and have Democrats, Republicans, Independents and none-of-the-aboves.  Both of my congregations do.  So in addition to being against the law, candidate electioneering is not such a good idea for me. 

Even if I did serve a mostly like-minded congregation, though, I cannot imagine a circumstance when I would speak up for a candidate in my sermon.  In the first place, I cannot imagine there being a candidate who is so vital to the interest of the community that their election rose to the level of parity with the word of God.  Secondly, I cannot imagine preaching a sermon saying "vote for X because that is the Christian thing to do" and still being able to ask for the trust of a congregant who is voting for the other person.

As a pastor and preacher, my task is to stand in the pulpit and do my level best to tell the truth of the Gospel as I have come to know it.  It is not my task to tell people how to live, that's Jesus' job.  It is not my task to demand that people follow me; that is Jesus' job. It is not my task to declare who is and who is not righteous in the eyes of God; that is, well you get the point.

I am all for politics in the pulpit as long as "politics" means speaking about how we live together in the polis- the city. Electoral politics- the politics of personality and electioneering- have no place in the pulpit because they have no place in the vision of the word of God.  When Jesus says "feed my sheep" he does not say "as long as it is a Democrat who gives them the food."  When Jesus says "heal the sick" he does not say "as long as it is a Republican deciding how to do it." 

The politics of the pulpit and the cross is not the politics of party and personality.  It is the politics of the people of God living together in the City of Man, to use Augustine's language.  The politics of the pulpit is about declaring that all God's children are deserving of food, shelter, clean water, freedom to worship and the basic dignity owed to every human being.  The politics of the pulpit is about standing up to the forces in the world that would denigrate and degrade the children of God.  The politics of the pulpit is beholden to no party or personality, it is beholden to God and God's word.

If we want our pulpits to be truly free, we bind them to the liberating word of God in Christ Jesus and the promise that is the City of God.  Tethering the pulpit to the coattails of a political personality or even a political party does nothing but diminish its mission and anchor the pulpit to this world and the broken political machinations of the City of Man. 

* UPDATE  This entry was updated on 10/8/12 to correct a spelling error in the seventh paragraph.