X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"christia%asuacad.bitnet@vaxf.colorado.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:26:04 -0700
From:         "Glenn Radinsky S05152@doc.flc.colorado.edu"
              <S05152@DOC.FLC.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      The military and other things

Dear Renee:

     You ask about whether or not the military should only
be used in situations of self-defense, it should it be more
"aggressive."  From my point of view, it is kinda hard to
separate these two.

     First off, the problem usually lies in determining
exactly what the national interest is.  Many people would
argue that we tried and failed to do this in Vietnam.  To
them, Vietnam was nothing more than a foreign country with a
tin-pot dictator who we were trying to keep in power because
he said the magic words "I am against Communism."  Many
people believed this, and thee people played a crucial role
in getting the military out of Vietnam.

     There were also a great many people who believed that
sending people into Vietnam was definitely in the national
interest.  These people say a Communist monolith in the form
of Soviet Russia allied with Red China.  The fear was that
the whole of southeast Asia would fall under the Communist
boot, putting allies such as Japan in a most difficult
position, gaining control over strategic shipping lanes,
etc.  For these people, the march of Communism had to be
stopped and the North Vietnamese were trying to win the
South Vietnamese to their cause largely by brute force and
the superior military hardware that was being supplied to
them by their Chinese and Soviet allies.

     Desert Storm was almost certainly "in the national
interest."  The blood that drives the economies of the
developed nations was in jeopardy, and the U.S. and others
acted accordingly.  If Kuwait had been nothing more than a
few tents and orange groves, a few diplomatic protests and
crocodile tears might have been visible, but the Marines and
others probably would have stayed safely in the U.S.  We are
facing more or less the same kind of problem in Yugoslavia.
The problem with this one is that it would probably take a
million or so soldiers to stop what is presently going on
over there.  These troops would have to be very heavily
armed and very prepared to use force.  I think that sending
people over there would be questionable in terms of national
interest (but definitely not in terms of humanitarian
interests, such as the present mission in Somalia), and
would probably end up being another Vietnam for whoever was
there unless they had a well defined mission and were
determined to solve the problem (commit large numbers of
serious troops).

     In summary, this debate has been raging ever since
there were militaries.  The basic problem with militaries is
that they are not needed until it is too late.

     Now for part 2--Should we as Christians take part in
the military machine.  I made a personal decision that if I
was drafted into the military to be a part of Desert
Shield/Storm that I would go.  This was not necessary, and I
would therefore think that God played a role in this.  I
think my answer is that I become part of a military
organization that is called to serve in a wartime situation,
I will perform my duties to the best of my abilities.

                     Just some thoughts,



                            Glenn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU