Is it legal to bomb ISIL? Really?

One of the things said about the deployment of USA, GB and others' military  hardware in Iraq is that, having been invited to do so by the Iraqi government, it is legal to do so. Presumably we are talking 'legal' according to the United Nations charter. And it is true that the charter grants member states the right to self-defence and to call on help in self-defence. Ostensibly then, yes, it's legal.

But, as I said to someone yesterday, I'm not sure that it is "fully legal". By that is my suspicion that the means and circumstances count against what is actually being proposed. See paragraph 3 of Article 2:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Now, I think that this is meant to be consonant with ideas of just war in that just war theory talks about 'jus in bello', that is that the means employed in the circumstances should be likely to resolve the matter with the minimum loss of life, minimum damage etc.

It seems to me that this is an international dispute even though we are talking about non-state actors. I can't see how, once other nations are called in it can fail to be an international dispute: some of the actors are Syrian, and there are Turkish, Saudi, and gulf state interests involved. But the more important thing is not endangering international peace, security and justice. Given the likelihood that going about things in the manner proposed and given the likely next developments (see here) there is very much a danger to security, peace and justice internationally (which also makes it an international concern).

The probability that the repeat of civilian "collateral" deaths and maimings such as we have seen in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq will take place in this campaign. This injustice will further inflame those already frustrated and angry with the West's involvement in the middle east who are likely to seek to carry out violent acts in the wider world and so international security and peace will be further strained and imperilled. In short, the course of action proposed (as it is at this point -I expect it will be approved, sadly) contradicts a fundamental article of the UN, and so cannot be said to be fully legal.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is some doubt about the proposal on legal grounds, surely.

The Real History of the First World War

 Some of you may know that I'm involved in trying to organise some helpful and educative responses to WW1 and in particular to start by commemorating appreciatively the Christmas Truce when troops spontaneously ceased-fire an Christmas Eve 1914. The more I have been looking into things the more I have come to appreciate what a thoroughly bad thing that war was. As it says in the book:

"The First World war was caused by military competition between opposing alliances of nation states. these nation states represented the interests of rival blocs of capital competing in the world markets.

The British were able to adopt a holier-than-thou attitude because they had grabbed the biggest empire in the 18th century and then led the industrial revolution in the 19th. They favoured free trade because they were economically established.

They were able to portray the Germans as 'aggressors' and 'militarists', and to claim they were 'guilty' of starting the war, only because they were defending an existing empire rather than trying to create a new one.

But the underlying aims of the rulers of all the great powers were identical: to carve-up the world in pursuit of profit and power. The First World War was an imperialist war."

No Glory: The Real History of the First World War - Stop the War Coalition
See also the No Glory website

Research shows Humans aren't natural-born war-mongers

This study is not doubt going to come under attack, but I think it has resonance with our experience. In brief, the article  Humans Not Predisposed to War, New Study Finds | Common Dreams points up:

Countering the prevailing notion that humankind is naturally predisposed to war, new research suggests that primitive humans existed mostly peacefully, with war developing much later than previously thought.

Now, as to why I'm disposed to take this seriously, leaving aside my commitemnt to taking seriously Christ's teaching. I think that the activity of warfare seems to require a certain amount of 'psyching up' rather than being something we 'naturally' slip into. As the study seems to show, murder is more likely -crimes of passion, resentment etc. Organising a unmber of people to warfare is a very different league and requires organising, arguing for etc -a far more expensive endeavour in terms of psychic and physical resources. Then consider that to get people to fight wars takes quite a bit of training -including desensitisation to killing and cuing aggressive responses (and even then typical soldiers tend to suffer fear reactions more than 'bravery').

 As an expression of that expense can be seen in the mythically-enshrined ideologies of ANE; the Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths which 'justify' organised violence. So the Genesis 1 account which reads to me like a counter-story is significant because it pictures a peaceable creation process presumably deliberately telling a different tale to warring god-factions and thereby giving a different vision of human purpose and dignity which is presumably the theological point. So I would see this as providing a pre-historical evidence that the theological assertion I'm seeing in Genesis 1 is mirrored by human development in history, And that the development of warfare is a later cultural development which required, among other things, ideological underpinnings which Genesis is resisting and countering.

That's not to say that a rosy view of early humanity is propogated by the Bible -far from it. However, in line with this interpretation of evidence, violence in scripture is seen more as interpersonal (Cain and Abel) first of all.

Political poppies and not letting the Dogs of war silp

Following some intriguing discussions at University in the staff discussion group, it was interesting to find Ray Gaston reposting this article on FB.

Poppy chatter is a distraction from remembrance of the living | Libby Brooks | Comment is free | The Guardian:

One of the bits that got my attention did so because I had felt surprisingly outraged by the suggestion in some of the debate in the media that poppy-wearing is not political:

To deny that the poppy exists in a political context, as well as a historical and cultural one, is to exhibit quite baffling levels of wilful ignorance. It's also insulting to the armed services themselves, given how eager politicians of various stripes are to co-opt them to their particular agendas

Quite so, and furthermore: try wearing a white poppy or even ostentatiously not wearing a poppy and you'll find out what kind of political assumptions are carried.

I'm particularly keen that we keep this original motivation near the heart of our thinking about the matter, at the risk of commiting the cultural equivalent of the etymological fallacy. (I think I can avoid committing it because this is actually a negotiation about meaning in the contempory):

Remembrance commemorations have of course been controversial as early as 1919, when many returning soldiers were appalled by what they saw as the glorification of a squalid and meaningless loss of life

A thought echoed by one correspondan:

One former serviceman explained: "I don't wear a poppy with pride but as a duty to remember all those who died in so many stupid and wasteful wars where young men had to pay for the mistakes of politicians."

The point of the article seems to be to note the need to have a proper care for those our society asks, encourages or sometimes effectively forces into brutal and traumatic mental and physical situations.

veterans continue to be over-represented among rough sleepers; the suicide rate among younger ex-servicemen is four times the national average; the effects of deployment on mental health, often compounded by alcohol misuse, can take years to surface, long after the limited Ministry of Defence support has ended

War is bloody hell; if 'we' justify it then we should jolly well accept to do something about these kinds of consequences.

It makes me wonder whether we should pass legislation to make sure that decisions on the part of governments to deploy troops should be reflexivised: that somehow the consequences of that decisions should be capable of being visited on the decision-makers in order to help them not to make them lightly (of course they will claim they don't anyway, but in the light of Iraq, you've got to wonder whether the stakes for them personally are high enough).

When the previous government was talking about raising the period of detention without trial to 90 days, I suggested that we should tell the politicians that they could do that only if they were willing to to be bound to serve any of the time equivalent to that endured wrongfully by any and all those who might be held under those laws. I suggest a similar reflexivity be found in the case of deploying troops. Not sure what a proper reflex should be; perhaps something like, they would personally have to break the news of the death or do service in a veterans' hospital .... or, well, what would your suggestion be?

Military Social Influence in the Global Information Environment

A short while back, in giving my reactions to Dr Who of that week, I mentioned the Myth of Redemptive Violence. Well, this article brings home to me just why we need to pay increasing attention to the issue: the military are actively seeking to exercise hegemony in global society, that is they are seeking to win acceptance and a perceived 'naturalness' to their agenda.Scholarly commentary invited through December 2010.: Military Social Influence in the Global Information Environment: A Civilian Primer - King - 2010 - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy - Wiley Online Library: "This ongoing “revolution in military affairs” (Metz & Kievit, 1995, p. iii) has precipitated, among other things, a steady increase in U.S. military capacity to conduct social influence campaigns at every level of the modern world's information environment: in local, national, regional (or “theater”), and global spheres; in domestic and foreign populations; among individuals, groups, organizations, and governments"
Whether or not this is explicitly tied to MoRV, said myth is clearly a 'sleeper meme' in our culture that can be easily activated to mobilise a population to support, fund and give bodies to the war effort. Particularly when the military use phrases like "perception management", we realise that they are after our minds and consent. The article referenced here is written with this end in mind: "it is now possible, if not imperative, for those who study and teach about social influence to understand U.S. information operations, arguably among the largest, most controversial, and most influential social influence campaigns in modern times."
This is more, for the most part, than simply the old propaganda battles, the new realities of weapons and IT mean "Our military's enemies, ... are most likely to be small, rogue groups who attempt to prevail by winning popular support and undermining U.S. political will for war ...The argument here is that in most modern war, physical battles, if they exist, will be for the purpose of defining psychological battlespace ... terrorists are “armed propaganda organizations”" -perhaps that latter remark is at least partly exponented by Al Qaida.
The other factors impinging on this are the greater transparency that IT tends to foster so that atrocities are harder to hide and for those whose soldiery are from democratic regimes this brings a change of role, particularly when combined with heightened awareness of human rights and international law: "the transformation of the role of the individual soldier in the context of the increasing transparency of the global information environment, the decreasing utility of conventional weaponry, and the increasing power of social influence. It has been suggested that the modern soldiers of western democracies are essentially “heavily armed social workers” ... These troops work to change behavior in the glare of a multi-technology-based global media. They are obligated to minimize casualties, manage the perceptions of the global audience, and influence behavior through nonviolent means."
Now, much of that has been stated in terms that sound as if there is a push towards the more ethical and applaudable end of warfare. And not particularly supporting the tone I set when I began the post. However, we should note that all of the above can be used -is used- simply to make the case. What is still going on is the violent and repressive exercise of brute force in furtherance of political goals by non-consensual means. Iraq has shown us that information manipulation and spin are also weapons of war. The mention of the soldiers of western democracies carries with it a certain irony since their most recent deployments have, it seems, been to impose democracy by non-democratic means. I know there is more nuance to it than that, but it is really hard to tell it any other way to ordinary people in Muslim-majority countries -just take a look at the bit and pieces of reportage about the way that Libyans, and others, have viewed NATO involvement there: there is a lot of suspicion around.

Of course, trying to do this in a global environment which has a lot of bottom-up about it is (or can be) like herding cats. It's working in a complex environment and so MI and IO is going to be about trying to find 'strange attactors' in information and opinion terms that allow the forming of opinion round certain perspectives most conducive to the interests they represent. It's always going to be a dicey thing: there is a lot of awareness of power interests and their wiles.

So it is important that we as Christians, following the Prince of Peace and the one who said 'Put away your sword', should continue to 'fight the good fight' (Blake's "mental strife") to demolish strongholds; ie we resist MoRV and other alibis for keeping elites in power and most people in the dark -sometimes violently herded into the dark.

Bishops Jones and Ipinmoye, gays, GAFCON and warfare

I'm not wanting to comment just at the moment about the main substance of this article; encouraging though it is on a number of fronts:
Church Times - Jones queries conservative view on gays.

No. What I want to try to understand is what this bit means.

"Bishop Ipinmoye’s reiteration that he wished to remain a mission partner, in spite of Liverpool’s stance of being “on the way to a position similar to the Church’s attitude to pacifism on matters of homosexuality”."

What it appears to say is ... well, 'in spite of' indicates, normally, that what follows is disagreed with by the speaker or the reported-speaker. So, what follows should be regarded as stating a position with which Bp Ip inmoye disagrees. Therefore, what Bp Ipinmoye seems to be saying is that -given his perspective, remember- that pacifism is unbiblical and a novelty to Christianity brought about by compromise with cultural trends. Of course, this is the reverse of the truth. Pacifism is almost universally recognised to be the more biblical position for Christians (it's the natural interpretation of Jesus's teaching) whereas the non-pacifist set of positions is the 'concession' to cultural and political 'realities'.

The irony is, of course, (assuming that the reporting is fair and I've interpreted it about right) that by accepting the (I assume) just war position the bishop is adopting a basic hermeneutic and ethical manoeuvre which he is presumably disallowing in the sexuality debate. Yes folks, that's right; I think that if you can justify bearing and using arms as a Christian, then you have done the basic ethical and hermeneutical work to accept homophile marriage.

The hard work is really for those who are more disposed to the NT and the Church's original approach to warfare. For those who have already agreed that 'hard reality' and/or the demands of justice sometimes trump ethical 'niceties', then the game is up. GAFCONs emperor has no clothes.

So I call on GAFCON members either to take a distinctly and unequivocal pacifist position, or to recognise homophile relationships as marriageable.
If you'd like to see what James Jones said, look here.

Last first world war soldier Harry Patch

I don't know why or how but the page of this article is different from the RSS feed. The page referenced here: Mourners pay tribute to first world war soldier Harry Patch | World news | guardian.co.uk does not appear to have this from the RSS feed, and it's an intriguing omission /edit.

Officials from the French and German governments were also in attendance.
Marie-France Andre, the charge d'affaires of the Belgian embassy, read an extract from Patch's book, The Last Fighting Tommy:
"We came across a lad from A company. He was ripped open from his shoulder to his waist by shrapnel and lying in a pool of blood.
"When we got to him, he said: 'Shoot me'. He was beyond human help and, before we could draw a revolver, he was dead. And the final word he uttered was 'Mother.'
"I remember that lad in particular. It's an image that has haunted me all my life, seared into my mind."
After the reading, a Wells cathedral chorister sang Pete Seeger's Where Have All the Flowers Gone. The song was chosen by one of Patch's grandchildren to reflect his views on the futility of war, which he called "organised murder".

And I can't help feeling that the way that jibes against the military honours in the service is interesting and subverting. He told the truth, the military paraphernalia hides it.

Watch this case. Enlisted COing

One of the things military chaplains are supposed to do is to teach recruits about the ethics and morality of war. It may be that here is evidence that at least one of them succeeded in at least one case, the charged man in this case is saying: "when British military personnel submit themselves to the service of the nation and put their bodies into harm's way, the government that sends them into battle is obliged to ensure that the cause is just and right,"
Yes folks, that's one of the just war criteria. And relatedly, he may also be going for the 'reasonable chance of success' clause too: 'Glenton told the prime minister in his letter that the army mission would fail' See more here: Alleged British army deserter Joe Glenton appears at court martial | UK news | guardian.co.uk:

Winning the ultimate battle: against war

Not a total surprise if you've been keeping an eye on recent writings about evolution and humanity; particularly relating to neoteny (eg human societies are far less violent that chimpansees' and we manage to live at far higher densities with far less trouble) So go and read this New Scientist article: Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war: "rather than being a product of our genes, it looks as if warfare emerged in response to a changing lifestyle. Even then it was far from inevitable, as the variability in warmongering between cultures and across time attests. The Embers have found links between rates of warfare and environmental factors, notably droughts, floods and other natural disasters that impact upon resources and provoke fears of famine."
Much of the evidence seems to indicate war is a cultural construct rather than genetically programmed. The UN idea of building a culture of peace is well-founded. However, that doesn't mean that peace doesn't need working at. The thing is, are we prepared to invesst as much in what makes for peace as we have been in what tends to war?

Don’t let military hijack just war

This is very intriguing, from a meeting of US bishops ahead of the general convention. Church Times - ‘Don’t let military hijack just war’: "Christians should learn again their duties to all their fellow citizens in the Kingdom of God and in the US. “We have not truly taken up the responsibilities that come with the vast worldly power that the United States has enjoyed, and con�tinues to enjoy, for our fellow Chris�tians around the world and for humanity as a whole, our neighbors in Christ.”
This would mean remembering that both sides in a conflict were sinners, that the enemy was not evil, and was “ultimately our neighbor”. It means that the true costs of war, to everyone and to the environment, must be considered.
The Bishops also said that the Anglican Church must first show that it loves its “enemies” within the body of Christ, before it can show its love for its enemies outside."

Government minister talks sense!

I know! A man bites dog story!
David Milliband: "democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating". It is an argument he links directly with the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. "That is surely the lesson of Guantánamo and it is why we welcome president-elect Obama's clear commitment to close it."
There's more: "Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology,"
It's reported here.
The way it's reported here seems to hint that this is part of a strategic realignment with a new USAmerican administration. Plus cela change ...

Lest We Forget

On the theme of Remembrance, the other day, this article is intriguing: Monbiot.com � Lest We Forget: It looks at the causes of the so-called "Great war" and shows that it could have been avoided, just maybe. Very interesting. "Could the Great War have been averted if, in 1911, the British government had done as Morel suggested? No one knows, as no such attempt was made. Far from seeking to broker a European peace, Britain, pursuing its self-interested diplomatic intrigues, helped to make war more likely. Germany was the aggressor; but the image of affronted virtue cultivated by Britain was a false one. Faced, earlier in the century, with the possibilities of peace, the old men of Europe had decided that they would rather kill their children than change their policies."
I'm also wondering whether there is an alternative history novel in this?

Remembrance creep

I haven't got a lot of time to say much about this, read the article and think about next year... We must be wary of remembrance creep | Politics | guardian.co.uk. I must admit though that I have a similar impression about this: "My impression remains that the event grows bigger with every year that passes, but that comprehension does not. We talk about the horror of war but also sentimentalise it."
I suspect that for me I've long been uncomfortable with the occasion and so any ramping up of it's prominence is something that I am sensitive to. I think that it relates to the issue behind why white poppies came into being in the 1930's when a number of women became concerned that the red poppy remembrance was losing a focus on 'no more war' and becoming part of the myth of glorious war. As I say, I can't say more just now, but I do want to flag this up (pun intended).

military pornography

This is a mini rant. Actually 'rant' is not the right word, it's more a sharing of puzzlement.

It starts with a Christian friend building a model of a piece of medieval military technology and my thoughts moved from there to thinking that I was uncomfortable with the subject matter of the model because it was about a piece of technology designed to endanger life and property. I then got to wondering why it was that as Christians we generally think it's okay to have an interest in military history, literature and paraphernalia but would have problems with someone showing similar interest in the history of sexual infidelity, bondage equipment or pornography. And yet the Christian position on warfare is probably just as circumscribed as that on sexuality, perhaps more so: war is either not to be entertained at all, or if it can be then it is only a last resort with heaviness of heart. Given the justification given for engaging in war in the Christian tradition, it is actually pretty hard to justify certain levels of interest in matters military when compared with matters to do with sexual expression.

I suspect that this shows up a degree of acculturation which may not be healthy in western Christians and which makes, by implication, interesting comparison and comment on our attitudes to sexuality. I'm tempted to take the view that I won't accept certain arguments in respect of homosexuality unless the proposer of those arguments makes consistent arguments with regard to war and peace also...

Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers

My first reaction was to doubt that this would be possible, but my second was concern that it should be attempted at all.Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers | Danger Room from Wired.com:
"The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online. The Air Force recently put together a 'Cyberspace Command,' with a charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies. The Department of Homeland Security, Darpa, and other agencies are teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion 'national cybersecurity iniative.' That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers can test out the latest electronic attacks. 'You used to need an army to wage a war,' a recent Air Force commercial notes. 'Now, all you need is an Internet connection.'"
It might appear at first sight that cyber war would be more merciful, but let's recall that the point of trying this kind of thing is to be able to shut down things like power, water, transport: thus it is a definite turn away from respecting non-combatants and embedding total warfare in strategy.

What should our response be as Christians? Well for non-pacifists the erosion of just war principles is surely a matter for concern. For pacifists and perhaps for just-war-proponents, the issue may be how resistance looks in such circumstances ... still thinking about that; any thoughts or leads gratefully received.

Court clears anti-war saboteurs

I think that this is basically a jury in the UK recognising that some actions undertaken in Iraq could be illegal under international law and that, therefore, those who attempt to make it hard to carry out those actions are in the right. As one of those involved said; "It is a great relief - and a huge vote of confidence for anti-war protesters - that a jury were convinced that our actions were lawful."Court clears anti-war saboteurs | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited:

Russia cyberwar with Estonia?

This is worrying because I suspect it is a kind of warm-up, 'proof of concept' thing, and as one commentator said, "it would be difficult to prove the Russian state's responsibility, and that the Kremlin could inflict much more serious cyber-damage if it chose to."
The more serious things would be disprupting IT controls relating to communications, water, power ... just think if orders can't be made for food, or your power is arbitrarily off and on ... This is the shape of things to come, I fear.
PS. This Wired interview-article has helpful perspectives germane to the whole cyber war thing.
Russia accused of unleashing cyberwar to disable Estonia | Russia | Guardian Unlimited: