“Was killing Osama necessary?” In the opinion of this author the answer is a resounding, “Yes!” However, many are not so sure. One of our local denizens, Eric the Half-Troll, is one such individual.
“I am very happy that they got OBL but I do not think it was worth it if we have to throw away the rule of law or our own humanity to get there.”
Obama sniffed that, “We must not take a victory lap.” Another progressive showed his disdain for our nation’s elation that the architect of this war was dead:
The spontaneous burst of patriotism seen across the country last Sunday was in poor taste.
This sort of attitude begs the question, “What is allowable in war (according to Eric’s of the world)?” Can we bomb the enemy as was done in WWII? Are we allowed to use area weapons such as artillery, as we did in WWII? Flamethrowers? Napalm? Landmines? Why is any warfare OK? Is the nation, and the people in it, worth defending?
Eric, and much of those who espouse such de facto pacifism have, either knowingly or unknowingly, taken the posture of the Evangelical Left, and become functioning Neo-Anabaptists.
Much of the Evangelical Left, so influential on Christian college campuses and increasingly prominent in Washington, D.C., relies on these neo-Anabaptist beliefs. Sojourners activist Jim Wallis, who last week launched a crusade against “cuts” in the 2012 federal budget, adheres partly to this tradition. These neo-Anabaptists demand total pacifism and reject the military.
Osama would kill as many Americans as possible. To him, killing all Americans was a religious duty:
We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.
When confronted by danger or evil, a serious argument can be made that protecting the defenseless (like the three thousand victims in the Twin Towers), should be a nation’s first priority. Dithering only leads to more lives lost. So how is it moral to allow more lives to be sacrificed on the alter of pacifism? Why are we not waging all-out war? This war in Afghanistan has been going on for ten years. What are the wages of this restraint?
There is no room for compromise or coexistence with one such as Osama; for it is he and those like him who shall not compromise, let alone make an accommodation. How does delaying the inevitable elevate us? Since all life is precious, then why is the defense of life not moral? The pacifist must answer this question, “Is not defense of one’s self and nation a basic human right?” Why does this wing of the American body politic seek to deny us the right of self defense?
“We should not lose our identity fighting the terrorists.”, is the common refrain of the left wing pacifists. Our national identity includes firebombing Dresden and Tokyo in the defense of our nation. Our national identity includes shooting Yamamoto out of the sky to shorten the war in the Pacific. We dropped atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII. Liberals hold up that war as the good fight? Back then, getting the war over with as soon as possible was the top priority in order to save American lives. What is it about double-tapping a monster like Osama that suddenly mars us? Since when is the killing of an implacable foe cause for us to lose our identity and humanity?