The operational leader for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was killed in an American missile strike in Pakistan’s tribal areas in the last two weeks, according to a statement the group issued late Monday that American officials believe is correct.
The militant leader, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, an Egyptian, was a top financial chief for Al Qaeda as well as one of the group’s founders, and was considered by American intelligence officials to be the organization’s No. 3 leader, behind Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, another Egyptian.
“His death will only be a severe curse by his life upon the infidels,” Al Qaeda said in a statement issued to jihadist Web sites and translated by the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors statements by jihadists.
“A statement posted on an al-Qaida Website said al-Yazid, which it described as the organization’s top commander in Afghanistan, was killed along with his wife, three daughters, a grandchild and other men, women and children but did not say how or where.” Associated Press
Considering the source of the information, I don’t know if it is accurate or not. Still, the use of drones to kill al-Qaida operatives in civilian contexts seems wrong from the perspective of the Christian just-war tradition. Even if the war is a just one, can a Christian use, or advocate the use of, means that do not discriminate between combatants and non-combatants? The Church cedes its voice to nationalism if it does not condemn unjust means to wage a just war.
Modern war makes war on civilians. We Southerners learned that in the 1860’s. Or are we owed an apology for Sherman?
Modernity kills its children, sanctions fornication and adultery, and promotes unbridled usury. The fact that modernity does something a particular way is no argument for its rightness. As Christians should stand against abortion, the debasement of marriage, and high-interest rate loans, so should Christians stand against injustice in war.
And of course we are not at war and there are no terrorists. Jihad is the way of peace. I learned this from John Brennan a few days ago.
Anglican, I would like to agree with you, but the problem is that in asymmetrical warfare one side in the conflict deliberately operates in a civilian context with the intent to use other humans as shields. To the extent that “just war” concepts apply to wars between nation states I am not sure that they apply here. I am not an expert on just war, but it does seem incongruous to operate outside the rules of war, surrounding yourself with family and friends for your own self protection, while killing other innocents, and then claim the benefit of those rules.
Anglicanconvert, are you then equally convinced the bombings of Heroshima and Nagasaki in WWII were injustices in war, even though those bombings save hundreds of thousans of American lives? When Churchill allowed the village of Coventry to be bombed rather than alert them of the impending attack and tip off the Germans that Britain had broken their code; did he commit an injustice in war, even though many thousands more British lives were saved?
To me a “just war” is one waged in defense of one’s self or in defense of another deserving of defense. Throughout most of Christian History, many Christians would have listed another basis for just war; to expand the boundaries of Christendom; but I think we have abandoned that position. If we agree the war is just, then I am left with what appears to be inescapable logic. We must be able to justly sacrifice a few in the effort to save many.
The civilians were not targeted by the military. The civilians were not placed in harm’s way by the military. The terrorists on the other hand, deliberately use civilians to try to shield themselves from combat and to cause political damage to the enemy when they are accidentally killed. The terrorists deliberately place civilians in harm’s way and hope that they are accidentally killed.
The terrorists bear the guilt and fault of civilians killed when they deliberately hide among the civilians. In fact, they have committed yet another war crime by hiding among civilians.
There is no gray area here. The terrorists are guilty.
Mitchell, As a Christian, I cannot say that an American life is worth more than a Japanese life, or a Afghan life, or an Iraqi life. The Christian tradition on just war requires justice in going to war, how one conducts the war, and what one does after the war. A war just in its cause does not, at least within the Christian tradition, warrant any and every means to win.
Tired, I don’t excuse the guilt of the terrorists. On the other hand, their guilt does not excuse our guilt. The women and children are targeted. My understanding of the use of drones is that they target civilian homes, which by their intention include the women and children, the non-combatants living there. They are not killed accidentally in cases such as these.
#8 Anglicanconvert,
I respectfully disagree. The civilians are not “targeted”. The civilians are collateral damage, just as Moammar Kadafi’s daughters were when he was targeted. The intent is not to kill the civilians. That is why precision munitions are used, at great expense; they minimize collateral damage. If the civilians were being targeted, a 21,000 lb. GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb [MOAB] weapon could have been used that would have destroyed everyone and everything above ground and below for about nine city blocks. There is a difference of intent that I hope you can see, otherwise, you are calling our military members war criminals and murderers. Killing and murder are different things that are distinguished by intent. Accusing our forces of intentionally killing civilians is not warranted.
It is sad and tragic that the terrorists choose to use civilians as a “shield” in such a cowardly manner. This further illustrates the difference between legitimate combatants, and unlawful combatants. The terrorists are solely responsible for placing the civilians in harm’s way. Their guilt is not ours, legally, morally, or ethically. The terrorists are blatantly violating Geneva Convention (Protocol 1) Article 51/2.
To see video of this type of terrorist activity, go to this link:
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-35446-israelnews-terrorists-use-palestinian-civilians-human-shields
Terrorists function outside the protocols of lawful warfare. U.S. forces operate within the protocols of lawful warfare (or they are brought to justice in the lapse). It is sad…very sad, that civilians are killed when terrorists are targeted – but make no mistake, [b]it is the terrorist’s intent that the civilians that die around them are killed, in order to exploit them for propaganda and to demoralize their opposition. Terrorists are actually trained to do this. To the terrorists, the innocent civilians are just another tool in his arsenal,[/b] to be used and exploited in order to achieve the particular political objective they have in mind. They are acting as criminals when they do this.
A comparable example would be when a police SWAT element accidentally kills innocent civilians during a hostage rescue attempt. The intent of the police was not to kill the innocent, but to bring the criminal to justice. I hope that you see that now.
“If the civilians were being targeted, a 21,000 lb. GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb [MOAB] weapon could have been used that would have destroyed everyone and everything above ground and below for about nine city blocks. ”
Tired,
That is exactly the analogy. The only difference is scale. When the USA sends a drone to a civilian home to kill a terrorist, it is intentionally killing whoever is in the house, including the children. In this instance, the killing of children and women who happen to be there is not traditional collateral damage.
On whether our military members are war criminals and murderers, that is obviously a nuanced call. At Mai Lai, the commanders were war criminals and murderers; enlisted soldiers who are following orders have a diminished level of guilt. My comments are on the commanders use of indiscriminate bombs to kill innocent children and women.
I also cannot see how the terrorists’ obvious guilt detracts from our own. We pulled the trigger.
What I don’t see is the Christian church, other than the Catholics, raising a voice to make sure that this war, as all just wars should be, is conducted in a just manner. I am afraid that American Christians so conflate America and Christianity that they cannot be critical of the way their government conducts war. The City of Man is not godly; the Christian Church should point that out when it can.
#10
“That is exactly the analogy. ”
No, it is not. The Predators are using the smallest munition possible to carry out the task of effectively killing the enemy and those munitions are precision guided. With respect, you are simply wrong. At Mai Lai, troops fired small arms at civilians. Small arms and aerial delivered munitions are in different categories, both legal and physically. The US is acting within the law and we are conducting a just war against those unlawful forces that attacked us.
The terrorists obvious guilt does not detract from “our” guilt because we have no guilt in this issue. The terrorists are entirely responsible because they are deliberately hiding amongst the civilian population in violation of international law. The fact that civilians are killed when terrorists use civilians as human shields does not impugn ethical, moral, or legal guilt on those that conduct just war against the terrorists. It does further indict the terrorists for their war crimes. This is a matter of settled law.
Angicanconvert, you site war within the “Christian Tradition”. I’m not sure what that means. What is the source of your information. Do you have scripture you wish to cite for your position that as a Christian I must surrender or concede defeat before crossing certain boundaries in my defense. Does that mean I always lose to a foe that is willing to cross that boundary? It sounds as though you have an ax to grind with America.
As a point of reference I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I believe America was justified in invading Afghanistan and in attacking Al Qaeda wherever they may hide. I also believe that any nation that purports to be our ally has an obligation to assist us in hunting down Al Qaeda. I also believe the American and British actions discussed above were justified and well within the boundaries of what is permitted in defense of one’s self.
It is always easy to take pot shots from the side lines. But you operate with no information other than the propaganda provided by the terrorists.
Tired, Don’t confuse the law with morality. The issue is not that the predators are the smallest munition possible to carry out the task of effectively killing the enemy. The issue is whether there are more just ways of killing the enemy without targeting civilian areas. It is one thing to target a military base, or a weapons depot, where civilians get killed in the process, as I understand the traditional meaning of “collateral damage”; it is another to target a civilian home with children and women. The intended kill, the terrorist, will be somewhere else at another time; there will be another opportunity to kill him. It may be less efficient, but it is more just and more compatible with the 6th Commandment, which is a touchstone for just war in the just war tradition.
Mitchell, Using atomic weaponry on a civilian target is the epitome of injustice in war. The failure to recognize it, it seems to me, is a demonstration of how one’s patriotism colors one’s Christianity, when it should be just the opposite. As Americans we should be ashamed of its use. Elizabeth Anscombe, a Christian philosopher on the faculty at Oxford, who stood up in protest of giving an American president an honorary degree because giving the degree in some way affirmed the use of the bomb on Japan. We should all learn from her witness. I don’t have any bone to pick with America. It is what it is, the city of man. The bone I have to pick is with those who confuse America with the Church. You ask for a Biblical citation; you cannot get any more pointed that the 6th Commandment: we have to conduct a just war justly, and that means avoiding the killing of the innocent. If to do so, we have to use less efficient means, to use Tired’s description, obeying God requires it.
This is an old thread. Maybe we can pick it up if something newer shows up. I appreciate your responses. One’s own thinking is clarified in dialogue.
Anglicanconvert, you still miss the point. Sometimes in war you have to look at more than one battle. When Truman made the difficult decision to drop atomic bombs on Heroshima and Nagasaki he was faced an assessment by his generals that a conventional invasion of Japan would take two years and would cost in excess of one million American lives, and propbably result in the loss of an equal or greater number of Japanese lives. By contrast the combined populations of Heroshima and Nagasaki was no more than a few hundred thousand. The decision was justified and probably saved in excess of a million innocent lives. America did not ask for war. The Empire of Japan instigated an unjust and unprevoked war resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands. All of those deaths, including those of their own citizenry fall on their head.
Likewise I am sure that our military believes the death of this Al Qaeda leader will save many more innocent lives than those lost in the effort.
anglicanconvert,
You seem to have a very limited concept of what constitutes just war and also seem to focus on one portion of Scripture (the 6th Commandment) at the expense of others.
“…it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”
God is just. God does not change. God ordered the following:
1 Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. 2 [b]The LORD said to me,[/b] “Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon.”
3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, [b]leaving no survivors.[/b] 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the [b]sixty cities[/b] that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 [b]We completely destroyed them[/b], as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—[b]men, women and children.[/b] 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves. Deuteronomy 3:1-7
This command from God and action by man was after the Law was given including the 6th commandment.
I think you need to give this another long hard ponder before you bandy about the notion that our military forces are murderers. They are not. Since God is just and moral and ethical and holy, and his commands are holy, then what he told the Israelites to do was intrinsically right. Obviously, what they did was not a violation of the 6th commandment, or God would not have told them to do it. Obviously, there are times in war when such actions are not only justified, but they are the holy will of God.
Oh, just so there is no doubt…
[b]Deuteronomy 2:31-35[/b]
31And the LORD said to me, ‘Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.’ 32Then [b]Sihon came out against us,[/b] he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. 33And [b]the LORD our God gave him over to us, and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. 34And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors.[/b] 35Only the livestock we took as spoil for ourselves, with the plunder of the cities that we captured.
Mitchell, I don’t think that I am missing any point. A just war requires using just means, and just means means not killing the innocent. My concern is that the US is using predator bombs without due consideration that they are targeting innocents if they target civilian homes to kill a terrorist. Now, it may be the case that the reports of women and children killed by US predators are false. If so, then my concern is unwarranted. I will be the first to admit that. However, if the intention is to kill the terrorist efficiently without due regard for protecting the innocent, then the US military is pursuing an unjust policy, an unchristian one. If you cannot see the difference between killing an innocent child and a combatant, as in the case of dropping an atomic weapon on a civilian city, then I am not sure whether we have much to talk about. That is to me the epitome of injustice. If you do not recognize that as a violation of the 6th commandment, then I am not sure where to go from here.
Tired, The citations you cite from the OT are irrelevant to this discussion. God is not the commander of the US armed forces. Whatever God can do, I am no judge. But I do know that Christian reflection on war from the 4th century has distinguished innocents from combatants, and one requirement is that military actions have to be directed at combatants, and have to avoid civilian deaths. The texts you cite make no distinction between innocents and combatants, and moreover it was not a defensive war. Using those texts to warrant dropping predators on the homes of children would be to abolish the distinction between just and unjust war altogether.
Up until shortly before the 4th century after Constantine, you could not be a Christian and in the military, for a number of reasons, including among others the necessity of using violence. With the conversion of the Roman empire, this hard stance went away because of the necessity of politics. The very notion of just war assumes that it is wrong to kill the innocent, which was my point in citing the commandment not to murder. I haven’t claimed that our military are murderers; that is your language and it does not at all follow from my comments. Nonetheless, I don’t know why you think that our military is not capable of being murderers, given original sin, the secular nature of our society, and the overwhelming pressure to get a war over as fast and as efficiently as it can be done. Dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian population as an example is just a case in point. Why should I expect Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, or Obama to make their decisions on the basis of Christian morality rather than political expediency?
Background to my concern: http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/3/9/americas-god
I would be interested to see how you assess this article from a specifically Christian point of view: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer
“The citations you cite from the OT are irrelevant to this discussion.”
No, they are perfectly relevant. The events described occur after the 6th commandment was given, therefore, they demonstrate that the activity described was not a violation of the 6th commandment, as you have asserted, since they were commanded by God and He does not contradict Himself. They demonstrate that at times, in a war, it is permissable to conduct operations of total destruction.
Is God just? Yes. Was He just when He had the first born of Egypt all killed? Yes. Your concept of justice is not Biblical.
The US military has gone out of its way to try and minimize civilian casualties. The US has spent BILLIONS of dollars on precision munitions to try to reduce collateral damage. The fact is, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid was a legitimate military target. He chose to hide among civilians. He chose to use civilians as a “human shield”. He chose to have them killed when he was legitimately attacked.
It was lawful, it was moral, it was ethical, it was just. The civilians deaths are entirely his fault. He was well aware of Predators and their capabilities and yet he chose to hide among civilians. BTW, they chose to be around him as well. They became casualties of war by the deliberate actions and choices of the terrorist Mustafa Abu al-Yazid.
“They demonstrate that at times, in a war, it is permissable to conduct operations of total destruction.”
Tired,
That has never been the Christian analysis of war. You simply eliminate the idea that a just war must be conducted justly. What God commands is very different morally and Christianly from what a human commander commands. That is a fundamental element of the human condition; if you don’t see a difference there, then I guess that there is nothing to say.
“Your concept of justice is not Biblical.” I would also be interested to understand what you think justice is. If intentionally killing an innocent child is not unjust, what is?
If you read the article from the New Yorker, you should recognize that the US has not gone out of its way to try and minimize civilian casualties. Your facts are wrong. I have to admit that I am hampered by the fact that my information is taken from the mainstream media. I am wondering what sources of information do you have that would give a better insight into the intentions of the US military than the mainstream media.
Obviously, we disagree. Fortunately, you do not get to set US policy nor do you get to sit in judgment of the military that go in harm’s way to prosecute this just war.
Nowhere does the proposition of just war state that innocents do not die in war and that if innocents get killed, the war is suddenly not just. The rule is proportionality. Mustafa Abu al-Yazid was responsible for the murder of thousands of innocents that he and his comrades deliberately targeted. He himself became a target. In killing him, some few innocents were also killed (because he committed a war crime and hid among civilians). It was a proportional response compared to his past and present actions and stated future intent.
Proportionality
There were 5 children on American Flight 77 aged 3 to 11 and there were 3 more children on United Flight 175 ages 2, 3, and 4. There was also a 17 year old in the buildings destroyed.
Aug. 7, 1998 in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded nearly simultaneously at 2 U.S. embassies and killed 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) innocents and injuring about 4,500. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Oct. 12, 2000 in Aden, Yemen the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged and 17 sailors were killed when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Sept. 11, 2001 in New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa., hijackers flew 2 commercial jets loaded with innocents into the twin towers of World Trade Center also loaded with innocents; and 2 more hijacked jets loaded with innocents were also crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. The total dead and missing innocents are 2,992. This was done by al-Qaeda.
June 14, 2002 in Karachi, Pakistan a terrorist bomb exploded outside American consulate and killing 12 innocents. This was done by al-Qaeda.
May 12, 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. This was done by al-Qaeda.
May 29–31, 2004 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia terrorists attacked the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, and took innocent foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 innocent people dead including one American. This was done by al-Qaeda.
June 11–19, 2004 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia the terrorists kidnapped and executed Paul Johnson Jr., an American, and killed 2 other innocent Americans and an innocent BBC cameraman in gun attacks. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Dec. 6, 2004 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia terrorists stormed the U.S. consulate and killed 5 innocent consulate employees. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Nov. 9, 2005 in Amman, Jordan suicide bombers bombed 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, and killed 57 innocents. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Jan. 12, 2007 in Athens, Greece the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries. Then again on
Dec. 11, 2007 in Algeria there were more than 60 innocent people killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria’s Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices. This was done by al-Qaeda.
June 24, 2008 in Iraq a suicide bomber killed at least 20 innocent people, including three U.S. Marines, at a meeting between sheiks and Americans in Karmah, a town west of Baghdad. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Sept. 16, 2008 in Yemen a car bomb and a rocket strike at the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work killed 16 innocent people, including 4 civilians. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Nov. 26, 2008 in India a series of attacks on several of Mumbai’s landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema wounded about 300 innocent people killed nearly 190 innocent people, including at least 5 Americans. This was done by al-Qaeda.
Just War
-the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
-all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
-there must be serious prospects of success;
-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
This attack met all the criteria of Just War.