Just War in Defense of Others

[SemiThomist]

I’ve enjoyed Fr. Barron’s videos and so I was interested on what he had to say about Just War and the whole Libya situation. This part, however, was quite troubling:

In regard to the second standard, things get a good deal murkier. Traditionally, legitimating causes included the repulsing of an unjust aggression against one’s nation as well as the righting of wrongs in other nations or cities. Thus, in accord with that second specification, Thomas Aquinas said that a nation could go to war to punish a wicked king. Here we might see a ground for our pre-emptive moves against both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Also, it would seem to provide a justification for sending troops into, say, Rwanda while the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents was proceeding there without any interference. On the other hand, the Popes of the twentieth century, taking into account the terribly destructive nature of modern warfare, have ruled out the righting of wrongs criterion and have accepted only the repulsing of unjust aggression as a legitimating cause.

Is this true? Has Catholic doctrine ruled out going to war when there’s no other way to stop the great evil that’s confined to one nation (ex. Rwanda genocide)? The Catechism never exactly says what he does, though it does mention “the aggressor’s” damage to “the community of nations” (though it could be said that a nation doing damage to itself is, by that very fact, damaging the community as well.)

Does anyone know of any papal statements which would support (or contradict) what Fr. Barron is saying? If so, can we be sure they’re doctrinal, or just the Pope’s prudential opinion. I do find it hard to believe that if, say, a nation was comitting genocide and refused to stop it, the other nations of the world would be morally bound to just sit by as long as the genocidal nation kept their acts within their borders.*

*Assuming, of course, there was no other way to stop the crime.

 

[benidict]

I’ve enjoyed Fr. Barron’s videos and so I was interested on what he had to say about Just War and the whole Libya situation. This part, however, was quite troubling:

Is this true? Has Catholic doctrine ruled out going to war when there’s no other way to stop the great evil that’s confined to one nation (ex. Rwanda genocide)? The Catechism never exactly says what he does, though it does mention “the aggressor’s” damage to “the community of nations” (though it could be said that a nation doing damage to itself is, by that very fact, damaging the community as well.)

Does anyone know of any papal statements which would support (or contradict) what Fr. Barron is saying? If so, can we be sure they’re doctrinal, or just the Pope’s prudential opinion. I do find it hard to believe that if, say, a nation was comitting genocide and refused to stop it, the other nations of the world would be morally bound to just sit by as long as the genocidal nation kept their acts within their borders.*

*Assuming, of course, there was no other way to stop the crime.

The only reasons America goes to war, are Economics. Are there some good side benefits? Yep. But our wars are not fought to remove evil dictators, free slaves, bring freedom, or any other such nonsense. We fight wars for Economic reasons. Period. the “Cause” aspect is for consumption by the masses, to get behind the effort. Thats it. Sorry, I dont believe there is any such thing as a “Just” war. that being said, Im all for it. Our economic health is enough for me. and I like oil. You need it for a whole host of reasons other than automobiles. I just wish people would quit putting romantic reasons out there, as to why my brothers and sisters are sacrificing their lives and limbs.

 

[Patrick_Cox]

The only reasons America goes to war, are Economics. Are there some good side benefits? Yep. But our wars are not fought to remove evil dictators, free slaves, bring freedom, or any other such nonsense. We fight wars for Economic reasons. Period. the “Cause” aspect is for consumption by the masses, to get behind the effort. Thats it.

Sadly, I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.

In Zimbabwe there is a dictator (Robert Mugabe) who has been guilty of the cruelest imaginable atrocities for more than a decade now. He has brought a thriving country to utter devastation. Yet America has shown absolutely NO interest in Zimbabwe. The Americans amongst you reading this probably have little idea of what has been happening in Zimbabwe. Why? Because America has no economic interest in Zimbabwe. Very few countries of the world have a major economic interest in Zimbabwe. So why bother getting involved there? Rather just let them deal with it all themselves.

Now Libya of course has oil… say NO more…

Hopefully Americans do recognise that the rest of the world DOES understand when and why the American government chooses to get involved in some global situations and not others… and just how much this fact is a source of anger and frustration to much of the rest of the world…

 

[FightingFat]

The only reasons America goes to war, are Economics. Are there some good side benefits? Yep. But our wars are not fought to remove evil dictators, free slaves, bring freedom, or any other such nonsense. We fight wars for Economic reasons. Period. the “Cause” aspect is for consumption by the masses, to get behind the effort. Thats it. Sorry, I dont believe there is any such thing as a “Just” war. that being said, Im all for it. Our economic health is enough for me. and I like oil. You need it for a whole host of reasons other than automobiles. I just wish people would quit putting romantic reasons out there, as to why my brothers and sisters are sacrificing their lives and limbs.

Sadly, I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.

Me too!

In Zimbabwe there is a dictator (Robert Mugabe) who has been guilty of the cruelest imaginable atrocities for more than a decade now. He has brought a thriving country to utter devastation. Yet America has shown absolutely NO interest in Zimbabwe. The Americans amongst you reading this probably have little idea of what has been happening in Zimbabwe. Why? Because America has no economic interest in Zimbabwe. Very few countries of the world have a major economic interest in Zimbabwe. So why bother getting involved there? Rather just let them deal with it all themselves.

Zimbabwe can’t be engaged because of China, plain and simple. The Chinese have a cushy little number in there and they wont let us go in and take Mugabe out.

Now Libya of course has oil… say NO more…

Hopefully Americans do recognise that the rest of the world DOES understand when and why the American government chooses to get involved in some global situations and not others… and just how much this fact is a source of anger and frustration to much of the rest of the world…

I think your position could be a little too cynical. I think the majority of Americans do not want to be world police, without everything it costs them, without the connotations of the USA being land of the free and home of the brave. I believe they believe they are doing these things for the right reasons. Don’t you?

 

[FightingFat]

Is this true? Has Catholic doctrine ruled out going to war when there’s no other way to stop the great evil that’s confined to one nation (ex. Rwanda genocide)? The Catechism never exactly says what he does, though it does mention “the aggressor’s” damage to “the community of nations” (though it could be said that a nation doing damage to itself is, by that very fact, damaging the community as well.)

War can only be a last resort. Some quotes, as requested:
Pope John Paul II:

Humanity should question itself, once more, about the absurd and always unfair phenomenon of war, on whose stage of death and pain only remain standing the negotiating table that could and should have prevented it.

Pope John Paul II:

Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.

As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI was a staunch critic of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. On one occasion before the war, he was asked whether it would be just. “Certainly not,” he said, and explained that the situation led him to conclude that “the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save.”

“All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…” The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church."

Even after the war, Cardinal Ratzinger did not cease criticism of U.S. violence and imperialism: “it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction…It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world.”

Yet perhaps the most important insight of Ratzinger came during a press conference on May 2, 2003. After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq:

“There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.”

 

[Patrick_Cox]

Zimbabwe can’t be engaged because of China, plain and simple. The Chinese have a cushy little number in there and they wont let us go in and take Mugabe out.

Could I ask you to elaborate on what you mean here?

I think your position could be a little too cynical. I think the majority of Americans do not want to be world police, without everything it costs them, without the connotations of the USA being land of the free and home of the brave. I believe they believe they are doing these things for the right reasons. Don’t you?

I agree with you that many Americans would prefer their troops and government not to get involved in a “policing” capacity around the world. I agree also that many ordinary Americans do believe their involvement in certain international hotspots is for the “right” reasons - ie to bring democracy to Iraq, to bring back justice to an area rife with iniquity etc.

But I think many Americans themselves must surely recognise that American self-interest (economics) is the predominant determining factor in decisions by past American governments to get involved in some conflicts (and not others). As another example, if the American government genuinely has the interests of the planet at heart, why the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (to fight global warming) when 191 other countries have agreed to it… clearly there can be no other motive than economics…

 

[benidict]

Folks, please dont get me wrong. I would have loved to go into Rawanda. I think we should have gotten involved in Bosnia sooner, There are a whole host of murdering, rapeing, genocidal maniacs I would Love to take a crack at with my machine gun. Sudan is another such area. Sadly, I dont call the shots. The only comfort I take, is that when we are allowed to go into these countries. I can do alot of good. Also in the after math. There are a lot of good things happening here in Iraq. I love the civilian population. They are wonderful people. Just war? No. But in the after math, there can be a Just occupation, and a rebuilding. I think it is important to treat the civilian population right, when we occupy another nations territory. Peace

 

[FightingFat]

Could I ask you to elaborate on what you mean here?

Isn’t it common knowledge that China is hoovering up resources all over Africa? They’ve invested $30 billion in a bloody great railway in order to get all the goodies out!

businessweek.com/news/2010-08-24/china-railway-in-30-billion-south-africa-train-talks.html

They’re investing $10 billion in Zimbabwe, in mining and agriculture. Now that sounds pretty doesn’t it? What it actually means is that they are buying all the raw materials and food they can out of Zimbabwe to feed the monster that is the growing Chinese economy.

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/zimbabwe-china-10-billion-economy

Isolated from the West by UN sanctions, Mugabe has developed a cosy little friendship with Hu Jintao

china.org.cn/world/2010-08/14/content_20709312.htm

guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/27/china.zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe is having a whale of a time on his state visit to China. The Zimbabwean president has been made an honorary professor and praised by Hu Jintao, the prime minister, as “a familiar and much respected old friend of the Chinese people”. This is uncomfortable for the 700,000 Zimbabweans who have been made homeless in massive “slum clearance” programmes, the United Nations, and much of the rest of the world - apart, most significantly, from neighbouring South Africa - who see Mr Mugabe as a pariah who should be shunned rather than given the red carpet treatment he is getting in Beijing.

guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/28/china.zimbabwe

So he gets the nasty things he wants from China

guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/18/china.armstrade

 

[FightingFat]

Just war? No. But in the after math, there can be a Just occupation, and a rebuilding. I think it is important to treat the civilian population right, when we occupy another nations territory. Peace

 

[Patrick_Cox]

Isn’t it common knowledge that China is hoovering up resources all over Africa? They’ve invested $30 billion in a bloody great railway in order to get all the goodies out!

businessweek.com/news/2010-08-24/china-railway-in-30-billion-south-africa-train-talks.html

They’re investing $10 billion in Zimbabwe, in mining and agriculture. Now that sounds pretty doesn’t it? What it actually means is that they are buying all the raw materials and food they can out of Zimbabwe to feed the monster that is the growing Chinese economy.

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/01/zimbabwe-china-10-billion-economy

Isolated from the West by UN sanctions, Mugabe has developed a cosy little friendship with Hu Jintao

china.org.cn/world/2010-08/14/content_20709312.htm

guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/27/china.zimbabwe

guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/28/china.zimbabwe

So he gets the nasty things he wants from China

guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/18/china.armstrade

Just wanted to clarify that this is what you meant. Yes, it is a tricky one isn’t it. No-one wants to ruffle China’s feathers… Rather just claim it is better not to get involved and keep your own economic links with the rising superpower that is China in good order. Who would possibly want to stand up for what is genuinely right and good when this might jeopardise the nation’s foreign investment and international trade relations… The good old national self-interest always comes first doesn’t it…

 

[FightingFat]

Just wanted to clarify that this is what you meant. Yes, it is a tricky one isn’t it. No-one wants to ruffle China’s feathers… Rather just claim it is better not to get involved and keep your own economic links with the rising superpower that is China in good order. Who would possibly want to stand up for what is genuinely right and good when this might jeopardise the nation’s foreign investment and international trade relations… The good old national self-interest always comes first doesn’t it…

Exactly! It’s the duplicity that really concerns me. Our leaders bang on about this being the right thing to do, but there is no consistency in their actions. This leads one to wonder, what is the real agenda here, because it is clearly not the interest of the Libyan people, or we would have a go at Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi as well!

 

[Ender]

Is this true? Has Catholic doctrine ruled out going to war when there’s no other way to stop the great evil that’s confined to one nation (ex. Rwanda genocide)? The Catechism never exactly says what he does, though it does mention “the aggressor’s” damage to “the community of nations” (though it could be said that a nation doing damage to itself is, by that very fact, damaging the community as well.)

Good question. I am unaware of any change to the just war doctrine that would prohibit a nation from going to war unless if it had first been attacked, nor do I believe such a change has occurred. The criterion is “just cause”, not self defense.

As for all the charges that the US goes to war for economic gain, the silliness of such complaints should be obvious from the fact that … we haven’t sustained any economic gain from any of the wars we’ve fought since at least WWII nor, more significantly, was there ever even the prospect of profiting from them.

Ender

 

[FightingFat]

the silliness of such complaints should be obvious from the fact that

Thank you for considering the allegations so seriously!

 

[Ender]

Thank you for considering the allegations so seriously!

I can’t take those allegations seriously; there is quite literally no evidence whatever to support them. If you can believe it, the same characterization was made of our involvement in Vietnam: there was oil off the coast and we were there to claim it for ourselves. There are any number of rational reasons to oppose our involvement in the numerous wars we have been involved in, but economic gain from control of a nation’s oil isn’t one of them.

Ender

 

[FightingFat]

I can’t take those allegations seriously; there is quite literally no evidence whatever to support them. If you can believe it, the same characterization was made of our involvement in Vietnam: there was oil off the coast and we were there to claim it for ourselves. There are any number of rational reasons to oppose our involvement in the numerous wars we have been involved in, but economic gain from control of a nation’s oil isn’t one of them.

Ender

That is the point I was trying to make, saying that, on the face of it (the cost in terms of money and lives) it would seem that there must be altruistic reasons why the USA gets involved in all this stuff. However, there’s no doubt in my mind that there is an element which is about looking after American interests insofar as oil reserves etc are concerned.

 

[SemiThomist]

“All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…” The conclusion is one he gave many times: "the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church."

“There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.”

You have yet to show that this is Catholic doctrine and not just Ratzinger’s personal opinion.

On the topic of “preventative war,” I’m not so sure about that. If it’s plainly clear that an enemy is plotting to overthrowing you, and he has the means to do it, do you have to wait until he actually invades your country and commits war crimes to strike back?

I wonder what he was talking about by “given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups.” I know the Western world has been working a lot on precision weapons, making the risk of “collateral damage” from strategic bombing (to list one example) a lot less than it was during World War II. (I refer to the US bombing of German factories and other military-value assets in the latter conflict, not the area bombing practiced by Britain, Germany, and (in the Pacific) America.)

“…if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.” So, if (to cite one possibility) Egypt decided to invade Israel with the intent of slaughtering every single Jew in the country, that Israel would have no right to defend itself?

Also, I was not mentioning the United States per se, I was referring to any nation with the capacity for such an action. If, for the sake of argument, you were the head of an African country neighboring Rwanda and had the military capability to stop the genocide there (provided all other means didn’t work), would you have the moral right to do so?

 

[FightingFat]

You have yet to show that this is Catholic doctrine and not just Ratzinger’s personal opinion.

So that’s the definitive criteria for you? An ex-cathedra pronouncement? I think it’s clear from your own first post and from the comments of the last two great popes exactly how we should be interpreting just war theory. Start here: War is always bad. It is last resort stuff.

On the topic of “preventative war,” I’m not so sure about that. If it’s plainly clear that an enemy is plotting to overthrowing you, and he has the means to do it, do you have to wait until he actually invades your country and commits war crimes to strike back?

Are you talking about Iraq here?

I wonder what he was talking about by “given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups.” I know the Western world has been working a lot on precision weapons, making the risk of “collateral damage” from strategic bombing (to list one example) a lot less than it was during World War II. (I refer to the US bombing of German factories and other military-value assets in the latter conflict, not the area bombing practiced by Britain, Germany, and (in the Pacific) America.)

Yes, weapons are purportedly much more accurate today, but anyone with any experience will tell you that in the sort of circumstances we’re talking about in modern conflict, civilian casualties (which the military so coldly refer to as collateral damage) are inevitable.

If you live in Libya at the moment and support the rebels quietly, but Gaddafi has built a weapons bunker next to your block of flats and you don’t know, how much comfort is it when the allies blow your home up that the target was legitimate?

“…if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.” So, if (to cite one possibility) Egypt decided to invade Israel with the intent of slaughtering every single Jew in the country, that Israel would have no right to defend itself?

No, I think that is clearly an example where just war would be applied—the Israelis would be fighting for their lives against an enemy bent on exterminating them. The point is you have managed the circumstances in your example very carefully. They do not apply to Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

Also, I was not mentioning the United States per se, I was referring to any nation with the capacity for such an action. If, for the sake of argument, you were the head of an African country neighboring Rwanda and had the military capability to stop the genocide there (provided all other means didn’t work), would you have the moral right to do so?

I’d say it would be much more appropriate than us getting involved (by us, I really mean the west I suppose). For example, in Libya, I think it would be much more appropriate for the Arab league to be in command and taking care of this.

 

[SemiThomist]

So that’s the definitive criteria for you? An ex-cathedra pronouncement? I think it’s clear from your own first post and from the comments of the last two great popes exactly how we should be interpreting just war theory. Start here: War is always bad. It is last resort stuff.

In the first pope, I quoted Fr. Barron, who seems to paraphrase the “popes of the twentieth century.” (However, he provides no direct quotes to support his case.) I have seen no evidence to prove his assertion that “righting the wrongs of other nations” is no longer criteria for just war in Catholic doctrine.

I also believe Benedict XVI, as Pope, said that Catholics or free to disagree with him over whether or not the Iraq War (and such) meet the criteria of just war or not. (I’m not sure about that - I’d find a direct quote (if there is one), but the 'net seems wonky at the moment.)

Are you talking about Iraq here?

Not neccessarily … I’m thinking about a hypothetical scenario - if, for the sake of argument, Poland in 1939 was able to thwart the Nazi invasion by launching a preemptive strike against the German army (but not so much if didn’t strike first), would it have the right to do so?

My point is that just because Bush’s “preventative war” could be unjust mean all “pre-emptive” warfare is unjust as well. (Ex. If China is preparing to launch a nuclear attack on the US, does the US have the right to try and destroy China’s nuclear missiles beforehand?)

Yes, weapons are purportedly much more accurate today, but anyone with any experience will tell you that in the sort of circumstances we’re talking about in modern conflict, civilian casualties (which the military so coldly refer to as collateral damage) are inevitable.

If you live in Libya at the moment and support the rebels quietly, but Gaddafi has built a weapons bunker next to your block of flats and you don’t know, how much comfort is it when the allies blow your home up that the target was legitimate?

So … nobody should attack an enemy target, ever, if it’s remotely near a civilian place?

(Well, if I were the pro-Libyan rebel, and I found out about the bunkers, I think my anger would be against Gaddafi for putting the bunker there. Though I can see your point. Still…)

You seem to have a “hermeneutic of suspicion” here. While I wouldn’t be surprised if the military was exaggerating the effectiveness of their weapons, I’m still open to the possibility that they aren’t. I wonder if there’s any USAF Iraq veterans or other pilots who have used these weapons and can so comment on their actual battlefield accuracy.

No, I think that is clearly an example where just war would be applied—the Israelis would be fighting for their lives against an enemy bent on exterminating them. The point is you have managed the circumstances in your example very carefully. They do not apply to Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

So you do think the just war theory is licit in this day and age! So apparently Ratzinger, in his pre-papal comments about just war, was wrong.

I’d say it would be much more appropriate than us getting involved (by us, I really mean the west I suppose). For example, in Libya, I think it would be much more appropriate for the Arab league to be in command and taking care of this.

As for the Libya situation, I’m not sure there’s any real good guys there - yes, Gaddafi is an evil despot, but the Arab Muslims always seem to vote in the jihadis once they get rid of their tyrants, so…

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Good question. I am unaware of any change to the just war doctrine that would prohibit a nation from going to war unless if it had first been attacked, nor do I believe such a change has occurred. The criterion is “just cause”, not self defense.

As for all the charges that the US goes to war for economic gain, the silliness of such complaints should be obvious from the fact that … we haven’t sustained any economic gain from any of the wars we’ve fought since at least WWII nor, more significantly, was there ever even the prospect of profiting from them.

Ender

I completely agree.

Just because Iraq has oil, does not mean that we invaded Iraq for it’s oil. The cost of all the troops, missiles, and ammunition required to go to war far exceeds any possible gains, and the US clearly made no huge effort to secure oil facilities in Iraq after the invasion.

Same goes for Libya.

Research wars of the past, whether it be Roman wars, or the wars of Christendom, or the Crusades. War has always been a muddy process with expected gains and losses. Modern war is no different.

War never changes.

So that’s the definitive criteria for you? An ex-cathedra pronouncement? I think it’s clear from your own first post and from the comments of the last two great popes exactly how we should be interpreting just war theory. Start here: War is always bad. It is last resort stuff.

I’d say it would be much more appropriate than us getting involved (by us, I really mean the west I suppose). For example, in Libya, I think it would be much more appropriate for the Arab league to be in command and taking care of this.

It is true that war is a last resort, but, like lethal force, it need not be preceded by less-than-lethal action, even though in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it was. If you see someone engaged in an argument, and one person pulls a knife, you do NOT have to yell “stop”, or try to knock the knife out of their hand before you can draw your gun. If you believe the other person’s life is in danger, you can shoot the attack right then and there.

 

[GratefulFred]

Difficult decisions are difficult BECAUSE there are good reasons for either choice. Focusing on one set of good reasons (to fight) while ignoring the other set of good reasons (Not to fight) often leads to a bad decision, but maybe not.

Weighting the ‘good’ on either side of a decision is not easy. If I have 16 reasons on one side and only 4 on the other, it would be 4 to 1. BUT just one reason may be so important that it out weighs all the other reasons.

Timing matters too. What I can do or not do today is not going to be the same of what I can or not do tomorrow. What action I take (to fight or not to fight) may provide value in the near term but may prove to be very harmful in the long term. We cannot predict the weather well 5 days in advance, so how can we predict the result of a timely decison to fight or not?

Am I selfish or altruistic? Afraid or brave? With my own life, as compared with the lives of others in my country and in my enemy’s country?

The Just War Principles ARE very important. But can anyone say ‘responsible’ political leaders adequately analyzed these Principles before going to war? In America, political opposition always happens. And THAT causes leaders to do or not do things they otherwise would. Dithering increases the total loss of life. Or not. Now or at a future time.

If I found the courage to fight for my freedom and was loosing badly and you had the ability to help me and did not, what does that say about you? ((I don’t mean you, the reader of this, I mean ‘you’ the country that could come to my aid.)) Yet, by what right can I start an ill advised war for freedom and then expect you to send your people to fight and possibly die for me?

As to Lybia: If not for Tunesia’s and Egypt’s seeming success in discarding their recent leaders relatively peacefully, and if not for the rising in Yemen, Baharain, and Syria with loss of life, but rising up anyway, would Lybians have arisen? If not for Qaddafi’s clear promise of wholesale murder (he has before) would the UN have passed Resolution 1973 so quickly? If not for the “OK” from other Arab countries, would the US and NATO (mostly England and France) taken action to try an even out the fight in Lybia?

What America does or does not do and when, where, and how, needs to be accessed in view of the several uprisings for more Freedom in the Middle East. Our national interests are clearly at stake here. What we do or not do and when where and how really does matter.

NOW is the time to PRAY HARDER for a large dose of God’s Wisdom. We are headed for a “new normal” which will be better or worse depending on our courage to act in accordance with the WISDOM God will grant our leaders if enough of us pray sincerely and long enough.