A group from the Christian Peacemaker Teams has been kidnapped in Iraq. The organization has expressed that they refuse any rescue efforts that involve violence.
Should we (a) respect their wishes and restrain the military or (b) permit the use of force to rescue them from their captors?
I recognize that some of my serious statements and questions are sometimes misinterpreted as sick attempts at humor, so I'll be clear: I'm not joking, but asking a serious ethical question.
Subscribe in a reader
Got a tip?
Email John at zeraygazette at yahoo dot com
Geekery/Pop Culture
NeatoramaTopless Robot
Great White Snark
Popped Culture
Matthew Caverhill
Johnny Cat
Blogging Buddies
Jeff the BaptistIronic Catholic
Dan Trabue
John Meunier
Divers and Sundry
Bob's Brainstorms
Jockey Street
Operation Oxmyx
Humor Links
The OnionCracked
Questionable Content
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
xkcd
Abstruse Goose
Miscellaneous
PostSecretInstapundit
Ace of Spades HQ
Hell in a Handbasket
Brian J. Noggle
9 comments:
This is a tough issue.
I can respect their request. Even when it is justifiable, I don't know that I want any bllod shed for me other than the blood of Jesus. I am content that Jesus' answer to my needs, what ever that might be, is sufficient- Christ has died for me, no one else needs to. So I'd like to think I'd say the same thing if I were in their shoes.
But our military's responsibility goes beyong the wishes of the hostages. The decision on how to respond to these sorts of hostage situations lies in the hands of the US military and the Iraqi security forces. It isn't up to the hostages one way or the other.
Practicing non-violence in a time of war is risky business. The Peacemaker team is between a rock and a hardplace. But in war, even while pacifists hope for and work for peace, there must be a recognition that an army is going to act and think like an army.
And even the pacifist must realize that left unchecked, the group that holds and will eventually kil them is a threat to others who are not so willing to lay their lives down.
So not to be blunt (because I really admire the Peacemaker Teams and share many of their ways of thinking) but this isn't really about them anymore. What ever their fate, I pray that Christ blesses them.
But the decision to rescue or not will be based on strategy alone.
I would say that they need to try to capture those who are taking hostages. And parbar west makes a good point with saying that the hostages may have had a change of heart when facing death.
It is a tough decision though. I wonder if the army thinks it's tough though. I doubt it.
just a thought, but is this some possibly some planned martyrdom? people plan to be martyr's in the name of causes with violent measures. could it be considered that this is might be some parallel peace activism to become a martyr for? if so, are motives now selfish refusing help?
anyway, i read a quote from one of the people kidnapped in a sojourners weekly email where they professed being sick that they didn't do anything for peace, only talked about it. now kidnapped i find the situation sad, yet i am not empathetic...
We (or the Iraqis) should arrest the kidnappers. It's a crime, not a civil dispute.
Sad to say, the very reason why many military commanders don't want civilian tag-alongs is because the military unit cannot be personal protector and body guard. The picture is much bigger that any individual or group. In this case, an entire nation is as stake. And I don't mean to sound crass, but the US military command cannot concern itself with these hostages. It is a "local jurisdiction" matter that the Iraqis must necessarily deal with.
I'm a little amazed that they go into a known hostile zone and then when something goes wrong, they issue a statement against the US and the UK knowing that it was the bad guys who took them and have killed others who were only there to help.
Is this group trying to put out anti-US propaganda in the hopes that the anti-US group of terrorists/kidnappers/murderers will somehow have mercy?
Sorry but if you go into a combat zone knowing that others before you who were only trying to help rebuild the country were kidnapped and murdered on TV, you should not expect the military to stop what they're doing and come to the rescue.
Some good points have been made here. Like John, I can respect their request. And, I agree with Michael in that the military cannot be expected to take care of folks who knowingly enter into a hostile zone.
What should be done? I'm just glad that I'm not the local commander being placed in the position of making that decision.
Wayne
I would tread carefully and think long and hard before accusing these four men of being selfish or seeking out martyrdom. For those who question principles of pacifism/non-violence on the grounds that it requires the protection of the civil authorities, is this not an example of a group of people trying to put their particular ethic into action?
For a group that has protested the Iraqi war - presumably from the beginning of it, or even in the time leading up to it - how is sticking to their belief self-serving or in some way a form of propaganda? I disagree with the proposal that the anti-war statements made by CPT are some form of disguised "mercy plea" to the kidnappers.
In my mind, it goes down like this: Passionate believers in non-violent peacemaking make a commitment to live out this belief. Some of those people go into very dangerous situations knowing the potential dangers. When crisis occurs, the group is living out what they have already proposed to do.
I hope this doesn't come across as harsh. It just seemed to me like the comments so far have hinted at some kind of disdain for the CPT. I hope this adds to the discussion.
Josh,
It's not harsh at all. Your perspective is very insightful. I admit I had never considered it from that point of view.
I don't think anyone has seriously questioned the Peacemakers' motive more than they have questioned perhaps their sense of judgment!
I say this because these terrorists have murdered aid workers and civilian contractors alike. They mean to strike "terror" in the hearts of any who might oppose them. I hate to say this, but it seems to me that these people do not want peace or even to hear about it.
Once these Peacemakers were captured, however, the organization turns against the US and the UK almost as if to suggest that if we had not invaded in the first place, this may never have taken place.
I have a real hard time with that.
tough issue
but I believe we respect their wishes
Post a Comment