Pro-life looks at War

I begin this installment with a bit of context. There has been massive divisiveness over the last several years over the meaning of “Pro-life.” Until just recently, the principle has been applied narrowly to the abortion question while largely ignoring other “life concerns.” I see it as a move in the right direction that many Evangelical groups are broadening their perspective to include reverence for life from cradle to grave. Those of us on the liberal end of the spectrum also need to do some work to broaden our perspectives as well. In particular, we need to be much clearer on the consequences of war.

Now, for sure, many on the left have waved the anti-war banner for some time. Still, even from that quarter, we too often hear qualifying statements about “just war” or “unavoidable military responses.” In my opinion, whether we are addressing foolish wars or defensible military actions, we should never forget the impact that war has on the surviving soldiers. Just today, the news media is carrying a story written by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press Writer highlighting a new study on Army and Marine families. It appears that the divorce rate is climbing as a direct result from the stress of war-related separations and, of course, injuries and emotional consequences. And that’s one of the lesser consequences!

The truth is that no matter how politically defensible any military action might be, the long term consequences on the soldiers and their families will always be substantial. I truly wonder if this fact is considered at all adequately when heads of state make decisions to go to war. This scenario is similar to corporations that make production decisions without considering the “externalized costs” in the bottom line. Somebody always pays the price, and it seems to me to be grossly unethical either to externalize economic and environmental costs or to externalize the costs of war on families and communities.

Many (perhaps most) young men and women are motivated to go into military service for noble reasons. Nothing in this blog should be construed as a criticism of them. My concern is that when they sign up, there is some troublesome “small print” in the contract. It is not possible to make an informed consent when the significant information is inadequate or missing.

Most soldiers know that they could be killed in war. Our culture affirms a certain patriotic beauty in such a sacrifice. Most soldiers know that they might be wounded in battle. But, I am making the educated guess that they would expect to be able to recover from their wounds. It’s a lot harder to imagine having to endure a long life with a missing limb or eye. It’s almost impossible to imagine living a long life with a debilitating head injury or with sleep- and relationship-destroying Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It’s even less possible to imagine the life-long impact of such injuries on their loved ones.

Theoretically, countries may face those situations where the use of military force is truly unavoidable. But, recognizing the massive human cost that always comes due from any war, the decision for military action had better be truly unavoidable. We have a moral and ethical obligation to our children and grandchildren “and to the seventh generation” to protect them from this long-lived living Hell.

In my humble liberal opinion, humanitarian aid and carefully reasoned diplomacy must be thoroughly exhausted before any more decisions are made for war.

I submit to you that this position is a necessary element of a “Pro-life” philosophy.

What do you think?

Wayne Gustafson
“No matter who you are, or where you are in life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
The United Church___of Christ