Why I Rarely Support a “First Strike”
Only hours into the war in Iran, controversy is already spreading over the US targeting military and political sites. I have no intention of taking sides politically in this article, nor am I aiming to definitively argue for or against the current US involvement in Iran.
I realize this article might provoke controversy. Still, I want to explore the ethical dilemmas of armed conflict and explain why the concept of a “first strike” has been a contentious issue among Just War theorists for centuries.
I hope this article will prompt you to think deeply about the justification for any armed conflict. Our military is currently in danger right now. I challenge you to always pray for the brave men and women in uniform and for the families that stand beside them... even during times of peace. However, right now it is especially important to keep those brave warriors in our prayers.
I also believe it's important to remind you that the United States military is controlled by civilians. Our Constitution guarantees that civilian political leadership will always have authority over the military. I see this safeguard as healthy and beneficial for our nation. However, I recognize that it also introduces inherent challenges when making decisions about military use during times of war.
This is not a matter that can be outsourced. I believe the American public has a right to sufficient information about why we deploy soldiers into danger to justify any military intervention. If you think that this use of force is unjustified before God, you have a moral duty to change the country's leadership in the next elections. Conversely, if you believe that this war is justified in God's eyes, we both owe it to our faith and our country to fully support this military action. Essentially, first-strike military decisions should be an all-or-nothing choice for our leaders.
I realize this article might provoke controversy. Still, I want to explore the ethical dilemmas of armed conflict and explain why the concept of a “first strike” has been a contentious issue among Just War theorists for centuries.
I hope this article will prompt you to think deeply about the justification for any armed conflict. Our military is currently in danger right now. I challenge you to always pray for the brave men and women in uniform and for the families that stand beside them... even during times of peace. However, right now it is especially important to keep those brave warriors in our prayers.
I also believe it's important to remind you that the United States military is controlled by civilians. Our Constitution guarantees that civilian political leadership will always have authority over the military. I see this safeguard as healthy and beneficial for our nation. However, I recognize that it also introduces inherent challenges when making decisions about military use during times of war.
This is not a matter that can be outsourced. I believe the American public has a right to sufficient information about why we deploy soldiers into danger to justify any military intervention. If you think that this use of force is unjustified before God, you have a moral duty to change the country's leadership in the next elections. Conversely, if you believe that this war is justified in God's eyes, we both owe it to our faith and our country to fully support this military action. Essentially, first-strike military decisions should be an all-or-nothing choice for our leaders.
It’s not always spiritually justified
Great minds over the centuries have spent enormous time and energy defining what they believe to be a “Just War.” This principle has guided societies for many centuries. While most Western societies agree on the basic premise of just war principles, there is considerable controversy about whether a nation could ever be justified in using first-strike capabilities.
After years of dedicated study and reflection on the moral justification for initiating first strikes in war, I am reminded of the profound importance of moral clarity and courage. While I won't delve into my lengthy thoughts here, I believe the title of this article encapsulates my journey and convictions on this pivotal subject.
Essentially, the brightest minds have settled on two main viewpoints regarding the moral justification for a first strike. Over the centuries, many theorists have argued that there are never circumstances under which a country can justify initiating a first attack. Based on this, these scholars would contend that U.S. involvement in Iran cannot be morally justified and is therefore wrong in God's eyes.
Some argue a first strike in a just war is only justified in extreme cases, primarily to prevent a prolonged, damaging conflict by disabling the enemy and only when an imminent threat exists.
The debate centers on whether U.S. strikes against Iran can be morally justified and divinely approved, which is only possible if there is an immediate, clear threat. Since no country has ever definitively declared an attack, verifying an imminent threat is nearly impossible.
After years of dedicated study and reflection on the moral justification for initiating first strikes in war, I am reminded of the profound importance of moral clarity and courage. While I won't delve into my lengthy thoughts here, I believe the title of this article encapsulates my journey and convictions on this pivotal subject.
Essentially, the brightest minds have settled on two main viewpoints regarding the moral justification for a first strike. Over the centuries, many theorists have argued that there are never circumstances under which a country can justify initiating a first attack. Based on this, these scholars would contend that U.S. involvement in Iran cannot be morally justified and is therefore wrong in God's eyes.
Some argue a first strike in a just war is only justified in extreme cases, primarily to prevent a prolonged, damaging conflict by disabling the enemy and only when an imminent threat exists.
The debate centers on whether U.S. strikes against Iran can be morally justified and divinely approved, which is only possible if there is an immediate, clear threat. Since no country has ever definitively declared an attack, verifying an imminent threat is nearly impossible.
It’s never a sterile fight
The population has a divine duty to hold their leaders accountable. No action has greater consequences than involving the military in war. Despite advancements in technology, war inevitably causes death and destruction. Just days into the bombing campaign in Iran, casualties are rising both locally and globally.
I caution military leaders against falsely portraying campaigns as without casualties. Unfortunately, deaths are inevitable in every conflict, often innocent civilians caught in the violence. Leaders must fully grasp the violence and destruction involved before resorting to military force, ensuring politicians are aware of the true consequences of war.
I caution military leaders against falsely portraying campaigns as without casualties. Unfortunately, deaths are inevitable in every conflict, often innocent civilians caught in the violence. Leaders must fully grasp the violence and destruction involved before resorting to military force, ensuring politicians are aware of the true consequences of war.
It’s never a short fight
Over the past decades of military conflict, one thing we've learned is that despite advancements in technology and capabilities, there is no such thing as a small or quick fight. Ultimately, every war tends to become prolonged and drawn out. It might not always involve constant death and destruction—such as during the years between Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom—but the war will consistently prove more difficult than planned, bloodier than desired, and longer than expected.
Since conflicts are never brief, leaders must consider the potential consequences of their initial strike on their country. Because fights tend to become more violent than anticipated, they must recognize that no conflict is truly sterile. Consequently, the justification for a first strike is only valid in the rarest and most extreme circumstances.
My personal stance on the use of first strike within just war theory is rooted in morality and spirituality. I leave room for such rare and extreme cases, trusting that ethical judgment is crucial. However, when a nation’s leaders misjudge these ethics, they risk not only fighting foreign enemies but also pitting themselves against divine standards for a just war, with potentially catastrophic spiritual consequences.
Since conflicts are never brief, leaders must consider the potential consequences of their initial strike on their country. Because fights tend to become more violent than anticipated, they must recognize that no conflict is truly sterile. Consequently, the justification for a first strike is only valid in the rarest and most extreme circumstances.
My personal stance on the use of first strike within just war theory is rooted in morality and spirituality. I leave room for such rare and extreme cases, trusting that ethical judgment is crucial. However, when a nation’s leaders misjudge these ethics, they risk not only fighting foreign enemies but also pitting themselves against divine standards for a just war, with potentially catastrophic spiritual consequences.
3 Comments
Very well thought through and written Jeff. Hopefully someone that makes calls will read this.
nAATW!
n
As a veteran, former contractor, retired LE and follower of Christ, I agree. This will not be a short conflict and not everyone will agree with the U.S. striking first. This was a justified first strike and I believe our actions have saved many civilians from certain death at the hands of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I also believe that most believe that, regardless of what side of the isle they sit on. Some merely oppose because they oppose every move our current administration makes, right or wrong. May God watch over and guide our soldiers as they navigate this conflict.
My thoughts are that of a woman that served in the Army during Desert Storm. My son, daughter and son in law served in the Army during Operation Enduring Freedom. We have friends and family who were wounded or killed in these wars. Even those who came home whole often came home emotionally damaged. Those wars changed nothing in those countries or for ours. What would the mission in Somalia have changed if it had been successful ? Nothing , another warlord would have taken the place of the target of that mission. There has been no real threat to America from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc…since 9/11 who knows who was actually responsible for that ? In fact what did the wars in Korea and Vietnam accomplish ? We still have troops in South Korea keeping the peace. Vietnam is flourishing now. As a child I was told if we didn’t defeat the Viet Cong the communist would take control of the U.S. Well that didn’t happen. So many American lives have been lost. Many more lives were changed forever by their service in war and not for the better. I don’t want to see even one drop of American blood spilled in senseless wars. Ever notice those who are most enthusiastic about going war are those who know the least about it ? I have held wounded soldiers in my arms while they cried. I have talked a soldier with PTSD out of ending his life. I have held the flag next to the casket of my son’s best friend when he was killed in Iraq. I have cried with a soldier whose brother was killed in Iraq with 5 others. I have seen the pain in a mother’s eyes when she knows her child is never coming home from war, None of what those soldiers or their loved ones went through changed anything except for making the very rich who invest in the business of war much richer. In the army we are told to lead by example. I always did my best to do so. How can I respect a Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces who never served even a minute in uniform ? He has no respect for the rules of engagement, UCMJ, United States law, The Constitution or international law ? He is complicit with a war criminal as is his Secretary of War and Secretary of State. It was the same with the administration before this one. This administration has committed war crimes of their own. They have funded, armed and protected Netanyahu and his Zionist regime throughout the genocide of the Palestinians and also while the IDF has also committed heinous crimes against civilians in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc… They have killed medical worker, clerics, the press, aid workers all protected people in times of war. They have bombed hospitals, places of worship, infrastructure. They used phosphorus, bunker busters on civilian targets. What haven’t they done to violate the rules of war ? Yet the U.S. keeps up their full support. Our government has made the U.N. powerless to act through the U.S. veto power. Then their threats to the ICC and ICJ has made it impossible to act on the warrants to arrest war criminals. Trump attacked Iran without a vote of war from congress. In doing so he slaughtered over 170 children in a girl’s school and other civilians targets. Then tried to blame it on Iran. He is acting just like his buddy Bibi. He has failed to protect our troops and other Americans in the Middle East. He has left our military facilities, radar and other sensitive targets in the region unprotected because he rushed into war. He also left the countries allied to us in the area unprotected. Their aiding the U.S. military put them in danger of attack by Iran. Now that the war is a disaster, he wants countries he has disrespected and insulted for years to come to our aid in the Straight of Hormuz ? This war with Israel against Iran is the biggest shit show I have seen in my 65 years. We have lost important allies and the respect of any country that had any for us. I listen to the retired intelligence, high ranking combat officers and other experts in interviews who mirror my views. They have warned and warned about the power of Iran’s war capabilities but as usual Trump didn’t listen. Neither he or Hegseth is fit to lead a troop of Girl Scouts to a Sunday picnic ! I could go on more if I included the targeting of supposed drug boats and the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president and others to receive someone else’s Nobel Peace Prize ? I will not. I love my country but I am angry with and ashamed of our government. I pray for our troops every day and every night. Especially those in harms way. I pray for some miracle to end the conflict before we have a ground war. I just don’t see it happening with the war mongers, AIPAC puppet, Christian Zionist, those who profit from war and idiots in Washington. However, with God all things are possible,