NO SUCH THING AS A JUST WAR? IS CHRISTOPHER HEDGES RIGHT?

I just finished listening to CBC Radio’s ‘Ideas,’ hosted by Paul Kennedy. Tonite’s show was probably a repeat, and had to do with Christopher Hedges and his ideas on war. Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize winning author, and a former war correspondent for the New York Times. The reason he was on the ‘Ideas’ program is because his views on war agree with those that are espoused by the CBC: the Americans are bad; their enemies are good.

The program is what you might call a ‘mash-up’: clips from a speech that Hedges gave at Ryerson University, and an interview with him about the subject of the speech: ‘War is a Force that Gives Life Meaning.’ The title is a put down on all wars, even just wars, by the use of sarcasm. Hedges does not believe that just wars are possible. He calls the wars that we have engaged in of late, ‘revenge killings,’ which he denounces. I guess this means that he doesn’t believe in bringing terrorists to justice. We condemn killers as subhuman savages, he complains. I guess we should use more polite language when referring to people who fly jets into skyscrapers and who hack people’s heads off in the name of Allah.

Americans have decapitated more people than Isis has, he maintains. He must be talking about so-called ‘collateral damage.’ He does not notice the difference, which is this: during war, Americans try not to kill anyone but the terrorists; the terrorists, on the other hand, with or without an official war, try to kill men, women, and children without distinction.

He complains of people inventing ways to kill and of taking trophies from their victims, wanting us to make the deduction that it’s the Americans who do this. But it is exactly what the Muslim terrorists do.

Not surprisingly, Hedges is against Israel, not just America. He speaks of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as ‘Israel’s assaults on Gaza.’ He speaks of Israel’s defensive maneuvers as if they were equal to beheadings.

So understand this: Israel reluctantly and carefully defends itself against its aggressors—its aggressors who hide their weapons behind their children, and Hedges equates this defense with beheading people!

Israel does everything it can do to go around the children that Palestinians place before their weapons, and Hedges equates this to beheadings! (I have written a fable about Israel’s conflict with Muslims in Gaza. I have pasted the link to it in my ‘description’ below.) 

Hedges will not call himself a pacifist, which is kind of smart since he had seven armed bodyguards to keep him safe in Iraq. He does not believe in war; but he is willing to have people risk their lives and to kill others, if need be, just to keep him safe during a war! How convenient and contradictory!

Hedges’ opposition to war does not come from any solid argumentation. It comes from an emotional reaction that he had from being a war correspondent. He got ‘burned out’ doing that job; so now he’s against all war, no matter how just. He came close to suicide because of what he saw and experienced, and so now he’s against war at any cost. Did he not choose his line of work? He should not foist his opinions on the public unless he can support them with something a little more substantial than a ‘burnout’! What’s his answer to the Isis problem? The same as President Barach Hussein Obama’s: vacate the Middle-East. And what is happening? Muslim extremists are murdering everyone in their path in their object to take the Middle-East over!

Though Hedges has nothing but his emotions to support his position, the CBC host ends the interview with him as if Hedges has the best and final word on the subject of war! Yes, Paul Kennedy finishes by saying ‘thank you very much’ in that fawning whisper that CBC reserves for its favorite propagandists.

If the clips that Kennedy includes in this program are anything to judge the speech by, Hedges quotes more from Greek mythology than from the Bible. He’s an ordained Presbyterian minister as well as a prize-winning journalist. So maybe he should quote more often from the Bible. What did he read when he was out there being a war correspondent? He read what most liberals hope they will someday be able to stomach: the writings of Marcel Proust. If he had read the Bible more, maybe he would know that Calvinism is far from dark, that faith is more than just the ability to believe in the good, and that the Bible firmly supports acts of war against wicked aggressors.

Here is the Bible’s position on war, from Ecclesiastes 3.8: “a time to love, a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” When Muslim terrorists come after you with mean intentions, it’s ‘a time of war,’ just like Solomon said. Is the New Testament in conflict with that verse from Ecclesiastes? Hear this, from Romans 13.4: “For he [meaning your ruler] is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Now if our ruler is supposed to be a minister of God to us for good, and if it is not good for us to be beheaded by Muslim fanatics, then the minister of God should take revenge on Muslim fanatics who are out to behead us.

And this has been a Puritanical opinion on the subject of war as put forth by Christopher Hedges, Paul Kennedy, and the CBC. 

The link to the fable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEZzBGy3i1A

The link to my monologue of this article:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBoqOxNxsk