Dispatch: The Language of War

The Language of War and the Theology of the Enemy

By Joseph Wakelee-Lynch

Once again in America's public life, we in the religious community witness the portrayal of a national conflict of self-interest as a battle between good and evil. Since the day of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Bush administration, recalling the Cold War and the Reagan era, has couched its campaign as a battle between the forces of civilization and the forces of mayhem.

	... piercing the government's moral veneer is essential for people of faith.

In justifying its war, the government believes it treads a narrow line between conducting a righteous war on one hand, and waging a crusade on the other. Conveying this perception of a reasoned, measured righteousness to the U.S. public, in fact, is essential in winning the battle of public relations at home. But piercing the government's moral veneer is essential for people of faith.

Early in the campaign, when the word crusade itself slipped from the president's mouth, worldwide outrage forced him to retreat. Bush took pains to say that the United States is not at war with Islam. But he didn't retreat from apocalyptic language.

The aim of terrorists, the president explained, is to assault Western values and culture. Terrorists, especially al Qaeda, are not simply our enemies. They are worse: They hate us for who we are, they hate our values, and they hate our very way of life. In the eyes of the U.S. government, the terrorists have abandoned their own claim to humanity. And if they are no longer human, we may kill them without compunction.

	There is a "theology" behind nuclear war planning, Powell said.

A few weeks later, President Bush took it upon himself to name an international "axis of evil," attempting to brand before the eyes of the world Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. For some, those comments brought to mind the mark that Yahweh placed on the forehead of Cain, after Cain murdered his brother. Cain, who feared retributive justice, believed he would be targeted for death. But Yahweh warned that no one may kill Cain, a bible precedent of which the administration, apparently, is unaware.

In mid-March, the government's plans for waging nuclear war became public. Those scenarios assumed that seven nations, some of which may seek or possess weapons of mass destruction, could be targets of U.S nuclear weapons. The president reaffirmed that he will indeed consider military options that include nuclear war. It is not surprising that the Bush government has crafted responses to a variety of military scenarios. Every administration does the same. But it comes as a surprise that the president has pledged to carry out the war against terrorism anywhere that it may be found.

But perhaps the most disturbing use of language so far came from Secretary of State Colin Powell. When the administration's nuclear war-fighting scenarios were revealed, Powell appeared on a television interview program to explain the administration's plans. He attempted to reassure America and the world that the United States does not intend to cavalierly launch nuclear weapons. There is a "theology" behind nuclear war planning, Powell said.

No doubt, Powell hoped to explain that nuclear war planning is anything but impulsive. But describing such plans as part of a theology offers a unique key to understanding the way the administration defines its political views and intentions.

	The Bush administration asks all of us to adopt its theology of the enemy.

"Theology" is the study of God. It is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as "literally the 'science of God.' " For Christians, the heart of theology is the nature of God and God's relationship with the human beings created in God's image. Understanding that relationship has for centuries been the vocation some of the world's greatest minds, from Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinas, and others up to the present day. Their thoughts, and those of many others over the centuries, have shaped our attempts to build societies that serve the good. Powell's allusion was a reference to some five decades -- spanning 11 administrations -- of study and debate about the uses of nuclear weapons by professional analysts trained in the nation's elite institutions. In the secretary's eyes, that debate is akin to the historical development of theology, and it is the product of reasoned, logical and responsible examination by the best minds of our time.

But Secretary Powell distorts the proper meaning of the word theology. Theology examines the relationship between God and us. The administration's theology, however, is not about us, but about "them." The Bush theology describes the enemy's hatefulness, moral bankruptcy, and fanaticism. That kind of enemy could not possibly seek a saving relationship with god. With such a comprehensive theology of the enemy, the government has no need for a theology about us (or, for that matter, itself) and, consequently, it turns no critical eye upon its actions. To the Bush administration, there is no question but that we are the moral actors, the representatives of values and western civilization.

The Bush administration asks all of us to adopt its theology of the enemy. It arrogates to itself the power to name evil in the world, while ignoring its own capacity for evil. It asks us to believe that there is no solution but a military one. It asks us to pay any cost in the war and to condone any methods it may choose to wage that war. It asks us to accede to its determination to define and then redefine not only the goals of the war but where it will be fought and even who constitutes the enemy. The president's theology condemns the enemy as demonic and elevates the nation to the place of ultimate value, articulating what is, in effect, a religious ideology of the besieged state.

We in the religious community can only assume that the government has intentionally adopted religious language in order to muzzle one of the few potential sources of dissent. Indeed, polls tell us that the enormous popular support for the war campaign extends into the U.S. religious communities, including their leadership. Some bishops openly support the government's so-called just cause. Others send to the president plaintive letters pleading for a cease-fire while ignoring the issue of injustice in the Middle East. That the Christian voice for reconciliation, peace and justice has been so effectively muted should be deeply alarming to any who believe the prophetic voice is an essential component of the church's ministry to the world.

The religious communities in the United States, perhaps especially the Christian churches, cannot grant the Bush government these powers and remain faithful. To do so requires us to deny the humanity of the enemy. It requires us to believe that righteousness is fulfilled in vengeance. It requires us to abandon the search for justice and the path of peace. It requires us to abandon forgiveness and reconciliation. It requires us to abandon the example of Jesus.

To support this war requires that we not be the church.

-- Joseph Wakelee-Lynch writes about religion and politics and lives in Berkeley, California.