By Kerwin Holmes, Jr.
“The enemy gets a vote too.”
-a very common military saying
There has been much ado recently given the recent US American bombardments of select locations in Iran. This has come after a recent escalation of hostilities between Iran and Israel, with the latter having struck a preemptive blow and both nations engaging in rocket attacks (and no doubt other clandestine operations) to badger the other into submission. This continues even as the Succoth War1 has not ended in Israel, with no particularly clear objective presented as the end goal for determination in the Gaza region.2
True to form given the history with the first Trump presidential administration, the big media reactions to this military escalation have been nothing short of visceral, lambasting, and overall caustic. The usual assortment of three-lettered news organizations have produced their usual choir of analysis, and even the Grey Lady (The New York Times) went on record with a title page claiming that the United States is now at war with Iran3— something that it didn’t dare do when Obama utilized the same drone strike powers against numerous foreign nations. The NYT did this contrary to the legal fact that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war upon a foreign nation on behalf of the United States of America (being that Congress is the body politique that represents the will of those states in the republic).
The White House, to its credit, was swift to come out with PR and to issue an official statement of its own. President Trump ensured readers, given the rather embarrassing security breach that occurred earlier in the administration, that the American warplanes were out of enemy airspace during time of the statement’s release.
The media have their their own Kool-Aid to satiate their respective audiences. We will not drink their product. Rather, we will be looking at how this aerial bombardment and our reactions to it reveal a lot about ourselves, providing much needed opportunities for introspective mirrors.
Welcome to The Reasoner’s Corner.
Although I do not want to spend time chasing the media, I do want to point out that I very much appreciate the take that Peter Heck at Not The Bee provided. It is very much prudent to observe the reactions from 1) those in the USA who used to be in power, 2) those who want to be in power, and 3) those who are currently in power in order to identify what their priorities are. For some, it is simple: they are thoughtless partisan hacks who cannot put aside their desires for short-term wins to appreciate the shared national foreign policy– and its consequences– of the United States as a singular, unified nation. For some others, it reveals whether they first think of the future generations or their own vapid time in the earth’s spotlight. And still for some, there are yet other priorities.
But there are deeper considerations to take to heart today. And I want to highlight just 3 of them.
The first is from a particularly pragmatic angle that I know most readers of today are not comfortable thinking about. Yet, we must consider this if we are ever going to effect actual change and safety for our generation and those afterwards. The United States of America struck at the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pay attention to that word Islamic. I believe that it is well past time for entertaining the post-war consensus of World War I (yes, that post-war narrative) that arose after the fall of the Ottoman Empire– which itself had undergone some cultural changes before its fall. To speak of “the West” is to speak of the cultural descendants of those Christian states that survived the onslaught and breaches of the Islamic warpath that has been going on since the times of Muhammad and the Sahaba against any and all non-Muslim powers. This is just historical and cultural fact that the Secular Enlightenment and the rather miraculous collapse of Ottoman society in the 20th century cannot eschew.
As is commonly stated by military personnel, and a statement that has enjoyed recent rejuvenation thanks to former General James “Jim” Mattis, “the enemy gets a vote too.” Iran, quite literally, chose this fight. Iran has been choosing this fight for a very long time. And Iran has the religio-political motivation to continue choosing this fight so long as the god behind that motivation is not defeated and resisted. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, as it is very much the same as I have written earlier in a post nearly 10 years ago in “When A Spy and a Theologian Agree.”
It is not an accident that what has come to be known as Roman Catholicism, itself a 16th-century outcropping from the Medieval Catholic Church,4 has as its head the Roman Pontiff with no historical rivals.5 It is no accident that many words in Spanish, Sicilian, Sardinian, Italian, and even some words found in dialects of Southern French have Arabic origins. It is no accident that the Crusades were called (about 300 years after Muslim armies invaded up to the heart of France), and that the largely Western European warriors who responded to their call, though smaller in number to the Muslim warriors they traveled to face, were armed with years of battle-hardened experiences, superior arms and armor, and small unit warfare tactics already largely adapted to the cavalry charges of the Turks, Moors, Arabs, and whomever else modern historians decide to label the near constant medieval raiders of Western Europe (and the conquerors of Spain)…all the while conveniently leaving out the singular motivating factor of those raids.6
It is no accident that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 on behalf of the newly victorious regents of unified Spain (victorious against whom and why that specific year?). Nor is it a coincidence that the Portuguese and Spanish were seeking alternative routes to the spices of the Silk Road that did not rely upon the Muslim powers that were by then extremely hostile to anyone from the liberated Iberian Peninsula despite the immense maritime risks.7 Nor was it even a coincidence that those rulers traced the Muslim-dominated slave lanes along Western African land and seaways to eventually start off the Western Transatlantic Slave Trade that would embroil the largely Christian Western European powers in arguably the greatest systemic sin of Christendom in the Modern Era– just as Muslim powers had done previously and continued on the Eastern Coast of Africa. To this day, some Muslim nations engage in similar practices by convenience against numerous populations in places like Libya and Qatar.
The very first war that the United States fought as a nation was against the Muslim Barbary pirates who followed the raiding legacy of Muhammad (via the biographical sirat8 literature), the Qur’an itself, and the various schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) to kidnap and enslave US Americans traveling the Mediterranean seas…something Muslims had engaged in for centuries. We know why they did this because they told us. They were not provoked, and they did not need provocation. Many modern histories, including the one I hyperlinked into the word “pirates,” never even mention the core motivation for this aggression against Western European powers and their cultural descendants.
Suffice it to say, until the United States or any national power is willing and able to confront the Islam of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is merely pursuing a fool’s errand. An enemy is only defeated when he is defeated. And the first strike takes place in the heart, and not by the hand.9 Bombs and bullets are useful, but they are not adequate nor appropriate to fight against Islam and its warmongering god. The enemy fights you religiously, and those are the terms for their defeat. Thankfully there is a sizeable Christian underground in Iran, along with a myriad of other competing interests and competing ethnic groups (not all are “Persians”). There is room to maneuver, but not much.
The president said at the end of his address that he loves “God.” It remains to be seen whether that is the One True and Triune God,10 and even more, whether the leaders of the United States, including the Christian ones, still give their allegiance to Him. There is great truth in the old adage that “a man cannot kill a god.” God proved that in Egypt about 4000 years ago, and then trolled the forces of darkness again with that same lesson 2000 years ago on its anniversary date.
Secondly, it is clear that those who want to be non-interventionists should also take a good and honest look into the mirror. The big media have sounded the World War III alarm several times over the past couple of decades– apparently courted by bloodlust or internet traffic. But anyone with even an elementary school-level political understanding understands that in order for the strong kid to remain the strong kid, he must prove his worth from time to time. Eventually, when you are king of the mountain, even in the children’s game, you need to knock somebody down to keep your position. Someone will always try you.
Ever wondered why the tough keep up tough appearances, or, even more appropriately, why the tough keep a silent and quiet demeanor? It’s to avoid fights. The first person to appreciate the risk/reward ratio of a fight is the prize fighter. And sometimes, peace by strength is what is necessary. As one Christian strategist once penned, and which I cited in another blog, “Let he who desires peace prepare for war.“11 One must be willing, and able, to bully the bullies so that there is peace at the swing-set.
Many non-interventionists in the United States rightly call out the forever-wars and the ghoulish financiers who profit from the massive movement of unaccountable money and the distracted eyes of law enforcement. But, it still is true that if you want the United States to remain “the greatest nation on earth,” whether that metric be by material riches, life expectancy, living conditions, military prowess, or natural resources, you will have to be prepared to fight for the nation’s security. Often times this means men in green faces (or perhaps even more discreet) taking out enemies in secret and unnamed locations so that Becky can have her latte in the open sun of Arizona and Chad can have his beach day in Atlantic City without fearing a foreign sub emerging a couple hundred yards off the coast.
On the one hand, Americans want to be on top (which requires being a target). On the other, Americans want to be non-interventionist. Policymakers in the Trump base have to figure out somehow how to be both.
But I do so love the competing elements and contrary voices debating and arguing about the priorities of the nation. For one, they are arguing, which, yes, means actual dialogue. The Founding Fathers would be proud. And that brings us to the third and final point: many Christians are finally having a conversation about the inconsistencies in their respective views of “the Grand Narrative of humanity.” They don’t know what to do about the current events, and the various eschatological stances are once again scrambling to decipher the flight of the birds.
And Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson had a fight. And it was good and manly (from what clips I could watch without becoming too annoyed or distracted). The memesters may even call it glorious.
Christians really ought to be motivated to reassess their understandings of the Grand Narrative that God has been telling, totally voluntarily, in this world that He has created. For now, I throw my own two cents into the realm of competing ideas to say one parting message to my fellow Christians in the spirit of insight:
What Ted Cruz cited was said to Israel’s grandfather, Abraham, who fathered many sons, not to Israel uniquely. Ted Cruz is incorrect. What God promised in Genesis 17 concerning the land was and has always been a land grant far exceeding the small tract that God allotted to Israel during the conquest of Canaan. It was and always has been for Abraham and his sons. I too went to Sunday School, and I remember that Father Abraham had many sons, and many sons had Father Abraham.
In order for God to have fulfilled that promise, then clearly God did not mean for Israel as a particular nation to inherit all of the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates (which many erroneously call “Greater Israel” to this day). Reading even Deuteronomy 2, you will see that God explicitly states that He gave plots of that greater extension of land to all of Abraham’s sons in their own respective allotments and explicitly told Israel not to transgress their properties (yes, God included the sons of Lot as “sons of Abraham,” who also circumcised themselves per Genesis 17). Even Ishmael was circumcised by his own father on the same day as his father, on the day that they received the covenant– as were all of the unrelated male servants taken in by Abraham as his people. And Ishmael’s children had begun settling in their land even in the time of Israel himself. Israel, as the firstborn son and family heir and head of the Abrahamic covenant, a priest-king dynasty going from Abraham to Isaac and then to Jacob/Israel, was the last and the smallest Abrahamic nation to inherit his land.
Fun fact about Ishmael: Does your Bible say that God said “No” to Abraham in Genesis 17:19? Well, news flash, Paul’s Bible and the most common Bible of the Ancient Jews around the world for about 300 years says that God in Genesis 17:19 said “Yes.” Ever heard that in Sunday School?12
In order for the Church to move beyond its long and pitiful fight over the label of “true Israel,” as it misses the core point of God’s Grand Narrative and traffics in the very exclusivist, ethno-nationalist essentialism to God’s salvation that Paul wrote a damning letter against in Galatians,13 these conversations need to be had. The Church is so much more than could ever be contained within the one nation of Israel when the end vision is clearly God inheriting all nations unto Himself. And this is a trap that Christianity and modern Rabbinic Judaism have both been trapped within, for very different, and yet related, reasons.
All of this being said, I sincerely hope (and now you have plenty of reason to do the same) that the current military strategists are also gainfully employing honest historians and religious experts even as they decide the tactical movements of troops and munitions in their own lane of expertise. This conflict is currently irreversibly with the Islamic Republic of Iran, more specifically its religious ulama and devotees, and they get their vote as to whether there is conflict, and where/how that conflict takes place.
Because you don’t kill ideas with bullets. And you don’t turn to men to kill gods.
- See “Are You Not Entertained” to learn why I choose to call the war that appellation. ↩︎
- The dire and heartbreaking humanitarian crisis in Gaza is only exacerbated by the lack of a clear Israeli war objective and, by degrees of magnitude more, by the Islamist-terrorist motivations of Hamas. ↩︎
- The NYT has, helpfully, scrubbed that title page from their website as of the writing of this blog. ↩︎
- Both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism were born from the Medieval Catholic Church, itself part of the Western Rite (Latin Rite) tradition of Christianity. ↩︎
- This is to say that the other 4 major patriarchs (in Constantinople/Istanbul, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria in Egypt) are currently in historically Muslim-conquered territory. Such has been the case for so long, many forget that nearly all of the letters from Paul and most of the Church fathers from the Roman Empire for the first 400 years of Christianity came from the regions now known as the Muslim Middle East. Indeed, many indigenous Christians living in North Africa, the Levant, and Asia Minor to this day are divorced from this history. See this video for a breakdown on why that is. ↩︎
- I have already written in previous posts that I have no ill-will to any Muslims. In fact, I believe it is good and necessary to distinguish Islam as a religious code of ethics governed by the deity Allah and Muhammad his mouthpiece, and the Muslims who claim to adhere to those beliefs. I have also written that, while I will defend the religious liberty of Muslims from the confines and constraints of the Christian ethics that formed the United States’s First Amendment, I do not have any conviction or animus or desire or responsibility to defend Islam. Let Muslims do that, the same as I defend Christianity. And may the best god win. And God in Christ already has. ↩︎
- If you’re an anti-colonialist, then you cannot disagree with my terminology here, even if you are “secular.” But, please do realize that I am not writing to placate anyone. I am, however, trying to communicate as best and as openly as I can with what space I have. ↩︎
- The plural of “sirat,” “siyar,” also can be specifically used to mean the laws governing how Muslims engage in warfare against non-Muslims, though it too can be used for laws of jurisprudence and charting out the everyday “paths” for Muslims to follow in their everyday conduct. ↩︎
- This is why, Christian reader and non-Christian reader alike, Jesus warns us about having undue aggression or hatred in our hearts. See how Jesus taught to interpret the Torah in Matthew 5:21-26. ↩︎
- In order to love that God, you first have to repent for sinning against him. President Trump has famously (infamously) denied doing that. ↩︎
- If you’re a man, you should read that one. If you’re a woman, you should read that one. If you’re a pastor, you should read that one. And if you’re a Christian parishioner who is put off by this footnote, I mean you no insult, but you should definitely read that one: “The Sword of the Christian.” ↩︎
- This is a bad translation because in Ancient Hebrew the term of contention (אֲֹבָל), meant “Indeed” and not “Certainly not” as it does in Modern Hebrew today. You can see this in Genesis 42:21. Unless you know Ancient Greek, you can consult this English translation (and yes, it is rather Elizabethan). If you do read Ancient Greek, well, see for yourself here, and then go pray. Also, since this is from the Greek translation of Genesis, this can allegedly be claimed to be the “miraculous” translation of the Septuagint, which some Ancient Jews held was divinely translated by the 72 sages in Alexandria, Egypt. Learn more about that here. I’ll also add that just in the rest of what God said to Abraham, God says “I have heard you” in regards to Abraham’s petition for Ishmael. You can check with Ancient Hebrew scholars and even speakers of modern Semitic tongues like Arabic and Amharic. To say “I have heard you” in this context is understood to mean “I will obey.” In fact, “to obey” is often the English translation used for the same word in the Hebrew. Now, why would God say “No,” and then go ahead and do what Abraham asked? ↩︎
- And spiritualizing away the label of “Israel” doesn’t fix the trainwreck of baggage in understanding the full extension of the Abrahamic promise from the beginning, which was Paul’s point in Galatians. You are still left with the essential error that Jesus Himself preached against (and was almost murdered for) in the Gospel. Notably, unlike figures like Ruth (who actually also was an Abrahamite), Jesus chose two Biblical figures who never joined themselves to the Israelite community. ↩︎
The Reasoner's Corner 