Hellfire missiles fired by men outside Las Vegas sitting in Naugahyde Barcaloungers...

(Tim) Part of the work of pastors and elders in churches with military men is helping those men think through the morality of war, today. And lately, it's not been easy to say that the Christian man can enter any branch of the Armed Forces and accept any assignment.

Of course, we start with the Christian's opposition to carpet bombing and nuclear warheads. A basic commitment of historic Christian principles of just war has been the distinction between military personnel and civilians. No matter who orders them to do so, Christian soldiers don't kill civilians, intentionally.

There's also the matter of the mainstreaming of women in military deployments. This leads to at least two critical issues.

First, men going into the military must pick a branch of the service where they aren't going to have to live with gross temptations to fornication and adultery. Modesty matters to Christian men and women and this means the Marines are more likely a better choice...

than the Navy, where even submarines will have women mixed with men in the most intimate confines.

Second, if the pregnancy rate on ships in the first Gulf War was ten to fifteen percent, we can guess it's at least as high, now. This means a significant number of women in our armed forces are carrying unborn children. Again, this is contrary to one of the basic principles of just war: that every attempt be made to minimize the loss of life--particularly the lives of non-combatants. What could be more of a senseless risk of non-combatant life than sending a woman into harm's way who may well be pregnant?

There are many other areas of concern, but just one more, for the time being.

Back when gunpowder first came to the West, it was the subject of intense debate whether it was right for men to use it to kill one another. Some believed gunpowder allowed too much distance between enemies and that there should be personal engagement in the act of killing. It seems laughable, now, but consider the step we've recently taken, where the Hellfire missile blowing up a home and its occupants in Pakistan is flown to that home and the missile deployed by a man who lives in Las Vegas and will soon be at his young son's soccer game. Or at church for a deacons meeting. Or home in bed with his wife.

These are the discipleship questions of men in my church, and pastors and elders must help them apply Scripture and the confessions as they seek to follow Christ their Lord.

Here's an article that helps us think about this last matter.

* * *

This is combat in the age of video games and virtual reality. Even though drone pilots operate from half a world away, they are as engaged in deadly combat as any pilot inside an airplane.

A drone pilot can fire on an insurgent dug into the Afghan hills and be home in time for a backyard barbecue. In just an hour or two, the pilot can go from a heated argument with a spouse to a tense radio conversation with an amped-up soldier pinned down by weapons fire.

"On the drive out here, you get yourself ready to enter the compartment of your life that is flying combat," said retired Col. Chris Chambliss, who until last summer commanded drone operations at Creech Air Force Base, the command center for seven Air Force bases in the continental U.S. where crews fly drones over Iraq and Afghanistan. "And on the drive home, you get ready for that part of your life that's going to be the soccer game."

Drone crews don't put their lives at risk. Instead, they juggle vast streams of video and data. With briefings both before and after their missions, their workdays typically stretch to 10 or 11 hours. Many of the pilots are experienced military fliers, but the camera operators tend to be much younger -- often only 19 or 20, and new to the stresses of combat.

Just like troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, drone crews have access to chaplains, psychologists and doctors. They are taught to keep an eye on one another for signs of stress.

The psychological challenges are unique: Pilots say that despite the distance, the video feed gives them a more intimate feel for the ground than they would have from a speeding warplane. Some say they would prefer to be in Afghanistan or Iraq to avoid the daily adjustment from the soccer field to the battlefield. (continue reading)

Comments

Tim, correct me if something has recently changed but I don't think that women (at least not yet) are allowed to serve on submarines in the US Navy.

I'm puzzled by your opposition to nuclear weapons. Does this mean that the US should unilaterally disarm their nukes? Doing so would create a very dangerous world indeed. The fact of the matter is that industrial capacity is an integral part of a country's ability to wage war and the elimination of said capacity must be taken into consideration for war fighting, as it was in WWII. Our enemies, since WWII, do not seem to have any hesitation to kill large populations of civilians and unfortunately this is the reality of our world.

>>I'm puzzled by your opposition to nuclear weapons. Does this mean that the US should unilaterally disarm their nukes? Doing so would create a very dangerous world indeed. The fact of the matter is that industrial capacity is an integral part of a country's ability to wage war and the elimination of said capacity must be taken into consideration for war fighting, as it was in WWII. Our enemies, since WWII, do not seem to have any hesitation to kill large populations of civilians and unfortunately this is the reality of our world.

As I said, dear brother, I'm opposed to the intentional killing of civilians in the prosecution of a war. Women, the elderly, and children should not be the targets of bombs, whether conventional or nuclear.

So what are we to do?

Well, unfortunately, there are many Christians in the military who have no such convictions.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we've sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. But there were many more civilian casualties in Japanese cities due to conventional bombing than the nuclear warheads.

Concerning women on subs, it's my understanding it's in the works for this year.

Love,

>I'm puzzled by your opposition to nuclear weapons.

I'm more puzzled that he feels this is the normative Christian position.

The criticism of the use of drones could just as easily be applied to artillery or any weapon that is fired outside an enemy's effective response range. The nature of the targets chosen is driven by the nature of the men we target. They do not obey the laws of armed conflict and we see them hide amongst women and children. The traditional laws of war do not prohibit targeting such men. What is considered is proportionality and intent.

I live near Ft. Bragg. We have plenty of Christian men in service to their country that attend our church. I think God knows how to preserve them, direct them and use them in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unless you think God isn't big enough?

>>I'm more puzzled that he feels this is the normative Christian position.

Dear David,

Historically, what I'm citing has been normal Christian teaching. Here's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy summing up historic just war criteria:

"The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target."

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm

And here's the Catholic Catechism:

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons -- especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons -- to commit such crimes." (CCC 2314).

Interestingly, I was just talking to one of our congregation's Marines last week and we were discussing how much more dangerous things are for American soldiers now that, lately, the rules of engagement have been changed to do better at protecting civilians.

Love,

>>Unless you think God isn't big enough?

What??

Dear brother, this wasn't an anti-military post. But then, maybe to some any question of the morality of what our military presently does is by its very nature anti-military? Sort of the soldier's version of "My country, right or wrong."

Whatever readers think of the concerns expressed above, they were stated in a meeting of the PCA's Advisory Committee on Women in the Military and didn't elicit sniffs or guffaws. In fact, one of the men was an Air Force General who later became commandant of the Air War College. We became friends during our time of committee service and during one meeting this man said he would not use women to target.

Of course, I never thought my convictions were popular on the committee, but I wasn't ostracized.

Love,

Pastor,

>Historically, what I'm citing has been normal Christian teaching. Here's the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy summing up historic just war criteria:

>"The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target."

This passage perfectly illustrates why I am correct. I have not personally been involved in targeting for drone missions but I am familiar with the general guidance which would be applied to such targeting decisions. In no case are civilians targeted. As noted in the passage above the deaths of non-combatants can be justified if they cannot be avoided while targeting a military target.

That is precisely what is occurring. A genuine military target is identified and attacked. Proportionality is considered which is why relatively modest munitions are used in such strikes. In these strikes non-combatant casualties are unlikely to be avoided. This is precisely in line with the guidelines above.

On the other subject of serving with women in potentially compromising positions I'm surprised you bypassed the most blatant situation and one which has produced a Christian who lost his career because he was unwilling to come to terms with the situation. That is crew duty for missileers. These officers are in Launch Control Centers for roughly 24 hours at a time below ground, isolated from all personnel above. It is virtually impossible for these two officers to be surprised given the security measures in place. One Roman Catholic officer refused to pull crew duty with a female officer because he said it placed him in a compromising position. The Air Force found a RC priest of highly flexible convictions who said there was no religious issue at stake and the officer was punished and, I believe, removed from the service.

>>As noted in the passage above the deaths of non-combatants can be justified if they cannot be avoided while targeting a military target.

Agreed.

>>As noted in the passage above the deaths of non-combatants can be justified if they cannot be avoided while targeting a military target.

I thought of this case as I wrote, but didn't include it. Thanks for putting it up.

Love,

Tim,

Have you ever served in the military? Genuine question, I have no idea. However, I can probably guess by your post.

As to nukes in WWII, is it more moral to send over more than a million men to their deaths than to prevent those 1M+ deaths by killing perhaps 60K? Or should we have simply blockaded Japan and starved the population to death until they had enough? Would that be more humane?

War is nasty business. I'm sure that most of the Israelites who were ordered to kill every man, woman, and child in cities and villages had their moments of crisis. They had to do it up close and personal. Nukes were less personal, but they prevented vastly more casualties than they caused. Japan made that call for us by starting and waging a brutal war. They could have surrendered after Iwo Jima, but chose to put their entire population at risk. We merely finished it with the minimum loss of life on both sides.

The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't present any new moral challenges, UAVs or not. Cowardly enemy have always hidden behind non-combatants. That's just a fact of war. We do everything we can to minimize civilian casualties, but sometimes they cannot be avoided. Should we just give up and go home because some of the choices are difficult? Our faith should guide us to do the best possible under difficult conditions, but it shouldn't drive us to quit because of those conditions. No one makes these kinds of decisions lightly.

May I also remind you that even our best precision weapons don't have an insurgent-seeking sensor package. Precision is a relative term and things still go wrong, both in the targeting and with the weapons. Everyone from senior officers to the trigger pullers exercise the utmost care to minimize collateral damage. We even have specific weapons designed with that as a primary purpose, but things don't always work out in real life. Should we just quit and let Islamic terrorists bomb our shopping centers, bowling alleys, and churches over here? Is that a Christian option?

Our troops manning checkpoints have the same challenges that the USS Cole crew had. In these cases, you see folks coming, but you don't know their intentions. The best you can do is infer from their briefly observed conduct and adherence (or not) to instructions. The Cole crew saw the little boat coming with occupants waving but ignoring instructions. The crew didn't shoot. 17 sailors died and 39 were injured, many grievously burned. Fair trade? Acceptable risk? Not in my book. Worse, everyone standing at a checkpoint today knows that they'll be second-guessed, sometimes even if they do things right. To err is human, to forgive is not politically expedient.

This comment is already long enough to be a post by itself. All I'll say on temptation is that there are few if any unique to military service. The branch of service is irrelevant.

Tim, it's easy to make pronouncements from an armchair with no responsibilities. Real life isn't that simple or clear cut. I never doubted my calling, duty, or Christianity in 30 years of service. I say as a brother that I believe it's wrong for you to cause others do so.

>Tim, it's easy to make pronouncements from an armchair with no responsibilities. Real life isn't that simple or clear cut. I never doubted my calling, duty, or Christianity in 30 years of service. I say as a brother that I believe it's wrong for you to cause others do so.

Well I only had 20 years so I don't have that extra decade of insight but while some of his points were arguable (those would be the ones I argued with) some were spot on. And any officer worth his salt should have given thought to these issues and should welcome a minister serious enough about his flock to make them think about them. I had doubts in my 20 years, it made me think and made me a better officer.

David,

As before, I thank you for your service. By God's grace, the additional 10 years provided senior leadership positions and the insights and broader perspectives that come from those.

Other than on the issue of temptation, I don't see any disagreement between our comments. Mine simply offered a wider range of real-life situations.

As to a minister serious about their flock, I don't doubt Tim's sincerity. I question his understanding of military issues and his qualification to advise on the same. I think that's fair given the original post's contents.

Food for thought on the nukes, that's for sure. Also coming to mind are the prophets' comments about how the citizens did indeed suffer and die in war....starvation, cannibalism, and mass rape were all par for the course in those days.

I won't quibble about whether Christian soldiers ought to avoid civilian casualties, but it certainly would be hard to avoid inflicting them in war.

Another thought on the "hindsight is 20/20" express; if we'd actually kept out of WWI, Britian and France probably would have sued for peace in 1915 or 1916, Lenin would never have made it back to Russia, and Hitler would have remained an impoverished artist in Vienna.

And all the reasons we would have had for civilian carpet bombing in WWII and later would have evaporated.....

"if we'd actually kept out of WWI, Britian and France probably would have sued for peace in 1915 or 1916, Lenin would never have made it back to Russia, and Hitler would have remained an impoverished artist in Vienna."

highly unlikely since the USA didn't get into the war until 1917 & didn't really start fighting until 1918. Also the Russian Revolution took place in 1917 as well.

A couple years back, I made the exact same argument you've raised re: nuclear weaponry... I was astonished anyone could dispute that dropping an atomic bomb on civilians wasn't evil. This, as you've said, is a simple application of just war theory.

Following Chomsky--I don't say that as one who follows Chomsky as a rule, but just on this issue--I would go a step further. Here's the inflammatory part: what the U.S. did to Japan constitutes terrorism. It was a strategic scare tactic--it said "we can destroy you, all of you, even your women and children." That was, largely, the point. If the non-combatants aren't involved, the BOMB loses its psychological terror-inducing potency. Our military attacked their civilians; civilian death was the great end game.

One could make the same arguments for a handful of bombing practices.

And those arguments put 9/11 in a different perspective. While 9/11 bombers were clearly evil and the act itself deserving of the fiercest possible response, one of the most historically significant things about 9/11 is that for one of the first times in our nation's history, we were not the perpetrators of terror, but the victims of it. Clearly, it wasn't the very first time. But you get the point.

I'm smart enough to know this sort of statement would be laughed off. But I believe that some cases of nuclear disarmament would constitute a form of repentance.

To put this differently, America owns the market on bloodguilt.

And all my Republican friends begin organizing my lynching...

One should remember that a conventional invasion of Japan would have entailed fighting the same women and children, if they had not first been killed by atomic weapons. They would have been equipped with spears and knives. Paul Johnson notes in his volume Modern Times that after Hiroshima the head of Japan's nuclear program, Yoshio Nashima, was asked if there was any way he could duplicate the weapon within 6 months. I think we are fortunate that only two atomic bombs were required to end the war. Johnson brings up a great point-a government that for years had violated international law and engaged in various atrocities is bombed in retribution, and then complains to the Swiss embassy while planning how quickly they could build their own weapon.

Along the same lines, I believe that it was Paul Johnson (I can't find the reference) who made an excellent point about the development of the atomic bomb. The US invented the bomb, out of necessity, from the fear that Nazi Germany would develop the weapon first and mate it with a missile capable of striking targets overseas.

>A couple years back, I made the exact same argument you've raised re: nuclear weaponry... I was astonished anyone could dispute that dropping an atomic bomb on civilians wasn't evil. This, as you've said, is a simple application of just war theory.

I wonder how many of us have actually had access to targeting information for the US nuclear arsenal?

Anonymous,

Thanks for posting anonymously, showing us the extent of your courage and the firmness of your convictions. I'm sure that the over 300,000 murdered during the Japanese Massacre of Nanking, along with the ~580,000 Chinese murdered by the Japanese in "medical experiments" in chemical & biological warfare during WWII shared your fantasy about terror. They are likely joined by the 2,000,000 Vietnamese and 4,000,000 Indonesians starved to death by the Japanese. I haven't even touched on the Bataan Death March or subsequent torture and starvation of allied prisoners. Nor did I detail the repeated rape of untold numbers of Korea women as "comfort women." Didn't Chomsky teach you about those things? How convenient.

The question then, as many times in history, was the moral culpability of allowing such evil to continue or bring it to a halt as soon as possible with the least casualties. We correctly chose the latter. Having traveled to many of those countries and received the deep gratitude of people many decades later, there's no doubt in my mind that the U.S. made exactly the correct decision.

If there were a lynching, the Republicans would be the least of your worries. You are one sick puppy.

Dear Bob,

Anonymous is known to me, and I judged the reasons for anonymity reasonable. You've proven it.

Love,

Tim

>one of the most historically significant things about 9/11 is that for one of the first times in our nation's history, we were not the perpetrators of terror, but the victims of it

Actually that would be news to many Southerners along Sherman's march to the sea, although that was a milder version.

Or many Minnesotans who died at the hands of the Sioux in 1862 when they undertook the annihilation of whites in the state. I think that ripping a baby from a woman's womb and nailing it to a tree might count as terror.

Bobby Avant; the U.S. provided food, ammunition, ships, and more to the United Kingdom under incredibly favorable purchase terms, for years prior to the declaration of war. For example, 4.2 million Enfield rifle cartridges were on the Lusitania when it sank in 1915, and it is suspected by many that this was only a fraction of the ammunition on board that ship. Hence, it is entirely likely that had the U.S. not extended such terms to London, the Allied capability of waging war would have ground to a halt.

Ifs and buts, of course, but it suggests something of a new area for exploring the doctrine of just war; should a Christian refuse to provide supplies to belligerents unless convinced of the rightfulness of the action?

Mr. Mattes,

In a period of imperial expansion, hostile peoples must be displaced--speaking euphemistically. As an American, you must certainly understand that. And you should also understand that the U.S. abortion numbers over the last couple decades dwarfs the numbers you cited.

If I were Truman, I don't know that I would chosen differently, but I'd doubt whether my decision was right.

> Anonymous is known to me, and I judged the reasons for anonymity reasonable. You've proven it.

You blog, your rules. Just curious, were you afraid someone would burn his house down over his socialist opinions? Kidnap his dog for ransom out of outrage? Pile snow in his driveway to show him what's what? If the poster doesn't have the courage to stand by their beliefs, how credible is their statement of said beliefs? Not at all in my opinion.

I can abide disagreement. We have the 1st Amendment for that. I cannot abide cowardice. There's no amendment for that. Thanks for all the fish.

JK,

President Truman addressed his reasoning and afterthoughts on his decision to drop the bombs in many forums over the years. I think that one of his last letters on the subject says it best. You can read it at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1964-08-04&documentid=9-16&studycollectionid=&pagenumber=1 . Bottom line, President Truman "...never worried about the dropping of the bomb. It was just a means to end the war and that's what was accomplished."

For those interested, I found a letter from President Truman answering a Hiroshima City Council's resolution in 1958. It provides a more detailed insight into the President's thoughts. I find it an excellent portrait of diplomacy and leadership. A PDF of both the letter and resolution is located at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/73.pdf#zoom=100 .

>>I cannot abide cowardice. There's no amendment for that. Thanks for all the fish.

Dear Bob,

Knowing the situation and the man, I'm in a better position to judge his courage or cowardice than you are. Feel free to form your own opinion, though.

Love,

>Just curious, were you afraid someone would burn his house down over his socialist opinions?

I must have missed the socialist content in his post. I think he's wrong but I have no idea why you think he's a socialist.

David,

I don't know if you've ever read Chomsky. He's describes himself as a anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist. Since anonymous appreciates Chomsky's hate-America-first vitrol, which goes hand-in-hand with his libertarian socialist philosophy, I simply connected the dots. One can hardly get more left than that. Since anonymous doesn't have the courage to stand by his convictions, though, it hardly matters anyway.

>I don't know if you've ever read Chomsky.

I'm familiar with Chomsky. Thinking that someone, even a nutter like Chomsky, makes a point does mean down the line agreement. I think Ron Paul has a couple things right but he's a loon on some others.

Sigh. "does mean" was intended to be "doesn't mean".

"there's no doubt in my mind that the U.S. made exactly the correct decision."

Let's be clear. That decision was to kill roughly 100,000 women and children in an terrible instant. This is after killing 500,000 civilians and making 5 million homeless with the firebombing in other cities. The best justification Truman offered is essentially "You shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor." It was a stupid thing for Japan to do, but she was only trying to protect her oil interests. Americans these days should be able to appreciate countries doing stupid things for oil. Is Hiroshima and Nagasaki the price for such stupidity?

Maybe it is.

>It was a stupid thing for Japan to do, but she was only trying to protect her oil interests.

That is grotesquely simplistic with a false veneer of knowledge. She wanted to protect oil interests while raping Nanking and digesting Indochina, China, Philippines, Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies.

>Let's be clear. That decision was to kill roughly 100,000 women and children in an terrible instant. This is after killing 500,000 civilians and making 5 million homeless with the firebombing in other cities.

A terrible and awful thing no doubt. But which is worse, killing hundreds of thousands and destroying the homes of millions...or killing millions and destroying the homes of tens of millions through a prolonged siege of the island? Not to mention the tens of thousands of American men that would be killed, leaving thousands of widows, fatherless children, and childless parents.

In Truman's estimate (and I agree with his decision), the nuclear bombs ultimately saved lives on both sides compared to what would have happened had we been forced to invade and conquer the entire nation. Yes, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events, but the alternative was far worse.

Having said that, I agree with Pastor Bayly's main point that women and children should not be the intended target of our military efforts. Even so, there are times when that actually may be the higher moral road. And I have no objection to flying combat missions from the confines of home - the drone program means less risk to our people and less wives put at risk of becoming widows. That is a positive thing to me.

>>Having said that, I agree with (the) main point that women and children should not be the intended target of our military efforts. Even so, there are times when that actually may be the higher moral road. And I have no objection to flying combat missions from the confines of home - the drone program means less risk to our people and less wives put at risk of becoming widows. That is a positive thing to me.

Well, Mason; I have to love you here. Never thought you'd hear those words, did you?

Well, thank you for responding to the main issues raised in the post. We differ on them, somewhat, but it's a relief that you weren't simply a blowhard about war being nasty and real men fighting it to win, and apple pie and motherhood and my country right or wrong and anyone who asks questions of a soldier is a sleazy cowardly slimeball not worthy of the sole of my shoe and all that.

Love,

Tim Bayly

>I agree with (the) main point that women and children should not be the intended target of our military efforts

I think we can safely say that is never the case with the drone program...

>>I think we can safely say that is never the case with the drone program...

Yes, agreed. But collateral damage has been heavy.

Love,

>Yes, agreed. But collateral damage has been heavy.

Yes, and when our enemies cease hiding behind women's skirts it won't be a big problem. I don't see either a political or military constituency for the sort of bombing campaigns that we waged against the Germans or Japanese.

Mr. Gray,

Can we add Korea to that list?

By no means am I interested in minimizing the cruelty of the Japanese imperialists. Japan deserved what they got and worse. My point was that the U.S. is not very far removed from the same errors of history.

In 1945, the U.S. was less than a century passed sanctioning legal rape of female black slaves. In 1945, while illegal, how safe were black women? Five months after the war ended and occupation in Japan began, one in four U.S. soldiers had a venereal disease, sharing the many brothels in Japan set up for their use. There are harrowing reports of rape by U.S. soldiers during this time that I'll not make more explicit. One anonymous soldier wrote "We too are an army of rapists," in a letter to the Time Magazine editor, Nov. 1945. (Surrender was early September, I think.) Between 1950 and 1971, 6 million U.S. soldiers served in Korea; meanwhile 1 million Korean women served as sex providers to these soldiers. Vietnam probably has a similar statistics. Much of the military reports about these matters are classified for obvious reasons.

These days, the U.S. military reportedly rapes about a third of their own women.

>Can we add Korea to that list?

Sure, although Korea was occupied a lot earlier.

>These days, the U.S. military reportedly rapes about a third of their own women.

I don't believe it.

>These days, the U.S. military reportedly rapes about a third of their own women.

That's pure bunk. Where's your proof? This accusation is totally foreign to my, and I'll surmise David's, direct military experience. Helen Benedict, a radical feminist, created those numbers from highly flawed, carefully selected data and has been discredited. Nevertheless, like Kinsey did with his devotees, she continues to push them in feminist circles to gullible radicals.

As to your other assertions about US troops, TK, where's your proof on them? They sound like more John Kerry fantasies. Do isolated incidents occur and are they deplorable? Yes on both counts. But they are isolated crimes and prosecuted when brought to light.

I'm beginning to wonder if a love of truth holds any value for many Christians anymore.

Admittedly, I'm pulling this stuff out of resources available at my computer.

Here are the internet sources. Don't follow them if you don't want to feel sick to your stomach, especially the latter ones.

Concerning one-third figure... It's 30% of a sample of 556 female veterans including those from Vietnam to Persian Gulf Wars. So, I was off when I said "These days".

http://www.news-releases.uiowa.edu/2003/march/031103military-rape.html

The Department of Defense estimates less than 10% of the actual sexual assault incidents are reported. Apparently the DoD does anonymous surveys to come up with this number. (See pg 51 in the following report).

http://www.sapr.mil/contents/ResourcesReports/AnnualReports/DoD_FY08_Annual_Report.pdf

Concerning the sexual habits of post-WWII G.I.'s....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042501801.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation_and_Amusement_Association

http://www.japanfocus.org/articles/print_article/3148

http://books.google.com/books?id=4qdLb-LKtpgC&lpg=PP1&dq=editions%3ALCCN2001048307&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=omori&f=false

>Concerning one-third figure... It's 30% of a sample of 556 female veterans including those from Vietnam to Persian Gulf Wars. So, I was off when I said "These days".

>The Department of Defense estimates less than 10% of the actual sexual assault incidents are reported. Apparently the DoD does anonymous surveys to come up with this number. (See pg 51 in the following report).

So 300% of female vets have been raped?

"So 300% of female vets have been raped?"

Is this really a joking matter?

The VA did the survey of female veterans in 2003, coming up with that 30% number.

The DoD report has to do with active personnel (who apparently have an interest in not reporting sexual assault). The 10% figure probably comes from the gap between these sorts of surveys.

I'm sorry I didn't make the distinction clear.

>Is this really a joking matter?

How would you characterize your approach to characterizing America's servicemen?

>> Is this really a joking matter?

> How would you characterize your approach to characterizing America's servicemen?

Mr. Gray,

I'm not attempting a joke, if that's what you're asking.

How about you share your name if you want to continue this...

Regarding the question of what percentage of female soldiers are raped, I would guess the answer has a lot to do with the question asked. That is, were they asked if they were raped, or were they asked if they had sex once or more that was not wanted.

Now pressured into sex is not a wonderful thing, either, but I would hazard it's a different thing than forcible rape. Given that clear evidence of forcible rape (bruises, tears, etc..) results in long sentences in the military, I'd guess it's mostly "unwanted sex".

Still a great reason to keep your daughters out of the military, of course, but until it's clear what question was asked, I think we owe the benefit of the doubt to the military in this regard.

>Still a great reason to keep your daughters out of the military, of course, but until it's clear what question was asked, I think we owe the benefit of the doubt to the military in this regard.

Spot on. No Christian father should permit his daughter to join the armed forces.

"I think we owe the benefit of the doubt to the military in this regard."

Give unto Caesar... The strange thing is the Japanese deny/minimize Nanking on the same principle.

Christians have to be mindful that there is just one King over all kings. My testimony is that all men are depraved, even those in American uniforms. I have no particular ax to grind with American servicemen. American college women are subject to similar statistics as military women. We're a nation of men tempted by rape, just as much as Japan. It's foolish to assume otherwise.

"In Truman's estimate (and I agree with his decision), the nuclear bombs ultimately saved lives on both sides compared to what would have happened had we been forced to invade and conquer the entire nation. Yes, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events, but the alternative was far worse."

As somewhat of a joke... I wonder how much casualty Joshua's army would have incurred if they directly assaulted Jericho.

I'm in no position to pass judgment on Truman, since "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." But King of all kings is not blind. He knows exactly how many hairs were on each of the civilians that were burned by the firebombs or vaporize by the atomic blast. However much justified in the eyes of man, their deaths did not serve justice. What God says to Babylon in Isaiah 47 should make us tremble.

>My testimony is that all men are depraved, even those in American uniforms.

As are all women. What are you?

Pages

Add new comment