So, I have addressed the C.A.R. in two ways, the question of blame (Christian vs. Muslim), and the question of ethnic conflict or religious strife. The final area I want to address (thanks AM for the question) is what should the U.S. do in regard to this situation? And to say that I am torn on making a suggestion is only slightly less obvious than to say that I am usually torn between which 15-20 year old, single malt Scotch I should choose at a bar that has several to offer (full disclosure, I go for the Islay stuff first).
As a Christian I am appalled by the wanton disregard for the beings I believe are created in the image of God as well as the disregard for stewardship over the flora and fauna of the area which those created in God's image are given responsibility for on the face of the earth. So, any destruction of human life by direct action or indirect cause (unintended consequences) leaves me queasy, and I say this regardless of the potential necessity of endangering human life as a matter of individual or group security (I will never support rash decisions regarding use of force by any agent of government or man). In the C.A.R. I am troubled by the rashness of action on both the part of Seleka and Anti-Balaka (hey, anti-Balaka means anti-machete in Sango and Mandja (the local languages), so how do you justify chopping someone up with a machete if you are anti-machete?). If human rights, and the right to breathe is foremost among the rights of mankind in my humble opinion, matter to us in the U.S. then we should take action. Now, the extent of that action is the real question. Do we provide humanitarian aid--medical assistance, food and water, shelter building supplies--or do we take direct action to stop the root cause of the humanitarian problem--armed intervention? I am more inclined to the former than the latter. And this inclination is where I am torn.
My inclination is based on also considering the limited resources of government and role of government as opposed to the role of man. Government is responsible for, in my estimation and based on years of considering the question, defining and protecting the property rights and fiscal interests of their citizens. If we choose direct intervention in any hostilities in any country we must first ask whether or not intervening in this affair is necessary for the protection and promotion of the property rights/fiscal interests of our own citizens. As man, and as Christian, I am all for promoting the call to action on behalf of those whose quality of life can be improved by our own personal actions--so I donate time and money to efforts that will improve lives. However, as a responsible citizen I cannot see making government responsible for the quality of life for people in other countries unless direct connection with our own citizens property and fiscal interests are at stake.
So, for my own two cents, the fight in C.A.R. is not one in which the U.S. government should invest in direct intervention. Our course of action should be dictated by humanitarian concern. Our course of action should be provision of aid and support for improving the quality of life of all people in the C.A.R. Our course of action should be condemnatory of the violence regardless of the party responsible for the violence.
As a Christian I am appalled by the wanton disregard for the beings I believe are created in the image of God as well as the disregard for stewardship over the flora and fauna of the area which those created in God's image are given responsibility for on the face of the earth. So, any destruction of human life by direct action or indirect cause (unintended consequences) leaves me queasy, and I say this regardless of the potential necessity of endangering human life as a matter of individual or group security (I will never support rash decisions regarding use of force by any agent of government or man). In the C.A.R. I am troubled by the rashness of action on both the part of Seleka and Anti-Balaka (hey, anti-Balaka means anti-machete in Sango and Mandja (the local languages), so how do you justify chopping someone up with a machete if you are anti-machete?). If human rights, and the right to breathe is foremost among the rights of mankind in my humble opinion, matter to us in the U.S. then we should take action. Now, the extent of that action is the real question. Do we provide humanitarian aid--medical assistance, food and water, shelter building supplies--or do we take direct action to stop the root cause of the humanitarian problem--armed intervention? I am more inclined to the former than the latter. And this inclination is where I am torn.
My inclination is based on also considering the limited resources of government and role of government as opposed to the role of man. Government is responsible for, in my estimation and based on years of considering the question, defining and protecting the property rights and fiscal interests of their citizens. If we choose direct intervention in any hostilities in any country we must first ask whether or not intervening in this affair is necessary for the protection and promotion of the property rights/fiscal interests of our own citizens. As man, and as Christian, I am all for promoting the call to action on behalf of those whose quality of life can be improved by our own personal actions--so I donate time and money to efforts that will improve lives. However, as a responsible citizen I cannot see making government responsible for the quality of life for people in other countries unless direct connection with our own citizens property and fiscal interests are at stake.
So, for my own two cents, the fight in C.A.R. is not one in which the U.S. government should invest in direct intervention. Our course of action should be dictated by humanitarian concern. Our course of action should be provision of aid and support for improving the quality of life of all people in the C.A.R. Our course of action should be condemnatory of the violence regardless of the party responsible for the violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment