Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I don’t really think that you are altogether correct in your assesment of either Iraq or Afghanistan. I have spoken to Iraqis that at least until the collapse of the north were grateful for the west’s intervention. The situation today in Afghanistan is from my reading far better than it was: in Education healthcare and the position of women. The fact that there is still an insurgency by the Taliban is not the West’s fault. If they were allowed free rein then A. would descend into chaos again, remember what happened in the football stadia. We are faced with many intractable problems where people resort to violence for political or financial gain, taking populations hostage with them. My argument is that like the recent UN resolution on Isis, we have no choice at times but to intervene with arms. To do this effectively takes an army. Man is clearly subject to bondage to violence which in it’s extreme form delights in maiming and terror. We who are not so bound sadly have to use force to contain the worst excesses of this. In an internet connected world this blurs the boundary between policing and warfare. We are not seeking the elimination of our oponents per se but only the restriction of their ability to do further damage. This has to of course be just with a purpose to create a sustainable peaceful resolution. To empty forces of all Christians leaving it to others of different belief would create for example an atheistic Islamic Hindu or pagan armed force. I would suggest that it is essential that Christians are well represented in all levels of our armed forces. So many great officers and men have been Christian and because of this have used only the minimum force necessary to carry out their missions-and that without hatred. Contrast this with the savagery we see elsewhere, and I think you might see a point.
I used to be a pacifist, refused to work on military projects like barracks and my sister was a founder of Greenham Common peace camp, but I came to see that I was inconsistent when after opposing the Falklands War I was glad Britain had reclaimed it from the clutches of a regime that routinely tortured and murdered its own citizens. I wish there were simple answers, but sin is sin and we have to cope with it at a societal and international level and in doing so we are also tarnished.
Be interested to see your comments/blogs in due course on responding to Islamic militancy. I am very heartened that so many ex Muslim/Muslim women are speaking up, and hopefully some kind of reformation can eventually happen. Till then sadly their men will fight.

I agree. Thank you!

Thanks so much for your encouragement, Susan!

Peter,
It is true that whenever I hear of atrocities, like against the Yazidi which you mention, I think, “Why doesn’t the West do something?” But Western interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have left those nations hugely worse off than 10 years ago. No refugees were fleeing then. And the bombing of Afghanistan was because it was falsely suspected of harbouring Osama Ben-Laden. Western interventions in Islamic nations have always left those nations worse off–isn’t it? A case might perhaps be made for US intervention in Korea and Vietnam….but at a huge, perhaps unacceptable cost, to US soldiers.
Aerial bombings are problematic because they hit civilians. Drone attacks are cleaner if they get the right person, and if it was “right” to kill the person. Perhaps history will see the person killed in a drone attack as a freedom fighter, trying to get the Americans & Brits out of his country?
I should have added that I don’t see any problem with non-combatant roles in the military, chaplains, medics etc. “A machine gun carrying police officer in a flak jacket at Heathrow airport?” No, I guess they they are necessary. Don’t have problems with armed police, who preserve law and order. It’s military intervention I object to. The people of Iraq should have removed Sadaam, as other Arab nations got rid of their dictators in the Arab Spring, By hounding him to death we got ISIS, which is far worse.
Thanks for responding. A blog is just a place to work out thoughts, and mark where you have currently got to in your thinking 🙂

I should have added that it is not morally ambiguous to be a chaplain or a medic in the miltary. But, as you will have seen, many of the recent wars are morally ambiguous, and some actions, like drone attacks, are morally ambiguous, if not immoral.
Peace 🙂

“Traditionally the Christian Church has held BOTH a tradition of pacifism AND a tradition of Just War. The two can be held in tension.”
Thank you, Drew. I do actually believe in just war. I think the war against Hitler was just, and eliminating ISIS is just. It’s just that most war is not just. Almost all the wars the British empire waged to keep the colonies were not just, and the nation lost so many lives for nothing. History will reveal whether Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan were just. I suspect they were not.
By joining the Army, you fight when you are sent to fight, you kill when you are told to kill, with little idea of whether it is a just war or not. (And as I said, most wars are not just wars). It is this that is problematic.

Traditionally the Christian Church has held BOTH a tradition of pacifism AND a tradition of Just War. The two can be held in tension.