BRAD:
Summary of the Enemy-is-a-Cancer Argument: While we normally regard a
military enemy as people to be respected both during and in the
aftermath of warfare (as per the Geneva Convention), there are those,
such as extremist Islamic terrorists like Al Qaeda or totalitarian
leaders like Korea’s Kim Jong Il, who have so eradicated their own
humanity that the sole purpose of their lives is given to destruction
and killing. In the reality of an us-or-them scenario with such madmen,
we must view them as no longer human, but rather, as a deadly,
malignant cancer to be annihilated.
Origins of the Cancer Argument: It might be impossible to track the
origins of the argument. Is it taught in military boot camp? And who
introduced it there? Does it predate the gulf wars? Perhaps it’s rooted
in the war against Adolf Hitler—or perhaps Hitler’s own “final
solution” for the Jews provided a beta version in the first place.
However, for our purposes, I would take note of the first time I heard
the argument popularized by a civilian Christian leader at a national
level. Responding to Larry King’s observation that a pro-life stance
against abortion seemed inconsistent with a pro-war position in Iraq,
James Dobson answered, “I wish that it were possible to take Saddam out
without killing anyone. But it’s like surgery for cancer. There are
times when you have to undergo something that’s very painful and very
life-threatening in order to accomplish the better good.” (Larry King
Live, Feb. 7, 2002)
Dangers and Ironies: Some Fair Questions
1. When does a human become a cancer? A few fair answers present themselves:
a. When the sole purpose of the terrorist becomes killing (e.g. Al Qaeda).
b. When a regime can commit acts of torture / horror without conscience. (e.g. the Sudanese government)
c. When life and death, including one’s own, becomes expendable (e.g. suicide bombers).
2. The questions that need to be posed in a fair-minded way to this argument include:
a. Is it true that one’s humanity can be entirely surrendered? Can
one truly become so inhuman as to be regarded as cancer? I.e. Can
living persons cease to bear the image of God and render themselves
irredeemable? Is this demonstrable? Is this discernable? Who is
qualified to make this judgment… to pull the plug, so to speak?
b. Is it true that the terrorist’s only purpose is to kill and
destroy? Certainly this would be true on a particular mission, as it
would be with any good pilot on a bombing sortie or Marine during an
invasion. But on both sides of the fence, are there broader goals and
purposes—deeper motivations from their own point of view? In the hearts
of the terrorists, what drives them? Even if they are deceived, I would
argue that in any given terrorist, you might find the following
motivations:
– political: e.g. regime change of the Saudis.
– religious: e.g. obey God’s call to arms.
– justice: e.g. giving one’s life to oppose foreign military invasion / occupation.
– vengeance: e.g. an enemy has killed someone that they loved (a child, a spouse, a wedding party, etc.).
– desperation: e.g. desperation calls for methods that stalemate
opponents whose military advantage is impossible to defeat through
conventional means.
– dehumanization: e.g. they are able to kill others by deadening their
consciences to the fact that those who they kill are real people with
spouses and children.
SHANNON: I would add these to the list:
– sense of duty: that they are doing something honorable and worthwhile for their country.
– lack of options: Without a promising future with education or career
goals, militarism seems to be the best way to actually make something
of themselves. Now, of course the military is different than terrorism,
and I would not want to be accused of making them out to be the same
thing. But perhaps in the mindset of someone from that region, there
are similar motivations.
BRAD:
If any of the above is true, then I would suggest that (i.) the enemy
actually shares some common heart-motivations with us, and therefore
(ii.) either the enemy cannot be reduced to being non-human cancers, OR
(iii.) WE are in danger of losing our humanity and becoming the cancer
we fear. Are there warning signs of our own dehumanization? What dies
in us when we dehumanize the enemy? What does employing the cancer
argument kill in me?
SHANNON:
I have experienced this with friends that are being deployed shortly. I
cannot discern if they are truly dehumanizing people, or just trying to
be “tough” in order to prepare themselves for the worst. I have heard
them joking around about and taking lightly the idea of killing.
Hearing it made me a little sick. These seem like nice enough boys,
good American boys off to fight a war. Yet when I heard the regard with
which they treat the lives of Iraqis, I felt sorry for them, being put
into a situation that they really should not ever have to face, and
embarrassed that they are the ones representing my country to the
world.
BRAD:
I would suggest that the ability to see another person as a non-person
requires a level of damage to one’s own spiritual eyes (inability to
see Christ or the image of God in someone); to one’s eart (defeating
compassion to widows and orphans we are creating); to one’s conscience
(killing without grief or brokenness).
I would be afraid that the ability to see another person as a cancer to
be removed is the very spirit that drove the Nazis to eradicate the
Jews, the Rwandan genocide, and the ethnic atrocities of former
Yugoslavia. If for any reason I blind myself to the humanity of my
enemy, I have entered a dangerous realm of self-dehumanization.
If these are lives, and not merely cancers, then even in the
hypothetical realm of “just war,” taking a life should be, if not a
sin, certainly very costly. If they ARE merely cancers, and not humans,
why NOT implement horror and torture? It’s only a cancer. In fact, this
is exactly what now occurs in every military theatre regardless of
“sides.” On our side (the good guys), Amnesty International has
documented (first-hand) human rights abuses and incidences of torture
by UN troops from Nigeria in Sierra Leone, Canadian “peacekeepers” in
Somalia, American military personnel in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
As shocking as that should have been, even more troubling is the
phenomenal amount of political and media debate on the necessity of
torture to save lives. Consensus is actively being sought for a new
paradigm whereby “torture is necessary but not justifiable.” What does
this mean? Are we becoming the cancer we would extract?
SHANNON:
A person should never have the ability to judge someone else a
non-person. Calling a human being a cancer on the human race is
presuming that they are beyond God’s ability to redeem. I refuse to
believe that anybody has stumbled beyond the reach of God’s grace and
forgiveness. God is the only one who has the ability to stand in
judgment of us, and we do not have the right to impose our judgment
over His.
“Just war” is very unstable ground to walk on. I do believe there is a
time for war. When is that? That’s a tough one. War is not something to
be made light of, but if you take into account the full character of
God, you realize that He is ridiculously complex. He is without a doubt
a promoter of peace, as seen with the atrocities that Jesus put up with
in His final hours.
Yet He instigates, aides, and finishes wars. He kills one group of
people to protect another. He eliminates cities because of their
wickedness. It feels like mixed messages.
BRAD:
Perhaps the messages are intentionally mixed: God’s message of love
weaning us from our addiction to violence. In a sermon I heard by
American Catholic, Richard Rohr, he made this radical statement, which
I’ll just quote at length:
"Life is not a straight line. Life is three steps forward and two steps
backward. And that is the way you learn… The entire Bible is what Rene
Girard calls a "text in travail." The Bible does not just reveal the
conclusions. Now that’s what most of us would like. We’d like seven
habits for highly effective people, the way Americans would write a
book. But the Bible doesn’t do that. It doesn’t just give you the
conclusion. It gives you the process of getting to that conclusion.
Because it knows that that is the nature of human life—three steps
forward and two steps backward. Now the trouble is, people come along
who have no wisdom and they take one of the lines from the two steps
backward while the consciousness is trying to edge forward. And it only
finally gets there in the risen Christ. At the very end of the Bible,
you finally have the full free revelation of the non-violent God. But
when you start with the Bible, God is violent, God is toxic, God is
dangerous. No one likes God. They’re afraid of God, which has been the
story of all of human history. And if I wanted to give you one of the
great themes of the Bible: it’s the Bible is gradually overcoming the
violence in God. Now I hope some of you aren’t too shocked. I’m not
really saying God is violent. I hope you know that. I’m saying we are
violent… and you can only hear what you’re ready to hear. Because we
need and we want violence, we needed and wanted a violent God to back
it up. So you could take the Bible as an evolution of human
consciousness. And only with daring danger can God pull it [violence]
away from us."
Glitches in using the cancer argument
1. The glitch of child armies
One of the most disturbing trends in modern history is the emergence of
child armies. To paint a scenario, imagine a tiny village, anywhere
from Sierra Leone to the border jungles between Thailand and Myanmar. A
military outfit rolls through, destroying the village, massacring the
adults and abducting the children. The children are abused, broken, and
brain-washed until their little psyches are shattered. From that point,
still as children, they are equipped, trained, and released to roam in
packs from village to village, burning churches and schools, raping and
killing women and children, and dismembering or murdering people
without conscience. If ever someone were a candidate for the label
“cancer” or “inhuman,” it would be these children. The problem is so
enormous as to defy the imagination. Groups like Human Rights Watch
estimate that upwards of three hundred thousand child soldiers are
active in thirty conflicts around the world—up to 50,000 roam the
Thai/Burmese border creating hell on earth. Questions: Are these
humans? Are these cancers? Are these children? They make Al Qaeda seem
tame and even noble by comparison. There is a level of insanity to this
that requires our best minds to address it. The proponents of the
cancer argument, if they are consistent, ought to propose genocide.
Kill them all. Though they were innocent, kidnapped, and abused victims
of an evil system, they are no longer human and if they are not utterly
wiped out, they will abduct and recruit even more. They are guilty of
genocide. Only genocide will end it. My problem with this is that now
we would be guilty of genocide. Who should wipe us out?
SHANNON:
That is the paradox right there. A catch 22. If genocide is wrong, then
how can genocide be an appropriate way of stopping it? I think that is
where the “cancer” argument goes beyond simply a war. In a war, some
people die, some people live, some people are imprisoned, some people
are given a new chance at life. In the “cancer” position, it calls for
mechanical, heartless elimination.
BRAD:
We might argue that this would be for the greater good. But perhaps a
greater good that requires genocide—a greater good that makes me a mass
killer—is not a greater good. Peace by genocide. I find it in the Old
Testament. I do not find it in Jesus. Could there be a better way?
SHANNON:
I think that God is consistent. I think that He would not have done the
things that He did in the Old Testament if they were wrong. God does
not make wrong choices. I do not pretend to understand why God is the
way he is. It is downright troubling to try and take that burden up. We
need to be careful to not pass out own judgments. I find a good lesson
to be found in the story of Jonah. God was willing to take out a city
if they would not change their ways. They did. Jonah wanted to pass
judgment on even when God was willing to redeem the city. He is the
only one who belongs in the judgment seat.
One difficult thing is that the world is not Christian. Our countries
are not Christian. We have to continue to function, and how can we
leave things up to God when we have to make objective, non-religiously
swayed decisions? I guess that is one of those things that will
frustrate anyone like me. I love God and want my country to be doing
His will, but I also love freedom and am opposed to promoting one
religion in the political arena. That has had terrible results for
thousands of years.
BRAD:
2. The glitch of Islamic martyrdom: The biggest problem with killing
Muslim extremists is that this is their greatest recruiting tool.
Rather than eradicating the problem, we actually become the chief
recruiters of fresh terrorists. They have learned a Christian secret
that we seem to have forgotten:
"I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and
dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many
seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates
his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." John 12:24-25
When a Muslim soldier (terrorist, freedom-fighter, or regular military)
loses his or her life, then brothers, sisters, cousins, children, even
whole communities rise up, inspired by vengeance and holy zeal,
including many who had previously opposed violent solutions in the
Middle East. Killing terrorists multiplies terrorists. This is a
problem that needs new and creative solutions.
SHANNON:
This is also true here at home. Think of Pearl Harbor. Think of 9/11.
Granted, there is a huge difference in “asking” for it, but nothing
causes patriotism to rise up more than personal or national loss. In
the United Arab Emirates they understand this concept and make sure
deaths of terrorists are quiet and without “honor.”
BRAD:
Solutions: I confess to growing weary of protesting drastic military
solutions. The temptation to give in to despair is dangerous because
when the church ceases to be a prophetic voice that calls the
government to restraint or opposes policies that dehumanize, we mirror
the failure of the church in Nazi Germany. Sadly, the German churches
all too often entered the hoopla of militarism or turned a blind eye to
human rights violations because “no one liked the Jews anyways.” Voices
of dissent seemed unpatriotic and were ultimately accused of betraying
national security. Deja vu, anyone?
SHANNON:
WWII was a “drastic military solution”, but I am not ashamed of
America’s involvement in it. Maybe because we did not rush into it (it
took being attacked to get us involved), maybe because our reasons for
being there were not selfish, maybe because of the active atrocities
being done not only within Germany, but to the places surrounding it.
Maybe because it was, as said in Ecclesiastes, a time for war. I am not
entirely sure.
BRAD:
Having said that, the voice of protest is impotent if it offers no
solutions. Could we think afresh: other than dehumanizing the enemy and
calling for total annihilation, are there any solutions at all to the
following problems?
a. Islamic terrorists
b. Child soldiers
c. African genocide
SHANNON:
Okay, here’s where we can wrap this up. I guess I have felt some
confusion in this because it is hard to tell where this dialogue is
about the cancer argument and where it is anti-war. Or maybe it is just
my internal confusion because I am so used to hearing about the war. Is
the US government using the cancer argument, or is it just a viewpoint
that many people hold that needs to be challenged? I think ignoring the
problems is, in the case of African genocide, uncaring, and in the case
of terrorism, unwise.
BRAD:
Are there any alternatives at all, either to the cancer argument or
even to war in general? In limited ways, the following have worked:
– No-fly zones combined with weapons inspections.
– Compassion boot camps (e.g. www.freeburmarangers.org).
– Overwhelming aid—“Love bombs” (tsunami relief).
– Civilian witnesses (Christian Peacemaker Teams).
– Genuine reform (Nelson Mandela) or politicization (Sinn Fean, PLO) of terrorist movements, leaders.
– Military embargos (versus food and medicine).
– Very careful partitioning (e.g. Cyprus versus the disasters in
Yugoslavia which led to ethnic cleansing or the Wall in Palestine).
– Taking great measures to capturing and quietly jailing terrorists
versus making martyrs of them whereby their funerals are rallying
parades.
– Truth/justice commissions after the pattern of Desmond Tutu in S. Africa.
– Training civilian groups to create shadow committees that make rogue governments redundant.
– Training civilians in non-violent non-cooperation.
– Proceeding with international indictments of the corrupt leaders.
– Addressing the motivating issues of injustice that inspire terrorists
(oppression, occupation, political emasculation) or motivate
recruitment of child soldiers (e.g. survival, hunger, belonging,
empowerment).
We dare not be simplistic, yet I believe that the way forward is to
tailor-make recipes of the above for particular scenarios and then to
apply them as alternatives to extermination. In this way, I hope to
avoid the personal, public, and political pitfalls of the
enemy-as-a-cancer argument.