What would Jesus do . . . if he made U.S. foreign policy?

Reaction to a recent column, "War wounds," this neo-pacifist's take on President Bush's plans for escalation in Iraq, drew some of the usual outraged subscription cancellations and the below response, one that typifies a "realist" rejection of Christian ethics in foreign policymaking.

This "Christianity makes nice piety but bad policy" is the consistent answer to projections of scripture ethics into geo-political relations. I think that assumption deserves deeper critical scrutiny, however. Let's start by listening to this kind, if unhappy reader:

"Kevin Clarke and all who think like him need a wake-up call. The teachings of 'the Nazarene, who elevated weakness and mercy and the divine imperative of peace' do not make for a very effective foreign policy or military strategy in the real world. Christ's own example of allowing himself to be horribly tortured and murdered on the cross is admirable from a theological sense but it is hardly the path that any leader of any country is going to choose for his people.

"No government, no nation-state has ever done what Clarke wants the US to do. Indeed, the Catholic Church itself, given its history of crusades, inquisition, support for pro-catholic dictatorships, etc., has NEVER done what Clarke asks."

There are some interesting presumptions hidden in the subtext here. The primary one being that Christian thinking is nice but ineffectual in geo-strategic policy and that within a system where each nation pursues its best interests, sometimes through state-sponsored violence, a realist strategy is the eminently rational and effective mode of achieving tactical or strategic goals.

I guess I think that underlying assumption is essentially erroneous. I don't think the realists' readiness to use violence or oppression as a tool of political policy has ever proved effective over the long term, frequently not even over the short term. Can anyone take an objective look at the recent history of U.S. strategic thinking and execution of same and honestly describe that as "effective?" Since the end of WWII each intervention, usually cold blooded and violent, in the internal affairs of another nation can only be described as marginally successful. From Guatemala to Iran to Vietnam to Afghanistan and now to Iraq--it seems we lay the foundation for the next geopolitical catastrophe with almost every foreign intervention we undertake.

Attempting to interrupt the Falling Dominoes of South East Asia, we tip them over ourselves; seeking stability and control in Iran and Saudi Arabia, our covert machinations lead to the opposite; anxious over the clash of civilizations, we condemn ourselves and our children to it; seeking to demoralize and diminish the Soviet Union, we provide the venture capital for the mujahadeen that emerges soon after as a global force demoralizing and diminishing us.

If these are successful and effective outcomes of a rational, realist strategy, I say it's time to recall the CIA and send in the birkenstock brigade and see what the pacifists of the world can accomplish. (Here's another commentary on the curse of self-fulfilling prophecy in American foreign policy.)

I entirely agree that no one has tried the Nazarene's method before, which is why we condemn ourselves to perpetuating the same cycles of confrontation and violence over and over again. I don't agree that this alternative would make ineffective foreign policy, however.

I find our current reliance on dominance and aggression and submission to be truly ineffective and essentially irrational. It is at minimum a horrendous mis-allocation of resources--vastly expensive, draining treasure and brainpower away from the critical challenges of our time. At its best it is deeply immoral, tolerating a widespread violence against the most vulnerable people in the world. On the other hand, the biblical call to nonviolence and peacemaking opens up new vistas for creative strategic thinking on foreign and defense policy. We are foolish to treat it as mere piety or idealism and not wisdom that can be translated into practical policy.

The blessings of peace and cooperation are not just spiritual, they are quite literally earth changing. It is a fundamental charge of Christianity to co-create the kingdom. How does our continued reliance on brute force contribute to that difficult challenge?