Politicians vs. Navy Lives

During my years in the Navy I had a few interactions with our special warfare troops, specifically the Navy’s Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT) and their successors, the Navy SEALs. SEALs are remarkable, extremely competent warriors whom our nation calls on to carry out the kind of special operations few others can do. Years ago, as a Navy helicopter pilot, I occasionally flew small teams of SEALs out over the Pacific so they could practice their night, over-water parachute jumps. Although I would never doubt their courage, as a pilot I will always question anyone’s decision to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft, particularly at night over the ocean. But that’s the kind of men they’re are. They do whatever the mission demands, all that must be done, even in training.

Something else most people don’t know about SEALs is their intentional avoidance of publicity. Indeed, the less said about the SEALs in the media or anywhere else, the happier they are, something that applies to most special warfare groups. As you might expect, they’re a highly decorated bunch, but many of the citations for their medals are classified and cannot be shared with others. There are, of course, important reasons for all this. Because most of the operations conducted by SEALs are clandestine, and for good reason highly classified, media coverage can jeopardize other related operations and national security. But media coverage can also endanger the lives of individual SEALs and even their families. This is especially true these days when the target of most operations are terrorist groups that would love to know the units and the men responsible for destroying their people and assets. The Navy and the entire Department of Defense, therefore, do not release the identify of individuals, unit names, or even which special warfare groups were involved in an operation. It’s always best to keep the enemy in the dark and guessing about who’s just hammered them.

At a Pentagon briefing the day after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, a senior defense official was asked if it were a Navy SEAL team that found and killed the world’s most wanted man. The terse and proper response was: “Not going to comment on units or numbers.” On May 3, however, Vice President Joe Biden, at a awards banquet event in D.C., told the world that Navy SEALs we’re responsible for taking out the terrorist leader. His words:

"...the incredible, the phenomenal, the almost unbelievable capacity of the Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday...I'd be remiss also if I didn't say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday. As Vice President of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs."  

Hearing this, most folks considered it fine praise for our Navy special operators. But not the members of SEAL Team Six. They were surprised and upset that the Vice President had named the SEALs as the operators involved in the mission. Most told their families to remove any references to them and the SEALs from social media because intelligence folks had already alerted them of expected attempts to retaliate. For example, the next day, SEAL Aaron Vaughn called his mom and told her, "There's chatter and all our lives are in danger, including yours. Mom."

Three months later, on August 6, 2011, a CH-47 Chinook helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan. All 38 aboard died, including many members off SEAL Team Six, including SEAL Aaron Vaughn. Was this attack related to the earlier "outing" of the SEALs? Unanswered questions still remain about this incident, and many believe it was a well-planned attack by the Taliban in retaliation for the raid against their favored ally, Osama bin Laden.  Check out this report: SEAL Team Six Betrayal.

Here’s a brief news video from 2012 highlighting the family of one of those SEALs killed by the Taliban.

When it comes to understanding military operations, politicians often display abysmal ignorance. As you might expect this leads them to say and do a lot of foolish things. Joe Biden’s not alone here. Politicians of all stripes have fallen prey to the temptation to reveal information best kept confidential. Sometimes they do so simply to grab a headline, gain a few political points, or just to hear applause during their after-dinner speech. Ironically, too often they hope to highlight their patriotism by addressing things military. I suppose this is to be expected since so few members of Congress are veterans. Back in the late 60s and early 70s almost 80% of the members of Congress were veterans. Today it’s down to about 20%. Joe Biden was one of his generation’s exceptions. He never served in the military, but instead got one deferment after another. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump did much the same, but at least Trump seems to understand his job is to define the objectives and let his commanders do what’s necessary to achieve them. 

Perhaps our politicians' most catastrophic errors have been the politically inspired rules of engagement forced on our warriors by those who have never experienced combat. Our enemies today don’t follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, but use any means whatever to kill and destroy. How many 911s do we need to understand this? To send our warriors into harm’s way with their hands tied behind their backs always leads to unintended but predictable consequences that inevitably result in disaster.

All the news that fits our agenda

Watching, listening to, or reading the "news" these days can be a frustrating experience. I suppose I'm most bothered by the underlying political correctness in the reporting, occasionally very obvious but more often fairly subtle. Probably the most apparent symptom of this PC reporting is manifest in the news that simply never gets reported or, at best, is under-reported, buried in the back pages of newspapers or given short shrift by news anchors. And in some stories, usually those too big to be ignored completely, certain relevant details are intentionally omitted because they conflict with the media's PC-based agendas.

Let me address a few recent events that received mixed coverage in the news. Had you heard about these events? Did you get the whole story?

Nigeria is the most populous African nation with an area somewhat larger than the state of Texas. A little more than half the population is Muslim and a little less than half is Christian. Most of the Muslims live in the northern part of the country while most Christians live in the south.

A few days ago a radical Islamist group called "Boko Haram" -- a phrase which in the local language means "Western education is a sacrilege" -- armed with guns and bombs went on a killing spree in several Nigerian cities. According to the Red Cross, over 100 people were murdered. What most news stories didn't mention is that among this terrorist group's main targets were Christian churches, several of which they destroyed during their rampage. Although Boko Haram speaks of government corruption (very real in Nigeria and most of Africa) as the reason for these attacks, when you read what the group posts on the web, it's apparent their true motives are centered on the imposition of Sharia Law in Nigeria. Here's a link to a rather confusing blog by a member of Boko Haram: ISLAMIC

Just months ago the people of Egypt, seemingly with the support of the country's military, managed to overthrow the authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak. Immediately the country was held up as the poster boy for an "Arab Spring" that would certainly bring democracy and tolerance and moderation to the Middle East.

Unfortunately it looks as if Egypt is moving quickly from spring all the way to winter as the military government reverts back to the Mubarak's repressive tactics. Even worse, though, the military seems to be catering to the Islamists as evidenced by the military's recent attacks on Christians outside the state TV studios. The Christians were protesting the lack of justice because the government seemed uninterested in investigating or prosecuting a recent church burning by Islamists. Since Mubarak's overthrow attacks on Christians and their churches have increased dramatically.

In this latest incident, just a month ago, 28 protesting Coptic Christians were killed and several hundred wounded when government troops ran over many of them with armored vehicles and shot others. As you might expect, the government has completely absolved the military of any responsibility in these deaths, blaming them instead on unnamed third parties. This despite many videos of military vehicles crushing Christian demonstrators. And now the military government responsible for these deaths is bringing charges against -- you guessed it -- the Christian demonstrators. 34 of them are being held in prison before their trails. Many of these defendants are underage or wounded, and all lack proper medical care and food. How much of this did you hear on the evening news?

Don't watch the below video if you have a weak stomach. It is just a one-minute clip, but it's typical of many other videos taken that same evening showing Egyptian Army vehicles running over many other Christian demonstrators.

Egypt, of course, isn't the only North African nation with a questionable future. Libya is no longer suffering under the repressive regime of Colonel Muammar el Qaddafi, but will the next government be an improvement or will it be even more repressive? Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the leader of the National Transitional Council has declared that the new Libya will have as its foundation Sharia Law. In doing so he made specific reference to eliminating interest charges by banks and any restrictions on the number of wives a Libyan man may have. The latter, of course, is no boon to the rights and dignity of women. And, confusingly, the proposed constitution promises non-Muslims freedom of religion, while at the same time fully embracing Sharia Law as the law of the land. Anyone familiar with Sharia Law recognizes the incompatibility here.

Even more problematic is the continued presence of Al Qaeda among the rebels who took part in the overthrow of Qaddafi. One thing we know for certain: any Al Qaeda-connected rebels will never relinquish their weapons. And if Al Qaeda manages to establish a presence in the new government, I would expect them to attempt to seize full power rather quickly. And then imagine this worst case: an Al Qaeda controlled Libya with billions of oil money pouring into its coffers every month.-

Of course Qaddafi would not have been overthrown without the overwhelming support of NATO weapons and air power. NATO planes carried out 26,000 sorties, including nearly 10,000 strike missions. More than 1000 tanks, vehicles and guns were destroyed, along with Qaddafi's command and control network in Tripoli, Bani Walid and Sirte. Without this enormous assistance, Qaddafi would quite likely have wiped out the rebels in a few weeks. But did you know that we also sent in Jihadists to assist the rebels? That's right, according to AsiaNews:

"Making a democratic future that more unlikely is the presence of Jihadist groups sent in by some NATO countries, most notably the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an extremist group led by Abdelhakim Belhaj, a Libyan Berber with a past among the mujahedeen who fought the Soviets in the 1980s in Afghanistan. After his capture in 2003, he became a collaborator of the Libyan regime and now is serving the Americans."

What an intricate web we weave. Let's hope that we don't get caught up in it ourselves.By the way, the Vatican's Apostolic Vicar to Libya predicted worse things to come for the Christians of Libya if Qaddafi were overthrown. I expect we'll soon see how prescient he was.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Colonel Qaddafi was a good guy. Far from it. From all indications he was a murderous megalomaniac who certainly deserved to be removed from power...and I'm happy he's gone.  But when we support such an effort -- and it would not have succeeded without US military and command and control assets -- we should also be certain that those we're supporting won't later present us with an even more dangerous foe.

And then there's the manner of Qaddafi's rather grisly death. The evidence is overwhelming that he was summarily shot by his captors not long after he surrendered. It would seem that the rebels and their fellow travelers have little respect for the rule of law. Given their disparate makeup one might expect this; but I did not expect to hear our Secretary of State declare with delight after hearing the news of Qaddafi's death, "We came. We saw. He died." I expected more of her as the lead representative of the United States in the international community. I suspect she and her boss were relieved that the late dictator would not be given the forum of an international courtroom in the months to come.

I realize a lot of Americans, perhaps even a majority, disagree with me on this, believing that Qaddafi got what he deserved. Well, I suppose that's true from one perspective, but as a military officer I was taught that we had a moral and ethical responsibility to take as prisoners those enemy combatants who surrendered to us. This was something not only required by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, but something we did as law-abiding and moral Americans. Fortunately, in this instance Americans seem not to have been directly involved, but that doesn't mean we should celebrate what would under most conditions be labeled a war crime. Such an act, in which an unarmed prisoner is shot and killed, also violates the most basic principles of Christian morality and can be equated with nothing less than murder.

While discussing this with a friend the other day, he said, "Well, didn't the SEALs do the same thing to Osama bin Laden?" He's right; at least one would think so if you believe what has been stated in the media. The word that was apparently leaked out from certain Washington sources is that the SEALs were given an assassination assignment and simply went in with guns blazing. But the SEALs -- and in the spirit of full disclosure, I will state that I have many SEAL friends and worked with them on a few occasions back in my Navy days -- do not want to be painted as an assassination team, or as "spray and pray" commandos who just blast away at everyone in sight. They state that they intended if at all possible to take bin Laden prisoner but when they entered his room he pulled out a pistol leaving them no choice but to shoot him. The entire remarkable story is in Chuck Pfarrer's new book, SEAL Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden. Pfarrer is a former commander of SEAL Team Six and knows all those involved in the mission. It's nice to know that the vast majority of our military still make every effort to work morally as they carry out their difficult and dangerous jobs. 

Enough! I suppose the news is always skewed in one direction or another, depending on its source. But these days the media's peddling of disinformation seems to be more blatant than ever, especially when the story involves Christianity and the Catholic Church. And so, if you want some advice about understanding the news, try this broad generalization on for size: believe nothing written about the Catholic Church in the secular media. I have never read an accurate story about the Church in the secular media. The reason? The media sees everything in political terms, while the Church views all in terms of faith. There's a huge difference.

Loving Enemies

I've hesitated -- perhaps delayed is a better word since it's been weeks -- to comment on the death of Osama bin Laden because it's taken me a while to sort out my thoughts. I believe I can honestly say I was not happy when I heard the news, but neither was I unhappy. Osama bin Laden was a man responsible for the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people here in the United States and around the world. Although he has no doubt already been replaced by another committed terrorist, his actions certainly demanded punishment.

And regardless of the orders the Navy Seals received -- the specifics of which we will likely never know -- I have no problem with the actions of the team members who shot bin Laden. This was not the civil arrest of a criminal carried out by a police swat team; it was a combat operation with the goal of eliminating a key enemy leader. In those circumstances unless an enemy immediately surrenders, he can expect to be killed. In combat one does not shoot to wound.

I suppose my real concern relates to the response of so many when news of bin Laden's death was announced by the president. Since I knew personally several people who died on September 11, 2001, I can understand the collective relief felt by many Americans who had been waiting almost ten years for this news. But the fact that so many people actually took to the streets and publicly rejoiced over one man's death I found a bit disturbing. Yes, I know there was similar rejoicing on VE-Day when the Germans surrendered in May of 1945, but those people weren't celebrating Hitler's death which took place over a week earlier. They were celebrating the end of a long and costly world war, one that had called for a nationwide commitment that affected virtually every aspect of life. But today, were it not for the irritating and often irrational policies of TSA, an American who didn't pay attention to the news would hardly know we've been waging a decade-long War on Terror. And I can't see how the death of bin Laden will have a long-term effect on the current struggle, an ideological war with deep religious roots that our enemies will continue to wage. Anyone who celebrated bin Laden's death believing it meant the end of this struggle is fooling himself.

And so it would seem the rejoicing was personal and reflected happiness over the death of another. It was reminiscent of that scene from the Wizard of Oz in which all celebrate by singing "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead." From a Christian perspective, I believe it's important for us to examine what both Scripture and the Church have to say about all this. One good source is certainly the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus preaches,

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." [Mt 5:43-48]

And in Luke's Gospel Jesus says pretty much the same using slightly different language:

"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." [Lk 6:27-28]

Image courtesy of © Daniel W. Erlander, www.danielerlander.com. (With minor change in wording by yours truly.)

Following this command of Jesus is a tall order, especially if we've been directly and personally affected by the actions of our enemies. And it's important to understand that Christians traditionally have not interpreted Jesus' words as a prohibition of defensive actions by a state when threatened by others, especially those with evil intent. The Church still teaches that there is such a thing as a "just war." But, following Jesus' teaching, the Church also instructs us not to rejoice at the death of another, regardless of the evil he has committed. Perhaps the Book of Proverbs says this best:

Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and when he stumbles, let not your heart exult, Lest the LORD see it, be displeased with you, and withdraw his wrath from your enemy. Be not provoked with evildoers, nor envious of the wicked; for the evil man has no future, the lamp of the wicked will be put out. [Pro 24:17-20]

And I think the words of Pope Benedict XVI, from his statement issued after bin Laden's death, are particularly relevant:

"Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.

"In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred."

The pope, of course, is correct and we would be wise to remember his words. As Christians we pray for the conversion, not the death, of our enemies; and when an enemy does die, we do not rejoice but rather pray that God will bring good from his death. Neither should we wish eternal damnation on anyone, even an enemy like Osama bin Laden. To do so only calls on our Father to judge our own sinfulness with equal severity. After all, do we not pray daily, "...and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"?

Instead of rejoicing over another's death, or hoping that he be damned, pray for God's mercy. Pray that God will extend to your enemies the same mercy you hope for yourself. And remember, loving another is not an emotion; it's a decision. You and I can make that decision to love our enemy, even an enemy like Osama bin Laden, and do so without liking him.

Pax et bonum...