Qasem Soleimani, according to a variety of news sources, no matter the ideological persuasion, all agree that he was a danger and menace to the greater peace of the world; not to mention the peace of the United States of America and her allies. All sources agree that he has been involved in the planning and execution of the murder of American troops, and then civilian non-combatants of many stripes, through many decades. In other words, the consensus is that Soleimani was a terrorist with global tentacles who actively sought to inject terror and death wherever and whenever the occasion might arise. His visit to Baghdad, based on the reports I’ve encountered, was his blatant act of engaging in the masterminding of more terror; particularly with the goal of destabilizing the emerging Iraqi government (which also means actively working against American interests in the region; which means more killing of Americans and those allied with them). Based on the ‘intelligence,’ Trump acted to put an end to the ‘shooter in the building’ (Soleimani), and lay one more major terrorist actor to rest (major in the sense that he had state coverage as a general in a supposed legitimate military branch of a supposed legitimate government in the state of Iran).
The push back from the democratic (and some independents) side has been: Well, well Trump doesn’t have an actual foreign policy and hasn’t thought about the consequences that might well follow as a result of his reckless choice to escalate things the way he has. Instead of being encouraging to the Trump administration to defend American lives from the direct murderous actions and plans of Soleimani (so the designation: “mastermind”), the “other side” continues to engage in character subterfuge of the most obvious sort. Let’s follow the bouncing ball: Iran, for decades, has been “escalating” things over and over again; with deathly results worldwide. Diplomacy, pay-offs (Obama), sanctions, military flexing (“exercises”) so on and so forth have been tried over again with Iran to no avail. We ostensibly had actionable intelligence that Soleimani was in the process of masterminding other attacks against Americans and her allies, and so Trump took the opportunity to take him out; along with Soleimani’s cohorts and minions. At a point in time action is required. Posturing ceases to obtain the desired effect and actual consequences must come. Some want to argue that this will only lead to WW3, or that this escalation will lead to reaction by Iran that will result in US deaths. All I can say to that is: what’s new? If anything, I would argue, this action by Trump will have a deterrent effect by making any and all regime members in Iran think twice before acting (like Soleimani has unabated for years upon years).
Ultimately, the ethic I follow when it comes to such issues is deontological rather than consequentialist. Soleimani was a mass murder planning more murders (unchecked), and he needed to be stopped. Any consequences resulting from this action will have to be dealt with as they come, and in advance insofar that there are resources to predict what those might be. But the so called “escalation” has already been clear and present for decades. Trump didn’t escalate anything, Iran has. Soleimani, at a personal level, was fortunate he was able to live as long as he did given the industry of death that occupied all the days of life. When it comes to making ethical decisions, as we know, there is often a “calculus” involved; i.e. the weighing of cost to benefit / benefit to cost ratios, so on and so forth. But what informs that calculus is a prior commitment to what determines what in fact is principially right / wrong and what isn’t. What or rather Who determines what is right / wrong, for the Christian, is the triune God. When attempting to know what is right / wrong the Christian, in principle, doesn’t look to the consequences, per se, but to God and what He requires (commands). Consequences are certainly an aspect of this equation, but only as those come from the principled reality of what God has declared as right and wrong. In other words, Divine Command Theory (an ethical theory), bases ethical reality upon obedience to God rather than obedience to a set of abstract consequences that may or may not obtain in whatever dilemma we are considering. The ‘right’ consequences will ULTIMATELY obtain when we are obedient to God; this means that we must walk by faith rather than sight because the consequences don’t always look ‘right’ in the moment.
Put into practice, to follow the ethical theory I just described, when applied to Trump’s decision to take out Soleimani looks like this (to my lights): 1) Sanctity of human life takes precedence over all else; 2) Soleimani has demonstrated without question that he represents a clear and present threat to the sanctity of human life; 3) when those in authority have the resource and proper intelligence to put an end to this threat they are duty bound to act no matter what the consequences (or the fall-out) might be. This is the way I am approaching the decision to kill Soleimani. He could be likened to the shooter, in most recent American memory, in the church in Texas; a killer with a gun actively shooting people. The principle (divine command) of the sanctity of human life, as that is grounded in the humanity of Jesus Christ for us, required that the threatened human life be protected over against the life of the one attempting to undo what God deems as holy (human life). The actions of the shooter justified equal or greater force to put an immediate and sudden end to his activity. In the case of the shooter and Soleimani this meant lethal and decisive force. The consequence (the result of obeying God’s command[1]) is that many multitudes of human lives have now been spared by the elimination of the threat posed by the shooter and Soleimani.
All of the above opens a can-o-worms to a variety and complex lines of ethical consideration. But as I have detailed things I stand by them. My decision to stand with Trump’s decision does not make me a mindless Trump supporter. My decision to write against Galli does not make me a mindless Trump supporter. It is superficial to think in such binary terms; i.e. either support the opposition to Trump or support Trump, as if these are the only alternatives. In the case of Trump, and the current political climate in the United States of America (and the Western world in general at the moment), I am committed to greater or macro issues that Trump has only become a symbol of given his polarizing nature. But to be sure, the hatred for Trump and his agenda is so grand, that the rule of law and the Constitution itself are under threat of being thwarted in the name of higher-ground posturing. This is too great of a cost to pay simply to oppose someone because he has personal attributes that the minority in the country can’t stand. In other words, I am not a dyed in the wool Trump supporter (i.e. I didn’t vote for him), but I am a supporter of a democratic constitutional republic; and when that is being threatened by globalist forces in American dress will repudiate that in the strongest of terms. When I see a propaganda machine taking over the American psyche (well less than half of it) in the name of “news,” I will put my heels in the ground and resist this sort of power-mongering.
More to say, but wanted to get some of this off my chest. Thanks for reading.
[1] This does not ultimately require that those acting to put an end to someone like Soleimani are consciously attempting to “obey God,” per se. It could be argued that they are operating under the Christian witness, that is latent in the world because of that witness, that life is holy, and should be defended at all costs (viz. per the means and ways provided for by a government framework instituted and ensured by God’s providential underwriting). In other words, what Trump decided to do in the case of Soleimani does not require that Trump be Christian, or even attempting to follow the p’s and q’s required by God for God’s people, per se.
