Suchergebnisse

A response to a review essay on Winters's The Year of the Hare: America in Vietnam, January 25, 1963-February 15, 1964 (U Georgia Press, 1997) contends that Jerome Slater misrepresented many of the book's premises, overlooked the profiles of key actors, & ignored two previously unavailable sources that undergirded the study. He dismissed the argument that Kennedy & Dean Rusk felt involvement in Vietnam was the only way to prevent starting a process that could lead to nuclear war in Europe even though it is documented in the profile chapters. Other areas of disagreement discussed include Slater's claim that "one size [of constitution] fits all nations" in the system of competing cultures/regimes & his refusal to challenge the viability of the American model of governance. In Response to Winters, Slater denies that he "wholly misrepresented" Winters' argument regarding a link between Vietnam & Europe in the minds of US leaders, contending that the hypothetical chain of events leading to nuclear war in Europe would have been an outlandish reason for involvement in Vietnam. Other examples of different understandings of the facts are given & the increasing efficacy of the antiwar argument is reiterated. J. Lindroth

Publication of the Peace Pastoral, which has been extensively discussed in journals, has had little effect in persuading scholars or commentators on the ethics of nuclear deterrence. A review of the literature generated by The Challenge of Peace provides a survey of the current state of opinion on this question. The bishops, who seek to apply traditional just war categories to the novel situation of the nuclear era, are opposed by representatives of other traditional positions (the arms control community, which tolerates the targeting of civilians, and the "limited war" school, which eschews civilian targets). Two new approaches, likewise opposed to that of the pastoral, set more radical limits to nuclear targeting. All the critics regard the teaching of the pastoral letter, which condemns all militarily meaningful use of the nuclear arsenal, as an anachronistic exercise in the nuclear era.

Review of the literature generated by "The challenge of peace: God's promise and our response."

While reading Herbert Butterfield's Christianity, Diplomacy and War recently, I was struck as much by some marginal notations a previous reader had left behind as by the masterful text itself (published in 1953). One notation was the word "Vietnam" scribbled in the margin next to Butterfield's treatment of the Korean War. I remembered suddenly an experience I'd had during the Korean War period. I was helping then to care for an elderly gentleman, and we used to listen regularly to radio broadcasts from the battlefield. The old man, whose capacity to differentiate between past and present had failed him, would ask for further news on the war: "And how are the Central Powers doing?" World War I and Korea had for him collapsed into a single struggle.

The appearance of John Yoder's exegetical defense of pacifism, The Politics of Jesus, has reopened the question of the relationship between violence and religious values (cf. Stanley Hauerwas's "Messianic Pacifism," Worldview, June, 1973). Even those who have carefully and decisively rejected the pacifist option will be disturbed once more by this magistral summation of the New Testament tradition. The source of this unease will be Yoder's informed and dispassionate examination of the question: What is the significance of Jesus' death for the contemporary Christian? His reminder that the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus constitute the form of Christian existence is persuasive in its very simplicity. He argues, principally on the basis of St. Luke's Gospel, but with corroboration from virtually all the New Testament writings, that a life unscarred by defeat cannot be called Christian. There can be no following of Jesus that does not go by way of the cross, nor any hope that resurrection will occur outside a tomb. Starkly, Yoder calls us back to the basics, asking: What is the cross in your political life?

The military commander in the field earns his position because he has the mental strength and moral power to enable him to dominate the battlefield. Off the field that responsibility carries civic obligations as well.