Picture
We live in perilous times. America is under attack from foreign and domestic enemies that want to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. If these enemies had their way they would replace the government with a punitive theocracy and turn back the clock on basic human liberties.

It seems that our military and government are unsure about how to deal with radical Islamic terrorists. May I suggest that we follow the example of Captain Moroni?

Moroni was a Nephite commander who lived around 100 BC. He inspired his troops by telling them that they were fighting for their lands and liberties. Interestingly those are the same things we are fighting for today, but that is where the similarities end.

When it comes to dealing with those who would take away our liberties, the military has adopted an approach very different from the one Moroni adopted.

You see, during a lull in a pivotal battle when Moroni’s forces encircled the insurgents, he told them to put down their weapons and take an oath to never take up arms again. Moroni warned them by saying: “If ye do not this, behold ye are in our hands and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies that ye may become extinct.” He followed it up by saying that when you are dead, “then we will see who shall have power over this people; yea, we will see who shall be brought into bondage.” Kerching!

Did you read that carefully? He did not enroll his troops in sensitivity training so that they could understand the insurgents’ culture. Instead he threatened the insurgents with death if they would not enter into a pact of non-aggression.

A little while later when the leader of the insurgents became angry with Moroni, he rushed forward, sword high in the air, to kill Moroni. One of Moroni’s soldiers stepped forward and swung his sword at the leader’s sword, breaking it off at the hilt. After the leader was disarmed and detained, the Nephite soldier didn’t read him his rights and gently put on handcuffs. No! He scalped the leader, put the scalp on the end of his sword and yelled at the insurgents: “Even as this scalp has fallen to the earth . . . so shall ye fall to the earth except ye will deliver up your weapons of war and depart with a covenant of peace.” By the way, Moroni didn’t court martial the soldier for harming the murderous detainee.

And when an enemy within, a Nephite traitor named Amalickiah, threatened to overthrow the government and liberties of the Nephites, what did Moroni do? He didn’t ask for leniency toward Amalickiah and his followers in the name of cultural diversity. And he didn’t give them a lawyer and a trial. No, Moroni’s men hunted down that traitor and 86’ed him while he was sleeping in his tent. And what happened to the followers of the traitor Amalickiah? Those who “would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom . . . he caused to be put to death.”

If a Moroni-like commander were in charge of the US military today, I wonder if charges would have ever been brought against those 3 navy seals for punching the insurgent who killed and mutilated the bodies of 4 private American contractors in Falluja back in 2004. Probably not.

And if a Moroni-like commander were in charge of the US military today, I wonder if the traitor jihadist who massacred 13 of brave soldiers and wounded several others at Fort Hood would have been given 3 square meals, a lawyer, and the right to an insanity defense. Probably not. I think a Moroni-like commander would have already given him a speedy military trial and sent him to the firing range.

Now I am not suggesting that we should act harshly toward all captured enemy combatants. In many cases compassion and leniency are warranted, but sometimes it is not. It seemed that Moroni knew when to be harsh; it seems that our military commanders do not.

That harsh actions came from a man who was “of perfect understanding,” a man “who did not delight in bloodshed,” and a man who was “firm in the faith of Christ” should cause us to reflect for a moment. Perhaps, under certain circumstances, harshness towards those who would destroy our liberties is warranted.
 


Comments

S.Faux

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 3:49:43 am

Well, the U.S. military could definitely use a Captain Moroni or two. I don't go as far as you would go on some of the other issues, however. Even armies need rules and constraints. But, at least we both support our tremendous troops.

Over at "Mormon Insights" I recently posted an essay entitled: "Thanking those who bring faith to the fight." Rock Waterman responded by saying that my definition for a "Just War" was "unusually broad." Hmmm, I just thought we were fighting enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I have NO CLUE why 9-11 terrorists should be tried in civilian courts and in New York City, of all places. On the other hand, I do feel that the traitor at Fort Hood is entitled to a military court martial. He can claim insanity all he wants. But, he carefully and intelligently planned his betrayal, knowing full well that his actions would harm the U.S. Army.

On this Thanksgiving Day, I will be thinking of peace, harmony, and turkey, while I enjoy my family. I hope you can do the same.

 

Tim

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 4:25:50 am

On the other hand, I think that Moroni would have been appalled at cowardly acts like waterboarding, and the other demeaning acts that accompanied it (regardless or not of whether you call it torture).
Notice also how rarely the Nephites (at least while they were good) went into foreign territory. They defended their country. They didn't go after the Lamanites when the Lamanites weren't bothering them. I don't think Moroni would have gone into Iraq for that reason.

 

Aaron

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 5:35:29 am

Your premise is nonsense. While we do have enemies who wish to do us harm, no one is trying to overthrow our constituion, no one hates us because of our freedoms, as George Bush so mindlessly repeated. I seriously doubt Captain Moroni would have taken the U.S. into Iraq under false pretenses, nor do I think he would have allowed his army to become as bad as the enemy. In fact, one of the greatest lamentations of the Book of Mormon is that what the Lamanites did was bad, but what the Nephites did was even worse. Pardon me for saying it, but I am glad you are not in charge of our military.

 

Rock Waterman

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 9:25:15 am

I'm with Aaron on this one. As the Testimony of an Army Ranger over on YouTube stated, he had become worse than the terrorists he was told he was fighting. Reminded me of what Aaron said about the Nephites becoming worse than the Lamanites.

As for why the suspects are being tried in New York: that's where the crime was committed. We hold trials in order to bring out all the facts. I for one would very much like to get at the facts rather than having them buried and forgotten.

"Just War" rules are dictated by God. We should not try to supersede them by making up our own.

Captain Moroni was an honorable man. Please don't besmirch his character by implying he would have anything to do with contributing to the desecration of of our nation.

I link to that soldier's testimony on my blog, <http://PureMormonism.blogspot.com>

 

Daniel Ortner

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:32:59 am

I don't think Moroni would have approved of wars of aggression in foreign lands.

Our constitution and the treaties that we sign only have meaning if they apply equally to all. We uphold a higher standard whether or not our enemies do. The Nephites would never compromise their standards because of the specter of evil. To do so is not a path towards strength, but towards spiritual and temporal apostasy.

 

DavidH

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:33:43 pm

It is difficult to translate Moroni's strategies, focused on repulsing an invading enemy, to occupation of another people's country. Unless, of course, one advocates applying Moroni's treatment of dissenters, which would violate the U.S. Bill of Rights (which many of think was divinely inspired), to treatment of our own citizens, and to treatment of occupied countries.

With respect to other countries, the problem is that such summary treatment of counter-insurgents does not work in the long run. The Soviets, who were not sticklers for cultural sensitivity or extending U.S. style rights to insurgents, were driven out of Afghanistan just as we were driven out of Vietnam.

The surge in Iraq seems to have been successful, and part of the surge strategy was to be sensitive to the occupied populations. Even the Romans, who were fairly ruthless, and whose empire lasted longer than the U.S. has existed, were sensitive to a degree to sensibilities of the occupied. I do not think their empire would have lasted any longer had they been more blood thirsty.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:43:02 am

S.Faux,
"I have NO CLUE why 9-11 terrorists should be tried in civilian courts and in New York City, of all places."
- Ditto

"I do feel that the traitor at Fort Hood is entitled to a military court martial."
- Agree, but I think it should have already happened and he should have already been executed. According to priciples of behaviorism, punishment is only effective (in this case to act as a deterant to other would be jihadists) if it is swift and appropriate.

If this jihadists "gets off" with an insanity defense that will send the wrong message to all other would-be jihadists and America will look more like a paper tiger.

US AG Eric Holder called KSM's trial in NY "truly the trial of the century." Poor choice of words given that the killer in the last trial of the century got off scott free (OJ).

 

Dave C.

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:40:23 pm

Aaron,

“Your premise is nonsense. . . . I seriously doubt Captain Moroni would have taken the U.S. into Iraq under false pretenses, nor do I think he would have allowed his army to become as bad as the enemy.”

I see this sort of comment all too often. In this case I’ve posted about some of the things that the military should be doing following the example of Moroni, and yet you accuse me of supporting actions that I did not even comment on (i.e., a precipitous and perhaps unjustified preemptive strike and abuses from military personnel).

And to top it off you tell me that my logic is flawed when you are not even on the same topic as I am.

It is one thing to add addition information and varying points of view which are always welcome; it is another to accuse me of something that I did not even comment on.

Reload and try again.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:40:56 pm

Rock,

"As the Testimony of an Army Ranger over on YouTube stated, he had become worse than the terrorists he was told he was fighting."
- Here is the usual blaming the military for individual soldiers' acts of barbarism. Individual soldiers are personally held responsible for raping and pillaging, not the entire military structure. John Kerry said that he and others were committing atrocities in Vietnam. All I can say to people like him is, "Speak for yourself." Many other soldiers do not engage in such acts.

"Captain Moroni was an honorable man. Please don't besmirch his character by implying he would have anything to do with contributing to the desecration of our nation."

You have incorrectly assumed that I because I've pointed out where the military should be more like Moroni, that I am also saying that Moroni would support acts of barbarity. You are mistaken, my friend.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:42:33 pm

Daniel,
“I don't think Moroni would have approved of wars of aggression in foreign lands.”

-I agree. And I don’t think he would have screwed up the occupation like the Bush administration.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:43:46 pm

David,

“Unless, of course, one advocates applying Moroni's treatment of dissenters, which would violate the U.S. Bill of Rights (which many of think was divinely inspired), to treatment of our own citizens, and to treatment of occupied countries.”

- Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the Bill of Rights extend to denizens of the US, and not so much to enemy combatants in foreign lands. Also, the military judicial system follows somewhat different rules than the civil judicial system. For example, in a time of war, isn’t it appropriate for a commanding officer to shoot a subordinate without trial when that subordinate acts in a subversive manner? I think so. This seems to run counter to the Bill of Rights but the militray condones it in certain circumstances.

 

Tim

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 3:52:11 pm

And yet, Dave, as far as I can tell, you posted nothing about torture or going into Iraq.
Somehow, you only compare Moroni to what has happened while Obama has been president, and not to what happened while Bush was president.
Why, exactly, is that?
The acts committed by the US military between 2001 and the end of 2008 were far worse than the acts committed so far in 2009. So making Moroni comparisons now, instead of, say, five years ago, seems entirely partisan.

 

Morgan Deane

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 4:33:31 pm

Thanks for the post. I think you correctly identified one of the lessons we should learn from Moroni: when to apply decisive force. For what its worth I agree with you. In the case of the Fort Hood shooter, we should have been a little less worried about cultural diversity and a little more willing to investigate a suspected terrorist. Even after the deaths, General Casey suggested that the worst "casuality" of this would be diversity. That is a joke and really not what Captain Moroni would be worried about.

To really rock the boat, I think General Petraeus is a modern Captain Moroni. Under the lesson that you elucidated, he seems to know when to "be harsh". For example, during the Iraq Surge he convinced many former insurgents to fight on our side, negoitated with others to lay down their arms for civilian jobs, and then he killed the rest.

From what I know of his character he fits the bill as well. He is educated at one of our best institutions, has strategic acumen that many of our modern commanders do not, and his character seems above reproach (especially compared to liberals that claim he will "betray us").

Thanks again for the post.

 

Dave C.

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 6:47:26 pm

Well said, Morgan. I share similar sentiments about Petraeus. He appears to be top notch. He was cut from the same cloth as the generals and heroes who whipped the Third Reich and Emperor of Japan. I think his education is an asset to the military.

 

Dave C.

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 6:52:49 pm

While I don't mind opposing viewpoints, Brad's diatribe on Moroni is too over the top to allow a link. Sorry.

 

Tim

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 4:01:20 am

Dave,
You do realize that the post I linked to was parody, don't you? It shows how ridiculous the far right can be when speaking about the military.
Basically, the far-right hawks would have criticized Moroni for being weak (calling the Lamanites his brethren, giving them a chance to return home in peace, refusing to go after them in their own lands, etc.). In fact, he was a man of God.
It wasn't a diatribe on Moroni. It was a parody of the far-right.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics