The reader might remember a recent piece by Delbert Marshall on the Generations page of The Hays Daily News, in which Professor Marshall referred to some "Thoughts On Veterans' Day" that he had solicited from me. It might seem to the reader that Delbert intentionally used some of my thoughts and ideas out of context in order to advance his point of view, or that he narrowed some of my terminology in order to create a "straw man" to attack, again to advance his point of view. I ask the gentle reader to refrain from such conclusions and to grant Delbert Marshall full benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, I feel a duty to restore (kindly and thoughtfully, I hope) context and clarify the thoughts to which Delbert referred.

By using the quote that I provided, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" from William Butler Yeats poem "The Second Coming" without providing the reason I gave for providing the quote, Delbert effectively, if not intentionally, converted the quote from my purpose to his own. My reason for referring to Yeats was that fascists, who give up the guidance of their own intellects and consciences in order to be 100 percent in support of a particular governmental administration or cause or leader might seem to enjoy an advantage over those who must ponder what is good or right or just, before supporting a particular endeavor or cause or leader. We can hope only that a moral advantage compensates for the stated advantage enjoyed by fascists. After all, if we must become fascists in order to oppose fascists, what point is there in prevailing?

I would like to acknowledge that there are ways Delbert might be right. These are matters that have troubled me most of my life. First, Delbert might be right in implying that the Augustinian "Just War Doctrine" is unworkable. To confine the use of deadly force to defense, to limit the use of force only to that necessary to overcome the attack, and to prohibit in all cases targeting non-combatants or placing non-combatants at risk, might not be possible, considering human nature and the evidence of human history. (It may be that Jesus, as well as Delbert, was right -- that one must avoid violence entirely in order not to stay off the "slippery slope.") It could be that humans will always use force beyond the necessary to ensure that they will prevail. It could be true that humans and human governments will always tend to represent discretionary uses of force for their own purposes as defense.

One could construct a parallel position to my own without invoking Jesus; however, I take the teachings and example of Jesus seriously. So, in various ways, do most of the residents of Kansas. That is common ground. I might also point out that for many Jews, Jesus is a respected teacher in the rabbinic tradition. It might surprise some readers that Jesus is a major prophet of Islam, given extensive print space in the Koran. A friend of mine has observed, "You can't pin Jesus down!" I agree. I am skeptical toward anyone who purports to speak with authority the mind or will of God or Jesus. Because I believe Jesus taught and modeled non-violence, I believe that simply to do no harm is the "gold standard" for the Christian. Because we are "hard-wired" to survive, I believe self-defense and, by extension, defense itself are not condemned (though not the "gold standard"). Delbert narrowed my extended concept of "true defense" back to "self-defense," which makes my position more easily assailable. For Delbert, I used the term "true defense" to differentiate defense from other motives that someone might want to misrepresent as defense. Some people use the scriptural passage about Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple as evidence that Jesus approves the use of deadly force against other human beings. I think that is a bit of a stretch. I think the passage is intended to legitimize righteous indignation. (Perhaps moral indignation on the part of right-thinking people might be the factor that counterbalances the "passionate intensity" of the fascists.)

My life has not been according to the "gold standard." As a child during World War II, I had no reason to doubt the rightness of the war against the great evil that was at large in the world. (That was when I decided to be a soldier.) I could provide historical analysis but will not. Suffice it to say that I believe our country has a collective clear conscience regarding the causes of World War II and actions in the immediate aftermath of World War II. We may have a right to a collective clear conscience regarding much or most of the prosecution of that war. I would not care to have been complicit in the fire-bombings of Dresden or Tokyo or Yokohama, or the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Marshall Plan following WWII, in which we humanely and benignly occupied the defeated countries, countered hunger and privation, and restored the infrastructure and institutions of those countries, will forever be a star in our collective crown. Compare that with the occupation of Iraq, in which we merely threw money at favored corporations, without standards or enforced performance and without achieving restoration. (This is not a criticism of our uniformed forces, or those of our allies, who have done their best.)

There is another area in which Delbert might be partly right. He is very attached to the idea that it is more humane to apply maximum force over a short duration, than to apply a limited or metered force over a long duration. I might concede this, if extremes such as fire-bombings or atomic bombings of civilian population centers are disqualified. There have been British actions that were dispassionately ruthless, that probably limited the totality of human suffering involved, and that were of limited duration. The problem could be that, though individual memories are short, communal memories are long. Seeds of hate and resentment, left to fester long-term, erupt later.

It was, of course, awkward for me, as a retired soldier (but necessary for me as a citizen), to stand on the Ellis County Courthouse steps and speak against the impending invasion of Iraq. (I had no criticism of the previous invasion of Afghanistan, as that was clearly defensive in pursuit of those who had attacked us so grievously, and who vowed to do it again.) It was clear from the start that the justifications for the invasion of Iraq were untruths and distortions. Delbert is attached to the validity of those justifications, but I think I have been vindicated.

Finally, I did not tell Delbert that I had served more than 30 years. What I told him was that I had retired from the Army more than 30 years ago. My retirement was 22-year retirement, which seemed like a long time then but doesn't seem so long now.

Weeden Nichols is a retired soldier, amateur photographer, former athlete, competitive bridge player, social justice worker and Scottish heritage enthusiaist.