State Terrorism (or the bully's fear of being seen for what he is.)

Theologian David Ray Griffin writes:

Like all empires, the Roman Empire was brutal.  Those territories already subjugated were kept in line by producing "awe and terror" in their peoples.  Rome practiced what we would today call "state terror."  Although states today lie to restrict the term terrorism to the nonstate variety-that variety is always far less deadly than state-sponsored terrorism. 

Rome practiced terror not because Romans were sadistic but because terrorism was deemed effective.  What Rome cared about most  was what it called honor. . .

We can understand this concept of "honor" because it is the same thing the United States called "credibility."  Long after it became clear that America's war in Vietnam was a disastrous mistake, countless political and military leaders argued year after year that we could not leave, because we would lose "credibility."  And so we continued to lose tens of thousands of American soldiers and kill hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese people, year after year, all for the sake of maintaining our credibility."

So our leaders engage in unrestrained violence in our name all for the sake of maintaining their image as people who will stick to their policy despite all evidence that it has failed?  That doesn't seem mature or rational does it?

Have we have redefined or concept of "leaders" from people who lead according to a vision of maximizing human potential and benefit, to those who avoid responsibility for their concrete actions, but seek instead to maintain an image of strength by always being ready to inflict violence.  That is a mentality too common among adolescent males!

As I probe the problem of abuse of power the more I find that our theological social ethics may need to be informed by the techniques developed for the classroom management of unruly teenagers, bullies in particular.