Letting the innocent be slaughtered is indefensible, I would agree. That said: If one is reluctant to do harm, even to one who threatens the innocent, that is a sign that one’s humanity is intact, I think.

The guys that come haunted back from war we should pray for; but the ones who come back seemingly unbothered by what they’ve seen and done – they are the ones we should really worry about.

There is nothing in those passages to support your claim that “any squeamishness about the matter becomes sinful.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…. Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.66

Interesting, isn’t it, that when we say such things we are usually referring to our family members or people we “love.”

We never refer to the fact that all human persons are under our care.

Do we as Christians not have a duty to protect Iraqis from their american murderers?

(“Murderers” is a precise term: as the Iraq was is clearly unjust, the killing involved in it is unjust killing, i.e. murder.)

This in no way means that protecting people requires violence, or even that if violence is used as a last resort that it could even be called “right” or “good.”

…and any squeamishness about the matter becomes sinful.

The Catechism says nothing of the sort. In fact at various points in the Church’s history she required soldiers who fought and killed in “just” wars to do penance and abstain from the Eucharist. This part of your statement is simply american “common sense” and has no roots in the Christian tradition.

If training were localized on the state level, rather than the federal, I could see good things happening from that. It would also be more consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

A professional military is by its very nature separate from and physically removed from the community. Therein lies the problem. There is no good reason to keep troops in Germany or Japan, and since the mid 90′s, Korea either.

At any rate, this is entirely off topic. It would be good to see a focus on service and not killing. On protection, and not aggression. I tried to abide by the pacifism mindset, and it’s not entirely without merit or reason. When I was single, I decided that an aggressor’s life was not less valuable than my own. I decided that physical force less than deadly force would be appropriate, and I actually saved a young woman from an assault once by engaging an attacker and drawing him off allowing her escape, followed by my own, and no harm came to anyone. However, when we had too many children to pick up and carry out of harms way, and a police chase came to my front yard with no way for us to escape the felon, I realized that the children under my care deserved better from me than a “hope we can get away”.

Pacifism is fine for a single person. The CCC makes quite clear, however, that sometimes one has an absolute duty to protect those under one’s care, and any squeamishness about the matter becomes sinful.

May God grant that my children never face a mortal threat. And that if they do, that I am able to protect them.

The United States is the most powerful country in human history (and we Americans are told this more or less incessantly – I wonder why?): I believe that needs to change, and radically, if real justice is to advance in the world.

Nationalism is an idol, and like all idols, it demands finally that you surrender your immortal soul; I suspect a piece of gospel poverty is renouncing nationalism, inordinate pride in one’s country’s achievements and position in worldly affairs.

I can’t join in a blanket condemnation of the military, but what we have isn’t working. I think we would be best served by eliminating a standing army and expanding the National Guard. I find the Swiss model to be quite attractive.