Of course one can easily understand that Jesus instructing individuals will entail very different things from what Jesus considers good governmental leadership.

Jesus also taught about what His kingdom is going to look like. And, let me tell you, there will not be any “turn the other cheek” to those hostile towards God.

So, yes, Jesus’ words from the mountain can and should be distinguished properly from His words on how a government should act.

According to law people could be forced to carry soldiers pack for one mile – Jesus telling his listeners that they should go another, even though they did not have to, shows the radial attitude and actions we are called to have even towards those who oppress us. While not denying the right to self defence (personal and national), surely these attitudes can’t be divorced from national policy.

Jesus did not prepare a people to lie down and take injustice. He also shared the promise of certain victory in the not too distant future. Jesus was speaking to people under proper authority who could live at peace in spite of a few inconveniences and insults because they might share in the promise of eventual victory.

Bringing up “Turn the other cheek” to define foreign policy is completely useless (though it should not be beyond a government to do so in certain situations).

I think Jesus wouldn’t want us to lie down and take whatever comes as an act of ‘turning the other cheek’. That would be naive. Defence is crucial but I think what he means is, when it comes to our turn for revenge, we don’t have to get up and bomb another country simply to show we are strong. But like Frank says “refusing to continue a violent cycle”. God will vindicate.

And if an army invades your lands and pillages one city .. just let them pillage the rest as well?

I say, “No, sir!”.

Jesus spoke to the individual, teaching how to live under proper authority. He did not strip proper authority of it’s right and (and obligation) to act in proper defence.

People have the right (and obligation) to defend and protect their neighbour.

Governments have the right (and obligation) to defend and protect their people.

Or is that too radical a concept for you?

” You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

2 Kings 6:22 But he answered, “You shall not kill them. Would you kill those whom you have taken captive with your sword and your bow?

Which is probably from something like:

Deuteronomy 20
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

Using the bible as a source for promoting pacifism is a pretty silly idea…