Christ And Counterinsurgency

Christ and Counterinsurgency In counterinsurgency operations in Iraq in Afghanistan, the United States military forces find themselves embroiled in a convergence of religious, political, and military factors turning tenuously on the consciences of 21-year old riflemen. Many of these young men are Christian. Most have at least been exposed to the Christian tradition of Just War (St. Augustine). The presence of Christian clergy in combat formations (military chaplains) represents at least tacit support of US military objectives by the Churches. The question of military operations and Christian conscience is as old as the Gospel itself. However, current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beg a deeper examination of the role of the Christian Soldier/Marine because of the nature of counterinsurgency. America may be unique in the annals of history as a nation repeatedly drawn into foreign wars which disproportionately benefit other nations. The liberation of Europe in the two world wars, the defense of South Korea, lesser interventions in the Caribbean, the Balkans and Somalia, as well as the more recent interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan all bear the traits of an unselfish, even benevolent foreign policy: for America to be safe, her allies must also be protected. While this is admittedly a gross oversimplification of complex geopolitical factors, the point as made from an American-centric perspective would find wide acceptance from those wearing the uniform and making the sacrifices for freedom. This is most dramatically recognizable in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Classical insurgencies are fomented by minority forces using asymmetric tactics to destabilize and finally discredit a government. Typically, the government under attack is a colonial imposition or one founded after a military coup de etat. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. and Coalition partners have no interest in the colonization or occupation of the liberated sovereign nations. The stated policy of the United States government is for these infant democracies to achieve security and self-government, optimally as partners with the U.S. in the global war on terrorism.

1

The instrument used to implement this policy is the American Soldier and Marine. Three of four American service members consider themselves some type of Christian (as recorded in official military records by religious preference, and annotated on the member’s ‘dog tags’ used for emergency battle field religious ministrations). While representing hundreds of traditions, theologies and denominations, these troops hold in common shared values such as the sacredness of human life, the moral duty to protect the innocent, and that sacrifice for freedom leads to peace. These young Warriors on the tip of the spear are thrust into unprecedented levels of involvement as ambassadors for the American way of life on Islamic soil. The first tenet of counterinsurgency is to protect the population from the insurgents – whom, in stated objectives are motivated by a puritanical vision of Islam. This dynamic posits the American Soldier and Marine between tensions indigenous to Islam. How should an American Christian combatant view his actions on this complex and religiously saturated stage? As a Christian Soldier, are my actions furthering the purposes of Islam? That would be antithetical to the Church’s missiology. Are my actions intended to be intrinsically humanitarian – and therefore consistent with Christian spirituality? Insurgency in the New Testament The New Testament Gospels are themselves set in the context of a vigorous Judean insurgency against the Roman occupation. The success of the Maccabean revolts against the Greek Ptolemies in the 2nd century BC gave warning to the leaders of the Roman suzerainty in the time of Christ. It is difficult to dismiss the intrigue surrounding Jesus of Nazareth as an insurgent leader. That is the condemnation the Jewish authorities ascribe to Jesus in his betrayal to the Romans: “whoever makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar.” (Jn 19:12) Further, the messianic expectations of most of the Jews contemporary with Jesus revolved around a Davidic figure who would deliver Israel from the Roman power. In the 6th chapter of St. John’s Gospel, we read

2

14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. 15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. John 6:14-15

During the triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Passion Sunday (cf John 12:8-11), Jesus is hailed as the Son of David and is greeted with “Hosanna” (Aramaic for deliver us now). It may also be interpreted that the brutality and derisive torture of Christ by the Roman cohort is attributable to their perception of him as the most dangerous leader of the Judean insurgency: 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. 28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. 29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! Matthew 27:27-29

Pilate’s counterinsurgency strategy included placation of the Jewish religious authorities. It is telling that while Jesus of Nazareth is accused of insurgency, it is Barabbas, himself an insurgent leader who is released on the Feast of Unleavened Bread as was the custom of the occupation force (Matt 27:15-21). The Romans also propped up a puppet ruler in Herod – the heir of a non-Davidic dynasty who invested significant treasure in the restoration and beautification of the temple in Jerusalem for 46 years. Thus we may gather that the Roman counterinsurgency strategy involved facilitation of the Jewish religious practices insofar as they did not foment a military response to Roman suzerainty. Clearly, the Romans prop up the Herods who improve the temple and enhance its cult; release a prisoner in honor of the Passover observance; and negotiate with the primates of the Jewish Sanhedrin in order to quell the insurgency. In the light of insurgency, we must also acknowledge Jesus’ status as a Jewish patriot. Jesus warns his disciples to flee from the coming destruction of Jerusalem:

3

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Luke 21:20-24

Jesus warns his disciples so that they may escape the consequences of the futile Jewish insurgency that will be crushed by Titus between 66 and 70 AD. This warning demonstrates Christ’s concern not only for spiritual rebirth, but for the temporal survival of his disciples at the hour of Jerusalem’s destruction. Indeed, Jesus desired that all Judea be saved: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” Luke 13:34-35

What does any of this have to do with the 21 year old rifleman conducting counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq? I. Counterinsurgency requires fortuitous ethics in formulating and applying rules of engagement and escalation of force standards. In order to protect the population from insurgents, American Soldiers and Marines must conscientiously avoid the moral trespasses of Abu Grahib and Haditha. This requires a deep degree of moral and ethical development rooted in St. Augustine’s Just War Theory.

4

II. Using the Roman counterinsurgency strategy as an example, American troops may facilitate the practices of Islam that support peaceful and stable governance. For the Christian Soldier and Marine, this is not supporting Islam, but Muslims. Protecting the Muslim population from Islamic extremists can be perceived as a benevolent act. III. Jesus Himself provides us with the example of resisting religious extremism in the form of insurgency. His judgment that “they that live by the sword shall die by the sword” Mt. 26:52) is not an indictment of the profession of arms, which he clearly condones (Mt. 8:10), but an admonition against those who would use force to make him King in Jerusalem. Jesus deliberately distanced himself from the Judean insurgency knowing that it was doomed to a violent failure. He rather counseled subordination to the Roman authorities and “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s” (Lk 20:25). Religious extremists in Jerusalem would both divide the population by sectarian infighting and provoke its ultimate devastation through brutal insurgent activities directed against the Romans. Titus’ campaign against Jerusalem brought about 1.1 million Jewish deaths including hundreds of crucifixions outside the walls of the city. Early Jewish believers were spared this suffering as they heeded the prophecy of Jesus. IV. While caught between tensions indigenous to Islam that he may not even remotely comprehend, the American Soldier and Marine may still commit to counterinsurgency operations as a humanitarian action. Jesus’ beatitude, “blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God…” can certainly be applied to those who fear the God of Abraham and bear arms in legitimate military operations (cf Romans 13:1ff). American Christian forces may keep a clear conscience as they apply force in accordance with the established rules of engagement in defense of the sovereign nations they support. V. U.S. Army and Marine chaplains engaging Islamic mosque leaders, scholars and clerics in order to more fully comprehend the religious vision of these religious leaders can facilitate swifter and more effective mission accomplishment. In the counterinsurgencies of Afghanistan and Iraq, it is the governments of those nations, their

5

leaders and people who ultimately will win or lose the war. Every action taken to more fully empower, support and legitimize the indigenous population and their government is a contribution to peace and to American redeployment of combat forces. There is no reasonable expectation for victory in Afghanistan or Iraq without factoring Islam into the equation.

Conclusion. The Christian religion was founded during an insurgency against the Roman occupation. Christ provides today’s Soldiers and Marines with the premier example of struggling against insurgencies and saving life. The motivation of brotherly love will lead Soldiers and Marines to act ethically in complex, dangerous environments where the actions of a single troop can tilt the entire balance of the campaign. Supporting the fledgling governments of Iraq and Afghanistan can be interpreted as humanitarian efforts consistent with Gospel values. This support may require the deliberate engagement of Muslims on a religious level to better understand their vision of a stable society.

MSG John Proctor US Army 23 November 2007

6

7