You are on page 1of 7

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

You might also like