There is a lot to be said,
I have had the opportunity to be a part of several of the discussions on this in which CavGuys MSG was a large part and there are a host of points to be made. I am however going to wait until he gets to post before jumping in.
In the meantime I will simply ask two questions.
If the responsibility of a chaplain is the mental, emotional, spiritual well being of the soldier, wouldn't helping to keep them alive fullfill that obligation correctly?
If so who within a unit is most competent and experienced in understanding the nuances of faith and its effects on people?
I agree with Gian and Wilf.
Chaplains should stick to their job -- get them involved elsewhere and the potential for regret is high.
Not least because the Chaplain should not and cannot negotiate for the command yet he will be presumed by those in the ME to be doing so. Dangerous road, IMO.
Sponsoring an orphanage in Korea or Viet Nam is one thing, a Chaplain other than a Muslim doing that in a Muslim nation is a whole different ball game and anything more than that will be hazardous. There may be minor exceptions on rare occasions but that's what they should be -- exceptional.
Would you ask your medic to be
an assistant gunner on your Ma Deuce? I don't think so.
Asking your chaplain to do anything other than minister to units' faith needs, or as Gian noted, their spiritual and moral welfare, is tantamount to using an ambulance as an ammunition resupply vehicle IMHO.
Norfolk's correct. I think some are missing a few
points here. First, in the ME Christian clergymen are bogeymen to a good many. That is not to say they cannot ever be used to facilitate dialog, it just means one has to be extremely careful and that is particularly true in any Muslim nation and even more so in the ME where a more rigid version of Islam exists.
Second, the Chaplain has his principal duty to his faith; then to his flock. Is it right to take him away from those responsibilities to put him in the minor diplomat role? I suggest the answer is rarely.
Thirdly, that 'flock' may look at THEIR Chaplain treating with potential bad guys in an unfavorable light and that may affect his ability to deal with said flock (and let me assure you, that has occurred in less volatile regions over less important things than we're discussing here). The question arises are you perhaps compromising your Chaplains ability to do his primary job -- to the detriment of your unit?
Lastly, you are involving a religious entity in a military matter -- and make no mistake, if the Army or Marines are there, it is a military matter. Some of the organized religions have difficulties with that and you may put your Chaplain in a bad position.
Hate to state the obvious but I think the philosophy is starting to obscure reality. :wry:
Edited to add:
That doesn't even address the fact that all Chaplains are not equal. I can recall a couple who would do well, many more who might and a couple; one a hard core Jesuit who'd argue with a Lamp post and another who was so conciliatory and afraid of offending that he'd be dangerous.
Consider also that Chaplains are protected under the Geneva Conventions (plural). use them for non-pastoral duties and you run the risk of that protection being discounted.
US Chaplains are not armed by regulation, not by tradition or the Geneva Convention. It is a matter of policy, not of law and it has been known to be disregarded. The guy in WW II who served as a Tank Gunner was a bit much and he was released from the service. :D
All in all, using Chaplains as negotiators has far more potential adverse impacts than beneficial ones.