Chaplains as Liaisons with Religious Leaders: Lessons From Iraq and Afghanistan
Just published, by USIP: Chaplains as Liaisons with Religious Leaders: Lessons From Iraq and Afghanistan
Quote:
In Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in countless other hotspots around the world, religion has been a major factor in matters of war and peace. Since religion often plays a significant role in conflicts, it also needs to be one of the factors addressed in mediating conflicts. Yet, because the United States separates religion from political matters to a greater degree than many other areas of the world, Americans frequently have difficulty understanding the crucial role religion can play in conflict transformation.
As this study demonstrates, military chaplains, as clergy and officers, occupy a unique space that blends a secular status and a religious one, making them well suited to serve as intermediaries between military and religious leaders in areas of conflict and postconflict stabilization. While chaplains are not positioned to take on such major conflict mediation tasks as healing historic wounds in ethnic and sectarian conflict, they are positioned to communicate with religious leaders in discrete areas of conflict and contribute toward improved dialogue, trust, coordination, problem solving, and localized violence reduction. By drawing on the experiences of fourteen chaplains who had substantial interaction with religious leaders in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, or who supervised other chaplains involved in such activities, the author provides an exploratory study of the important mediating role chaplains can play in overseas military operations.
After briefly examining the military guidelines that provide the basis for chaplains to act as liaisons with religious leaders, the author examines the chaplain’s dual standing as a clergyperson and a military officer and the boundaries of the chaplain’s potential role as liaison. Specifically, the author unequivocally states that the primary mediating focus of chaplains should be on establishing communications and building relationships with local religious leaders on the ground—not on attempting to negotiate the resolution of broad historical problems. In harvesting the accounts of the fourteen chaplains whom he interviewed, the author next offers key peacebuilding principles and lessons that are informed by a sound reading of conflict resolution literature. For example, he finds that all chaplain outreach efforts must be balanced with security concerns to ensure not just the chaplains’ safety but also that of the local religious leaders with whom they meet. Further, he finds that chaplains who wish to serve in such a manner must have a willingness and ability to interact with religious leaders of other faiths and must not be theologically and personally inclined to view those of other faiths as enemies. Ultimately, the accounts he offers are meant to provide real-world examples of successful civil-military relations and to provide crucial guidance for chaplains to follow when serving as liaisons between the military and local religious leaders in overseas conflict zones.
While the primary role of military chaplains is to minister to the troops, as this study powerfully illustrates, chaplains can do much to not only mediate conflict on the ground but also help win the hearts and minds of local populations in support of U.S. combat and postconflict stability operations throughout the world.
Military Professionalism in the Chaplain Corps
I read the piece, and from the limited exposure I have to the Navy Chaplain Corps regarding military training and education, I think that the tone here may be too optimistic.
To function in this unique role as a liaison for religious issues in the culture confronted in an operating environment, it seems to me that much education would be necessary. This would be an endeavor in which a well intended person could easily damage a force's access and the perception of that force in its operating area. I expect that there are exceptional individuals who would find the role within their capability. For instance, I've known a few chaplains who were serving line officers prior to becoming chaplains, and a subset of them may have the knowledge and perspective of the operating requirements for the force, the diverse cultural sensitivities in a particular area, and the role they can play. However, institutional solutions don't successfully leverage the exceptional individual. There are very real current issues confronting employment of chaplains that don't appear to be approching resolution without seeking this massive expansion of capability at an individual level.
Thanks. Interesting discussion.
Particularly so as it was started by an NCO and has more Chap asst input than Chap input. :confused:
Aloo interesting that the "save the Corps" statement appears...
Sigh.
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.