Paper: Rethinking Role of Religious Conflict in Doctrine

[milnews.ca]

Copy of "Religion and Resistance: Examining the Role of Religion in Irregular Warfare" by Matthew A. Lauder, Defence R&D Canada – Toronto available for download here (26 page .pdf).

Abstract

The US counter-insurgency manual (FM 3-24) has been criticised by several theorists for a lack of attention paid to the issue of religion. For example, critics of the manual indicate that religion is mentioned only a handful of times, and merely in-passing or as a secondary factor within a broader appreciation of the cultural context of the operating environment. The superficial treatment of religion in counter-insurgency doctrine, and a trend of dismissing the grievances of religiously-inspired antagonists as illegitimate, serves to illustrate a general lack of appreciation for the mingling of the religious and the political that exists outside of Western society. In other words, there is an overall lack of recognition of, and appreciation for, the ways in which religion underlies social, cultural, political, and economic discourse and action, and, more specifically, the role of religion in conflict. The aim of this paper is two-fold: (1) it will critically examine the treatment of religion and religious concepts in US and Canadian counter-insurgency doctrine; and (2) by drawing upon Religious Studies scholars, and by comparing historical and contemporary examples of religious conflict between states and non-state actors, it will argue that spiritual insurgencies are forms of violent new religious movements. The objective of this paper is to encourage the re-thinking of the problem-space and a reassessment of how we classify and treat religious conflict in doctrine and engage religious antagonists in the contemporary operating environment.

[graphei]

Copy of "Religion and Resistance: Examining the Role of Religion in Irregular Warfare" by Matthew A. Lauder, Defence R&D Canada – Toronto available for download here (26 page .pdf).

Abstract

That link for the download isn't working for me. Is it available for download anywhere else?

[M-A Lagrange]

I personnaly think that focussing on labelling war as religious or ethnical or what ever else than political is just missing the target.
It's basically a way to simplify the problematic by putting it in a box. There are two kind of problematic in war: politic and legallity of the action...
Religion is too often used to undermine the legal aspect of it. Especially when it comes to war in Muslim countries.
Recently, most of the Darfur politic analist I have been meeting just conceded that probably Bashir did not have much choices with what was going on. Based on the fact that he wanted to stay in power and we did not want to have the Muslim Brotherhood or worst to come back in power.
Somehow, the bad muslim and the nice african animists tend to disapear...

But I have to read the paper once I found it as the link you gave did not work either for me.

M-A

[Stan]

Found Milnews.ca's link here.

(101.99 kB - downloaded 10 times.)

[graphei]

A very wise mentor once told me "Islam is politics", and I would argue it applies to religion as a whole. Any religious leader worth their salt can whip their followers into a murderous frenzy over the most miniscule issue. Why? You start pulling the threads that are attached to someone's beliefs in how the Universe functions and you can watch them start frothing at the mouth. Same thing goes for ethnic/cultural aspects. However, I would hesitate labeling conflicts as purely 'religious', or 'ethnic', or 'political' because they all come to bear and all are a part of human culture (I'm having flashback's of Gadamer's Truth & Method now).

Religion, culture, and ethnicity are used as political currency every day- even in America and Europe. And the arguments I saw on the other forum of 'It's not rational- only emotional' 'It's a crutch' are weak. Marx is dead. The Enlightenment is over. Let the Post-Modern java flow

MA- I'm not really sure what you mean by legalities. Can you explain a bit more for me please?

[Steve the Planner]

I remain in awe of Grand Ayatollah Sistani's moral conviction not to engage in politics if at all possible. Must be the hardest thing when battle rages, or threatens to rage all around.

Same with those in Iran. Sometimes you wish they would jump in, but it must be a very high and hard road.

But the same COIN criticism could be raised about politics.

Personally, I wish folks in the field had a basic primer in the practical and administrative aspects of political organization and operation (at the internal and sub-national levels, not foreign policy/nation state stuff) It would make life easier.

But how much can you pack into a Field Manual?

Steve

[Schmedlap]

I personnaly think that focussing on labelling war as religious or ethnical or what ever else than political is just missing the target.

Agree with that. Stepping way outside of my tactical-level approach to things...

There are no "religious wars" or "information wars" or "wars of attrition" or "proxy wars." Replace the word "war" in each one with "campaign." The campaigns are not waged to assert a religion, obtain information dominance, eliminate the other military, or defeat a friend's enemy as ends in themselves. They are supporting efforts in a larger war and that larger war is fought for a political end.

[M-A Lagrange]

Schmedlap,

There are no "religious wars" or "information wars" or "wars of attrition" or "proxy wars." Replace the word "war" in each one with "campaign."

you took my academic words to turn them in technical/practical words. If I can say so.
For me, religion will influence the context in term of how far and how easily you will penetrate in the opponant society/structure/network...

It will also give you a global idea of the direction to take for your cimic/psyop operations. But not much more.
The tribes I am dealing with are catholic but their culture is as far from mine than those of the afghan or somali could be. It's even amazing to see how close in fact some catholic/animist tribes are "culturaly" close to Muslim tribes in East Africa. All pastoralist have the same approach: my cows, my grazzing land and my water. My clan against the world.
After it's just a complexe political game on the one who will get the biggest part of the cake.

Mike,

I'll go with your diagram but I wonder how far it applies. With Shia, no doubt, the separation between administration and religion is there. With extremist... I somethimes really wonder. What would be the demarcation line between politic and law if it's the same religious leader who defines both?

Anyways, in operational terms, it always comes back to the fact that we need to find something that applies to it to re-establish dialog links with something that looks like us. It seems easier.

PS: yes I came back from my excursion in the bush. Was good by the way.

Personally, I wish folks in the field had a basic primer in the practical and administrative aspects of political organization and operation (at the internal and sub-national levels, not foreign policy/nation state stuff) It would make life easier.

Steve,

I agree just with you. I think that Kilcullen pointed it in a past article in SWJ: we always try to find a "new elite" to replace the one we want to go. In nation building, it's too often not functioning as we place guys who basically do not have the same understanding than us of what "being in power means". But this is rarely due to religious believes and even less to religious cultural background. My experience tells me it is rather pretty much closer to economical greed.

[Steve the Planner]

MA:

"All pastoralist have the same approach: my cows, my grazzing land and my water. My clan against the world.
After it's just a complexe political game on the one who will get the biggest part of the cake. "

I keep trying to avoid falling down the economic/geographic determinism well, but, sometimes, a lot of this can be made too complex. I have mouths to feed is a pretty standard human motivator even if some of the nuances change.

My Paris socialite friend always says it is about money or SEX, and even that gets overlooked sometimes.

Steve