FAITH-BASED DIPLOMACY ADVOCACY AND UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY

In the introductory paragraphs the terms “religious” and “religion” have been used quite freely and yet religion can be understood in many ways to different audiences and so some definition is necessary. This article utilizes Gutkowski's definition of religion as multi-faceted and “as a form of command and/or intellectual identity, as a series of practices or rituals, as an informal or formal set of doctrines, as an articulated discourse or set of symbols, and as a worldview and/or ethical and political system” (Gutkowski Reference Gutkowski, Seiple, Hoover and Otis2013, 128). The term “faith-based” refers to any project or plan that is based in religious belief. The faith-based diplomacy school consists of prominent religious international relations and diplomatic historians including Johnston (Reference Johnston2003; Reference Johnston, Ayad and Marshall2005; Reference Johnston2011; Johnston and Sampson Reference Johnston and Sampson1994), Hoover (Reference Hoover2009; Hoover et al. Reference Hoover, Seiple and Otis2012), Seiple and Hoover (Reference Seiple and Hoover2004), Seiple (Reference Seiple2009; Seiple et al. 2012), Otis (Reference Otis2009), Hoover et al. (Reference Hoover, Seiple and Otis2012), Scott Appleby (Reference Scott Appleby2000; Scott Appleby et al. Reference Scott Appleby and Cizik2010), and Patterson (Reference Patterson2011).

Today religion is being embraced by authors calling for practical engagement with a religious world. Johnston (Reference Johnston2003; Reference Johnston2011; Johnston and Sampson Reference Johnston and Sampson1994) urges a faith-based diplomacy that highlights the positive contribution that religion can make toward conflict resolution and prevention. Thomas (Reference Thomas2005) also emphasizes the positive role that religion can play in international relations particularly in relation to faith-based ethics. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (Reference Albright2006) on leaving office suggested that policy-makers need to be cognizant of spiritual motivations and have a responsibility to enable religion to be a unifying rather than a divisive force in world politics. A theme echoed by Seiple and Hoover (Reference Seiple and Hoover2004) who argue that security will be enhanced by utilizing the Abrahamic faith traditions to advance a sustainable peace. The claims of each author are premised on a pluralist vision of religion in which religious actors are prepared to look at what unites rather than divides them in common purpose to peacefully resolve conflict and misunderstanding.

Eric Patterson (Reference Patterson2011, 56) identifies five general trends in the global resurgence in religion and the ways this could be interacting with United States foreign policy:

Patterson's argument is straightforward that in order to capitalize on this religious resurgence United States governments should entrust a greater role in the delivery of United States foreign policy objectives to their own religious actors. He advocates a “professional cadre of religious affairs specialists with deep expertise on religious and cultural factors in international security and foreign policy contexts” (Patterson Reference Patterson2011, 98). Johnston and Cox (Reference Johnston, Cox and Johnston2003, 16–17) argue that the faith-based diplomat is qualitatively superior to his or her secular counterpart because their actions are informed by a “conscious dependency on spiritual principles and resources” such as prayer, forgiveness, and reconciliation. They are able to exercise spiritual authority and have a “pluralistic heart,” recognizing different spiritual traditions while affirming their own belief. The faith-based diplomat is able to take a transcendent approach to conflict and is uniquely equipped to prevail against “overwhelming odds.”

For Johnston and Cox faith enables such diplomats to triumph over adversity, unlike their secular counterparts, because they can look to God to change situations and because of their vocational calling are able to persevere. Elsewhere Johnston warns that “unless a spiritual element is introduced into international politics that gets to the heart of forgiveness and reconciliation” violence will continue for evermore (Johnston Reference Johnston, Ayad and Marshall2005, 42). Johnston summarizes his operational premise in advocating faith-based diplomacy that only “reconciliation born of spiritual conviction can break the cycle of revenge that typically characterizes identity-based conflicts” (Johnston Reference Johnston2003, 9). For Johnston and the faith-based diplomacy school religious actors spiritual insight has a vital role to play in all aspects of United States foreign policy including among the military chaplaincy who are “uniquely positioned to be helpful on an ongoing basis” by expanding their role to include “peacemaking and conflict prevention” rather than simply attending to the pastoral and spiritual needs of troops and their families (Johnston Reference Johnston2003, 25).

R. Scott Appleby argues that if religions are to develop a role as peace builders then they must be engaged in promoting international rights and responsibilities. They must also respect and promote religious freedom, and support inter-religious dialogue and ventures “designed to prevent or transform conflicts that are based on religious or cultural disputes” (Scott Appleby, Reference Scott Appleby2000, 245). Scott Appleby served on The Chicago Council on Global Affairs task force on “religion and the making of United States foreign policy.” The task force produced an extensive report urging President Obama to overcome institutional secularism in United States foreign policy processes and to train Foreign Service officers, diplomats, military and economic officials to engage with local religious communities to achieve United States humanitarian and strategic objectives (Scott Appleby et al. Reference Scott Appleby and Cizik2010). The report was well received and complemented a series of proposals to actively incorporate religious actors and discourse within United States domestic and foreign policy produced by the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

The Advisory Council sought to build on the president's first inaugural address where he proclaimed that the United States was not just a nation of Christians but also of “Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, and non-believers” (PAC 2010, 89). The report advocates pluralism, mutual respect, and multi-religious cooperation with engagement based on respecting religious differences and “acting on deeply held and widely shared values.” The identity of each religious community is to be preserved and their organization honored. Those working in this area should support “locally led multireligious structures” (PAC 2010, 75). Such advice and subsequent government action accords with a faith-based international relations narrative previously discussed where pluralist religious actors can come together to put on one side their differences and engage in areas of shared belief and practice.

For United States foreign policy, this new problem-solving role for religion is inherently problematic. The first amendment establishing the separation of church and state has been a site of contestation domestically as religious and secular actors have argued over the permeability of that wall of separation. Notwithstanding this both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have actively sought and encouraged the involvement of religious actors in delivering United States foreign policy objectives (cf. Durham Reference Durham2004; Kaplan Reference Kaplan2005; Phillips Reference Phillips2007; Croft Reference Croft2007; Marsden Reference Marsden2008; Micklethwaite and Wooldridge Reference Micklethwaite and Wooldridge2010). The Bush and Obama administrations have established religious advisory councils, faith-based neighborhood partnerships and community initiatives, religious and global affairs interagency working groups headed by the White House and National Security Council, initiated religious training for the diplomatic services and expanded the role of military chaplains to include liaison with local religious leaders in stability operations.

The argument that religious actors are best equipped to deal with problems with a religious dimension, even (or especially) where this involves those of a different religious persuasion advanced by the faith-based diplomacy school are in the ascendancy. However, the premise that pluralist religious actors can work for the common good of course overlooks the reality that voices of moderation are in decline. Mainstream Christian congregations and church membership have been in steady decline in the United States for decades while growth has been limited to evangelical and Pentecostal churches. In the Muslim majority world, there has been a similar enthusiasm for more radical expressions of faith with growing intolerance toward minority religious groupings. Evangelicals today comprise the biggest religious group within the United States (26.3% out of a total self-declared Christian population of 78.4%; Pew Research Center 2008). A survey of evangelical leaders in the autumn of 2002 suggested that there is little conception of shared values with Islam. The survey suggested that 77% held an unfavorable view of Islam and 79% did not consider that the two faiths prayed to the same God. Three-quarters believed that Islam is opposed to religious freedom and pluralism/democracy. 70% considered that Islam was a religion of violence, 66% that it was bent on world domination while almost half considered that the war on terrorism a war between the West and Islam. 97% considered that it was important to evangelize Muslims overseas (Beliefnet 2003).

Clearly such views present a considerable challenge to the faith-based advocacy of a pluralist approach to interfaith diplomacy. A successful engagement policy with religious actors abroad to advance United States interests is dependent upon the abilities and sincerity of those representing such interests. This is particularly important in the Muslim majority world, where United States foreign policy projection has increasingly involved the United States military, engaged in a combination of combat, and reconstruction activities. The faith-based diplomacy school has successfully persuaded the administration to increase the role of United States military chaplains in engaging with local communities. This article contends that this strategy is seriously flawed because it takes little account of military culture and the disproportionate influence of conservative evangelicals within the military. Walter Russell Mead suggests an increased role for evangelicals should not cause alarm a position contested within this article:

Where Walter Russell Mead uses a broad definition of evangelicals to include all those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible and seek to proselytize this article is concerned specifically with protestant “conservative evangelicals” who combine the imperative to make converts to their faith with fiscally and morally conservative values (Marsden Reference Marsden2008, 3–6; Croft Reference Croft, Parmar, Miller and Ledwidge2009, 121).

UNITED STATES MILITARY CULTURE

Before tackling the issue of the role of evangelicals within the chaplaincy and military we should first consider military culture because it is within the context of this culture that the influence of evangelicals can be encouraged or curtailed. Some definitions are perhaps in order. Williamson Murray defines military culture as representing: “the ethos and professional attributes, both in terms of experience and intellectual study that contribute to a common core understanding of the nature of war within military organizations” (Murray Reference Murray1998, 134). Huntington (Reference Huntington1957) and Janowitz (1960) analyzed the distinctive culture of the United States military and its relationship to the state in seminal works relevant in the post-World War II and early Cold War period emphasizing their expertise. A theme that continues to hold sway with many Americans as evidenced by Barack Obama's 2012 state of the union speech referring to the United States military:

United States military culture has changed over the years as the country has moved from a conscript army to a volunteer army, increasingly distant from the everyday experience of most Americans. While the United States fights many wars the people do not feel at war and apart from the occasional news broadcast intruding on their everyday lives are largely untouched by conflict. Americans appear content to allow other people to fight their wars for them and are appreciative of the special skills required to undertake the task awarding service personnel special honor:

The distancing between the military and their political leaders, who have not served in uniform, was exemplified in the dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal from his position in charge of the Afghanistan/Pakistan campaign in 2010 following an article in Rolling Stone magazine disparaging the high ranking civilians charged with running United States foreign policy. Andrew Bacevich detects a developing praetorianism among the officer corps:

A developing culture of estrangement from civilian leadership and a sense of moral superiority present particular challenges when that civilian leadership seeks to use the military chaplaincy as a faith-based instrument of diplomacy to achieve its foreign policy objectives. A faith-based diplomacy based on pluralism could struggle faced with the moral certainties of a military more in tune with General Jerry Boykin, who preached in uniform in church services, declaring that America's battles in the war on terror were spiritual rather than physical” (Mansfield Reference Mansfield2006, 127). If they were spiritual then they should be fought “by men and women who comprise a ‘Christian army’” (Mansfield Reference Mansfield2006, 129). Boykin advanced a warrior code as part of military culture that was diametrically opposed to official United States policy, buoyed by a moral superiority based on a combination of military service and spiritual belief. Stephen Mansfield takes up Boykin's theme and writing to a conservative evangelical audience posits a “true warrior code” very different to anything advocated by the faith-based diplomacy school:

Mansfield's code is far removed from mutual religious and cultural understanding and presents a direct challenge to faith-based advocacy based on a pluralist approach to theological difference, in particular in the use of the military chaplaincy to advance foreign policy objectives. A military culture that asserts a sense of moral superiority over its civilian leadership, inspired by an evangelical worldview, will have few qualms in rejecting pluralist religious approaches in favor of promoting their own brand of religion especially through an evangelical dominated chaplaincy.

UNITED STATES MILITARY CHAPLAINCY

The role of the military chaplain in area of operations, set out in the 1989 Field Manual 16-1, The Chaplain and Chaplain Assistant, in paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 is to provide information to the commanding officer about the religious and faith practices of the local populace and assist the civil-military operations officer in an analysis of religious and cultural practices. They are to liaise with local missionaries and religious leaders, including assisting in “charitable and beneficial endeavors,” including training personnel to respect local religious beliefs and customs and promote peace and harmony (Brinsfield Reference Brinsfield2009a; Reference Brinsfield2009b). The operational role of the chaplain is clearly articulated in the 2009 online publication of “JP 1-05, Religious Affairs in Joint Operations.” The chaplain serves as “the principal advisor to the joint force commander (JFC) on religious affairs and a key advisor on the impact of religion on military operations” (JP 1-05, 2009). In addition to combat operations, the role also includes peace and stability operations, foreign humanitarian assistance, disaster response, homeland defense, civil support, and military engagement (JP 1-05, 2009). This remit is in accord with normative position adopted by Otis, Seiple, Hoover, and Johnston in a special issue of The Review of Faith and International Affairs on “The Changing Nature of the Military Chaplaincy” (2009) among others of active participation by religious actors in peacemaking, diplomacy and conflict resolution.

The heightened awareness of the importance of understanding religious and cultural beliefs in operational settings was emphasized in the Bush administration's 2006 National Security Strategy (NSC 2006) and reiterated in the Obama administration's update of JP 1-05. Within the latter document the following advice is highlighted:

A chaplain equipped in understanding other religions and cultures is well placed not simply to advise commanding officers but also on the latter's instructions to engage in dialogue and practical support to indigenous religious leaders (JP 1-05). With this in mind, the new Armed Forces Center at Fort Jackson includes a Center for World Religions designed to train and equip chaplains to understand the impact of religion on operations. Brinsfield (Reference Brinsfield2009a; Reference Brinsfield2009b) describes how chaplains in Afghanistan have established “prayer meetings, breakfast or lunch meetings, and formal discussions with mullahs regarding renovations of mosques, schools, museums, and other public buildings.” While in Iraq, Chaplain LaMar Griffin considers that his Unit Ministry Team increased stability by facilitating reconciliation discussions between Sunni, Shi'a, Kurdish and non-Muslim leaders, including direct liaison with them, State Department and Government of Iraq officials (Griffin Reference Griffin2009).

This expanded role for the chaplains and their assistants was encouraged by Douglas Johnston and Brian Cox in their book on faith-based diplomacy:

Johnston and Cox's normative position on an expansion of the traditional chaplaincy role receives strong endorsement from two reports published by the United States Institute for Peace. Paul McLaughlin emphasizes the chaplain's ability to “create or strengthen meaningful relationships with leaders of political factions” to contribute toward conflict reduction and a foundation for peace (McLaughlin Reference McLaughlin2002, 32). George Adams, drawing on the experience of chaplains in Iraq and Afghanistan, also credits the chaplaincy with an ability to improve dialogue and communication with religious leaders in occupied countries. The ability of the chaplain to engage in religious dialogue and then translate this into the universal language of the United States military fulfills Habermasian understanding of the prerequisite for religious engagement with a secular state (Habermas Reference Habermas and Habermas2010). An ability to understand and translate the spiritual significance of rituals and gestures can overcome misunderstanding (Adams Reference Adams2006: 1–2, 6, 8–9). The key to successful engagement, for Adams, lies in having “an open and accepting attitude towards indigenous religious leaders (Adams Reference Adams2006, 8). This openness and acceptance inevitably relies on the chaplaincy and commanding officers” commitment to multi-faith dialogue, respect for the religious beliefs of others, and freedom of religion. Such reliance cannot, however, be taken for granted and indeed appears at variance with the activities of conservative evangelicals in the armed services over the past decade.

Military chaplains in other secular countries including Norway and Canada are also becoming increasingly important in conflict resolution initiatives predicated on a pluralist approach (Rennick Reference Rennick2011; Johnston Reference Johnston2009). The concern here with the United States military is not the involvement of religious actors in liaising with local communities per se but the competing agendas of those chaplains where intolerance is part of a religious worldview.

CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS AND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY

The military chaplain is at the cutting edge of faith-based diplomacy perspectives that advocate a key role for religion in United States foreign policy and therefore attention needs to be given to those who carry out this role. Up until 1987 endorsing agencies selecting candidates for the chaplaincy reflected the denominational strength of different protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and those of other faiths. Following a prolonged period where it had become difficult to recruit chaplains from mainline Christian denominations, a trend that can in part be attributed to opposition to the Vietnam War, the Reagan administration decided to lump all protestant groupings together and widen the number of endorsing agencies. This enabled conservative evangelical groups to endorse far more chaplaincy candidates for the armed forces (Joyce Reference Joyce2009; Townsend Reference Townsend2011). Up to 60% of the 2,900 chaplains serving the 1.4 million members of the armed services are now evangelical in contrast to the men and women they serve. Department of Defense figures indicate that around 40% of active duty personnel are evangelical, considerably higher than the 26% in the overall population (Brady Reference Brady2005b; Pew Research Center 2008). The trend toward evangelical dominance of the chaplaincy is likely to continue for the foreseeable future with the Air Force indicating that 87% of those applying to become chaplains are enrolled in evangelical bible colleges such as Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell, which recruit hundreds of chaplaincy students through offering online degrees (Townsend Reference Townsend2011).

Evangelical chaplains, however, face a particular challenge in that they are obliged to minister to the pastoral needs of all service personnel and their families, regardless of religious belief, and to uphold freedom of religion for all. This is problematic for evangelicals committed to a worldview that is exclusive and requires them to evangelize non-believers, and believers of other religious traditions, to convert them to what they consider to be the one true religion. In addition to their service commission, they also respond to a divine commission that insists that there is only one way to God (John 13:3; 4:6). This divine commission to evangelize takes precedence over service to temporal authority (Matthew 28: 16–20). The desire to evangelize or proselytize extends not just to members of the armed forces and their families but to all those who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior including foreign nationals.

Over the past decade, Americans United for Church and State (AU) and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) have amassed a tremendous amount of evidence of evangelical proselytizing. Mickey Weinstein is a graduate of the Air Force Academy and formed MRFF when his son reported anti-Semitic activity and religious indoctrination by the chaplaincy and commanding officers. Following Weinstein's investigation of proselytizing and victimization of non-evangelicals, the foundation received four to five hundred complaints from service members monthly (Joyce Reference Joyce2009). Such complaints formed the basis of an AU report on “Religious Coercion and Endorsement of Religion at the United States Air Force Academy” (Weinstein and Seay Reference Weinstein and Seay2006, 215–231). This report accused academy staff of pressurizing cadets to attend chapel and undertake religious instruction and for evangelical attempt to convert fellow cadets. Discrimination against those of other faiths was widespread with freedom to attend religious meetings off-site denied. Upper-class (older) cadets have encouraged religious observance and participation by younger cadets. Staff members have described themselves as born again and encouraged cadets to make a similar commitment.

The report details misdemeanors by named members of staff up to and including Brigadier General Johnny Weida (Commandant of Cadets). In his official capacity, he e-mailed cadets endorsing a National Prayer Week, encouraged the proselytizing of cadets, sought to use Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ as an evangelism tool, and introduced a series of code words which he shared with evangelical cadets as an opportunity to witness to the peers. When he said “Airpower” they would respond “Rock Sir?”, invoking Jesus as “the rock” (See Matthew 7: 24-9; Luke 6:46-9) and would use this as an opportunity to evangelize when those cadets out of the loop asked what was going on (Weinstein and Seay Reference Weinstein and Seay2006, 222). Head football coach Fisher DeBerry hung a banner in the locker room reading “I am a Christian first and last *** I am a member of Team Jesus Christ” (Weinstein and Seay Reference Weinstein and Seay2006, 224). Along with numerous other examples, such activities indicate an institutional bias in favor of evangelical Christianity at odds with the Establishment Clause of the constitution (Schweiker Reference Schweiker2006).

An investigation took place in 2005 and revised interim guidelines concerning the free exercise of religion in the Air Force were issued, insisting that the academy was to be officially neutral regarding religious beliefs. Nonetheless within weeks of measures being taken to address the problem the academy's top cadet sent an e-mail to 3000 of his colleagues containing bible verses (Brady Reference Brady2005a). Days later a four day Spiritual Fitness Conference for Air Force chaplains was organized at the Hilton Hotel in Colorado Springs, which was dominated by conservative evangelical support organizations, including Focus on the Family, providing materials for chaplains to use in their duties. Brigadier General Cecil R. Richardson, Air Force deputy chief of chaplains when interviewed declared that: “We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched” (Goodstein Reference Goodstein2005; Grant Reference Grant, Parco and Levy2010, 40).

The Air Force has not been alone in promoting conservative evangelicalism and over a three year period, according to an editorial in The Boston Globe on November 23, 2009, MRFF received 15,000 complaints from serving members of the armed services. These complaints ranged from mandatory attendance at military events where prayers are said, to being overlooked for promotion because of not attending commanding officers' churches. Former Army Chaplain, Jim Ammerman, founder of the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches (CFCG), described a CFGC Chaplain at Fort Riley, Kansas, who insisted that the chaplains below him either “speak up for Jesus” or leave (Joyce Reference Joyce2009). In March 2009, the Army Chief of Chaplains, Major General Douglas Carver, a conservative evangelical and Southern Baptist, urged Army Chaplains to pray and fast on April 8, 2009 “for the preservation, protection and peace of our Army,” the first night of the Passover, when traditionally a commemorative meal is shared by Jews, including Jewish Chaplains. Major General Carver had previously addressed an annual chaplains' lunch at the 2006 Southern Baptist convention. During this event, he suggested that the war on terror presented a providential opportunity for the chaplains:

Evangelical chaplains receive assistance in their work of evangelizing service personnel and covertly evangelizing local populations during periods of deployment by a myriad of para-church organizations. The largest and most influential of these include Campus Crusade's Military Ministry, the Officers' Christian Fellowship, Cadence International, Association for Christian Conferences Teaching and Service, Soldier's Bible Ministry, Salvation Evangelistic Association, and the Navigators. The Public Record describes Military Ministry as the most successful fundamentalist Christian group at infiltrating the military. The organization claims that it has successfully converted thousands of soldiers to evangelical Christianity. The website sets out six strategic objectives:

• • Pillar 1: Evangelize and disciple enlisted U.S. military members throughout their military careers.

• • Pillar 2: Build Christian military leaders and influence our nation for Christ as a result.

• • Pillar 3: Stop the unraveling of the military family and provide Christ-centered solutions for those suffering from the destructive effects of combat trauma, and especially PTSD.

• • Pillar 4: Arm troops in harm's way with spiritual resources. Provide Bibles and devotional materials to chaplains and directly to troops.

• • Pillar 5: Wage Christian outreach, discipleship and training on the Internet to military members across the world.

• • Pillar 6: Change continents for Christ. Train, equip and support indigenous military leaders as they build Christian ministries in their own nations (The Public Record 2008).

Military Ministry provides resources to chaplains free of charge to distribute to service personnel to sustain them in their faith and to convert non-believers and those of other faiths. In addition, they maintain websites designed for soldiers, train Christian leaders among the military ranks, and send missionaries to United States bases, very often helping fill a vacuum created by a shortage of chaplains. They offer chaplains in United States and allied militaries rapid deployment kits, which include bibles, devotionals and tracts, supplying one and a half million kits in 2006/7 (Wunderink Reference Wunderink2007; Banerjee Reference Banerjee2008; Lichtblau Reference Lichtblau2009). Such organizations see themselves according to Jeff Sharlet “not as subversives but as spiritual warriors —‘ambassadors for Christ in uniform,’ according to Officers' Christian Fellowship; ‘government paid missionaries,’ according to Campus Crusade's Military Ministry” (Sharlet Reference Sharlet2009). The Military Ministry is active worldwide and complements the Officers' Christian Fellowship, which has 15,000 active members working at 80% of United States military bases (Sharlet Reference Sharlet2009; Rodda Reference Rodda, Parco and Levy2010, 79).

In addition to these para-church organizations, thousands of evangelical churches around the country have active missions to the armed services, sending CDs of church services, tracts, bibles, and other materials to troops serving overseas. There is also a mission conducted by conservative evangelical churches to convert service personnel at each base in the United States with outreach for soldiers, airmen and seamen, and their families to attend local churches and Sunday school. When troops deploy overseas there is an expectation by these churches and para-churches that the troops, in turn, will also evangelize those they serve alongside and the indigenous population so that the Great Commission is fulfilled. Army Chief of Chaplains Major General Douglas Carver endorsed an organization known as American Defenders of Freedom (ADOF). ADOF is a conservative evangelical organization that seeks to proselytize the United States armed services by issuing them with a Prayer Reminder coin for each of the armed services. The Navy objected to the use of their official seal and so the coins were redesigned, but the army and air force made no such objections. Chaplains who are required to verify that they are being used for evangelistic purposes distribute the coins and tracts. Tens of thousands have been distributed and chaplains are able to buy extra coins using their official Government Purchase Card (Rodda Reference Rodda2009).

As we have seen, evangelicals are committed to converting others to their belief system but also are engaged in the construction of identity which posits that real Americans are Christian and that as members of the armed services serve as spiritual warriors in a battle against evil. This is problematic for theory based on faith-based diplomacy and the incorporation of pluralist religious actors in foreign policy.

CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS IN COMBAT OPERATIONS

A plethora of evangelistic organizations either sprang up or were revitalized by war in the Middle East determined to harvest for souls in the 10/40 window (the area of North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia 10 degrees to forty degrees north). Esther Kaplan records that the Southern Baptist Convention had 1,000 missionaries in the 10/40 window and were distributing food boxes with John 1:17 in Arabic stating that “the law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth come through Jesus Christ.” According to her research Samaritan's Purse allocated US$194 million to send missionaries to Iraq and In Touch Ministries, Atlanta circulated a pamphlet entitled “A Christian's Duty” to thousands of United States troops in Iraq (Kaplan Reference Kaplan2005, 14–16). Jim Ammerman, working with the International Missions Center (IMC) in 2003, sought to distribute Arabic Bibles in Iraq through a network of 40 active duty chaplains. J.E. Adkins, who oversees the IMC estimated that between 100,000 and 500,000 Arabic bibles were distributed in less than a year following Saddam Hussein's defeat (Joyce Reference Joyce2009). The Soldiers Bible Ministry, Salvation Evangelistic Association, and the Worldwide Military Baptist Missions have similarly distributed tens of thousands of Arabic bibles and hundreds of thousands of tracts in the native languages of countries occupied by United States forces (Rodda Reference Rodda, Parco and Levy2010, 77–79).

General David Petraeus, responsible for the Iraq surge and change of strategy in Afghanistan offered a published endorsement of a conservative evangelical book, Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel by Army Chaplain Lt. Colonel William McCoy. Petraeus' endorsement states that the book should “be in every rucksack for those times when soldiers need spiritual energy” (Jordan Reference Jordan2008). Soldiers receive DVDs of their home church services; attend church services, prayer meetings and bible classes (Hedges Reference Hedges2007; Layklin Reference Layklin2003; Beaumont Reference Beaumont2007). Examples of proselytizing by army chaplains are not too difficult to come across and are part of the daily experience of being in the military.

The Public Record recalls that in June 2008 two army and an air force chaplain led mandatory prayer sessions and Bible study “as part of daily shift change briefings in the 3^rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command,” twice a day (The Public Record 2008). A similar insight is revealed with the Discovery Channel's Military Channel showing “God's Soldier” in September 2008. The program was filmed on location at Forward Operating Base McHenry in Hawijah, Iraq with the cooperation of the 2-27 Infantry Battalion Wolfhounds. The film follows conservative evangelical chaplain Captain Charles Popov as he evangelizes troops and sends them out on patrol with the prayer that God “would give them the ability to exterminate the enemy and to accomplish the task that they've been sent forth by God and country to do. In Christ's name I pray. Amen” (Weinstein Reference Weinstein2008; The Public Record 2008). He tells soldiers that they have been called upon “to execute wrath upon those who do evil” (Rodda Reference Rodda, Parco and Levy2010, 75).

Jeff Sharlet reports how a similar lack of regard for the enemy by conservative evangelicals resulted in the desecration of mosques by spray painting crosses on walls and an officer having “Jesus Killed Mohammed” painted in Arabic on his Bradley Fighting vehicle (Sharlet Reference Sharlet2009). United States Marines were discovered to have handed out evangelistic coins to Iraqis in Fallujah in 2008 asking “where you will spend eternity?” The answer is discovered by turning the coin over to see John 3:17 revealed. Residents expressed a sense of humiliation and weakness with one resident alleging that “the occupier is planting seeds of strife between the Muslims and Christians” (Rider Reference Rider2008). Iraqi Christians who were linked by religion with the United States occupying force have borne the brunt of considerable hostility from Islamists reducing their numbers from one and half million before the invasion of Iraq to under 850,000 today with many churches and homes of Christians attacked (Chaudhry, Reference Chaudhry2011).

The situation in Afghanistan shows the same pattern of evangelical proselytizing. A Christian reality television series broadcast by Trinity Broadcasting Network “Travel the Road” aired in 2008. Three episodes were filmed in Afghanistan with two missionaries, Will Decker and Tim Scott, embedded with United States troops as they go on patrol and the missionaries evangelize the local Afghans. The program shows Captain Brad Hanna of the Oklahoma National Guard expressing his pleasure in being able to witness about Christianity and the possibility of revival to the Afghan people. Since returning from the tour, Captain Hanna was appointed full-time support chaplain to the Oklahoma National Guard (Weinstein Reference Weinstein2008; The Public Record 2008; Rodda Reference Rodda, Parco and Levy2010, 74). Al Jazeera aired a news clip in May 2009 showing United States military chaplains at Bagram Air base, Afghanistan preparing to distribute Bibles translated into Pashto and Dari and discussing how to get round rules outlawing proselytizing by giving gifts in order to evangelize. The film shows chaplains acknowledging General Order Number One, prohibiting proselytizing, but a Sgt. Watts declares that “you can't proselytize but you can give gifts.” The Chief of United States Military Chaplains in Afghanistan, Lt. Colonel Gary Hensley is seen preaching to an evangelical audience and declaring:

The revelation in 2010 that arms manufacturer Trijicon was supplying weapons for the army and Marines with Bible verses set into the gun sights only helped to fuel Taliban propaganda that the United States army was a Christian army at war with Islam according to Al Jazeera contributors David Chater and Haris Tarin, Directors of Washington's Muslim Public Affairs Council (Al Jazeera 2010; Jonsson Reference Jonsson2010). Conservative evangelicals in contrast to successive administrations desire to engage local Muslim populations have presented an Islamist threat which they see themselves countering through a combination of defeating Islamism militarily and using the opportunity provided by their presence in Muslim majority countries to promote Christianity among their own troops and the local population. Islamists are also adept at portraying the United States troops as a crusader army intent on converting Muslims and changing their way of life. Faith-based diplomacy theorists will argue that chaplains should be used to demonstrate that the actions of conservative evangelicals described above do not reflect the aims and intentions of United States foreign policy, however the majority of chaplains entrusted with engaging with local religious leaders are themselves evangelicals.

CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALS AND THE CHALLENGE TO UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY

Conservative evangelicals have been particularly effective in pursuing their religious objectives, circumventing General Order Number One and testing the Establishment clause in the Constitution. They have made the most of opportunities presented by the declining membership and participation of mainline protestant churches, greatly increasing the number of chaplains to gain over 60% of all chaplaincy posts. This position has been subject to considerable abuse as detailed by the work of Mickey Weinstein, the MRFF, and AU. This has been problematic for the thousands of service men and women who have complained about discrimination, proselytizing, and bullying within the armed services and in the military colleges in particular. Although attempts to address the problem and ensure that all service personnel enjoy freedom of religion and worship have been made, the evidence points to these moves being resisted. The bias in favor of conservative evangelicals is systemic and includes the top echelons of the Pentagon as well as the chaplaincy. Such institutional evangelicalism threatens the cohesion and morale of service personnel leading to suspicion and mistrust.

The problems present at home become more serious for the achievement of United States objectives abroad in Muslim majority countries, where it is easy for local populations to perceive them as a Christian Army. When members of the military, encouraged by Chaplains and commanding officers, see themselves as a Christian army this perception becomes harder to dispel. The opportunity to carry out the Great Commission through force of arms and to interpret conflict through a spiritual lens has proved irresistible to many conservative evangelicals. Yet such an approach presents a real problem for the administration's desire to reach out to religious leaders in Muslim majority countries and in particular in Afghanistan. The chaplaincy has a key role to play in educating the United States military about other religions and heightening cultural sensitivity. They also have a specific role in advising commanding officers about the religious and cultural sensitivities in areas of military operations. Furthermore, an expanded role of engagement and cooperation with local religious leaders is envisaged for the chaplaincy. This role is likely to be predicated on a mutual respect and trust between religious leaders a task complicated if the core beliefs of a chaplain maintain that the other person's faith is not merely wrong but demonic and that there is only one truth. If the United States military is seen as being unable to prevent its service personnel from proselytizing or as protecting evangelical missionaries then resistance forces have convincing arguments to rally opposition to the United States presence.

Faith-based diplomacy theorists point to common ground in different religions approaches to peace, respect, opposition to killing, and the capacity to reach out to those of other faiths to resolve conflict. They argue that humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts can often be more effective when delivered by local religious leaders and organizations because they already have an existing and trusted infrastructure in place to deliver services. However, negotiation and dialogue between local communities, and United States representatives, which seek to use religious channels, require dependable interlocutors who serve United States interests and the United States mission rather than the Great Commission. Conservative evangelicals in the military, and the supporting para-church organizations, have not demonstrated any such sensibilities and could derail any engagement strategy. While steps are being taken to keep conservative evangelicals within military and constitutional boundaries more is still required.

A return to denominational apportionment for protestant chaplains, rather than including all protestant groupings together would reduce conservative evangelical numbers in the chaplaincy to below half. Commanding officers should be encouraged to avoid partisan religious practices and ensure that chaplains fulfill their duties, as the best do, to meet the spiritual needs of all service personnel and their families without denominational favor and attempting to evangelize those of other beliefs while on the government pay roll. In the public sphere then chaplains, like all religious people “must accept the translation proviso as the price to be paid for the neutrality of the state authority towards competing worldviews” (Habermas Reference Habermas, Butler, Habermas, Taylor and West2011, 26). Obama's strategy of religious engagement, although at the embryonic stage, has potential to improve the effectiveness of United States military and humanitarian operations and firm action to curtail conservative evangelical excess could pay long-term dividends.

This article has used the case study of conservative evangelicals in the United States military to problematize the claims of the emerging faith-based diplomacy school, which are predicated on a pluralist approach, which seeks common ground with those of other faiths to bring about the peaceful resolution of conflict. The insistence that only religious actors, or those trained by religious actors, are equipped to engage with religious actors in other communities, is challenged by positing that the combination of a military culture that regards itself as morally superior to its civilian political leadership and the disproportionate influence of conservative evangelicals in the military and chaplaincy make these religious actors profoundly unsuited to engaging with those of other faiths. Liberal and progressive religious positions are in decline throughout the world and yet faith-based advocates are relying upon a pluralist approach to secure foreign policy objectives. In the case of relying on military chaplains to engage with religious counterparts to secure agreement for United States foreign policy objectives, the dominance of conservative evangelicals with a commitment to evangelize and a lack of respect for Islam render such faith-based approaches deeply flawed and potentially injurious to wider United States foreign policy interests.