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.

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\u2019s \u2018dog tags\u2019 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 \u2013 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\u2019s missiology. Are my actions intended to be
intrinsically humanitarian \u2013 and therefore consistent with
Christian spirituality?

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: \u201cwhoever makes himself a king sets
himself against Caesar.\u201d (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\u2019s Gospel, we read

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.

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 \u201cHosanna\u201d (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:

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

Pilate\u2019s 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 \u2013 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\u2019
status as a Jewish patriot. Jesus warns his disciples to
flee from the coming destruction of Jerusalem: