I hardly know what to think about this:
British military chaplains in Afghanistan are urging an historic change in the rules to allow them to carry weapons when out on patrol alongside troops fighting the Taliban, because of the risk of capture.
For the first time in any theatre of conflict chaplains are no longer considered to be protected by the rules of war, because of the propaganda Taliban extremists would gain from showing “trophy” footage of a captive Christian priest.
By long tradition, clergy serving in Britain’s armed forces have not carried weapons in war-zones, but now some Royal Navy Commando chaplains want to be allowed to carry a side-arm, stating that as a last resort they would rather take their own life than fall into the hands of the Taliban.
It certainly says something about the nature of the enemy that we face that a priest – who after all, as vested members of the C of E almost certainly believes self-murder to be an unpardonable sin – would consider taking his own life rather than submit to capture.
Fully realizing that back in my own pistol packin’ days, if I ever ended up with dust on my boots on the wrong side of the line, I intended to count the rounds as they left the muzzle and think long and hard on where the last one would be aimed.
But still. Geez.
Um..If you’re in imminent danger of capture and take yourself out, don’t they still get the propaganda victory of having a dead chaplain (or pilot, as the case maybe)?
It does spare the pain and suffering and pretty much guaranteed violent and medieval death at the hands of the enemy…and I would be counting rounds too if I was in a sticky situation.
**Do note – when our men of God talking of dying in the line of duty, they aren’t talking about the reward of virgins or the pleasure of killing as many of the infidel as possible…
Brings to mind Kipling, who knew a thing or two about the subject…
“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.”
That is patriotism. To risk your immortal soul over not becoming propaganda, amazing!!
If the choice is lending credence to the enemy, and we might view this as Cristendom vs Islam, even suicide might be viewed as a lesser offence than offering oneself as a propaganda piece.
The Creator may be strict, but I do no believe him to be entirely blind.
Shipmates,
according to Christian tradition, Jesus wasn’t ever against carrying a weapon. It was the intent with which it was to be used that was of concern:
From Matthew we find
36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.
There is no prohibition against killing. The prohibition is against murder. Everyone has the absolute moral right, even the obligation, to defend their life.
Any chaplain that ventures forth unarmed is, to my mind, a fool, and disrespectful of the gift of life he or she has been given. Whether evil comes in the guise of man or demon, it is still evil and must be resisted.
One might also consider the question of the soldier’s dilema. He must not only accomplish his mission, but now must consider having to protect the chaplain in addition to his comrades and himself.
How, indeed, might one view the dilema, which will occur, of the soldier who gave up his own life defending a chaplain who refused to defend himself?
When fighting those who have abandoned basic human respects, traditions, and values, everyone must needs be armed, both soldier, medic and priest.
respects,
That’s one of many reasons that I don’t think I could ever do an embed as a blogger. If caught in a fight with the Taliban/AQ I would want to be armed. From what I know, the military doesn’t allow reporter/bloggers to carry sidearms. These men and women have enough to do without worrying about protecting me.
Now, I will say that if I was there and if push came to shove, I would find a weapon to defend myself and as many of my fellow countrymen as I could. Something about better judged by 12 than carried by 6…
Jim C
The rules have become quite sticky for any civilian carrying a weapon. If you’re not in a job with a title that includes “security” then it’s problematic to be carrying a sidearm in Iraq.
As any thinking person would probably agree, this is BS. Especially when the soldiers are not only allowed, but *required* to carry their weapon and a magazine everywhere they go, even inside a FOB compound, indeeed even into the DFAC or embassy palace.
If it is so dangerous that soldiers should not be outside arm’s reach of a weapon, then it’s so dangerous that no American should be. Yet I am disarmed by policy.
As for chaplains – of which I am studying to become one – this issue was raised and discussed at Chaplain School. For us, it’s not a matter of the Geneva Convention, or Title 10, U.S. Code, or anything else. It’s simply that the head chaplains of each service have agreed – and continue to agree – that carrying and/or using weapons (whether in training or in combat) runs contrary to our mission and purpose as chaplains.
I have heard of cases in OIF wherein a chaplain (usually a former combat arms soldier/officer) has elected to arm himself and join the fight, but the inevitable result was that his ministry among his unit suffered. Somehow, the troops couldn’t quite reconcile the fact that the Padre was actually capping people.
For myself, I look at it thusly:
I know what the policy is, and I voluntarily agree to abide by it. Having said that, I also know that there are times when an exception to policy is called for, be they few and far between.
So if I’m back at the casualty collection point caring for one of my wounded troops, and Johnny Jihad comes around the corner pointing his AK at us – would I shoot him? I think yes, I probably would. And would sleep well knowing that I had saved a life even if it meant I had to move on and do something different after that.
Other than that, I can think of durned few scenarios when use of deadly force – though authorized – would be appropriate for a chaplain. Stories abound in which chaplains walk the mean streets of Iraq and Afghanistan armed with nothing more than a smile – and it has a profound effect on the troops to see them in that environment.
It bears repeating that one has to keep one’s mission clearly in focus – not for me any longer the taking of life, but the saving of it.
Thought-provoking comments, MajHarvey… I think you may be right because it seems that “men/women of the cloth” and warriors have two different roles in this world.
One is not morally superior/inferior to the other, but they don’t usually co-exist in one individiual (consecutively some warriors become chaplains and vice-versa, obviously). I think of God telling David that he was a man of war and thus could not build His temple. Instead, David’s son would be the man known as the man of peace and religion (of course, the kicker is that God still called David a “man after my own heart”). So, it seems to me there’s a lot to be said for keeping the roles separate…
My father served in Vietnam as a medical tech, and a very religious man; he refused to carry a weapon and went on to a life as a minister. He had the utmost respect for those who fought and killed when necessary, but he believed that was not his calling.
Everone has at ALL times both a right and an abligation to defend his life with deadly force if necessary to preserve his life. THAT includes men of God, etc.
Since this old thread is being resurrected, I’ll add that in the USN (at least) we have Religous Professionals, many of whom are the most sacreligious men you’ll ever meet, who follow the unarmed padre around while themselves swaddled in battle rattle and armed to the teeth, trained in “defensive” driving and in sniffing out the surroundings.