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.

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.

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.

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