The Vital Role of Religion in Civil-Military Interaction

Library shelves and journals are filled with books and articles that speak to the potential divisive and destructive potential of religion. Irrespective of claims that religion’s influence is declining around the world, clearly it continues on. The ongoing collapse of Westphalia suggests that religion will continue to play an increasingly larger role in the world. Discussions that focus on whether-or-not religion is part of the political discourse are irrelevant. Two major world events place religion squarely in the public square; Solidarity in Poland, 1981 and September 11, 2001.The separation of church and state is ending and we are moving to an recognition of the twin tolerations.[18]

Failure on the part of military leaders to recognize the immediate impact of the collapse of Westphalia and the rise of religion on peace operations can be disastrous. Military leaders are entrusted with the security of the state. Failure is not an option.   

Important for CMI actors to understand is the West makes up less than one-fifth of the global population. Very simply, not everyone believes in the separation of religion from political, economic, and social life. It seems a Procrustean effort to fit the other four-fifths of the global population into a Western secular mold.

Three assumptions ground my examination of the role of religion in peace and stability operations:

1. Religion is present in the world and will continue,
2. U.S. foreign policy and military doctrine does not strategically and operationally engage religious organizations and actors as peacebuilding partners, and
3. Military professionals are inadequately prepared, and lack the capacity, to advance peace and stability operations in religiously informed environments.[19]

Recognizing these assumptions, CMI provides an opportunity for religion to be introduced into the peace operations narrative, and broader peacekeeping and stability operations activities.

Civil Military Interaction

Civil-Military Interaction is an emerging response to the need for Whole-of-Society responses to conflict and humanitarian disasters. As CMI evolves and matures so will its doctrines. Presently, there is little consensus regarding the utility of CMI. Proposed is the necessity for CMI to fully integrate civil and military actors in unity-of-aim approaches to crisis response. Integration should be premised on three principles; unobstructed communication, a shared operational lexicon, and enduring cross-functional relationships.[20]

So, how is CMI different from other forms of civil-military collaboration and cooperation? “CMI is a group of activities, founded on communication, planning and coordination, that all NATO military bodies share and conduct with international and local non-military actors, both during NATO operations and in preparation for them, which mutually increases the effectiveness and efficiency of their respective actions in response to crises.”[21] Simply put, CMI moves beyond military-centric responses to conflict and humanitarian crises.

Civil-Military Interaction recognizes that though many conflicts and humanitarian crises have military concerns, military-centric responses alone are inadequate for the success of long-term peace and stability operations. Unity-of-aim responses by the whole-of-society are necessary to confront today’s wicked problems.  CMI recognizes a shifting global landscape that necessitates new responses to conflict; responses that acknowledge the rise of  “transnational organizations, non-state actor networks, and multi-national corporations.”[22] CMI is the approach that fills the gap that can exist between military capability and the need for comprehensive responses to humanitarian crises. Combined is short-term crisis response with long-term assistance and reconstruction.[23]

Through CMI doctrine, military leaders are called to rethink how they operate in the field. The battle-space is increasingly complex. Frequently, military actors are late to the action.  In many conflicts, Track I formal state bodies, Track II Non-Governmental Organizations as well as informal groups, and Track III grassroots organizations[24] are present and embedded in the space before military organizations show up. As a result, militaries may find they are no longer the dominant players in PO and humanitarian responses to crises.

Certainly, CMI responds to a recognition that the military is one of many actors, albeit an important one, in addressing today’s hybrid conflicts and humanitarian disasters, including Responsibility-to-Protect. However, integration, collaboration, and cooperation and other horizontal approaches among various actors are now the key terms and arrangements for future complex peace operations. A need to work outside of closed, hierarchical structures obliges military leaders to relook how they operate with civil society actors. Matrix responses are the new norm.

For future success, collective responses within the comprehensive approach paradigm necessities the inclusion of all of civil society. And, religion is an essential aspect of civil society for many. It is about meeting people where they are, not necessarily where we wish they would be. The absence of religion from PO and CA thinking is extraordinary. Religion cannot be wished away. It is recognized that religion isn’t everything, nor is it nothing. Religion is what keeps the moral alive, and suggests possible peace-centered futures. CMI planners and operators are obliged to develop a religious literacy and view religion as a potential partner in peace operations and responses to humanitarian crises.

Religious Illiteracy

Where is religion in CMI?  Surprisingly, there is little to no discussion of religion as a contributing factor in a comprehensive approach to peace operations. Some in the CMI community are so uncomfortable with simply the word religion that some CMI actors have been advised to use the term Grand Narrative in its place. Does this avoidance of religion as an element of CMI suggest a religious illiteracy, and a desire to marginalize religion and religious actors? Can a disrespect for the moral and normative foundations of societies and cultures be helpful in advancing the liberal paradigm?

Those engaged in PO require an understanding of religion that can be characterized as a form of literacy; the ability to speak with religiously informed actors in their own language. Religion becomes a a foreign language that is learned in order to facilitate communication.  This literacy, or competency, is not something that can be outsourced. Military peace leaders are needed who are sensitive to the necessity of knowing and understanding what grounds groups’ political actions.

Religious components of modern, hybrid conflicts are not the domain of chaplains alone. Religious literacy cannot be outsourced, nor is it a condition of social life that can be trivialized and marginalized. Relegating the domain of religion to the chaplain through programs such a Religious Leader Engagement speak to an immature understanding of the sacred, treating religions as interchangeable.[25]

Successful responses to modern hybrid conflicts in the Two-Thirds World needs military leaders who are capable of developing the needed religious literacy. This literacy goes beyond shallow recognitions of religion as a condition of culture. Religions are totalizing worldview systems. Arguably, the political flows out of the moral and ethical which are domains of religion. To gain an understanding of society’s political dimension it is necessary to know its religious world.

Religion Endures

Why religion? Very simply, religion has demonstrated an ability to endure over the long-haul outlasting kings, queens, and empires. Religion is older than our idea of the state.[26] People’s focus on the transcendent may be embedded in human DNA.[27] Open hostility to religion and disregard for its importance in people’s lives cannot be helpful in complex peace operations. Rarely is it useful to alienate potential peace building partners.

A review of religious doctrines suggests religious organizations value peace, reconciliation, and service. These three conditions are vital aspects of peacebuilding. It is incumbent upon military and political actors to engage with religious leaders in maximizing the potential peacebuilding opportunities of these three focus areas.

Peace

Religions maintain a trajectory toward peace.[28] Irrespective of the potential divisive nature of religion, all value peace. This is a starting point for CMI actors and the development of interreligious dialogue. Reconciliation become possible, and it is suggested there can be no conflict resolution without reconciliation. Interfaith dialogue can provide the means through which the reconciliation process can proceed.

Reconciliation

Reconciliation is not a political activity, nor can it be negotiated. Reconciliation is anchored to the spiritual and calls on human beings to move forward leaving punishment to higher authority. Recognition of the power of reconciliation is trust in the ineffable. Political responses anchored to the neo-liberal paradigm focus on greed and greed aspects of conflict ignoring the need for deep social change.[29] Reconciliation is a key aspect of peacebuilding among divided societies.[30]

The Abrahamic tradition of reconciliation moves past political accommodation and makes enduring peace possible. Faith-based reconciliation offers a means by which to keep competing ideologies in check.[31]

Interfaith dialogue can bring people together in order to gain a deeper understanding of others’ faith as well as provide an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of ones’ own.[32] Sacred texts provide a starting point. Interfaith dialogues can create the conditions for a broader human security narrative to develop. Dialogue becomes peacebuilding activity,[33] and creates the condition for an introduction of faith-based diplomacy.

Faith-based diplomacy brings reconciliation forward. The centerpiece of the Abrahamic traditions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – is reconciliation; reconciliation with God, the broader faith community, and oneself. Through reconciliation peace is achieved.[34]

For CMI a critical aspect of faith-based diplomacy is the ability of religious actors to go where state actors cannot. Faith-based diplomacy can occur at all multi-track levels of diplomacy. State actors can lose authority the further they move away from official power centers. Religious leaders are more credible among the global poor than any other agent; government, IO, or NGO.

Service

Religious social structures often remain present even in conflict affected and failed states. When discussing state capacity rarely is religion and existing social networks considered. Though state structures may have collapsed, and states are unable to provide services to their citizens, religious structures often remain intact. Reaching out to religious actors can provide CMI actors with access to functioning social systems. The capacity of religious networks to meet human security needs are highlighted in one religious organizations response to medical services delivery in Rwanda. Clinics were established in existing, intact churches and missions. Religious agents were trained on first-aid following a train-the-trainer model where they returned to to their communities to teach others. Groups of churches and missions came together to form larger hospitals. Rather than start from nothing, peace leaders leveraged existing religious structures.[35]

Grassroots, Track III, peace work is often conducted by religious organizations. The United States Institute of Peace’s work in Nigeria documented in the film The Imam and the Pastor is an example of how faith-based actors can be engaged in peacebuilding. The work of the Catholic Community of Sant’Egidio in brokering peace in Mozambique is another example of peacebuilding inspired by faith.[36] The Kuron peace village in South Sudan is an attempt by faith-based actors to bring reconciliation to that part of the world,[37] as is the Committee for National Healing, Peace, and Reconciliation. The Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam Oasis of Peace in Israel demonstrates a multi-faith response to peacebuilding.[38] Faith informed citizenship education in Northern Ireland points to the power of reconciliation carried out by ex-combatants,[39] and the need to include NGO reconciliation projects in broader efforts to establish sustainable and enduring peace.[40]

In many parts of the world, religious leaders are among the most trusted.[41] In numerous conflicts, CMI participants are outsiders needing to build credibility among indigenous populations. Religious leaders can provide reliable and trustworthy communication pathways for CMI heads.

Arguably, there can be no conflict transformation without reconciliation. For the success of long-term peacekeeping and stability operations, for those in conflict it is essential to reconcile and join in a joint problem-solving process to rebuild civil society. Reconciliation is the business of faith-based organizations. CMI should engage religion as the structure through which the reconciliation process can be conducted. 

Conclusion

Civil-Military Interaction presents the future in responding to hybrid conflicts and humanitarian crises. Changing global antagonisms and conflicts without conclusion have moved us beyond military-centric reactions. The Comprehensive Approach that engages the Whole-of-Society through Unity-of-Aim is the way forward.

Religion and religious actors cannot be left out of CMI, nor can they be absent from comprehensive approaches to peace and stability. CMI leaders will do well to develop a religious literacy that will allow them to engage with religious actors.  Often, in conflict affected areas, religious organizations have human security structures in place that can be used to deliver humanitarian aid to impacted populations.

Important to note is that in much of the world the military is seen as part of the problem, and having local legitimacy is crucial for successful PO. Religious leaders can provide legitimacy to CMI activities. 

End Notes