The enemy within: evangelical fundamentalism in US armed forces

[Skybird]

"The impact of religious and political affiliation on strategic military decisions and policy recommendations"

This study paper has been published on the website of the US Army War college. I find the things it points at as worrying and alarming as I found all kinds of religious fundamentalism worrying and alarming, always, thus I like the points being referred to as little as I like the Taleban in Afghanistan.

This paper analyzes the impact of a culturally homogeneous group on strategic decision-making and policy recommendations. The United States military's organizational climate has shifted steadily to the right since the Viet Nam War. Today's Armed Forces are increasingly identified with conservative Christian and Republican values. This change in group dynamics can inhibit the decision making process by preventing a thorough review of relevant courses of action, in accordance with the Rational Decision Model. The nature of in-groups and their influence on the decision process can have a deleterious effect on sound decision making, even if only inadvertently. Today's conservative voice has a strong influence on national policy decisions. This makes it imperative that strategic leaders understand the culture shift in today's military, as well as how group dynamics can limit creativity and proper analysis of alternatives. The failure to do so can cause a divergence of opinion between military and civilian leaders and thereby widen the gap in civil military relations.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil432.pdf

Direct historical examples are infrequent due to the fact that decisions do not always lead
to military action, and their analyses often rely on subjective interpretation to determine their
correctness. That subjective analysis highlights the insidious nature of the decline; groupthink
dynamics may even suppress the possibility of a problem due to rationalization.68 Nevertheless,
Conservative voices have made their opinions known on a wide range of issues such as the B-1
bomber procurement, Strategic Defense Initiative, Gays in the military, the abandonment of the
Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. These issues all directly
involved the military, and since the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sits on the National
Security Council, the military certainly had representation during these discussions.
For many evangelical Christians, regardless of their profession, their religious beliefs are
so strongly embedded that it is difficult to separate their personal views from their professional
opinions. Without a firm understanding of this potential pitfall, it could threaten our military’s
religious pluralism and tolerance at a time when America’s population and Armed Forces are
more diverse, ethnically and religiously, than ever before. Fortunately, the military’s unshakable
faith in Constitution makes the possibility of sustained, open conflict between military and
civilian authorities implausible, at least for the foreseeable future. The real danger to strategic
decision-making is the gradual decline in effectiveness that leaders may not notice until it is too
late.
America’s military leaders must ensure preconceived notions based on religious or
political ideology do not adversely shape the decision making process, nor can it allow intuition
based on “automated expertise” to override an objective evaluation of relevant possibilities.
Failure to do so can result in lead to an erosion of trust with civilian leadership and degrade
national policy decisions. The impact to strategic thinkers is clear, and Sun Tsu’s warning to
know one’s self has never been more applicable than it is today.

Commenting on this danger:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...holy_warriors/

Editor’s note: The former New York Times Mideast Bureau chief warns that the radical Christian right is coming dangerously close to its goal of co-opting the country’s military and law enforcement.