Military Review English Edition March-April 2015 | Page 91

FORCE AND FAITH

contributing substantially to what is being described
as a “crisis in humanitarianism.” 41 They argue that,
especially in conflict zones where military forces are
also belligerents (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan), partnering
with militaries undermines the neutrality, impartiality, humanity, and independence of humanitarian
operations, thereby politicizing aid and threatening
the efficacy of their missions.
To be sure, the overlap between military and
humanitarian operational domains is nothing new,
and many of the issues and challenges that exist today
were also present in the post-World War II period,
and even earlier. But the recent, large-scale expansion of the humanitarian field has brought a larger
number of civilian relief organizations and workers
into post-conflict regions, exacerbating tensions over
the propriety of military involvement in what NGOs
regard as civil space.42
Despite the tensions raised by the overlap of religious organizations and the military in humanitarian
operations, religious participation in such work appears to be largely embraced, at least in the official corridors of the international community. In fact, most
policymakers and academics have applauded religious
NGOs for providing compassionate and tolerant solutions to deprivation, health crises, and natural disasters. In part, this embrace of religion is driven by a very
real need for the material resources and organizational
infrastructures required to carry out international aid
projects, resources that in some regions of the world
(such as sub-Saharan Africa) only religious institutions
are equipped to provide.43 However, in their enthusiasm to embrace the concrete resources that religious
organizations bring to bear upon humanitarian crises,
commentators have made their evaluations without
the benefit of systematic, empirical research on the
effects that the distinctly religious features of religious NGOs have on both military and humanitarian
operations. Given the salience of religion as a source of
division in post-Cold War conflicts, the effects—both
intended and unintended—could be considerable.
For example, one way insurgent groups attract supporters is through the provision of goods and services
(e.g., food, protection, medicine, systems of justice)
that states fail to provide. In turn, one way the United
States can compete with insurgents for the “hearts and
minds” of local populations is through the provision of
MILITARY REVIEW  March-April 2015

(Portrait courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

(Portrait of George Washington, Rembrandt Peale, oil on canvas, circa 1853.)

O

f all the dispositions and habits which
lead to political prosperity, religion and
morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great
pillars of human happiness, these firmest props
of the duties of men and citizens. The mere
politician, equally with the pious man, ought to
respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connections with private and public
felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the
security for property, for reputation, for life, if
the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths
which are the instruments of investigation in
courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge
the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion. Whatever may be conceded to
the influence of refined education on minds of
peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can
prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true that virtue or morality
is a necessary spring of popular government.
The rule, indeed, extends with more or less
force to every species of free government. Who
that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation
of the fabric?
—Washington’s Farewell Address 179644

89