Stopping Fundamentalism from Destroying the Military

From contracting out essential services to greedy, incompetent corporations through shoddy or nonexistent equipment right up to committing torture and killing thousands of troops for a baseless and illegal war, is there anything the repugs and the freakazoids won't do to destroy the U.S. Military?

The latest long-standing threat to be acknowledged semi-publicly is the unconstitutional and illegal promotion of Xian fundamentalism. Edward Teller at FireDogLake explains:

A young Army Major’s masters thesis is making the rounds. Some believe his essay presages the persecution of Christans by the anti-Christ Obama. Others see in his thinking a message that goes beyond the dangers of Christian millennialism and touches upon the perils our country encounters by endorsing or cursing any fundamentalism, without rationally engaging the issues through clear thinking.

Maj. Brian L. Stuckert, U.S. Army, submitted and defended a masters thesis in May 2008, titled Strategic Implications of American Millennialism (pdf). It has begun making the rounds this month, being taken up by a wide array of people discussing, damning or defending it.

Maj. Stuckert ’s abstract begins:

Since the beginning of the Republic, various forms of millennial religious doctrines, of which dispensational pre-millennialism is the most recent, have shaped U.S. national security strategy. As the dominant form of millennialism in the U.S. evolves, it drives changes in U.S. security policy and subsequent commitment of the instruments of national power. Millennial ideas contribute to a common American understanding of international relations that guide our thinking irrespective of individual religious or political affiliation. Millennialism has great explanatory value, significant policy implications, and creates potential vulnerabilities that adversaries may exploit.

His conclusions and recommendations are prefaced with a well-known quote by Lt. Gen William Boykin, from 2003:

“The enemy is a spiritual enemy. It’s called the principality of darkness. We, ladies and gentlemen, are in a spiritual battle, not a physical battle. Oh, we’ve got soldiers fighting on the battlefields, we’ve got sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen out there fighting against a physical enemy. But the battle this nation is in is a spiritual battle, it’s a battle for our soul. And the enemy is a guy called Satan – Satan wants to destroy this nation. He wants to destroy us as a nation and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.”

Maj. Stuckert then goes on:

A 2003 survey found that more than two-thirds of evangelical leaders view Islam as a religion of violence bent on world domination. Following the events of September 11, 2001, many Christian opinion leaders began to speak of President Bush’s election and policies as “divinely inspired.” This attitude can present challenges to rational decision-making processes. While some political commentators have theorized that the administration’s unwillingness to admit errors is the result of arrogance or political calculation, it is more likely that the administration believes they are doing the will of God and will be vindicated in the end. In other words, intelligence or analysis that seems to support invasions or other administration policies are interpreted as an affirmation of God’s will, while information is to the contrary is viewed with suspicion – perhaps an effort by Satan to deceive or mislead.

As President Carter explained to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, what people believe as a matter of religion, they will do as a matter of public policy. There is a tendency on the part of Americans to view foreign policy and international affairs as a “clash of moral opposites.” This tendency may make it difficult for U.S. policy makers and strategists to perceive and act upon subtleties that may lie outside our conceptions of moral absolutes. Military leaders have the difficult task translating this religiously tinged policy into successful strategy and operations. War is primarily about politics. While geography and technology play a role, in order to be successful military leaders must be able to see the political goals as clearly as possible. Because of the influence of pre-millennialism, it can be difficult for military leaders to see themselves and their government accurately and state policy goals objectively.

SNIP

Coupled with the recently publicized concerns by senior U.S. military over the dangers of being tied too closely to Israel in our foreign policy decisions regarding broader issues of the Middle East and beyond, maybe we are seeing signs of a Pentagon emerging from the terrible eclipse of rational thinking known as the George W. Bush administration.

As in some of the newest, youngest, major voices in the dialogue over our country’s adherence to Israeli wishes regarding the illegal occupation of the West Bank, Israeli expansion there, and the siege of Gaza, hopefully a new generation of leadership in our military will show more independence, common sense and spine than their predecessors, who are now approaching retirement.

The more U.S. policy is separated from fundamentalist thinking, rhetoric and personalities, the better.

Read the whole thing.