I remember my old
professor getting exasperated at me for arguing that it wasn’t enough for the
US military to approach warfare on the basis of its perception of the enemy; the
US also had to try and understand what the enemy itself believed, even in
regard to religion. My prof was an officer in the US navy.
Cultural catch-all
It’s not that I didn’t
understand her position. I did- very well. She was a military historian.
Military history, even history in general, indeed, modern academia as a whole,
view religious studies as somewhat irrelevant, and when they are to be understood,
it is through the lens of ‘culture’. As to history, this last point is evident
in academia in both sides of the Atlantic. John Keegan, the great British
historian, sought to redefine war studies. Previously, Clausewitz taught that
warfare was a kind of extension of ongoing politics. To Keegan, this was far
too narrow a definition. He noted the general moral features of going to war.
And along with a host of other elements, he subsumed all of them under
‘culture’. Then came along Victor Davis Hanson. He took up Keegan’s culture
baton. Fantastic writers. Brilliant men. But missing the point when it came to
religion. How so?
Western projection
Each author was writing
from his Western perspective, one dominated by culture as a catch-all concept.
I can tell you right now, that the jihadists of Afghanistan don’t give a
monkey’s butt about ‘culture’. They are not trying to understand war through
its lens! War, for them, is purely about theology. Nothing more, nothing less.
They are taught in the Quran and the Hadith (Islamic tradition) to go to war to
spread and defend Islam. So they do. It is that simple. A man who understands
this very well is Robert Spencer,
without a doubt the foremost Western scholar in Islamic jihadism. At one time,
he lectured to the FBI and other intelligence services about Islamic jihadists.
That all changed when the mood of government and society in general switched to
thinking of Islam as a political and cultural entity, not as primarily a
religious one. Spencer was no longer hired.
Wars influenced by
religion
Many wars, not all by
any means, are stimulated by, or because of, religion. Think of the US’s
current incursion into Iran. For a huge chunk of Americans, this is partly due
to a belief that Israel are still God’s people. A religious, theological,
belief. Yet, one that is, theologically, profoundly wrong. Israel are no longer
God’s covenant people; the Christian assembly (‘church’) is. This is to say
nothing of Iran’s Shia Muslim convictions that propel them to hate Jews and the
American infidels. When jihadists exclaim, ‘Allahu Akbar’, after the deaths of
infidels, they are not making a cultural statement. And then there are the
religious conviction of many ‘Zionists’.
The Russia-Ukraine War
has religion at its heart. The Russian Orthodox Church has declared the Ukraine
conflict a holy war.
In the West, Putin’s union with Orthodoxy is considered a political move alone.
However, this merely demonstrates, once again, the Western mindset that is
predisposed to peripheralizing religion. Putin sees himself as a Peter the
Great figure, lifting the sword in one hand and the Russian Orthodox Cross in
the other.
And although he is manipulating religion, he nevertheless sees himself as a
crusader for the cause.
I will never forget my
research of the Spanish-English War of 1585-1604. I read the historians, and
was underwhelmed by their accounts. Religion was considered a contributory
factor. Yet, when you read the primary sources, you find in them that both
sides were driven by the religious mindset of their day, not just by national and political factors.
Religions and war
As to religion
specifically, let’s look at Shintoism. It is quickly sidelined that the
Japanese emperor was ‘god’, according to the Shinto religion. Indeed, during
WW2, there was ‘state Shintoism’ and the worship of the emperor. Typically, we
read that this was hijacked by Shinto nationalists and abused. That is why one
historian wrote the book, hailed as a touchstone in its subject, Japan’s
Holy War: the Ideology of Radical Shinto Ultranationalism. No doubt it was
highjacked by nationalists! Then again, Shintoism itself provided the structure
for this: it had in it the seeds of the nation’s folly. How so? Because Shinto
is a religion that has no dogma, nor restraints, no morality. It is by the
nature of the case open to being ‘shaped’ according to the day. This
interrelationship of the prevailing Japanese mindset of Shintoism and its
cultural appropriation are recognized even in our day, “Shinto is both the
wellspring of Japanese culture, and an eternally renewed expression of that
same culture.”
They feed off of one another. Now, project that mindset back to WW2, how the
lack of dogma, the prevailing nationalist spirit, Shintoism in general, and
emperor worship, all combined to produce ‘holy warriors’ in the name of the
emperor.
Similarly, what is not
at all grasped by Western commentators is that the tensions within India itself
between Hindus and Muslims (not the India-Pakistan War) have religion at their
core. It is not mere politics and culture. Nor is it merely the typical Muslim
jihadist argument. And, as to the Hindus it is not simply ‘nationalism’. Western
pundits are hopelessly chained to their political and cultural narrative,
blinding them to the fact that for millennia, Hinduism has considered itself a
religion of the ‘holy land’ of India itself. That is why in its religious caste
system, key figures are the Kshatryia (warriors, soldiers), who are
second only to the priests in the order of Hindu society.
It is remarkable that scholars can, without thought, refer to Israel as the
‘holy land’ but not so India. It is jam-packed full of ‘holy’ mountains,
cities, rivers, animals, people, and practices. The Western, anachronistic view
imposes the modern notion of nationalism. Whilst there is no doubt at all that the
Hindus in the conflict are nationalists, and even look to some of the features
of modern nationalism, they consider India a ‘holy land’ that is protected by
its warrior caste.
Buddhism is considered a
religion of peace. The Buddha related how in a supposed previous life he was a
warrior. This type of thing is to be expected, for the whole theme of Buddhism
is over millions of lifetimes to evolve eventually into an ‘enlightened one’ (a
buddha). So, even though the ultimate goal is non-violence, this takes a
million of lifetimes to achieve (quite literally). That was why Buddha was not
too harsh on the rulers of India in his time, men of war, and encouraged them
to be, in principle, men of non-violence.
Having said that,
Buddhism gave to the world Zen Buddhism, a religion that allows the Buddhist to
kill and slaughter. Most of the world is unaware that Buddhism has two tracks:
Theravada (the original, what the Buddha practiced) and Mahayana (the
development). It is from Mahayana that Japanese Buddhism came with its
sub-branch of Zen Buddhism. Mahayana is more accommodating than Theravada, so
that Zen allows the practitioner to take up weapons. How can it do this?
Because the principle of non-violence is said to apply through the spirit-body
divide. The body is a mere vessel that one must detach oneself from in one’s
spirit. The spirit is non-violent, detached, allowing the body to execute
violence on another body. This puts the fighting Buddhist monks and the samurai
in a wholly different light! Did you know that the Dalai Lama, that great
‘advocate of peace’, carried a gun to mimic a soldier in order to escape? Did
you know that he was rescued by warriors who defended him with weapons? [7] And did you know that, not too long ago, the Chinese
blamed the Dalai Lama for the violence that had broken out in Tibet? [8] Is it just a coincidence that
the Dalai Lama belongs to a different sub-branch of Mahayana Buddhism?
What’s the advantage?
One major advantage is,
as Robert Spencer understood, that you no longer live in a giant bubble of
naivety about religious groups. Where do you think the zeal and murderous
spirit came from with the Japanese and jihadists? This sprung from their
convictions about religion and life, not just about nation, and they certainly
did not issue from the vague Western catch-all of ‘culture’. When Muslims rape
white women and children, this is not just a cultural mishap. It is sheer evil,
not only in a natural sense, but because Islam itself has a tradition of
teaching about rape. What is the old saying, to be forewarned is to be
forearmed? Isn’t warfare and international diplomacy based on information and
knowledge? You might wipe out, militarily, the enemy. But his ideology has to
be countered and extirpated, too. Religious leaders, religious buildings and
organizations, are often the base for zealots. In countering them, one can
appeal to those of the same religion who are peace-minded, one can grow
relations with them, ‘promote’ that group (not their religion). There is an
additional benefit: avoiding going to war based on religious convictions. I do
not support American’s war against Iran because Israel is supposedly God’s
people. For they are not. I supported the Trump admin because of the real and
immanent threat Iran were (not so much now!).
What say ye?
