Religious and Cultural Sensitivities in Counterinsurgency
BY Herschel Smith
17 years, 7 months ago
In my article Religion and Insurgency: A Response to Dave Kilcullen (and associated comments), I responded to Dave Kilcullen’s article Religion and Insurgency at the Small Wars Journal. In order to continue the conversation, let’s tackle a real life instance where cultural and religious sensitivities come to bear in the counterinsurgency campaign. Whereas it might have been assumed that the only application to my claims was that of seeing the insurgent as a jihadist, religiously motivated and completely unamenable to our COIN efforts (certainly this is one application for some number of them), there are far more applications where a proper understanding of religion and culture would help frame the discussion.
A Stryker Colonel Talks About the Situation in Iraq:
FORT LEWIS – The commander says the loss of two soldiers hit everyone hard. We had a rare opportunity to speak with Col. Stephen Townsend from Baghdad Tuesday.
The 4,000 Fort Lewis-based soldiers have been there since last summer and now are in the hotspot, Baghdad.
“We feel pretty fortunate to be doing what we’re doing,” Col. Townsend said. “Right now, the Arrowhead Brigade is employed in a role that is ideally suited for a Stryker Brigade. We’re being very mobile. We’re going to where the tough jobs are. We’re helping out with both the Coalition and the Iraqi security forces there where the tough jobs are.
“We’re pretty fortunate about that. It’s pretty gratifying to see the progress the Iraqi security forces are making. In fact, the operation that we’re in now an Iraqi general is actually running the operation and I’m working for him rather than an American general.”
Col. Townsend and the 3rd Brigade have been to Iraq before, but this is their first time patrolling Baghdad.
Cpl. Jason Ratliff out on patrol says on video provided by the Army, “We always look for weapons and we try to see if people know anything.”
PFC Elizabeth Turan on patrol says, “It’s kind of scary because you don’t know if someone is going to pull a gun out. But it’s not that bad.”
‘Elizabeth’ is not one of those names that can be mistaken since it is not a gender-neutral name. ‘Elizabeth’ is a woman, and she is on patrol in Baghdad. We might make several observations about this.
For whatever reason (meeting recruitment goals, political pressures), the Pentagon wants women in combat. Of course, there are practical matters with which to contend, including unit cohesion, lower torso strength of women, a higher rate of lower extremety injuries, etc. (in fact, the Russian campaign in Afghanistan saw a much higher rate of lower extremity injuries in women). But leaving behind the practical effect on U.S. forces, has anyone stopped to consider what we are communicating to those whose hearts and minds we want to win?
In the heavily patristic and tribal society that is Iraq (and in fact the whole Middle East), family and tribe function to a great extent by providing protection and security. This is codified into the religious framework of the region by Islam. The very notion of accepting security from women would be seen as scandalous, humiliating and repugnant to the head of a family or tribal elder. But in our so-called “security plan,” accepting security from women is precisely what we are offering (and in fact demanding) from men who cannot accept this offer.
We routinely offer up rhetorical flourish on winning hearts and minds, while Elizabeth is on patrol in Baghdad. And no one stops to ponder the question “just what are the consequences of these actions?”
On May 17, 2007 at 11:02 pm, kat-missouri said:
I might be mistaken, but I thought the entire point of having a woman with these units was to be culturally sensitive to social mores that insist other men keep their hands off the women?
Which is it? Are we to be sensitive to these ideas or more worried about our own cultural concerns re: women in the military to conduct this appropriately?
Or, are you asking that very question?
On May 17, 2007 at 11:44 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Yes. You are indeed perceptive. But more than this. For a head of a family, for instance, to allow someone to provide security for them is to place themselves under the submission of that person or persons. I do not see it as important that women be searched. I seriously doubt that this excuse (i.e., we have to have women with us in order to search Iraqi women) is salient. It doesn’t get traction with me, and I doubt that this happens in a large percentage of the cases (if it does, then this is another problem because it shouldn’t). It seems a convenient excuse for the larger wishes of the Pentagon. Now then. Shall we consider what it means for the head of a family in a patristic society like Iraq to have an armed woman enter his home?
EDITORIAL REMARKS
After thinking about it for a minute, I am adding to my response. I have for a long time been a strong advocate of robust ROE. If there are known insurgents in a home, we should conduct raids according to the procedures (up to and including house clearing if necessary). But unless there is a known insurgent in the home, our troops have no business putting their hands on Iraqis upon entering homes. If we want to talk about winning hearts and minds, then let’s first show respect for homes, and use troops that will not offend the religious and cultural sensibilities of the inhabitants. (In all of this, I am differentiating between “cordon and knock,” and raids or room clearing.)
On May 18, 2007 at 8:03 pm, kat-missouri said:
I believe, like the marines in ramadi and fallujah, they do things like take census, do medical care, etc, etc, etc
There are a lot more things than the pound the door down, which I believe you are alluding to. I think that women are more comfortable with women and might be a little more open or at least make inadvertent comments that would yield some intelligence.
I think there are a lot of things at work, but I would agree, with the military being appx 30% women, it makes sense that the military is attempting to use their forces and not take 30% of the forces off the table right from the start.
By the way, I put up a post at my place and commented at small war journals ie, religion in warfare.
http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2007/05/small-wars-religion-in-warfare-ii.html
On May 21, 2007 at 12:19 am, emjayinc said:
Patristic? Google results indicate that’s a religious term, not a sociological one. Perhaps patrimonial catches your meaning? But “patrimonial
On May 21, 2007 at 12:49 pm, Herschel Smith said:
emjayinc,
Again, I am somewhat bemused at the complete irrelevance of your comments. The entire first paragraph is off-point.
Additionally, the subject of the post is not women in combat. This might be the subject of a future article, and if so, it will be sourced — like all of my other articles — with ample evidence. A few links are given above to demonstrate that cohesion and readiness of infantry units is adversely effected by women in that MOS. It is a fact, and piling more evidence on top of this is unnecessary.
However, more to the point, the issue is the religious sensibilities of the culture whose hearts and minds we are trying to win, and whether women on patrol is the best tactic to employ given the culture. None of your rambling discussion changes the role of women in society and home in the Middle East. Frankly, I am not interested in breaking “stereotypical” views on women or politics or anything else. This is a Milblog, not a political blog. This discussion belongs on another web site.
Finally, in order to summarize the heart of the article, any comments about how you feel about women in combat utterly misses the point. The point was about Iraq — not you.
Here are the rules:
Following these simple rules will ensure that future comments do not get deleted.
On May 23, 2007 at 3:00 pm, Brian H said:
“You go to war with the army you’ve got”, religious sensibilities notwithstanding. There is a (fuzzy) limit to how far the U.S. or any (note the uniqueness of this phrasing) benign occupation force can go in accommodating social and religious mores. These things are fluid over historical periods, and it’s interactions like this that cause adaptation and change. Whether this unavoidable mis-fit of attitudes and behaviours and cultures can be managed or kept from causing complete disaffection and communications breakdown is another issue; if it’s impossible, then lots of bad things happen. If it can be handled, then a modus vivendi may be hammered out to the benefit of both.
But the absolutist end of the curve in Islam will be working hard and relentlessly to prevent any such accommodation. It may be that they have overplayed their hand in Anbar and Iran, and don’t have the cards now that their bluff has been called (if it has).
Consider the contrast between Sistani’s traditional Shia quietism and Khomeni’s Revolutionary activism. Giving too much away to the latter by, say, respecting demands that all women should be at home barefoot in burqahs is to cede far too much. It’s an unfillable black hole.
On May 23, 2007 at 4:14 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Brian, what you say makes perfect sense for conventional operations. OIF3 is anything but. For this instance, it should be fairly easy to ensure that this potential cultural insensitivity is not present: pull women from combat roles or potential combat roles. Or in other words, follow the laws that the congress has already established.