By Dennis Gruending

 Coded biblical inscriptions have been found on the telescopic sights of rifles used by soldiers from several nations, including Canada, who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The company that supplied the inscribed weapons initially defended its actions unapologetically, and the response by the American military spokespersons has been under whelming. The inscriptions, placed where they are, represent a betrayal of the Christian scriptures and their central message of peace and reconciliation, although some obviously see this activity as admirable and patriotic. The incident and responses to it raise deeply troubling questions about elements of the American military.

A group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the U.S., blew the whistle to ABC News in mid-January, saying it had received a complaint from a U.S. Army infantryman. The gun sights allow soldiers using them to shoot at people with greater accuracy in the dark or in dim light. The inscriptions are in the form of raised lettering and numerals added to the serial numbers along the sights. One of the inscriptions reads: “JN8:12”, a reference to a passage in John where Jesus says, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”  A second inscription reads “2COR4:6” and refers to St. Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. The passage refers to God’s “[giving] us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

No apologies

A Michigan-based company called Trijicon, which has a $660 million contract with the U.S. Marine Corps, supplies the rifle sights. Trijicon, when first asked about it, defended its actions saying that, “as part of our faith and our belief in service to our country, Trijicon has put scripture references on our products for more than two decades.” The practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa, who was killed in a 2003 plane crash. His son, Steven Bindon, is now president of the company and well connected to the leadership of the religious right in the United States. Trijicon states on its website: “We believe that American is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals.”

Initially, U.S. military officials also defended the use of the inscriptions, saying that they did not violate a constitutional ban on religious proselytizing by American troops. Officials said that the military would not stop using the telescopic sights. On January 20, an Air Force spokesperson named Major John Redfield compared the inscriptions to the use of Biblical language on the U.S. currency. “Are we going to stop using money because the bills have “In God We Trust” on them?” he asked. “As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they’ll continue to be used.”

Barrage of criticism

That position changed within a few days after a barrage of criticism from a variety of groups, including the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. They said the implied message is that American soldiers are fighting a holy war against Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though American politicians, including President Obama, have said this is not the case. A second, and perhaps predominant concern among soldiers is that publicity surrounding the inscriptions could put them at added risk if ever they are captured in battle. The defence departments and military officials in New Zealand, Australia and Britain, responded cautiously, saying that they had not known their soldiers were being provided with weapons bearing the biblical inscriptions. Within a few days of the controversy erupting, however, those organizations and the even U.S. military had decided that the inscriptions were not acceptable. By January 22, military spokespersons were saying that they did not approve of them and wanted them removed. Trijicon then announced that it would provide “modification kits” at its own expense for that purpose. Owner Stephen Bindon was now describing his company’s action as “both prudent and appropriate.”

A Canadian military spokesperson admits that Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 and a special operations unit from nearby Petawawa use the Trijicon rifle sights in Afghanistan, but Major Don MacNair cites national security reasons in refusing to say how many of the sights are employed. The activities of the joint task force are shrouded in secrecy, but the unit often works behind enemy lines and its members are trained to kill with cold efficiency. MacNair told the Ottawa Citizen that the inscriptions are inappropriate and should be removed.

Christo-fascism

The most disturbing question here is whether these military inscriptions represent a rogue act by a company owned by a right wing Christian businessman, or whether they represent an attitude and practice that is pervasive in the military and therefore more sinister. There has been significant reportage on the religious influence in the American military. Jeff Sharlet, writing in Harper’s magazine (May 2009) reported on a “subtle civil war” that is occurring for the “soul of the military.” He reports on a “small but powerful movement of Christian soldiers concentrated in the officers corps” who are trying to turn the military into a “righteous Christian army”. These officers bully recruits and ordinary soldiers to become involved in mandatory assemblies and prayer groups (open only to Christians), and they appear as speakers on the prayer breakfast circuit and on religious media owned by fundamentalists.

“What men such as these have fomented,” Sharlett writes, “is a quiet coup within the armed forces: not of generals encroaching upon civilian rule but of religious authority replacing the military’s once staunchly secular code … they see themselves not as subversives but as spiritual warriors –‘ambassadors for Christ in uniform,’ according to the Officers’ Christian Fellowship.” Sharlett also writes about how the chaplaincy in the U.S. military, which was once apportioned strictly according to the country’s religious demographic, has come to be dominated by graduates from fundamentalist bible colleges.

Every person in the U.S. military, Sharlet writes, swears an oath to defend the Constitution. But for fundamentalist officers and chaplains, “the Constitution is itself a blueprint for a Christian nation.” These officers and chaplains see the campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq as holy wars, exemplified by an example Sharlet discovered of soldiers in Iraq travelling through neighbourhoods with a bullhorn shouting, “Jesus killed Mohammed” – and shooting people who objected. This faction within the military also sees enemies everywhere at home, and believes it must “wage spiritual warfare against their countrymen” – those “post moderns” who believe in diversity and egalitarianism. Sharlet believes this religious intrusion into the American military is so deeply rooted that President Obama has chosen a hands off policy in exchange for “evangelical peace.”

In 2006, President George Bush began to use the term Islamo-fascism, which neo-conservative pundits Washington had been employing for some time to describe America’s enemies in the Middle East. It was an imprecise description that linked an entire world religion with an extremist political ideology — and moderate Muslims were offended. They might now ask in return if Christo-fascism is emerging within the American military.

By Dennis Gruending

Richard Colvin, a Canadian diplomat who served in Afghanistan, has blown the whistle on our government’s complicity in the torture of Afghans taken prisoner by Canadian soldiers and turned over to the notorious prison authorities. The International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Dutch military have had similar concerns. The Conservative government responded to Colvin’s allegations, in the words of The Globe and Mail newspaper, with a strategy of “deny, delay, disparage.” Defence Minister Peter McKay has been bobbing and weaving, saying at first that he never saw Colvin’s dispatches from Afghanistan, then admitting he did but that what he saw contained no useful information. The Prime Minister, as is his wont, went into full attack mode, describing Colvin as a dupe of the Taliban. Similarly, three military generals, including Rick Hillier, former chief of defence staff, were trotted out before a parliamentary committee to deny Colvin’s allegations and to dump on his competence – what else would we expect generals to do in a time of war?  Colvin was a trusted civil servant and following his tour in Afghanistan he was placed as an intelligence officer at the Canadian embassy in Washington, but one now wonders for how long.

Canadians have seen through the lies and personal attacks. A poll taken by Harris-Decima as the controversy raged in November indicated that 51% believed Colvin’s claims and only 25% believed the government’s spin that Colvin was not credible. On the other hand, it is disturbing to read letters to the editor and online responses indicating that some Canadians really don’t care what happens to Afghans taken into custody. These letter writers appear to agree with Rick Hillier that our troops are dealing with “scumbags” – although even Hillier would have to acknowledge that this is occurring in their country, far from our shores.

“Illiberal democracy”

The point here is not so much to rail at obfuscation, lies and character assassination accompanying this tawdry affair, but rather to say that when Canada is engaged in a war our habitual democratic practices are inevitably one of the casualties. The eminent British writer John Gray says in his book Black Mass that in the post 9\11 era the United States is an “illiberal democracy in which elections take place against a background of diminished freedom.” The so-called war on terror, which is so broadly conceived that it may well lead to a state of perpetual conflict, provides the excuse for the American government to do almost anything: to invade and occupy other countries; to kill and main civilians as the inevitable collateral damage; to hold prisoners for long periods without trial, as has been the case in the Guantanamo prison; to torture prisoners directly, as the Americans have done, although they won’t admit it; to turn prisoners over to other regimes that specialize in cruelty and torture; to spy on America’s citizens at home; and to trample on their hard won civil liberties. It is not a pretty picture and Canada is deeply involved.

John Gray describes the war on terror as a dangerous delusion. It is used as a pretext by governments, he writes, to “demand freedom from the constraints that have developed over many centuries to curb the exercise of power.” In Canada, the Chretien government passed the Anti-Terrorism Act in December 2001, allowing police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them without charges.  The law also allowed a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret in the interest of protecting national security. The legislation was in force for five years and had to be reviewed at the end of that time. The Harper government wanted to extend the bill’s provisions in 2007 but was unable to do so in the face of opposition from other parties in a minority government.

It was the RCMP in Canada, in cooperation with the FBI, that sent Maher Arar to be tortured in Syria, and it took a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of the lies and stonewalling engaged in by our police force, bureaucrats and politicians. The Liberals were in power when Arar and several other Canadians of Arab descent suffered similar, if less serious, ordeals. These people include Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen who travelled back to his native Sudan, was accused of having ties to terrorism, and spent years living at the Canadian embassy because our government would not allow him to come home. Eventually, in 2008 a Federal Court judge ordered Abdelrazik returned within 30 days, saying that the government had breached his constitutional rights by not giving him an emergency passport to fly home.

The list goes on. Adil Charkaoui, a Morrocan-born Canadian, was arrested by the Canadian government in 2003 under a security certificate, which prohibited him or his lawyers from examining evidence used to issue that certificate. He was detained without charge or trial but later released from prison. His bail conditions included a curfew and electronic monitoring and 24-hour police access to his home without warrant. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that his charter rights had been violated and he was ordered released from his curfew and electronic monitoring.

War without end

When Canada went to war in 1914 and in 1939, the enemy was clearly defined as Germany and Austria-Hungary in the first case, and Germany, Italy and eventually Japan in the second. Our government issued Draconian wartime measures, including conscription and the internment of Japanese and other citizens. Now we are in a war not against states but against shadowy sub-state actors and it is quite possibly a war without end.

We have been in Afghanistan almost eight years, a period longer than our engagement in either of the world wars, and we are not planning to leave until 2011, if then. Our government even refuses to tell us the cost of the war, citing national security reasons. But an estimate provided in 2008 by the independent budget officer for parliament concluded that the total cost would be between $14 and $18 billion by the planned withdrawal in 2011. To put that in context, the entire budget of the province of Saskatchewan for 2009-10 was $10.2 billion.

Our complicity with torture in Afghanistan is unsavoury at best and contravenes international conventions. Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom says the Afghan prisoner scandal, at bottom, is about who Canadians are. “Are we the kind of people who don’t care when people are tortured? Or are we the kind of people who do?” It is entirely possible that our government and its agencies will become even more cynical, manipulative and authoritarian. It’s something for citizens to think about and to oppose. We Canadians talk glibly about our democracy as if it were a perfect system set in place for all time. That is not necessarily the case.