RELIGION: A MISSING COMPONENT

OF PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

Thomas G. Matyók, Ph.D. 

Carlisle Barracks, PA and

UNITED STATES 

ARMY WAR COLLEGE

PRESS
PKSOI PAPER

RELIGION: A MISSING COMPONENT 

OF PROFESSIONAL 

MILITARY EDUCATION

Thomas G. Matyók, Ph.D.

Senior Research Fellow

Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. 

Government. Authors of Peacekeeping and Stability Operations 

Institute (PKSOI) publications enjoy full academic freedom, provided they do not disclose classified information, jeopardize 

operations security, or misrepresent official U.S. policy. Such 

academic freedom empowers them to offer new and sometimes 

controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on 

key issues. This report is cleared for public release; distribution 

is unlimited.

*****

This publication is subject to Title 17, United States Code, Sections 101 and 105. It is in the public domain and may not be copyrighted.
*****

Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should 

be forwarded to: Director, Peacekeeping and Stability Operations 

Institute, U.S. Army War College, 22 Ashburn Drive, Carlisle, PA 

17013-5054. 

*****

All Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute 

(PKSOI) publications are available on the PKSOI homepage for 

electronic dissemination. Hard copies of this report also may be 

ordered while copies last from our homepage. PKSOI’s homepage 

address is: https://pksoi.army.mil

*****

The Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute publishes a quarterly journal to update the peace and stability operations community on the research of our analysts, recent and 

forthcoming publications and upcoming conferences sponsored 

by PKSOI. Each quarterly journal has a specific theme related to 

peace and stability operations and a commentary by the Director of PKSOI entitled The Director's Corner. If you are interested 

in receiving this journal, please subscribe on our homepage at 

http://pksoi.army.mil/subscription.cfm.

ISBN: 978-0-9861865-2-3

ii
iii

FOREWORD

Thomas Matyok’s monograph on religion dares 

us as military planners and conflict analysts to think 

more deeply about religion. Since religion can be a 

major driver of both peace and violence, Prof. Matyok 

argues we need to do better in recognizing how religious factors play out in shaping human motivations 

and aspirations in conflict situations. 

Prof. Matyok’s contention is a new idea for U.S. 

professional military education but draws on older 

intellectual currents. The eighteenth century French 

philosophe Voltaire believed that France began slipping down a dangerous slope of repression and intolerance after Louis the XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes 

in 1685. (This Edict issued by Henry IV in 1598 granted 

Protestants substantial rights in a nation considered 

to be basically Catholic.) The revocation not only 

drove a Protestant exodus and stoked up the hostility 

of Protestant nations bordering France but set in motion wider forces of social intolerance that eventually 

spilled over into the French Revolution and beyond. 

When Louis XVI restored Protestant civil rights and 

freedom to worship in 1787, his act was widely seen 

as “too little, too late.” French society decisively overthrew the monarchical regime two years later for that 

and many other grievances. 

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes echoes down 

as an historical warning today. Most national leaders and peace keepers seem convinced that religious 

tolerance and inter-faith respect are now key to maintaining religion’s trajectory towards peace. The creation of an autonomous region in Mindanao, Philippines appears to be one institutionalized answer to the 

creation of more space and tolerance for religious di-
versity and more peaceful competition in secular and 

sacred spaces. 

Prof. Matyok’s work also speaks to Samuel Huntington’s assertion that the fundamental source of 

conflict in the twenty-first century will not be primarily ideological or economic but cultural. The heart of 

cultural systems is religion, and Huntington, so far, 

appears right that inter-religious tensions increasingly 

dominate conflict situations in the world, and the fault 

lines between religious groups can form potential battle lines. 

While Prof. Matyok’s monograph cautions us not 

to be binary (either/or) in our thinking about religion, 

many commentators are just that: “if you are not with 

us, you are against us.” Former Prime Minister Tony 

Blair is a case in point. He recently argued that Islamist ideology “is exclusivist in nature. It is a society 

of a fixed polity, governed by religious doctrines that 

are not changeable but which are, of their essence, 

unchangeable.” In other words, Blair feels Islamic 

extremism rejects the principles of religious freedom 

and open, rule based economies. 

It may be better to look at the problem in the terms 

that Prof. Matyok proposes in his monograph. He 

suggests we try to determine the criteria used to determine what is fanatical and what is tolerable, and within what range. By helping to find common ground 

among conflict groups, peacekeepers may make more 

progress. As Prof. Matyok observes Field Manual 3-07 

is too simplistic and we need to sharpen our conflict 

lens in understanding emerging conflict situations.

Finally, Prof. Matyok’s monograph is essentially a 

call to refine the Army War College curriculum. He 

believes that the development of the strategic thinkers 

of tomorrow demands greater religious literacy. Prof. 

Matyok challenges us to consider four changes: 

iv
v

• Embed education regarding religion and religious actors into PME core curricula. 

• Designate a visiting scholar position for the study 

of religion at the Army War College. 

• Integrate religion as a dimension of analysis 

throughout all coursework. 

• Establish a permanent position at the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute for a 

scholar expert in the sub-field of religion as an 

aspect of peacebuilding and stability. 

The time is overdue for these changes. The dearth 

of religious analysis in contemporary war-fighting 

curriculum is a blind-spot that can quickly become a 

strategic bias. As Prof. Matyok writes below, “The circumstances of modern conflict demand that military 

leaders become knowledgeable of not only the divisive, but also the many positive, roles religion and religious actors can play in conflict prevention and resolution. Leaders will need a literacy that allows them to 

engage religious leaders as counterparts in PSO, and 

they will need to develop an ability to work with and 

through religious institutions.” 

Michael Spangler, Ph.D.

United States Department of State

Peacekeeping and Stability 

 Operations Institute

United States Army War College

Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania

vii

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

TOM MATYÓK is an Associate Professor in the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He is also 

Director of Graduate and International Studies for 

the program. He has been professionally involved in 

conflict management for over 35 years as a mediator, 

negotiator, facilitator, trainer, executive and conflict 

coach, dispute systems designer, researcher, and professor. Tom has consulted for private, civic, religious, 

and community organizations. 

Dr. Matyók has been interviewed for radio and 

television regarding international conflicts and national security issues. He has negotiated significant 

international agreements and has been recognized 

for his abilities by the United States Coast Guard and 

United States Army as well as national and international human rights organizations. He has presented 

and testified to industry and government officials 

regarding cross-cultural conflict and slavery in the 

transnational merchant marine. His current research 

interests are peace design, global citizenship, missing 

war narratives, institutions of peace, and the academic 

preparation of international conflict workers.
1

Religion: A Missing Component 

of Professional Military Education

Thomas G. Matyók, Ph.D.

Senior Research Fellow

Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute

Introduction.

There is little reason to romanticize religion and 

the potential roles it can play in peacebuilding. The 

historic record is clear. Religion has often been animated to justify the worst kinds of horrors. In the 

United States alone, Jim Crow preachers employed 

religious rhetoric to keep segregation in place. Osama 

Bin Laden used religion to justify mass murder, and 

preachers such as Jerry Falwell routinely suggested 

the link between terrorism waged against Americans 

and God’s wrath for a society wandering away from 

Christian values.1

A tendency exists to view religion as primarily 

divisive2 leaving little space for the accommodation 

of competing narratives. Religion is neither good nor

evil. Religious actors are complex human beings with 

competing interests. Binary thinking rarely results in 

a deep analysis3 of the issues at hand.

An emphasis on the divisive and violent aspects 

of religion provides only part of the story. Missed are 

the ongoing peacebuilding activities of religious organizations and individuals occurring at multiple tracks 

of engagement; interpersonal, community, national, 

and regional.4 As professionals engaged in the many 

activities of peacebuilding, it is essential that military 

authorities arrive at a nuanced understanding of the 
2

religions and religious actors operating in conflict affected areas as well as those influencing peace operations from outside. And, this understanding must take 

into account the overall complexity of religious faith 

and practice present in people’s daily lives. 

Hostilities involving religion are at a six-year 

high.5 On a global scale, religious groups and actors 

are increasingly present in the public square; while 

some pursue peace, others foster violence. Contrary 

to the promise of the secularization thesis,6 religion is 

not in decline, it is growing, primarily throughout the 

Global South, and its influence in society is broad and 

deep; especially as it regards conflict and violence. 

And, during the past century the influence of religion, 

primarily Christianity and Islam, on politics is at its 

highest point.7 Society has become post-secular.8 No 

longer is the secularization of modern society a fait 

accompli. The secularization thesis that proposed the 

passing of religion as societies modernized has proved 

incorrect. The need to ensure successful and sustainable Peace and Stability Operations (PSO) compels 

military leaders to be knowledgeable of religion and 

its multifaceted presence in conflict, as driver of conflict and facilitator of peace.

The secular and sacred share the same public 

sphere. It is essential that both be accounted for when 

conducting peace and stability operations. To orient 

on one to the exclusion of the other is to know only 

part of the story. 

In Peace On Earth: The Role of Religion in Peace and 

Conflict Studies, I asked: Why in the academy have we 

mostly ignored studying the role of religion in contributing to the development of peace and the nonviolent 

transformation of conflict? I suggest the same question holds true in Army Professional Military Education (PME).
3

It is not about seeking simple answers, defining religion as good or bad. Nor is the mantra-like claim, no 

matter how inaccurate it may be, that the principle of 

Separation of Church and State restricts military actors 

in engaging with religious players helpful. The goal 

of strategic and operational military leaders ought to 

be to achieve an in-depth and multidimensional understanding of the many constructive roles religious 

actors play, and can perform, in peacebuilding, and 

arrive at ways of positively interacting with religious 

institutions as a counterpart to state PSO processes. 

I am not suggesting that religion as a positive 

peacebuilding force be accepted uncritically, nor am 

I suggesting that all religious actors move toward 

achieving a just and sustainable peace in constructive 

ways. History and current events certainly prove otherwise. I do propose, however, that when religion is 

absent from the analysis of conflict, it is questionable 

if inclusive and sustainable peace can be arrived at.9

All said, though, it is relevant to remember that in a 

macro sense, “Religion maintains a trajectory toward 

peace.”10

In this paper, I propose that the study of religion, 

as a principle of PSO, be included in PME at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. The near complete absence of religion as a core academic subject in 

PME curricula is shortsighted and ignores the growing presence of religion, and its potential as a driver 

of peace as well as violence. Post-9/11, a substantial 

degree of focus has landed on the divisive aspects of 

religion, ignoring the many potentially positive roles 

religion and religious actors can play in PSO. Clearly, 

individuals can cynically employ religion to advance 

their political, economic, and social goals.11 Others 

have focused on the disruptive and conflict-ridden as-
4

pects of religion. It is not my goal to contribute to the 

narrative that calls for non-engagement with religion. 

I suggest just the opposite. Though the points I make 

in this paper can be applied at all PME levels, I will 

restrict the focus of my paper to the need for correcting the failure to teach about the role of religion in 

society, including in conflict, in-depth, at the strategic 

and operational levels.

Presently, there is an apparent disconnect between 

how the U.S. Army perceives religion and the ways in 

which military officers are schooled. Simplistic narratives dominate. The absence of an in-depth discussion 

of religion and religious actors in Army Field Manual 

(FM) 3-07 is itself problematic, and points to a shallow understanding of religion and its potential role 

as driver of both peace and violence. Sociocultural 

considerations provide a framework used, presumably, to account for religion in a conflict. Field Manual 

3-07 captures the overly simplistic manner with which 

many military leaders are exposed to religion and the 

ways in which it is discussed, as one factor of many 

and co-equal. We need to do better.

In doing better, one of the questions we should ask 

ourselves is what type and amount of religious passion are we willing to accept? Are Bishop Desmond 

Tutu and Pope Francis I religious fanatics? The Dali 

Lama? Are their forms of extremism acceptable? Simplistic accounts of religion, and religious actors, are 

rarely useful when developed, critical, and nuanced 

understandings of conflicts with religious dimensions 

are required; nor, is the absence of religion from the 

PSO discourse beneficial. 

As resources decline within a post-Afghanistan and 

Iraq context, and the public’s appetite for responding 

to conflicts outside of the U.S. dissipates, the strategic 
5

focus is moving away from conflict resolution, writ 

large, toward conflict prevention. Conflict prevention 

is less costly in lives and treasure than interventions 

that seek to address on-going violence that can develop into intractable conflict. And, before leaving office, 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel suggested that the 

U.S. is moving away from long-term stability operations.12 Successful conflict prevention will require all 

hands.

Army leaders intuitively understand they cannot 

go it alone when engaging in modern conflicts. An interagency focus guides conflict analysis and intervention. Whole-of-Government approaches to addressing 

conflict are seemingly too narrow. We now speak of 

Whole-of-Nation and Whole-of-Society approaches 

in an attempt to capture what is needed in response 

to the wicked problems13 we confront. Wicked problems have no clear solutions.14 Chaos, ambiguity, and 

contradiction are standard elements of conflict. For 

many, addressing the chaos, and constructing an holistic worldview, is the domain of religion.

Military professionals will benefit positively from 

an education focus aiding them to develop a literacy 

allowing them to understand and speak to religiously 

informed conflicts. Looking at the past 50 years, it is 

difficult to think of a conflict in which the military was 

engaged where an understanding of religion, and its 

impacts on conflict, would not have been useful. 

The U.S. Army is well suited to advance the integration of the study of religion within a professional 

military education curriculum. Certainly, DoD Directive 5100.01 states that “The Army is the Nation's principal land force”. . . responsible for the preparation of 

land forces necessary for the effective prosecution of 

war and military operations short of war. Integration 
6

of religion into the Army War College curriculum can 

be the first step. Change in curricula can then cascade 

through the military education structure. Initial steps 

should include: 

1. Incorporating religion as a specific aspect of 

study within professional military education.

2. Development of religious literacy among military leaders at tactical, operational, and strategic 

levels. 

3. Addressing the potential peacebuilding aspects 

of religion in peace and stability operations. 

It is well accepted in management and leadership 

circles that the good is the enemy of the great. And so 

it seems with the Army’s approach to the study of religion. Religion as an aspect of study within culture, 

writ-large, is at best, good; however it falls far short of 

the best approach. The best approach is the recognition of religion and PSO as a discrete field of study 

and practice, one that cannot be trivialized within 

checklists.

Desired are strategic thinkers able to grasp the 

complexities of modern conflicts that possess religious 

undercurrents. Learned individuals who are more 

than trained functionaries are essential. Max Boot 

notes how “a decade of war exposed the flaws of experienced, highly credentialed civilians” and “equally 

experienced and equally credentialed military officers.”15 Arguably, an awareness of religion and its 

presence within society would have contributed to a 

deeper understanding of conflict in situ. 

Contributing to the complexity of modern conflict 

is the presence of religion and religious leaders. Arguably, “religions are among the most potent forces in 

the world today.”16 In Army and Joint publications, 
7

religion often receives a cursory nod, at best. When 

discussed, religion is frequently reduced to one aspect 

of culture and treated as a cultural phenomenon. Religion is a distinct dimension of analysis. While religion 

can influence culture, and culture can influence religion, the two are separate. 

Considering the acknowledgment by military 

leadership that today’s complex conflicts require interagency, Whole-of-Society responses, why the marginalization of religion? Moreover, why is religion 

viewed primarily as a driver of conflict, not as a partner in peacebuilding and conflict prevention? 

I begin with several assumptions: 

• that religion is present in the world and that it 

will continue, 

• U.S. foreign policy does not strategically engage religious organizations and actors as 

peacebuilding partners, and

• military professionals are inadequately prepared and lack the religious literacy necessary 

to advance U.S. Peace and Stability Operations 

in religiously informed environments. 

As Miroslav Volf observes, “given the continued 

numerical growth of religions worldwide and their 

increasingly public role, religions will remain a significant force in the years to come.”17 Just as there can 

be wrong answers, there can be wrong questions. The 

issue is not where is religion present; it is where is religion absent in a world that has never been secular?18

Simply put, religion is the X-factor.19

My purpose in putting this paper forward is to 

contribute to the emerging body of research, and a 

developing narrative within the military, regarding 

the proper role of religion in U.S. foreign policy, and 
8

specifically, if and where religion fits into military tactical, operational, and strategic thinking. My research 

is guided by the following questions: Does Army 

PME support development of religious literacy? What 

is the proper role of religious education in PME? How 

can religious literacy positively contribute to peace 

and stability operations?

My intention is not to provide an exhaustive review of the role of religion in military thinking; rather, 

it is to propose the need for military professionals to 

develop a religious literacy that will allow leaders to 

engage religious actors positively in peace and stability operations. Religious literacy should be integrated 

into PME as a core competency. Important to point 

out here is that religious literacy does not mean belief; 

rather, it is the knowledge of others’ sacred beliefs and 

how religion interacts with other dynamics of society 

that allows for meaningful discussion and collaboration. Religious literacy can contribute to PSO by translating religious and secular beliefs and narratives in 

such a way that all parties can engage in consensus 

driven peacebuilding. 

Throughout I discuss the enduring global presence 

of religion, address religion as an aspect of military 

tactical, operational, and strategic thinking, examine 

the presence and depth of religion-centered instruction in PME, and lastly make recommendations for 

expanding the study of religion in PME. 

Conflict and Religion.

Writing in the March 2014 issue of the Association 

of the United States Army News, General Ray Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, notes that military officers need to be developed faster than in the past, and 
9

more specifically, they must understand the religious

environments within which they will operate. In the 

world today, conflicts possess a religious dimension. 

Conflict and religion are historically linked. And, 

that link is more complex than generally recognized. 

Unfortunately, the focus of military conflict analysis 

often falls on the divisive nature of religion ignoring its constructive attributes. Historical accounts of 

religiously based violence abound, as do examples 

of peace processes that flow from inspired religious 

actors and religious institutions. Religiously inspired 

conflict resolution is a growing, though still small, 

sub-field of Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS). The 

marginal nature of religion in PACS itself is curious, 

considering how the field of study and practice grew 

out of the peace churches. As the PACS field continues to define itself, religion will continue to present 

itself as a vital dimension of study and practice. And, 

religion will continue to inform our understanding of 

conflict, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution. 

The understanding of PACS vis-à-vis conflict and violence can be used to inform military awareness of the 

many roles played by religion in intractable conflicts. 

To better understand how religion informs conflict prevention and resolution it is useful to arrive at 

a common understanding of conflict. The word, conflict, is so often used, to describe so much, it can often 

communicate very little. 

Conflict is the natural resource needed for social 

change. Conflict is neither positive nor negative, it 

simply is. The regular friction of social life manifests 

itself as conflict at different levels; interpersonal, community, national, regional. From a western perspective, conflict is the condition that invites intervention. 
10

Western-centric approaches to conflict are highly 

focused on transformation and resolution, both of 

which are reactive. In the Pan-Western world, conflict 

is accepted as a natural condition.

Conflict work occurs in the space between what is

and what can be.20 It is the creation of a context where 

those in conflict can do their work in resolving their

issues. Conflict workers employ both elicitive and 

prescriptive practices in preventing and resolving 

conflict. It is in the transitions that conflict workers 

conduct the majority of their efforts. 

It is not possible to view conflict outside of the 

boundaries created by negative and positive peace. 

Negative peace is the absence of direct violence, while 

positive peace is the absence of direct violence and the 

presence of justice. Very often, conflict resolution work 

ceases once a negative peace has been achieved. Direct 

violence can end by establishing a cease-fire; however, a respite from direct violence does not necessarily 

translate into justice. Violence that is moved below the 

social surface, and moved into a latent state, will very 

often resurface.21 Positive peace requires that institutions of peace be in place to move from negative to 

positive. Religion and religious actors can contribute 

to this in substantive, unique ways.

Religion is not the Third-Rail

Religion is front-and-center in many of today’s 

conflicts, and “religious loyalties matter profoundly.”22 The multiple roles played by religion and religious actors are not easily classified as good or evil. 

Realistically, the presence of religion in conflict slides 

along a scale between both poles. Clearly, “When religion is not taken into account (as per a failure in mili-
11

tary intelligence), the character of conflict is invariably 

misunderstood.”23

Former secretary of State Madeleine Albright 

notes that there are few spaces within the academic 

discipline of International Relations where diplomats 

can develop a “sophisticated understanding” of religion and its influence on world affairs.24 She further 

notes that religion does not disappear from the world 

stage merely as a result of our ignoring it.25 Religion 

cannot simply be wished away. In today’s world, an 

understanding of religion is “essential”26 for successful peacebuilding.

In many instances, religion provides the only social structure in fragile states, as well as failed ones. 

Religious leaders may be the only individuals with 

credibility among a failed population. And, religious 

institutions may be the only ones in place through 

which civil society can continue functioning.

As states fail, so can moral and ethical practices. 

Failing and failed states can be places of cultural, 

structural, and direct violence. Corruption often replaces governance. Examples are too numerous to list; 

Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Congo 

are but a few exemplars of states unable to provide for 

the human security of its citizens. Religion can keep 

morality and a sense of justice alive.27 Religion has 

within it the capacity to reintroduce the moral dimension into conflicts that have transitioned to violence. 

Clausewitz notes, moral elements “constitute the spirit that permeates war as a whole, and at an early stage 

they establish a close affinity with the will that moves 

and leads the whole mass of force, practically merging 

with it, since the will is itself a moral quantity.”28

Religious actors can, and should, be engaged as coequals alongside others in the peacebuilding process. 
12

The peace-centered nature of religion can be used to 

compliment a conflict prevention and conflict resolution strategy. 

In order to associate with religious actors and organizations, military leaders will need to develop a 

clear understanding of religion as a social structure, 

independent of the state. Leaders are needed who 

possess a well developed understanding of religion 

and how it makes politics possible through creation 

of an ethical foundation. Religion keeps critique of the 

state alive. 

National leadership must provide clear guidance 

regarding the engagement of religion and religious actors. Interpretations of the Establishment Clause are 

abundant and ambiguous. Uninformed assumptions 

about the Establishment Clause should not be used, 

and abused, to restrict engagement of religion and religious actors unnecessarily. The absence of a clearly 

communicated understanding of the boundaries set 

in place by the Establishment Clause vis-à-vis PSO 

leaves leaders in the field struggling to understand the 

degree to which they can engage religious actors.

Few subjects have the potential for igniting human 

passions the way religion can. Religion provides much 

of the world’s population with an holistic worldview 

that is not easily replaced through artificial, pseudocommunities; religious beliefs form the core of many 

people’s lives. Leaders must appreciate the fundamental nature of religion in people’s lives.

Religious literacy has been identified as the missing aspect of statecraft.29 Arguably, religious literacy 

is also absent from military strategic thinking. At best, 

the study of religion and its potential role as partner 

in PSO is pushed to the margins of Professional Mili-
13

tary Education (PME). Most often the topic is simply 

absent in PME.

Peacebuilding Counterpart

In a post-secular world, the metaphor that communicates a wall of separation between church and state 

may no longer be useful. More meaningful may be the 

metaphor that suggests the twin tolerations. 30

Religion and state “depend on a constructive coexistence”31 in order to address peacebuilding challenges. State and religion share a common concern, an 

emphasis on the good. Since Plato’s Republic, Western 

scholars have searched for the most appropriate way 

to govern ourselves. Secular and sacred focus on the 

same question using different language, “What is the 

good?” Religious literacy enables peacebuilding actors operating from a secular context be able to comprehend religious language in this common search.32

Religion and Violence

Religion is easily and often connected to violence. 

Viewing religion as one- dimensional can lead to shallow thinking and poor analysis. If a thesis is wrong, 

the answer will be wrong. My experience teaching 

conflict analysis and resolution in undergraduate and 

graduate studies programs leads me to suggest that 

students readily throw religion forward as the cause 

of many conflicts. Critical thinking is absent. They 

quickly follow with a recommendation that religion 

should be eliminated in order to eliminate conflict; an 

unlikely proposition. 
14

Global Religious Growth 

It is well known that in polite company it is rarely 

a good idea to discuss politics and religion. Advice 

aside, politics and religion continue to animate much 

of the global scene. And, as R. Scott Appleby points 

out in The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, 

and Reconciliation, not everyone believes in separating 

religion from public life. The West makes up less than 

one-sixth of the world’s population. It is an arrogance 

for Western actors to presume that religion is marginal to people’s lives, or that western leaders know 

what is best for the other five-sixths of the populace. 

More than 85% of the world’s population, approximately 5.8 billion adults and children, believe in some 

sort of religion.33 Following Odierno’s observation, 

it is necessary to understand the global religious environment and its continuing growth.34 Not to do so 

will leave a significant hole in our understanding of 

a world growing more, not less, religious.35 Clearly, 

“religions continue to play an important role even in 

liberal societies.”36

Religion today is being defied by the Global South. 

An increasing number of conflicts occupy the space 

along the 10th Parallel where 700 million Muslims and 

1.2 billion Christians often collide like tectonic plates.37

Religion Endures

The discourse regarding state and religion often 

swings between two poles, one advocating for religion 

as a legitimate aspect of statecraft, the other opposing 

the presence of religion in politics in any manifestation. Rarely is religion engaged positively to address 

the wicked problems that face us today.38 As a way 
15

of making space for secular state actors, religious actors are frequently relegated to the margins of military 

and civilian intervention efforts, and increasingly, 

secular non-state actors that possess the resources to 

advance their interests, irrespective of local needs, are 

contributing to the marginalization of religious actors. 

Prescriptive approaches to conflict resolution dominate, and guide secular non-state approaches taken by 

secular foundations. 

But, religion remains ever-present, and rarely does 

anyone seriously suggest its imminent demise.39 So 

beneficial is religion to human evolution, contemporary research advances the view that it may be a part 

of human DNA. Religion provides a mythology and 

moral grounding that benefits society, and societies 

with strong moral development were privileged over 

those without such a foundation. Privilege, over time, 

became part of human DNA, and individuals and 

societies with religion evolved, those without it did 

not.40 From a peacebuilding perspective, “democracy 

depends on moral stances which stem from prepolitical sources,”41 and religion shares in the domain of the 

prepolitical. 

Religious Illiteracy

The phenomenon of religious illiteracy permeates 

western diplomatic, development, and military thinking and policy. As an essential element, religion needs 

to be included in peacebuilding and stability narratives.42 Successful PSO interventions will require leaders at all levels – strategic, operational, and tactical 

– which possess a degree of religious literacy congruent with their role in a conflict’s analysis and transformation. Religious actors and institutions are often 
16

present at all levels of a conflict – interpersonal, tribal 

and community, national, and regional. An ability to 

engage positively with religious leaders is crucial to 

mission success. State actors engaged in PSO can build 

upon the peace trajectory of religions. However, this 

is rarely the current line of approach used by military 

leaders. 

In 2009, the United States Institute of Peace and 

the United States Army Peacekeeping and Stability 

Operations Institute published Guiding Principles for 

Stabilization and Reconstruction. The purpose of the text 

is to fill the gaps that exist among civilian agencies of 

the U.S. government regarding PSO. The manual is 

meant to serve as PSO doctrine for civilians. Astonishingly, there is no mention of religion anywhere in the 

volume. ADP 3-07 (31 August 2012) Stability does not 

discuss religion or religious actors as part of stability 

operations. ADRP 3-07 (31 August 2012), Stability, incorporates one paragraph addressing religion. It notes 

that religion is a significant characteristic of many 

governments and that it cannot be easily discounted; 

however, apparently not important enough to address 

in any detail. ATP 3-07.5 (August 2012), Stability Techniques makes no mention of religion though it discusses NGOs and humanitarian organizations. 

Why Religious Actors as Counterparts?

Religious actors are not constrained by state policy 

and national constituencies.43 Track One actors engaged in peacebuilding initiatives can mesh the Track 

Two and Three activities of religious leaders and organizations that are embedded in local communities and 

who are integral players in society.44 A conflict resolution approach that works across all Tracks simultane-
17

ously may provide the best chance for success. Formal 

Track One provides governmental initiatives to peace 

development, Track II ensures non-governmental approaches to peacebuilding are present, and Track III 

makes certain that grassroots and indigenous voices 

are heard. This can be viewed as a counterpart activity. 

Religious leaders are often able to operate where the 

military cannot. Track One actors need to approach 

religious actors as counterparts, not subordinates. A 

recognition of religious leaders status as co-equal with 

the state is required.

Eric Patterson posits that a “secular bias” permeates U.S. foreign policy.45 For Patterson, U.S. foreign 

policy actors fall far short of developing a religious 

literacy. This observation can also be applied to professional military officers, commissioned and noncommissioned. “There is almost no formal preparation for U.S. military officers in their professional 

military education” regarding religion and religious 

phenomena.46 Patterson calls on universities to invest 

in developing religious literacy through research and 

coursework. Military PME curricula planners would 

do well to invest, as well. 

Regardless of the increasing presence of religion 

in modern conflict, “There is a paucity of religious 

education available to prospective or current military commanders across the board. As a consequence, 

U.S. military commanders in the field are essentially 

‘winging it’.”47

Following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, over 

a 400-year period, the influence of religion in world 

affairs declined. That decline appears to have been arrested, and we are viewing an increase in the impact 

of religion on global concerns. Secularization is not re-
18

sulting in less religion; the effect appears to be just the 

opposite. Religion is on the rise, globally.48

Religion fills the social service gaps left by failed 

and failing states. When governments no longer 

maintain the capacity to govern, the only institutions 

available to address a population’s human needs are 

religious.

The many roles played by religion are complex 

and cannot be captured in simplistic descriptions. A 

focus on religion as a mono-causal factor of conflict 

and violence detracts from the identification of other 

possible, secular causes.49 The goal is to move away 

from religious versus secular thinking50 to an acceptance and management of the secular and sacred sharing the same public space. The developing field of religious peacebuilding continues to be “challenged by 

secular biases.”51 The sacred remains ambivalent; it is 

our responsibility to animate it as a partner for conflict 

prevention and resolution.52 Linking religion to PSO is 

a new approach to peacebuilding.

U.S. Army View of Religion in Peace and Stability 

Operations

Shortly after arriving at the U.S Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute as a Visiting Research Professor, a senior commissioned officer 

asked me about my research and areas of academic 

focus. I explained to him that over the past several 

years, I have been engaged in research and teaching of 

the role of religion in peacebuilding; specifically, the 

positive roles that religious actors can play in addressing conflict in fragile states. The officer listened to my 

overview of activities, and then politely asked, “Do 

we need that expertise here?” My predecessor told me 
19

that military officers and Department of the Army civilians asked her the same question when she arrived.

This seems an odd question considering the presence religion played, and continues to play, in Iraq 

and Afghanistan as well as emerging and on-going 

intractable conflicts. What seemed so clearly plain to 

me, the need for religious literacy on the part of the 

United States’ military elite, was going to take some 

selling. I decided to start by looking at current thinking regarding the role military education in developing religious literacy among the professional military.

Religion in PME.

Recently, professional Military Education curricula at the service colleges have received increasing 

focus.53 It is suggested that Army War College (AWC) 

curricula has not kept pace with a rapidly changing 

global space. It is well understood that Armies are 

prepared to fight the last war, not future ones. And, 

if past experience is anything, future wars will very 

likely possess a significant religious component. 

A recent survey of the Army War College curricula suggests the peripheral role of religion in PME. 

It appears little different at other War Colleges, too. 

The formation of a religious literacy, and an understanding of the multiple potential roles of religion and 

religious actors in conflict, is not viewed as core competencies. By offering electives in religion and conflict 

there is a measure of recognition on the part of curriculum developers regarding the need to better understand the role of religion in PSO. It is worth noting 

that this recognition is very recent. At the Army War 

College, electives focusing specifically on religion and 

peace and stability operations, as well as conflict and 
20

violence, have been offered only during the past three 

years. Previous courses have included religion as a 

variable, but not as a specific unit of analysis. This recognition needs to be exploited, however. Embedded 

inside religions is the potential for partnership with 

PSO actors. 

Student end-of-course evaluation comments regarding the need for the study of religion at the Army 

War College are telling. One student who participated 

in a recent class on religion and conflict stated that the 

“course should be part of the core curriculum! Too often we (the Army) shy away from studying and understanding the role of religion in conflict and violence....

we treat religion as an afterthought.” Another notes 

how the absence of instruction focusing on the role of 

religion in conflict “is a weak area for many working 

in the DoD and the interagency.” One student wrote 

that the study of religion and conflict is “truly relevant 

to strategic studies and should be incorporated in to 

the broader (Army War College) course material.”54

Religious Literacy Cannot Be Outsourced

Over the past decade, the role of the military 

chaplain has evolved beyond its traditional focus of 

ministering to military personnel and their families 

to that of advisor and agent regarding local religions, 

religious leaders, and faith-based institutions.55 However, not all chaplains are prepared to meet the new 

demands placed on them; some are ill-qualified to 

assume the role of expert advisor of religions outside of their home faith tradition.56 Military chaplain 

leadership recognizes that “military chaplains are the 

only ones trained to effectively communicate across 

religious boundaries,”57 and that is precisely the issue. 
21

Are chaplains the best choice, or the only choice? Can 

religious literacy be outsourced? Engagement with religious actors cannot be the sole domain of chaplains. 

The transitioning of chaplains away from their 

traditional role of ministering to the troops and their 

families will not be easy, and political considerations 

will exacerbate making chaplains religious advisors. 

And, chaplains lack an in-depth training in religions 

that limits their usefulness as expert advisors.58 Possibly relying on chaplains to assume the role of subject 

matter experts regarding pan-religious issues is little 

more than pushing the problem aside with a quick, 

but inadequate, fix. Also, assigning the role of religious literacy subject matter expert to chaplains takes 

them away from their ministry role, and that is their 

job.

Coupled to a lack of education regarding other 

faith traditions is the “increasingly evangelical composition of the American chaplain corps” and chaplains maintaining their right to evangelize and proselytize among non-military populations59; irrespective 

of DoD policy. Chaplains are not interchangeable. Not 

all chaplains have identical views regarding ecumenism. 

Existing approaches to Religious Leader Engagement (RLE) suggest an acceptance by military leaders 

that religions are interchangeable. This is not the case. 

Engagement with religious actors and institutions is 

a critical task of military leaders and not something 

that can be pushed off on just anyone. Military leaders 

require an understanding of religion and its presence 

in the public domain.
22

Recommendations

Certainly, curriculum development is a challenging activity. Not all subjects can be accommodated in 

a core curriculum. The decision regarding what gets 

left out of the core curriculum is never easy. But difficulty in deciding what is most important should not 

keep us from making tough decisions. Simply because 

a subject has always been a part of the core curriculum should not afford it privileged status. Change 

is constant, and curricula should be flexible enough 

to address a constantly changing global context. The 

wicked problems we face require practitioners who 

are multi-literate, and one of the most critical literacies is religion.

One-way of adjusting a curriculum to include the 

study of religion an its impact in peacebuilding is to 

employ an approach that diffuses it throughout existing classes. Integrating the investigation of religion 

into standing classes should be resisted. State and religion are the primary peacebuilding actor. Placing the 

study of religion within the state suggests a powerover relationship that does not exist in a separation of 

church and state or twin tolerations paradigm. In the 

first, the state should act as a neutral, not from a position of authority over. In the second place, the state 

should accept a position that tolerates the presence of 

religion in the public square as co-equal. 

The following recommendations are advanced as 

ways of enhancing the AWC curriculum as a way of 

developing and enhancing religious literacy among 

leaders at the strategic and operational levels. 

• Embed education regarding religion and religious 

actors into PME core curricula. Education regarding the importance of religion to people’s lives, 

and the many roles it plays in modern conflicts, 
23

cannot be relegated to peripheral status. Arguably, no single dimension of human activity 

has the potential for good and evil as religion 

does. To ignore or marginalize its latent potential leaves a gaping hole in a military officer’s 

professional education and preparedness for 

dealing with an increasingly religious world. 

• Designate a visiting scholar position for the study of 

religion at the U.S. Army War College. This individual will research religion as part of the core 

curriculum. As a rotating position, this will 

work to ensure a connection between the AWC 

and scholarship pursued at civilian institutions 

of higher learning. It will also have the benefit 

of continuing to renew the curriculum through 

continuing research. This individual will also 

teach in the core curriculum. 

• Integrate religion as a dimension of analysis in 

coursework. Considerations of religious factors 

should be included in all coursework. Not an 

appendage or afterthought, religion should be 

addressed as co-equal in PSO. It should not be 

addressed as an aspect of culture, writ large. 

• Establish a permanent position at the Peacekeeping 

and Stability Operations Institute for a scholar expert in the sub-field of religion as an aspect of 

peacebuilding and stability. 

In implementing these recommendations, curriculum developers should avoid the easy approach of 

delegating all things religious to chaplains. Religious 

literacy is a competency that cannot be delegated. Military leaders must demonstrate their understanding of 

the other through their personal knowledge of others’ 

worldviews mediated through religion.
24

Conclusion

The absence of religion as a core subject within a 

contemporary war-fighting curriculum leaves our 

military personnel ill-equipped for a complex world. 

A quick scan of any newspaper, on any day, clearly 

communicates the escalating presence of religion 

in the public square. The circumstances of modern 

conflict demand that military leaders become knowledgeable of not only the divisive, but also the many 

positive, roles religion and religious actors can play in 

conflict prevention and resolution. Leaders will need 

a literacy that allows them to understand how religion 

can interact with conflict, to engage religious leaders 

as counterparts in PSO, and they will need to develop 

an ability to work with and through religious institutions. Mission success, and human lives, depend on 

leader religious literacy.

ENDNOTES

1. Thomas Matyok and Maureen Flaherty, “Can People of 

Faith, and People in Peace and Conflict Studies, Work Together?” 

in Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies eds. Thomas Matyok, 

Maureen Flaherty, Hamdesa Tuso, Jessica Senehi, and Sean Byrne 

(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013), 2.

2. Eric Patterson, Politics in a Religious World: Building a Religiously Informed U.S. Foreign Policy (London: Continuum, 2011).

3. Thomas Matyok, Cathryne Schmitz, and Hannah Rose 

Mendoza, “Deep Analysis: Designing Complexity Into Our Understanding of Conflict” InterAgency Journal (2014), In Press.

4. Ibid, 1-12.
25

5. Pew Research Center, January 2014, “Religious Hostilities Reach 

Six Year High.”

6. Peter Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: The 

Global Overview,” The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics ed. Peter Berger (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 1999), 2.

7. Robert Cunningham, “Religion in Peacemaking and Statecraft: Whither Faith-Based Diplomacy?” in Seaford House Papers, 

2004 ed. J.E. Spence (UK: Royal College of Defence Studies, 2004), 

142.

8. Jürgen Habermas, “Pre-political Foundations of the 

Democratic State?” in The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason 

and Religion ed. Florian Schuller (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005), 

46.

9. Thomas Matyok and Maureen Flaherty, “Can People of 

Faith, and People in Peace and Conflict Studies, Work Together?” 

in Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies eds. Thomas Matyok, 

Maureen Flaherty, Hamdesa Tuso, Jessica Senehi, and Sean Byrne 

(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013), 2.

10. David Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas

(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 183.

11. Peter L. Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A 

Global Overview” in The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent 

Religion and World Politics ed. Peter L. Berger (Washington, D.C.: 

Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1999), 15.

12. Spencer Ackerman, “Hagel’s Pentagon Budget Plans for 

New ‘Realities’ and Fewer Ground Wars,” The Guardian, February 

24, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/

13. Robert Buchanon, “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking,” Design Issues, 8 no. 2 (1992), 5-21.

14. Slavo Žižek, The Year of Living Dangerously (London: Verso, 2012).
26

15. Max Boot. “ More Small Wars: Counterinsurgency Is Here 

to Stay,” Foreign Affairs, 1, no. 1, 5-14, (2014)

16. Miroslav Volf, “Agents of Peace in Theaters of War: Rethinking the Role of Military Chaplains,” The Review of Faith & 

International Affairs, (Winter 2009), 34.

17. Miroslav Volf, “Agents of Peace in Theaters of War: Rethinking the Role of Military Chaplains,” The Review of Faith & 

International Affairs, (Winter 2009), 34.

18. Peter L. Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A 

Global Overview” in The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent 

Religion and World Politics ed. Peter L. Berger (Washington, D.C.: 

Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1999), 12.

19. Eliza Griswold,The Tenth Parallel: Dispatches from the Fault 

Line Between Christianity and Islam (New York: Picador, 2010), 72.

20. Hannah Rose Mendoza and Thomas Matyok, “We Are 

Not Alone: When the Number of Exceptions to a Rule Exceeds 

its Usefulness as a Construct, it is Time for a Change,” Meanings 

of Designed Spaces ed. Tiiu Vaikla-Poldma (New York: Fairchild, 

2012).

21. World Bank, World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development. 

22. Miroslav Volf, “Agents of Peace in Theaters of War: Rethinking the Role of Military Chaplains,” The Review of Faith & 

International Affairs, (Winter 2009), 34.

23. Robert Cunningham, “Religion in Peacemaking and Statecraft: Whither Faith-Based Diplomacy?” in Seaford House Papers, 

2004 ed. J.E. Spence (UK: Royal College of Defence Studies, 2004), 

142.

24. Madeline Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (New York: HarperCollins, 

2006), 66.

25. Ibid, 73.
27

26. Ibid, 75.

27. Erin K. Wilson, “Beyond Dualism: Expanded Understandings of Religion and Global Justice,” International Studies Quarterly, 54 (2010), 733-754.

28. Carl Von Clausewitz, On war eds. Michael Howard and 

Peter Paret (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1976), 184.

29. Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds. Religion: 

The Missing Dimension of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1995).

30. José Casanova, “Rethinking Public Religions” in Rethinking Religion and World Affairs eds. Timothy Samuel Shah, Alfred 

Stepan, and Monica Duffy Toft (New York: Oxford University 

Press, 2012), 30-31.

31. Michael Reder and Josef Schmidt, “Habermas and Religion” in An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a PostSecular Age ed. Jürgen Habermas (Malden, MA: Polity, 2010), 6.

32. Craig Calhoun, “Afterward: Religion’s Many Powers” in 

The Power of the Religion in the Public Sphere eds. Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan Vanantwerpen (New York: Columbia University 

Press, 2011), 128.

33. Pew Research Center reported in The Economist Dec. 22, 

2012.

34. R. Scott Appleby and Richard Cizik, Engaging Religious 

Communities Abroad: A New Imperative for U.S. Foreign Policy (Chicago, IL: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2010), 5.

35. Peter L. Berger, “The Desecularization of the World: A 

Global Overview” in The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent 

Religion and World Politics ed. Peter L. Berger (Washington, D.C.: 

Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1999), 1-18.

36. Michael Reder, “How Far Can Faith and Reason Be Distinguished? Remarks on Ethics and the Philosophy of Religion” in 
28

An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-Secular 

Age ed. Jürgen Habermas (Malden, MA: Polity, 2010), 37.

37. Eliza Griswold, The 10th Parallel: Dispatches From the Fault 

Line Between Christianity and Islam (New York: Farrah, Straus and 

Giroux, 2010).

38. Qamar-ul Huda and Katherine Marshall, “Religion and 

Peacebuilding” in Integrated Peacebuilding: Innovative Approaches 

to Transforming Conflict ed. Craig Zelizer (Boulder, CO: Westview 

Press, 2013), 151-152.

39. Michael Reder and Josef Schmidt, “Habermas and Religion” in An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a PostSecular Age ed. Jürgen Habermas (Malden, MA: Polity, 2010), 1.

40. Andrew Newberg, Eugene, D’Aquili, and Vince Rause, 

Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science & the Biology of Belief (New 

York: Ballantine Books, 2001), 11-53. Nicholas Wade, The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved & Why It Endures (New York: Penguin 

Press, 2009).

41. Michael Reder and Josef Schmidt, “Habermas and Religion” in An Awareness of What is Missing: Faith and Reason in a PostSecular Age ed. Jürgen Habermas (Malden, MA: Polity, 2010), 7.

42. Qamar-ul Huda and Katherine Marshall, “Religion and 

Peacebuilding” in Integrated Peacebuilding: Innovative Approaches 

to Transforming Conflict ed. Craig Zelizer (Boulder, CO: Westview 

Press, 2013), 153.

43 .Ibid., 159.

44. Ibid., 162.

45. Eric Patterson, Politics in a Religious World: Building a Religiously Informed U.S. Foreign Policy (London: Continuum, 2011), 3.

46. Ibid., 51.
29

47. Douglas M. Johnston, “U.S. Military Chaplains: Redirecting a Critical Asset,” The Review of Faith & Internatuional Affairs, 

(Winter 2009), 29.

48. J. Bryan Hehir, “Why Religion? Why now?” in Rethinking 

Religion and World Affairs eds. Timothy Samuel Shah, Alfred Stepan, and Monica Duffy Toft (New York, Oxford University Press, 

2012), 15-35.

49. Nathan C. Funk and Christina J. Woolner, “Religion and 

Peace and Conflict Studies” in Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict 

Studies: Theory, Practice, Pedagogy eds. Thomas Matyok, Jessica 

Senehi, and Sean Byrne (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013), 

349-370.

50. Ibid., 351.

51. Ibid., 349.

52. R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, 

Violence, and Reconciliation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield 

Publishers, 2000).

53. Joan Johnson-Freese, Educating America’s Military (New 

York: Routledge, 2013); George E. Reed, “The Pen and the Sword: 

Faculty Management Challenges in the Mixed Cultural Environment of a War College,” Joint Forces Quarterly 72, 1st Quarter 

(2014), 14-20.

54. Comments were taken from the 2014 PS2216, Religion and 

Violence end-of-course evaluations. 

55. Jon E. Cutler, “The Role of the Military Chaplain in the 

‘3D’ Process,” InterAgency Journal 3, no. 3 (2012), 42.

56. Ibid., 43.

57. Ibid., 50.

58. Stacey Gutkowski and George Wilkes, “Changing Chaplaincy; a Contribution to Debate over the Roles of US and British 

Military Chaplains in Afghanistan,” Religion, State, & Society 39, 
30

no. 1 (2011), 121.

59. Jacqueline E. Whitt, “Dangerous Liaisons: The Context 

and Consequences of Operationalizing Military Chaplains,” Military Review March-April (2012), 53.
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

Major General William E. Rapp

Commandant

*****

PEACEKEEPING & STABILITY OPERATIONS 

INSTITUTE

Director

Colonel Daniel A. Pinnell

Assistant Director

Professor William J. Flavin 

Author

Thomas G. Matyók, Ph.D.

Publications Coordinator

Mr. R. Christopher Browne

*****

Composition

Mrs. Jennifer E. Nevil
USAWC Website

FOR THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, VISIT US AT

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/

This Publication PSKOI Website

ISBN: 978-0-9861865-2-3