Armed Forces Between Otherness and Respect: a Study of Norwegian Soldiers’ Understanding of the Significance of Religion

ARMED FORCES BETWEEN OTHERNESS AND RESPECT: A STUDY OF NORWEGIAN SOLDIERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION

Geir Johannes Barlaup

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.)

VID Specialized University

2020 © Geir Johannes Barlaup, 2020

ISBN: 978-82-93490-66-1 ISSN: 2535-3071

Dissertation Series for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) at VID Specialized University, Volume no. 25

Cover: Dinamo

Printed in Norway: Totaltrykk, Oslo, 2020.

VID Specialized University [email protected] www.vid.no

Preface The principal reason for my writing a PhD dissertation was a request by the former Chaplain- General, Brigadier Alf Petter Hagesæther. My personal preference in professional life has not been specializing within one field but getting a broader education to improve my skills within the chaplain’s ‘care of the combatant’ – in the widest sense of the phrase. The brigadier granted me the liberty of choosing the topic. My consideration was that I probably could contribute best by gathering data about the understanding of religion in the Armed Forces based on dialogue with experienced soldiers. I saw a need for that in order to increase knowledge and improve practices. I will not conceal that it has been a long and hard process with several obstacles along the way both regarding the work and my private life. Nevertheless, in addition to the Chaplaincy of the Norwegian Armed Forces, which supported me financially during the first part of this project, I am indebted to a number of individuals and institutions without whose support this work would not have been possible. First and foremost, my thanks go to all participants in the study, interlocutors in individual and group interviews, contributors with self-completion questionnaires, all units and door openers that have helped me get in contact with relevant personnel. Unfortunately, I cannot mention names due to anonymity requirements, but they know who they are themselves, and their contributions are highly appreciated. In the academic world, I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Professor Knut Alfsvåg at VID Specialized University, the best reader I know. His encouragement and patience have been of decisive importance. VID also granted me a good assisting supervisor, Senior Scientific Officer Torgeir Sørensen, who came to my rescue when I was struggling with the quantitative data. My gratitude also goes to teachers, administrative staff and colleagues at the academic institutions VID and the research school RVS for all support. Special thanks to my peers, whose encouragement and company has had great significance and led to warm friendships. From outside the academic world, I should mention my good Fijian friend and colleague Joeli Baleiwai, whose spiritual support has been decisive. When loosing support from important partners, he gave the motto that kept me going, the Fijian ‘tabusoro’ [giving up/surrender is taboo]. Thanks also to my dear children, Lars Andreas, Eirik, Ole Kristian and Ingebjørg, for enduring with a dad whose mind has been too absent-minded for too long. I dedicate this dissertation to them. Finally, but not least, I’ll include my gratitude to the Good

Lord for granting meaning and consolation. Without my faith and hope that His grace surpasses human negligence, I could not have completed this work.

Abstract Little research is conducted on Norwegian soldiers’ understanding of religion. The importance of learning more about this has become evident through their service abroad such as in Afghanistan. This study intends to contribute to filling this gap of knowledge through examining the thoughts and attitudes to religion among Afghanistan veterans. The aim is to obtain information through a dialogic reflection with the participants and to consider this in the light of theory mainly of religious studies. The applied methodology is to gather empirical data through thirty individual interviews supplemented by 142 self-completion questionnaires and three group interviews. A main finding is that religion is militarily important. Good ability to talk about religion appears as a valuable door opener for communicating with Afghans. Some soldiers find the topic operatively essential. Furthermore, an understanding of religion as a private matter is not pertinent in Afghanistan. This study shows that the Armed Forces need a wider understanding of what religion is, the societal role of religion both in Afghanistan and Norway, and improved skills in communicating about it. It concludes with some suggestions for how improved preparedness can be achieved at this point.

Sammendrag Det foreligger lite forskning om norske soldaters forståelse av religion. Erfaringen fra operasjoner i utlandet, som f eks tjenesten i Afghanistan, har vist betydningen av å lære mer om dette. Denne studien intenderer å bidra til å fylle dette kunnskapshullet ved å finne svar på hvilke tanker og holdninger Norske Afghanistanveteraner har i forhold til religion. Hensikten er å innhente informasjon gjennom dialogisk refleksjon med deltakerne for så å betrakte dette i lys av hovedsakelig religionsvitenskapelig teori. Det metodiske perspektivet er å samle empirisk materiale ved hjelp av tretti individuelle intervjuer supplementert med 142 spørreskjema og tre gruppeintervjuer. Et hovedfunn er at religion er militært viktig. Evne til samtale om religion er en verdifull døråpner for å komme i kontakt med afghanere. Noen soldater mener at tema er operativt essensielt. Et annet hovedfunn er at forståelsen av religion som en privatsak ikke er relevant i Afghanistan. Studien viser at Forsvaret trenger en videre forståelse av hva religion er, religionens samfunnsmessige rolle både i Afghanistan og Norge, og forbedret evne til å snakke om tema. Den konkluderer med noen forslag til hvordan man kan oppnå en forbedret beredskap på dette punktet.

List of acronyms and abbreviations AJP: Allied Joint Procedure ANA: Afghan National Army ANP: Afghan National Police CHOD NORWAY: Chief of Defense Norway COIN: Counter-insurgency COMISAF: Commander, International Security Assistance Force COPD: Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive FFI: Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt [Norwegian Defence Research Establishment] FFOD: Forsvarets fellesoperative doctrine [Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine] FST: Forsvarsstaben [The Norwegian Defence Staff] IED: Improved (or Improvised) Explosive Device IRIN: Integrated Regional Information Networks ISAF: International Security Assistance Force HQ: Headquarters KD: Kulturdepartementet [Ministry of Cultural Affairs] MEDIC: Medical, Environmental, Disease, Intelligence and Countermeasures Mech [Mek]: Mechanized Infantry Company MOT: Military Observer Team NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization NCO: Non-Commissioned Officer NOU: Norges offentlige utredninger [Norwegian Public Report. ‘Green Paper’] NESH: Den nasjonale forskningsetiske komité for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora [The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities] NSD: Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste [Norwegian Social Science Data Services] NUPI: Norsk utenrikspolitisk institutt [Norwegian Institute of International Affairs] RNoAF: Royal Norwegian Air Force RNoN: Royal Norwegian Navy ROE: Rules of Engagement SOP: Standing (or Standard) Operational Procedure

STANAG: Standardization Agency (or Agreement) V and var: Variable VIP: Very Important Person WVS: World Values Survey

Keywords Afghanistan Chaplaincy Christianity Norse mythology Otherness Phenomenology Preparedness Religion Respect Soldiers’ understanding

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Topic and Background ...... 1 1.1.1 Religion Understood as a Private Issue ...... 3 1.1.2 Armed Forces with a New Focus – the International Turn and Religion ..... 4 1.1.3 The Understanding of Religion within the Chaplaincy of the Armed Forces in the Wake of the Abandonment of the State Church System ...... 7

1.2 Aim of the Study ...... 9 1.3 Disciplinary and Theoretical Approaches ...... 11 1.3.1 Some Professional Presuppositions and Disciplinary Approach ...... 11 1.3.2 Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives ...... 15

1.4 Sources and Methods – Some Characteristics, Challenges and Choices ...... 23 1.4.1 The Life Context as Deployed Soldiers ...... 23 1.4.2 Methodology in General ...... 24 1.4.3 Individual Interviews ...... 26 1.4.4 Group Interviews ...... 28 1.4.5 Self-completion Questionnaires ...... 30

1.5 Outline of the Thesis ...... 31 Chapter Two ...... 33 THE SOLDIERS’ THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION ...... 33

2.1 Affinity and Importance of Religion in the Soldiers’ Own Lifeworld ……….. 33 2.1.1 Main Tendency – a Relaxed Positive Attitude to Religion ...... 33 2.1.2 Soldiers Critical to Religion ...... 34 2.1.3 Non-believers Positive or Critically Tolerant to Religious Values ...... 36 2.1.4 Church Members Neither Adversary to Religion nor Believers ...... 38 2.1.5 Vagueness Concerning Beliefs and Using the Church as Temple Religion 40 2.1.6 Self-Completion Questionnaires Yield More Negative Answers ...... 41 2.1.7 Assessments of the Findings According to the Groups ...... 44

2.1.8 Summary and Assessment of the Findings ...... 49

2.2 Soldiers’ Ideas about What Religion Is ...... 52 2.2.1 Religion as Beliefs ...... 53 2.2.2 Religion as Fundamentals for Life and Society ...... 55 2.2.3 Religion as Bearer of Tradition ...... 58 2.2.4 Religion as Rituals and Practice ...... 61 2.2.5 Religion as Emotional Comfort ...... 65 2.2.6 Religion as Institutional and Social Fellowship ...... 68 2.2.7 Summarizing Comments ...... 77

2.3 Some Assessments and Conclusions ...... 78 2.3.1 Assessments of the Findings According to the Groups ...... 78 2.3.2 Homogenous Plurality and the Expediency of the Political Ideals ...... 83

Chapter Three ...... 92 SOLDIERS’ THOUGHTS ABOUT AND ATTITUDES TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION RELATED TO THE AFGHAN CONTEXT. 92

3.1 Thoughts about Afghan Religion and Culture ...... 93 3.1.1 The Soldiers’ Understanding of the Afghan Context in General ...... 94 3.1.2 The Role of Religion in the Community ...... 98 3.1.3 Responses When Afghans Ask Soldiers about Their Religion ...... 109 3.1.4 Perception of Typical Characteristics and Attitudes among the Local Population ...... 113 3.1.5 Understanding of Some Social Conditions ...... 119 3.1.6 Consideration of Some Gender Issues ...... 122 3.1.7 Perceptions, Experiences and Considerations by the Groups ...... 129 3.1.8 Some Statistical Data ...... 134 3.1.9 Assessments of the Findings ...... 136

3.2 The Importance of Religion during Military Operations ...... 142 3.2.1 Importance of Religion for the Soldiers’ Own Lifeworld ...... 143 3.2.2 Importance of Religion for the Military Operativeness ...... 153 3.2.3 Statistical Data Support the Findings ...... 167 3.2.4 Assessments of the Groups ...... 167

3.3 Development of Apparently Norse Rituals ...... 172 3.3.1 Overview of the Soldiers’ Thoughts about the Battle Cry ‘to Valhalla’ ... 173

3.3.2 The Significance of the Mythological Content of the Combat Cry ...... 177 3.3.3 Glocalized Armed Forces and Identity ...... 181

3.4 Some Assessments and Conclusions – Understanding Religion Is Crucial When Relating to Afghans ...... 184 3.4.1 The Soldiers’ Experience Calls for Improved Knowledge and Wise Dialogism ...... 185 3.4.2 Understanding Religious Rationality is Essential for Military Operations ...... 187 3.4.3 ‘Warrior’ Culture Easily Obscures Basic Values ...... 189

Chapter Four ...... 191 RESPECT WHEN ENCOUNTERING AFGHAN OTHERNESS ...... 191

4.1 A Critical Ethical Perspective on Soldiers’ Understanding of Respect ...... 191 4.2 The Soldiers’ Perspective on Respect ...... 195 4.2.1 Procedures and Preparedness for Relating to the Local Population ...... 195 4.2.2 Respect for the Other Requires Understanding of and Confidence in Own Stand...... 206 4.2.3 Respect Requires Self-confident Authority ...... 216 4.2.4 Summary and Some Conclusions of the Soldiers’ Perspective on Respect 218

4.3 Concluding Lessons Learnt about the Core Value Respect ...... 219 4.3.1 Respect for the Other Requires Cultural Adjustments ...... 219 4.3.2 Respect for the Other Requires Understanding the Place from Where the Dialogue Is Done ...... 220

Chapter Five ...... 222 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 222

5.1 Soldiers’ Understanding of Religion and Its Significance ...... 223 5.1.1 Respect, Trust and Knowledge of Partners ...... 223 5.1.2 Religion When Encountering Otherness...... 224 5.1.3 The Soldiers’ Comprehension of Religion ...... 226 5.1.4 Religion Should Be Understood Broadly ...... 229

5.2 Soldiers and Religion Reconsidered ...... 231 5.2.1 Some Principal Considerations ...... 232 5.2.2 Some Suggestions for Adjusted Priorities ...... 236

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………. 240

APPENDIXES…………………………………………………………………… 249 Appendix A: Individual interviewees …………………………………….... 249 Appendix B: Interview guide Norwegian/English .....…………………….... 253 Appendix C: Group interviews ……………………………………………... 257 Appendix D: Self-completion questionnaire Norwegian/English …..……… 258 Appendix E: Statistics from self-completion questionnaires .………………. 272

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Topic and Background There has been an increased interest for academic studies of different topics related to the Norwegian Armed Forces during the recent decades. This has brought about a lot of good work not least concerning ethics, professional conduct, leadership and warrior culture. Notwithstanding, I think there is need for a discourse about how the Armed Forces are to relate to religion as well. This has been revealed through their participation in the support of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a country where religion seems to play a significant role. Hence, I find it worthwhile to get a better understanding of how soldiers reflect about their encounter with religion qualified through scientific methods. For practical reasons this study is delimited to Norwegian forces, although we probably find similarities also among other Western nations. Erudition about this issue should be useful within different professional contexts, especially for the military system in its continuous pursuit to train its personnel as well as possible for upcoming assignments and for the individual soldier in his or her quest to fulfill a professional conduct. It is definitely an interesting theme for the Chaplaincy.1 The chaplains are often those who are asked for advice by the Armed Forces when they face religious or ethical challenges. For the academic study of religions, an insight into the thoughts of the military profession, which normally has not been in its focus, can expand perspectives and perhaps challenge preconceptions. The deployed soldiers are border crossing in several ways. At times they are encountering otherness in a unique manner.2 One can add that soldiers’

1 The official name of the Chaplaincy of the Norwegian Armed Forces [Feltprestkorpset] has been changed since obtaining the data for this study. Now it is called Forsvarets tros- og livssynskorps. This title is not easily translated because livssyn is a term without any precise equivalent in English. Following Aandnanes 2002, 11, I translate this term ‘world view.’ With a free rendering, the unit can be called ‘The corps of beliefs and world views in the Norwegian Armed Forces.’ Nevertheless, in this study it is more expedient to use ‘the Chaplaincy,’ the short form of the old name. Translations in the following are all mine. 2 I prefer using the term otherness about what we meet when crossing religious borders. Alternatives like strangeness or unfamiliarity easily imply negative connotations. Foreign is sometimes not correct. Nevertheless, whereas postmodernism challenges the distinction between self and other as arbitrary, and existentialist feminism (Simone de Beauvoir) uses the word other to name the marginalized social position assigned to women 2 thoughts about this topic ought to be interesting in a wider societal sense as part of a discourse about the role of religion in the general public. Competence in this field may be useful for decision-making at both the military and political strategic level. It could prove prudent both for politicians and their voters to know about their soldiers’ attitudes and values before involving in military operations in remote areas. Recurring news about presumably religious, fanatic groups performing terror attacks also contributes to making religious border crossing relevant in several ways, not just for Westerners carrying uniform in Afghanistan. The background for my taking up this study is mainly based on three related factors. The first and most important is linked to the seemingly dominant tendency in the West to see religion as a privatized phenomenon (cf Juergensmeyer and Sheikh 2016, 624; Taylor 2007, 1; Berger 1993, 118; 130; 135; Casanova 1994, 3; 40; Beyer 2000, 70–75; Luckmann 2004, 117–126; 153–157; Flood 2006, 53; 249–250). It would be interesting to explore whether this privatized understanding also is the predominant perspective among soldiers who work in Afghanistan and if such a notion is an adequate approach for their relationship to the local population. After all, this is a context where religion apparently has an obvious presence in public life. Second, the Norwegian Armed Forces have gone through an altered focus where the traditional objective as defense forces against invasion has been replaced by the role as tools in foreign policy. This means that the military, or rather some of them, must relate to representatives of other cultures and religions than their own. Since one of the so-called core values of the Armed Forces is respect, there is reason to ask whether the encounter with otherness influences the soldiers’ attitudes, and if it does, in what manner.3 For instance, is the privatized understanding of religion expedient, or is it perhaps restraining? Third, as the Chaplaincy has an influential advisory role in both religious and ethical matters, it is relevant to ask if the idea of religion as something private and individualistic also is conspicuous there. If it is, does this affect their advice and teaching to the military about religion, for example, relating to the Afghan theatre? 4 Moreover, due to changes in the in patriarchy, I am using the term otherness in line with a traditional understanding of other in the social sciences. The self exists in relation to both the significant other, someone we have some degree of specific knowledge about, and the generalized other, an abstract social status and the role that goes with it (see Johnson 2000, 216–217). This traditional distinction, which has been especially important in the studies of socialization within one’s own culture, is also relevant when encountering other cultures and religions. 3 The core values are respect, responsibility and courage. As to the concept respect, I agree to Anker’s conclusion in her interesting PhD dissertation about respect and disrespect in a multicultural school. She argues that a concept as respect can be of importance as long as it is not left to the ideological realm of symbols. Anker suggests rather to discuss and critically scrutinize such concepts from the point of view of practices (2011, 230). This is certainly wise in a military context as well. 4 According to military terminology, I use the term theatre about an area of operations. 3 wording about religion in the Constitution of Norway 21 May 2012 where the traditional state church system (at least partly) was dissolved, the legal basis of the Military Chaplaincy has become outdated. Possibly, this requires a renewed thinking about the role and position of religion and values in the Armed Forces.5 It would be interesting to know more about what soldiers think about that, if they want to keep status quo or prefer change. In other words, this study is conducted at a time when there is an ongoing discourse about the role of religion in the Norwegian Armed Forces in several manners. Without intending to be a discourse analysis itself but rather an empirical mapping and analytic assessment, this work still is representing a voice of this discourse that must relate to it. Thus, I should elaborate the three mentioned background factors somewhat more before presenting the aim of the study more thoroughly.

1.1.1 Religion Understood as a Private Issue My reflection on these matters goes back to my studies at the Staff College of the RNoAF in 1996. One of the topics discussed after a lecture by the then Minister of Defense, Jørgen Kosmo, was how to handle our ‘new countrymen’ with other religious backgrounds than the Evangelical-Lutheran Christian of the overwhelming majority to show those the proper dignity and respect during war grave service. As the sole chaplain present, I suggested simply printing the religious affinity of personnel on their dog patches, as it is done in several other NATO-countries with far less homogenous personnel than Norway.6 Then we could just bury deceased personnel according to the given procedures of the individual’s faith. However, the minister immediately turned that down. His simple and only argument was that religion is a private matter, something that cannot be registered. That incident made me think. On the one hand, I was struck by this reticence to anything that could come close to registering religion, seemingly out of respect for privacy – especially since dog patches normally are worn out of sight and do not come into use before the soldier is wounded or dies. On the other hand, I knew that regarding actual military practices, public and collective religion is evidently present at most units.7 In the military,

5 I simply apply values about principals and standards of conduct that are held to be important. However, this is a highly contested concept that deserves studies as such. There is no space to go into that here. For my part, I have found Pattison’s writing illuminating. See 2007 and 2004. 6 ‘Dog patches’ are small pieces made of extremely sturdy material on which the most important information about the individual soldier, like nationality, identity number and blood type, is printed. This eases, for example, the administrative treatment of fallen personnel. 7 The most obvious examples are the generally welcomed presence of chaplains and chapels, worship services and memorial ceremonies. More concealed public religion is also found, sometimes rather traces of religion, for instance, in both ethical values, national and even Norse symbolism. I will come back to interesting examples below. 4 religion is far more than just a private matter. It still plays a highly public and collective role. This makes it natural to ask if the privatized understanding of religion has become dominant in Norway more due to political and religious ideals than as a true description of reality. Thought-provokingly, Milbank describes ‘private religion’ as ‘invented’ (2006, 10). If Milbank is right, it is natural to consider what consequences we should draw for the Armed Forces. Furthermore, whether he is right or wrong, it is worth asking what understanding of religion that is adequate for developing a good code of conduct when serving places such as Afghanistan, where religion is not confined to the private sphere. Conclusively, one starting point for this story is my dealing with religious matters related to practical military issues with a chaplain’s perspective; that is, I am representing collective aspects of religion. The referred experience has made me question whether an uncritical privatized understanding of religion is relevant, or the Armed Forces rather need a wider comprehension. This is a main problem of this study. Could it be that this privatized notion may disguise religiously contingent values and cause both principal and practical difficulties for the soldiers’ conduct? Both an investigation of the soldiers’ experience and some critical consideration could prove useful. In the following we need to include some words about the second introductory aspect mentioned above, what I call the international turn of the Norwegian Armed Forces.8

1.1.2 Armed Forces with a New Focus – the International Turn and Religion The changed focus of the Armed Forces is related to alterations in the international situation. NATO is continuously producing guiding documents relating to new perspectives and priorities, something that is reflected in the national guiding documents. A rendering of these documents is outside the focus of this project.9 Thus, there is no room neither to describe in detail this process nor all relevant aspects in the documents here. I will just give enough references to illustrate a consequence for the forces of the turn from primarily being a protector of the homeland to becoming a tool of foreign policy. Obviously, when deploying to a country such as Afghanistan, the code of conduct becomes more problematic than at home. We can neither take for granted the validity of our norms and priorities nor neglect the relation of values to culture and religion.

8 This is not to say that Norwegian forces operating abroad are a new venture. It is simply a way of describing a changed doctrinal perspective. Haaland 2008 gives a good overview of this process. 9 Readers who are interested in updated versions of NATO and national guiding documents are recommended to contact the library at the Norwegian Defense University College, e-mail: [email protected]. 5

The experience from NATO operations particularly in Afghanistan and the Western Balkans has called for a so-called ‘comprehensive approach’ to the area of interest to build respect, trust and understanding.10 Consequently, one has to consider the importance of respecting cultural and religious differences during military operations.11 At the national level, the international turn is expressed in new strategic concepts and corresponding new doctrines published during the years after the millennium, particularly in Styrke og relevans [Strength and relevance: Strategic concept] 200512 and Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine (FFOD) 2007.13 Here I should also mention an article by the then CHOD, General Diesen, ‘Profesjonskultur og identitet i det nye Forsvaret’ [Professional culture and identity in the new Norwegian Armed Forces] (2008). There he claims that a psychological and cultural change is needed in addition to the organizational changes. He calls for a culture that is built on a strong professional and unitary identity. On the one hand, the basic documents for military action recognize that the international turn requires competence in encountering otherness. On the other hand, it is striking that none of them are preoccupied with how such ideals should be implemented. There is little help for developing, for instance, a code of conduct. Not surprisingly, both the NATO and national basic documents just offer overarching wordings that leave us with several questions about the meaning.14 One central question is; what do ‘respect, trust and knowledge of partners’ mean in the Afghan context? Moreover, is it possible to build respect, trust and knowledge without considering the role of religion in the Afghan society? In some other fields than the military, evaluation of the Western involvement in Afghanistan reveals adverse effects of ignoring the role of religion in society. Presumably, the best example is the Western attempted renewal of the Afghan legislation failing to consider the traditional Islam- based system.15

10 At the strategic and operational levels this is particularly described in NATO 2013. 11 This is expressed somewhat more concretely in the so-called COIN-theory. COIN is defined as ‘the set of political, economic, social, military, law enforcement, civil and psychological activities with the aim to defeat insurgency and address any core grievances.’ See NATO STANAG 2611 (2016, 1-2–1-3). 12 This document was replaced by a revised version in 2009 called Evne til innsats [Ability for effort]. 13 FFOD was first published in 2000. New and altered versions came in 2007 and 2014. As the referred English version of 2007 consistently uses the official Norwegian abbreviation of this document, FFOD [Forsvarets fellesoperative doctrine], I do the same. 14 I should mention that the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, NUPI, has criticized the cultural understanding within the Armed Forces (Holo and Andreassen 2010). Their critique is striking. Nevertheless, there is also good reason to consider their assessment for being too imprecise, general and not comprehensive enough. 15 Suhrke’s assessment of this process is striking. She concludes that a bewildering haste and lack of coordination has created contempt for the law and opportunities to operate within and outside a large grey zone (2011, 183–218). 6

The national documents are getting closest to emphasizing cultural values concretely when discussing military professional ethic. They are underlining the importance of keeping a common ethical platform, the moral dimension of the professional identity, the discernment of the individual and core values. The core values, respect, responsibility and courage, are of key importance. They are to form the basis of all activities (FFOD 2014, para 02123, 55). Nonetheless, there is little material explaining the meaning and practical impacts of these statements. The main document describing the basic values of the Norwegian Armed Forces is called Forsvarets verdigrunnlag [The basic values of the Norwegian Armed Forces]. The version of 2011, which was applicable during the predominant period of the data collection for this study, recognizes that axiomatic values often have their background in beliefs and religion. Here, CHOD NORWAY stated that they are based on the Christian and humanistic tradition of the community (3). This corresponds to the new wording of section two in the Constitution about the foundation of society.16 Nevertheless, what CHOD’s statement actually means does not seem to be reflected in other military documents concerned with operations abroad. As an example, religion is not mentioned as a source of values. In the current version of 2015 (updated 2016), the ‘Christian and humanistic tradition’ is replaced with vaguer wordings about respecting the basic values of society and cultural traditions, being loyal to society and its constitution and institutions, and that the respect for others is to be based on knowledge and awareness about our own cultural and religious roots. However, the ambitions that are implicit in what I call the international turn of the Armed Forces, incites a discussion about these matters. I will add that the aims of the documents mentioned here require that soldiers who are to serve abroad do have knowledge and understanding of religion and culture in the areas of operation. It is a paradox that the documents do require high ambitions for encountering otherness but give few guidelines about how to achieve this. As it is part of the responsibility of the Armed Forces to prepare their personnel (FFOD 2007, para 0626, 163), such normative challenges cannot be unsolved or just left to the assessment of the individual soldier. Hence, an enquiry of the soldiers’ experience can contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between basic values and religion when encountering otherness. Then we should address the third starting point, the dominant notions of religion within the Chaplaincy.

16 ‘Verdigrunnlaget forblir vår kristne og humanistiske arv.’ 7

1.1.3 The Understanding of Religion within the Chaplaincy of the Armed Forces in the Wake of the Abandonment of the State Church System Although the present thesis is not a study of the Chaplaincy per se, the policy of this institution is important when studying the significance of religion among soldiers. It is the chief actor in this field, and it seems logic that the abandonment of the state church system will involve consequences for the chaplaincy and the position of religion in the Armed Forces.17 A central aspect of the value-political development is how religion is to be comprehended not only within the forces but also related to the local population and other partners where the forces deploy. In this process the voices of soldiers who have encountered otherness are most likely useful references. The main sources that are important at this point are a few policy documents. These are the Norwegian Public Report NOU 2013:1 and two responses to the consultative hearing, those from the Chaplaincy (dated 21 August 2013) and the Ministry of Defense (dated 29 August 2013). The title of the report, Det livssynsåpne samfunn: En helhetlig tros- og livssynspolitikk [A spiritually open community: A comprehensive policy of beliefs and world views] and the mandate given to the government commission indicate a political direction stressing the right to freedom of beliefs and world views (26–28). The report assumes that we live in times that are characterized by increased diversity and a greater acceptance of plurality (17). Moreover, two documents produced by the Chaplaincy concerning its relation to religious diversity are important background material. One is a report assessing the consequences for the Armed Forces caused by religious diversity. I call it ‘Chaplaincy 2009.’ The other is an analysis of the consequences for the Chaplaincy of the changes in the Constitution of 21 May 2012. That one I name ‘Chaplaincy 2012.’18 Both documents are published in a book called Feltpresttjeneste og livssynsmangfold [Military chaplaincy and world view diversity] 2012.19 Here I will quest three main aspects. First, the documents seem to take for granted that Norway, and hence, her armed forces, can be characterized as diverse and pluralist.20 Second, they give an impression of understanding what religion is primarily as needs among

17 Ample literature exists describing various aspects of military chaplaincy in Norway. See Lunde 2003, Lunde 2012, and Mæland and Lunde 2017. The British Todd 2013 is highly relevant regarding the service in Afghanistan. 18 These studies are available in Norwegian only. 19 My references to the documents are to this book. 20 When doing so, they are in good company. The former Chaplain-General, Brigadier Hagesæther, does the same, quoting Lunde (2009, 23–25). The church historian Oftestad talks about religious pluralism when describing the legalization of nonconformist churches as early as during the last part of the nineteenth century even though the minorities at that time were very small in the national context (1998, 121). 8 individuals that must be facilitated by specialist personnel. Third, I find some discrepancy between the government commission behind the NOU 2013: 1 and the military responses. At this point, I see a development within the Armed Forces (the Chaplaincy in particular) from a one-sided rights-based and individualistic understanding of religion in the older documents to a stronger emphasis on collective aspects in their consultation response to the NOU. On the one hand, I find the mentioned documents to be principally strong and thorough what concerns their assessment of the judicial warrant for religious practices in the Armed Forces. On the other hand, apart from statistics about formal affinity to religions/world views and some demographics, they do not contain empirical data. They are based on theoretical abstractions, not the voices of users of the religious services. Thus, they can obviously not reflect soldiers’ lifeworld, actual demands and wishes neither regarding their needs for spiritual support nor requirements for their appropriate mastering the encounter with religious otherness during international operations. Given that I have got correct information, there has been almost no research on contemporary Norwegian soldiers’ relation to religion in general.21 One reason is probably that questions about religious affinity are considered as sensitive personal data in the juridical and ethical normative regulations.22 There is evidently a tacit understanding of what religion is behind these regulations.23 They come from somewhere, are far from neutral and are likely to represent somebody’s interests.24 Hence, it is natural to ask whether the guidelines given by the political and military authorities in these matters are apt. Do minorities request chaplains or spiritual advisors according to the model of the Christian Military Chaplain, for instance? And what is more interesting for this study; do soldiers who have experience from the Afghan context share the perception of religion that is dominant among their leaders at home? Furthermore, how will a rights-based individualistic understanding of religion influence soldiers’ ability when encountering otherness? Is there any policy in the form of a code of conduct or procedures which can help them when deploying? In my opinion it is worthwhile to examine this kind of questions through empirical studies among those who have taken part in the Western attempt to improve

21 The first surveys including four questions related to this aspect were done by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) as late as 2014/15 and 2015/16. They were conducted among conscripts in an Army brigade (Brigade Nord) when starting and finishing their initial training, i e rather inexperienced personnel. Two master’s theses are also available (Hein 2014 and Rafoss 2010). 22 See Act of 14 April 2000 No 31 relating to the processing of personal data, section 2 no 8. Cf NESH 2006, 17. 23 The present study was also rejected initially – until the NSD realized that the intention is not to quest the soldiers’ religion, rather their thoughts about religion when serving in a context where this theme seems essential. 24 The understanding of religion reflected in such public regulations could be worth a study in itself. 9 security in Afghanistan. Now it is time to gather the threads to some more concise formulations about the aim of the study.

1.2 Aim of the Study The preceding considerations make me suggest that the Norwegian Armed Forces need a proper discussion about the encounter with representatives of other cultures and religions. It seems that religion now primarily is understood within a rather confined individualistic and privatized frame. One can ask whether such a Western frame is adequate when deploying. Furthermore, the mentioned three starting points reveal that the guiding policy for the Armed Forces builds on principles and theoretical ideals about religion without thorough reflection of empirical data. A proper discourse about how to relate to religion in the forces should be extended to include perspectives from the soldiers’ practical lifeworld. Hence, the aim of this project is to examine Norwegian soldiers’ thoughts and attitudes to religion when experiencing the encounter with religious otherness in Afghanistan. Methodically, I will gather and preserve relevant empirical material from these voices to reflect on their experience together with the participants, elicit and analyse their interpretation of their experience. Hopefully then, the findings can be used to conclude with some inputs for a further discourse and studies of the topic. I believe that several of these militaries’ stories involve good lessons learnt for future operations and can inspire suggestions for improved practices.

As I am trying to quest how the soldiers assess their understanding of and attitudes to religion, its content and significance when serving in the Afghan context, my general research question is:

• How are the understanding of and attitudes to religion among Norwegian soldiers serving in Afghanistan?

More specifically, I focus on three sub-questions of this overall issue:

• What do they think about the significance of religion in their own lifeworld? • What do they think about the significance of religion related to the Afghan context? • What do they think about the significance of religion for their living up to the core value respect in international operations? 25

25 When using the terms understanding, thinking and attitudes related to the soldiers’ ideas about religion, I mean this in a wide sense. I neither use understanding/understand nor thinking/think in a strictly cognitive or 10

These soldiers, or rather some of them, have an experience encountering religion that may make them think differently than others in both the military and the general public. I find their experience worth listening to per se as it can widen horizons and yield new perspectives. It can also be used as a juxtaposition and possible corrective to the prevailing theoretical conceptions about religion. In the new constitutional situation, these voices can add important perspectives to a wider discourse about how the Armed Forces are to relate to religious matters. Although one can interpret the wording of the second research question here as focusing on the participants’ religion or beliefs, this is not a primary aim of the study. The intention behind this question is to get an idea whether soldiers find religion important in life and to see if different affinities, adherence or commitment to religion imply different attitudes. It is primarily the lifeworld of this population that makes it interesting to get an understanding of their thoughts about religion, not their individual or private stances. Answers here can also be used to find out more about whether the alleged plurality in the Armed Forces is a correct description of this group or if perhaps homogeneity is a better rendition. As we have seen, the assertion about plurality is primarily based on theoretical arguments. Without any confirmation by empirical data, it appears rather biased. Thus, the second question must be understood in close relation to the third. These militaries work in a context where religion is clearly present both within their own group and among the local population in their working context. The idea behind the third research question is primarily to recall experiences and to use these as material for reflections. The purpose of the fourth research question is related to the aim of the Armed Forces to maintain and improve their code of conduct. That is, this is about filling the core value respect with contextual content. There is reason to believe that soldiers’ attitudes to religion will influence their encounter with religious otherness and hence entail consequences for their conduct among the local population. One aspect here is to study if they notice any relation between religion and code of conduct at all. This includes asking whether they believe that they are neutral in terms of religiously based values or see any possible connection between their own values or code of conduct and religion.

intellectual way. Related to the interlocutors’ understanding, it is rather an aim to evoke their thoughts and their reflections about the meaning in the aftermath of their experience. As for the theoretical implications of this concept, I lean on Flood’s metatheory (2006), something I will return to in ch 1.3. I understand thinking in line with Taylor and include perceptions, beliefs or prepositions, our responses, the significance, importance and meaning we find in things (2007, 31). I use the term attitudes partly overlapping. My intention is not only to get the soldiers’ opinions but also their settled way of value-based thinking and feeling related to actions. 11

In other words, this work is primarily trying to provide a descriptive mapping of empirical data in order to elicit context-dependent knowledge. Second, I will use theoretical approaches that can stimulate a theoretically and principally better-informed discourse about religion in the Armed Forces. I will present some considerations about these approaches in the following section. Third, I also intend to use the findings to give a feedback to the Armed Forces with some suggestions for improved preparations for future operations. In that sense, this project is an attempted contribution to the military ‘comprehensive approach.’

1.3 Disciplinary and Theoretical Approaches

1.3.1 Some Professional Presuppositions and Disciplinary Approach Naturally, my professional background in military chaplaincy influences my perception and world view. As important parts of my academic training have been within Christian theology and most of my work life has been in a pastoral role for soldiers, I have a biased relationship to the subject matter and personnel I am studying. Thus, there is reason to ask how this can be combined with research. There is a risk of mixing the roles of ordained priest and researcher. This requires special awareness. One aspect is my own consciousness and the precautions I take at this point, another is how the participants perceive my role. Regarding my own precautions, these will be presented subsequently in the following sections about theoretical approaches, sources and methods. Here, I will just mention that there was an educative discussion about this issue in the aftermath of the publishing of a study by another former military chaplain, Mæland (2004). That incident made clear the importance of distinguishing between these two roles. When starting this study, I was strongly challenged to go to Afghanistan – as a chaplain. I was welcome to do research as an additional activity if the chaplaincy work was covered. However, I considered this to be an untenable combination of roles and chose not to go on such conditions. Concerning the participants’ understanding of my role, they are informed about my job as a chaplain and that the research is initiated by the Chaplaincy, but I have also emphasized that my contact with them is in capacity of researcher, not a chaplain/spiritual adviser. However, despite assuring this distinction and not sensing any confusion about my role when communicating with the participants, I can naturally not know how conscious they have been of the difference. Another consequence of my background is the thematic and contextual insider perspective. There are both advantages and disadvantages related to this. Without my insider’s bias and interest, this project would not have come into being. As Layder argues, a ‘… systematic recognition of one’s theoretical assumptions (including prejudices) and the 12 attempt to harness them to research purposes actually facilitates the production of more powerful and adequate explanations of empirical data’ (2005, 51). Moreover, it is difficult to investigate a phenomenon without familiarity with the culture and environment under scrutiny. The sustained experience of working with and listening to soldiers, understanding their language and lifeworld, is primarily an advantage. Flood has a striking point stating: ‘In the field of religion the question of personal involvement raises again the issue of whether the objective researcher can understand or explain “religion” without some personal religious emotion or experience’ (2006, 147). However, one must be conscious of balancing this insider perspective with a critical distance to the examined population and one’s own theorizing (cf Hjelde 2007, 45). With a few exceptions, I have searched, for instance, for participants belonging to other units than I serve to avoid too close relations. I consider being conscious and transparent about the bias as sincerer than giving the impression that it is not there. I believe Layder is right when he says that it is only possible to begin analysing, theorizing and explaining aspects of social life if one already is in possession of certain assumptions and ideas about the social world. Hence, they should rather be used systematically (2005, 113). My own answer to the question whether an ordained chaplain, who also is an officer, and hence, presumably can appear in a position of power towards soldiers in several manners, can perform this kind of research is that this mainly depends on how it is done. To some extent, the data is produced in the interaction between researcher and interlocutors. However, the researcher is in a position of power anyhow, not at least as the one who sets the agenda, deciding the topic and wording the questions. Nonetheless, if this is done with a genuinely dialogic attitude in a respectful manner towards the participants and the information they share, it can also empower them. This effect is not weakened by the researcher having a biased background. My experience is that the interlocutors have enjoyed getting attention as somebody whose thoughts are worth listening to for research purposes. At least, they responded positively when I asked what they felt about taking part in the aftermath. Hence, even though one must be conscious about bias and formal power structures, one should not overestimate their importance. I find an adequate communication and transparency about the preconditions, the choice of theoretical approaches and methodology more decisive. The disciplinary approach should also be guided by the problem and subject of study. Rather than keeping a perspective within theological disciplines, I find it more useful to study soldiers’ attitude to religion with a wider frame, also using approaches from religious studies. I question whether keeping the traditional discrepancy between theology and religious studies, with their belonging sets of paradigms, is the most relevant when exploring this case. Even 13 though most of the population in question relates to the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway in some manner when it comes to religion, it is not primarily intrinsic theological topics that make their thoughts and attitudes interesting here. It is, for instance, neither their religious beliefs or practices nor their more or less positive or negative relationship to the church. It is as Norwegian soldiers encountering religious otherness in Afghanistan. As such they bring along some kind of ‘religious luggage.’26 Furthermore, I simply do not believe in the claims of neutrality and objectivity that made religious studies come into being in opposition to the studies of religion in Christian theology.27 Even though a dogmatic free perspective may be held as an ideal in religious studies (Flood 2006, 9), there will always be a value laden, contextual starting point, although this may be tacit. Striving for neutrality will involve choosing one set of values to the exclusion of others somehow. Flood has very good points when stating:

But even though the method of rational analysis fosters discourses open to the otherness of the material at hand, this practice only ever occurs within specific cultural, historical or even biological and psychological contexts. … All discourse is from a place. … The content of theological and religionist investigation is deeply contingent upon wider social and cultural determinants and the content of a discourse will reflect the attitudes and ethos of the wider society in which that discourse takes place. But those discourses can also, most importantly, reflexively serve to critique the contexts of their occurrence. (24)

In my case, when studying these soldiers, it is with both emic and etic perspectives. First, the insider perspective is evident in the fact that a Lutheran chaplain is investigating the understanding of religion together with subjects who mainly relate to the same religious tradition. Second, both participants and researcher belong to the same military organization. To a large degree, there is both cultural and religious concurrence. Nonetheless, also etic perspectives exist. Concerning the role in the military culture, the chaplain is also an outsider. He or she is not a combatant, but the ‘professionally religious’ in the unit. In other words, this is something quite different to the warrior. There can also be an etic relation to those subjects who regard themselves as non-believers or opponents to religion. I must be aware that the participants might perceive religion with world views and perspectives that are different from mine. Furthermore, the outsider perspective is something the researching chaplain and the

26 By this expression I do not mean something that necessarily is static and preventing possible change but rather an inheritance from their home country that influences their perception and assessment when observing and relating to the locals. 27 See Flood 2006, 18–20. Rothstein has a short rendering of the history of religious studies in Danish (2007, 20– 22). 14 participants of the study share when encountering the Afghan context. As subjects, independent of religious standpoint, we all belong to a predominantly Christian culture encountering religious otherness. I am studying the understanding of religion in what could have been my own congregation. The theological perspectives are unescapably there. Nevertheless, I primarily do so aspiring to an etic approach using theoretical tools of religious studies and methods borrowed from the social sciences. That is to say, I am both expressing religion and writing about it (see Flood 2006, 20). Is it possible then to combine the presumably polarized paradigms of theology and religious studies? Juergensmeyer and Sheikh have a striking wording when arguing for so- called sociotheology. They claim that sociotheology represents a third way between reductionism and isolationism (2016, 626). I also find such a ‘third way’ adequate in this case. Obviously, Orsi is right when stating about the relationship between theology and religious studies, ‘These polarities continue to bedevil the study of religion, and thinking past them remains a powerful and generative challenge’ (2012, 6). Nevertheless, I think that Helmer has a very good point when arguing that theology is necessary and stimulating for religious studies. Her understanding of theology is adequate:

Theology it not necessarily a “normative” discipline that prescribes propositions for belief on the grounds of divine revelation. Rather, theology may be understood as a discipline that describes that which is referred to as the reality of religion and the ways in which that reality is experienced and known in particular communities of practitioners, thereby opening up additional possible discourses for making sense of the subject matter that we call “religion.” (2012, 231)

There is actually an intimate relationship between the two disciplines. The subject matter is the same; that is, ‘religion.’ When referring to debates in contemporary religious studies, Orsi says:

Because Christian theological assumptions and conceptions have been so foundational not only to the study of religion but also to the construction of “religion” as a modern category, one of the challenges facing the discipline today is to understand this legacy and its implications. (2012, 8)

Nonetheless, building on Schleiermacher’s description of the reality of religion, Helmer describes religion as central to what it is to be human (2012, 243–244). Furthermore, ‘theology has classically had [a] role of conceptual framing, and has developed a distinct 15 vocabulary in order to open up possibilities of describing the reality of religious experience’ (244–245). Through historical considerations of the common subject matter, the reality of religion and epistemological assessments, Helmer argues well that theology and religious studies ought to be in discussion with each other in order to produce knowledge about religion. When she says, ‘Perhaps the greatest challenge, personal and academic, for scholars of religion is that of truly paying attention to reality’ (252), I find it apt to question whether this point also is true about other stakeholders dealing with religion. In this study the political and religious authorities are particularly relevant. Helmer continues:

Psychological self-examination with the tools of modern analysis helps clarify prejudices and emotional inheritances that unfairly determine reality, while critical inquiry helps expose methodological blindspots that skew human knowing in the direction of ideology. The challenge for both theology and religious studies is to build bridges toward a common appreciation of each other’s work so that both disciplines might better see religion’s reality. (252)

She recommends looking seriously at the subjective and objective requirements and contributions of both disciplines, as well as the empirical and conceptual requirements and contributions of both disciplines as a common epistemological goal (252). In other words, there should be good reason for an interdisciplinary dialogue. Consequently, I find that this study is of such a character that it invites to using a dialogical model not only concerning the relationship between subjects and researcher in the empirical setting but also theoretically, between theology and religious studies. I will turn to this now, starting with the theoretical aspects. Thereafter follow considerations about the methodology, in the next section.

1.3.2 Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives It is interesting to observe that only one of the theoreticians of religion that are discussed in Pals’s widely used textbook, Eight Theories of Religion (2006), was trained or worked in a religious studies department; that is, Eliade.28 Pals calls his presentation ‘a kind of panel discussion’ (292) and labels the theories as humanistic, psychological, sociological, polito- economic and anthropological. That is, he depicts the discipline as a clearly interdisciplinary enterprise. Furthermore, he says that ‘in each case, the adjective defines the kind of guiding axiom, or orientation, that directs the inquiries of those who work within its loose framework’

28 The others are Tylor, Frazer, Freud, Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Evans-Pritchard and Geertz. 16

(293). In line with the point mentioned above that all discourse is done ‘from a place,’ Pals claims:

None of the theorists … should be considered a purely detached scholar, writing on a subject of no immediate interest to himself or his times; each is a human being who in addition to his theory holds certain personal convictions about religion as well. … Behind the scenes, then, it is apparent that personal commitments have played at the very least a very strong motivating role in the development of modern theories of religion. (315–317)

This seems to be very much to the point, and I agree to Pals’s conclusion that the future plainly does not belong to general theories that try to explain all of religion (319). They seem to be liable to tell just as much about the theorists as what they explain. I find it more relevant to search for theoretical approaches that enable transparency, not at least relating to the researchers’ bias, interdisciplinary and contextual understanding. When approaching this case, I believe neither in theoretically paradigmatic nor confessional dogmatism. Similarly, I do not believe it is possible to perceive the world from a neutral and objective position. The approach should be reflexively dialogic and permit a pragmatic movement back and forth between empirical experience and theoretical assumptions in a kind of semi grounded manner. At the meta level, I find several perspectives of Flood’s theory for religious studies applicable for this project (2006). I think his description of religion in the society is apt. Flood calls it ‘… a vital force in the contemporary world, … which has bearing upon culture, society, and economics, and above all on human subjectivity and meaning’ (17). He is arguing that it should be at the centre of contemporary debates about power, agency and ideology (40). In my opinion these statements are clearly appropriate in the case I am studying. However, this allowing for seeing religion in an encompassing manner also causes challenges. Just delimiting what we are talking about when referring to religion is problematic. Most people would agree that it is a term that gives sense, but the number of attempts to define it shows how difficult it is to yield the concept generally valid contents.29 Even Flood’s definition, which I find largely adequate, is problematic. He writes:

I shall take ‘religion’ in Lacantius’ sense of religio as ‘that which binds’. I broadly understand religion to be ‘value-laden narratives and behaviours that bind people to their objectives, to each other, and to non-empirical claims and beings’. Such a definition … indicates a conviction that religions are less about truth claims and more

29 Krogseth gives a good overview of definitions in 2007, 65–78. 17

about identity, less about structures and more about texts, less about abstraction and more about tradition or that which is passed on (Überlieferung). (47)

As we shall see, this definition encompasses important aspects of the empirical data in this study. Nevertheless, when using ‘values-laden’ in order to define religion, Flood introduces another ambiguous concept, which is difficult to define (cf note 5). In his newer book, The Importance of Religion (2012), Flood develops his thoughts further. There he says:

While politics, culture, and religion are categories that we vaguely understand, the precise definition of these terms is fraught with difficulty as each entails the others. While I do believe we can speak of “religion” in the singular, this does not mean that we can speak of it independently of these other categories. There is no uncontaminated essence of “religion” and I do not intend to reify it. (13)

I think this is a striking description. Possibly, then, defining is not as useful as it may appear what concerns the mentioned categories. Anyhow, I see Flood’s thoughts here as a good general backdrop for understanding the ideas of these soldiers. His metatheoretical analysis of phenomenology, his arguments for dialogism, reflexivity and the ethical nature of research on religion yield relevant perspectives. When setting his parameters Flood informs:

While not underestimating the force and importance of phenomenology, this book seeks to develop a critique of it broadly from the perspectives of a hermeneutic or narrativist tradition (particularly the work of Ricoeur) and dialogism (particularly the work of Bakhtin and the Bakhtin school). (2006, 9)

On the one hand, Flood sees the value of phenomenology; on the other hand, he clearly criticises its weaknesses with a basis in hermeneutics and dialogism. This perspective suits well for analysing the data in the present project as well. Problems do exist when combining aspects of phenomenology and hermeneutics. Whereas phenomenology searches directly for essences and neglects its prejudices, hermeneutics clarify prejudgements and examine whether there is concurrence of horizons. Nevertheless, I still consider some elements of phenomenology to be valuable in a theoretical toolbox at the meso- and micro-levels. As this study involves some extent of cross-cultural investigation, it is a useful means for operationalizing the key concept of religion into more tangible sub concepts and hence for communicating with people about religion. As Helmer states:

The conceptual work in knowledge requires a specific degree of universality if empirical work is to be communicated and understood. It needs conceptualization. And further, the conceptual helps to provide working concepts with some degree of transreligious applicability. (2012, 252)

At the meso and micro level, I will make use of theory by several authors in the conceptualization of the material in this case. In The Importance of Religion, Flood develops new vocabularies and theoretical perspectives for the study of religion. He claims that ‘the importance of religion is existential; religions provide significant meaning to life and guide people in their choices and practices’ (2012, xi), something I agree to indeed. Some of these perspectives can illuminate the present data and help us draw some conclusions. I also find Smart’s six ‘dimensions’ of religion useful (1984). I prefer using the newer version found in Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs (2000). Smart describes them as ‘perhaps not exhaustive. But at least they do cover most of the major facets in which a tradition manifests itself’ (8). The dimensions are called the doctrinal and philosophical, the mythic and narrative, the ethical or legal, the ritual or practical, the experiential or emotional, and the social or institutional/organizational dimensions. The doctrinal or philosophical dimension refers to the web of doctrines, beliefs and philosophies about the world and life found in the religions. The mythic/narrative dimension concerns stories of divine or sacred significance but also history and the tracing of peoples’ ‘roots,’ as used in nationalism, for instance. The ethical and legal dimension covers the ethical values of the religions with virtues and precepts. Sometimes these are codified into fully developed legal systems. The ritual/practical dimension is meant to cover the emphasis most religions have on rituals. Rituals are understood in a wide sense, for example, including sacrifice, magic, words, bodily gestures and meditation. Smart relates the experiential or emotional dimension to what Otto called the ‘numinous’ (2010). It refers to experiences and feelings whether mystical or contemplative. It includes the experience of conversion, the sensations of grief at funerals and joy at weddings. Finally, the social and institutional dimension refers to the institutions created by religions. This dimension embraces also religious and similar institutions which are influencing society at large. Woodhead’s ‘five concepts of religion’ are also complementing tools here (2011, 121– 143). She suggests a taxonomy of five uses of the concept within the social sciences. The first she mentions is religion as culture, including beliefs and meaning, meaning and cultural order, values, discourse, ideology and mystification, and tradition and memory. She calls the second concept religion as identity. It includes religion as community-creating and boundary- 19 forming, identity-claim and organizational belonging. The third concept is religion as relationship. This includes religion as social relations, super-social relations and experience. The fourth concept concerns religion as practice. This covers religion as ritual and embodiment, quotidian practice and ‘popular’ or ‘folk’ religion. Finally, the fifth concept is religion as power. This comprises religion as ‘compensator’ and ‘capital’ [Woodhead’s quotes], resources, the relations to economic and political power, religion as status and recognition, and religious power and status at micro-, meso- and macro-levels. Several of these aspects are relevant in the material of this study. In my opinion the analysis starts with the research questions. Hence, many of the central concepts are given in the thematization of the interview guide and the self-completion questionnaires. In other words, I do not use Smart’s dimensions or Woodhead’s concepts as a complete framework, rather as aid for thinking and analysing. In addition to yielding concrete concepts and categories for analysis, they are easily comprehensible and good means for communicating with soldiers in a more concrete manner about a topic they normally are not used to speaking of. Since religion is a rather vague and indefinite phenomenon for many, I find these dimensions and concepts, or rather adjusted versions of them, especially useful when talking with the subjects about what religion is in general. That is, they can be helpful as door openers to elicit key concepts and clarifying data when diving deeper into the interlocutors’ understanding of religion related to the Afghan context. Moreover, some authors can be helpful to illuminate particular factors. Day’s longitudinal study of beliefs is a good example (2011; 2013). My use of phenomenology is related to the aim of understanding from the actors’ perspectives (Kvale and Brinkmann 2010, 45). However, this does not mean an acceptance of this paradigm as such. For instance, I agree to the criticism of the objectivism and essentialism and do not think that phenomenology yields objective and unbiased results any more than other paradigms or that the typologies represent universal essences (Flood 2006, 92–93; Kvale and Brinkmann 2010, 46). I disagree with Smart’s claim that faith should not be allowed in the academic study of religion (1973, 37–39) and believe that ‘objectivity is relative to the context of its occurrence and perception’ (Flood 2006, 13). I find it hard to believe it is possible to avoid any metaphysical precondition that can be labelled ‘faith.’ I rather find Penner’s point (1989), quoted by Flood, more expedient; ‘phenomenology is not simply a “neutral method or pure description of phenomena” but a transcendental philosophy’ (Flood 2006, 106). Flood’s understanding is expedient. For example, when describing the term ‘experience’ he says: 20

… [R]ather than a common core of experience, we have a complex of language and bodily practices that have analogues across different spiritual traditions. This is to move away from an essentialist understanding of experience to locate a diversity of human experience in time and therefore in the way that experience is narrated. Indeed if we substitute the term “experience” with “narrative” or even “subjectivity,” we can offer an account of spiritual experience in terms of a sense of our continued existence through time and a shared structure which is filled out with tradition-specific contents at different historical times. (Flood 2012, 82–83)

It is possible to see cross-cultural or cross-religious patterns and compare without adopting the essentialism. Another example of apt use of phenomenology, which is relevant for the material in this study, is a short article by the church historian Skarsaune (1992, 12–17). There Skarsaune employs a phenomenological approach for comparing two models of worship, temple religion and synagogue congregation. With reference to the temples in Jerusalem and the Orient, he describes the classical temple not as an assembly hall for a worshipping congregation but rather as a house that is always open to individuals, families or groups in need of divine help. It is either staffed with specialists or unmanned. The temple religion does not ask for beliefs, lifestyle or morality. It is religiously ‘tolerant’ and is often combined with ‘private religion’ [Skarsaune’s quotes]. It is communal for people in a local society. It does not ask for conversion and does not demand regular attendance but offers blessings and rites of worship, for instance, at high festivals and transitions in life. In contrast the synagogue congregation gathers for regular worship. The synagogue is an assembly hall for a congregation, gathered for joint reading and preaching the word of God, prayer and fellowship. It is not the place for celebrating the high festivals or great family events through sacrificing. People do not go there when it suits them but when the congregation gathers for worship. By taking part one confesses a belonging to a fellowship of believers. The preaching refers to daily life and is occupied with lifestyle norms. Starting to attend worship there may reflect a conversion. Skarsaune describes the situation in the Church of Norway as a double model offering both. At the transition rites in life (baptism, confirmation, wedding, funeral), at the annual great family festival (Christmas Eve) and other special occasions, the churches still work as temples. They work as temples on the premises of temple religion, and the temple functions are very resistant to secularization. However, on ordinary Sundays we meet the synagogue congregation. That is an altogether different kind of congregation, and phenomenologically it 21 represents another kind of religion. Skarsaune claims that this congregation never in history has been large and that there always will be noticeable cultural differences between the temple visitors and the synagogue congregation. Whereas visiting the temple will be in line with the common culture, the synagogue congregation will represent an element of separation or subculture wherever the temple still endures (1992, 17). As we shall see, this model can shed light on the empirical material in this study in interesting manners. Regarding interpretation, I have intended to follow Fretheim’s request for so-called triple hermeneutics as far as it is adequate (2011). Fretheim describes the individual’s understanding of him- or herself and his or her own context and reality as ‘simple hermeneutics’ – not in the sense of being inferior or superficial but because it is an interpretation of signs and codes that is done by the individual (34–36). Fretheim places the gadamerian understanding of the hermeneutic circle under this heading (38). In line with Giddens he reserves the term ‘double hermeneutics’ for interpreting the interpretations of others (36–37), whereas ‘triple hermeneutics’ includes an additional critical perspective. Quoting Alvesson and Sköldberg (1994, 221), Fretheim highlights that the triple hermeneutics implies a critical interpretation of the structures and processes that influence both the participants and the researcher (38). The critical perspective is not that relevant during all aspects in this study, so in practice there will be a movement between simple, double and triple hermeneutics with a stronger weight on the two first parts. It is not an aim in this study to carry through any thorough Frankfurt inspired exploration according to a critical emancipatory, political program (See Alvesson and Sköldberg 2008, 314–324). Nevertheless, as indicated above, cultural traditions and strong actors possess a position to define how reality is to be understood. Hence, it is a point to question current suppositions, recognize the influence of culture, history, social and political position, subtle forms of dominance and possibly suggest alternative thinking (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2008, 348–350). In other words, at this point, the influence of power relations is especially important.30 When it comes to the structuring of the description and analysis of the data, I find it relevant to adapt Swinton and Mowat’s four-step model for reflection in practical theology (2013, 94–97). The reason is that it is a good tool for thinking and communicating about

30 Power relations are complex phenomena and there is no room for the thorough analysis they deserve here. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that I understand power in a wide sense, not just as the power of force or compulsion. It is also present as e g agenda power, power of preference formation, power of models, counterpoise and several subtle kinds of power. 22 religious issues when trying to keep a balanced focus on the participants’ lifeworld or situation, the cultural context they are operating in, theoretical reflection about the topic in focus, and a possible revised theorizing and praxis. I use the model in a similar way as Engedal describes it related to pastoral care in another cross-cultural context, the African (2008, 124–131). However, since the focus is not pastoral care in this study but the participants’ thoughts about and attitudes to religion, the model is adjusted accordingly. The starting point of the model is not in theory but in the participants’ lifeworld. Step one is description of the situation. In the present case, that involves both my initial description of/questions related to the problem and the soldiers’ initial thoughts and experiences. Central topics here are what the participants think about religion, how they describe what it is, and what they say it means in their lifeworld and in the military context in general. Step two is cultural and contextual analysis. This means to enhance and challenge the first impressions, examine presuppositions and develop a deeper understanding through interpretation and contextualization. Questions here are as follows: Why are the subjects thinking and acting as they are? What kind of cultural traditions and social roles are at work? Are there prescribed social structures or gender issues at work in the situation? Are there religious traditions or convictions that create conflict or possible solutions? In the model the third step is theological reflection, an assessment of the situation seen from a Christian perspective. This is also a relevant perspective in this project. Nevertheless, the reflection cannot be delimited to theology and must include religionist perspectives as well (cf Engedal 2008, 128–130). The conversation between the situation under consideration and the normative values should embody a critical reflection about the impact of religion on the encounter with otherness. The point here is to develop an understanding of the significance of the data related to the dominant and normative presuppositions in the Armed Forces. In this case the core value respect is crucial. Here it is important to question whether procedures for encountering religious otherness are apt, what the most important values and norms are for the code of conduct relating to the local population and how the core value respect should be filled with content. The fourth and last step sums up the learning and involves formulating revised understanding. There is a fair chance that the material yields inputs for suggestions for improved praxis. This can involve advice for preparations such as education and training or procedures for the code of conduct. 23

The intention is to let the model function much like the hermeneutic circle. Furthermore, I am trying to live up to one of Jeanrond’s good points when reflecting on the dimensions of interpretation (2002, 113–116). He says:

Unlike Ricoeur, I do not speak here of interpretive ‘steps’ but of ‘dimensions’ of interpretation. It appears to me to be misleading to distinguish a number of subsequent steps in every act of interpretation, since explanation, understanding and assessment are so closely linked at every moment of text-interpretation. (114)

Hence, whether we call them ‘steps’ or ‘dimensions’ the movement between these parts of the model should not be understood in a mechanic sense. They will have varying weight in the different chapters of the dissertation. Nevertheless, there will also be movement back and forth between the parts and the whole. To sum up, this project tries to understand the soldiers’ thoughts about religion through a dialogic and reflexively constructed data analysis. As I neither find a complete gadamerian fusion of horizons nor a smartian walking in somebody else’s moccasins quite possible, 31 it is rather a drawing on the lifeworld of the subjects in order to contribute to an empirically qualified reflection on religion in the Armed Forces. It is done from a place; that is, the chaplaincy’s care for the combatant – not to test theories, but rather to learn something about soldiers’ relation to religion in this particular context, elucidated by relevant theory. In the following I will describe how this is intended done methodically.

1.4 Sources and Methods – Some Characteristics, Challenges and Choices

1.4.1 The Life Context as Deployed Soldiers The military personnel serving in Afghanistan belong to an ad hoc community that is working in a unique situation. Thus, the project can be called a study of an intrinsic case (Creswell 2007, 74). The special context is important (de Vaus 2005, 10; 50). The soldiers normally live close together in relatively small areas in camps with walking distance to most facilities. The environment is often international with representatives from several allied nations. Normally, locally employed workers are also in the camps. Many facilities are joint between the nations. Concerning religious services, for instance, there are normally tent chapels where services are open to those who want to join independent of nationality or religious affinity. Hence, it has

31 This expression refers to Smart’s favourite Native American proverb: ‘Never judge a person without walking a mile in his moccasins.’ It pinpoints strive for empathy as a necessity for an outsider to become an insider (see Smart 1995, 7–10). 24 not been unusual to see, for example, South European Catholics take part in Protestant worship services alongside Norwegians. Nonetheless, parallel to the uniqueness of this lifeworld, one finds some degree of internal variation. Some soldiers have had close contact with Afghans.32 The kind of connection could vary a lot. They have had meetings with Afghan officials at various levels from village leaders to government representatives. It could be greeting and conversations during patrols, guard duty or coincidental contact with civilians. Several soldiers have taken part in joint operations with Afghan military or police forces, and some have worked as mentors for local partners. These have had unique possibilities for contact due to living and operating together with them. Many soldiers have been challenged by the locals about their religious affinity, and they have responded differently to this. Some of the Norwegian forces have heavy combat experience. For some of these the experience of facing death has influenced their thoughts about religion in an existential manner. Others have been working in command centres or support functions more or less isolated in their camps. Some have had relations with one or more chaplains and their activities. Others have had little or no contact with chaplains. Furthermore, different professions within a unit easily develop subcultures according to their special experience and expertise. It is thinkable that such factors have caused different attitudes to my problem. The study needs a comparative element looking for possible differences between diverse groups of soldiers. However, a number of soldiers have had several tours to Afghanistan, at times with dissimilar roles and at various levels. Hence, they are not always easily classified in simple and clearly defined categories. One should note that factors as the varied security conditions, service patterns and experience of the soldiers probably have been just as significant as the traditional focus on, for instance, age groups, gender or strata. Hence, I find a reading of the data seeing this population as one case more relevant than focusing on detailed internal differences between groups.

1.4.2 Methodology in General This project is more exploratory than theory testing. It is a qualitative study. However, I find it best to combine individual interviews with self-completion questionnaires and group interviews to answer the research questions even though the use of mixed methods is controversial due to allegedly paradigmatic differences. I choose semi-structured interviews

32 In military language contact often is referring to armed contact with the enemy. However, in this study this wording is used in a traditional civilian manner simply meaning meeting, being in touch with or interacting with.

25 as the main source of information. This is to get knowledge about the interlocutors’ experience from actors’ perspectives, their understanding and reflections about meaning in their own lifeworld (cf Kvale and Brinkmann 2010, 132). Quantitative surveys do have a limited value when it comes to exploring what the participants are thinking. Moreover, interviewing can generate thoughts and approaches to the problem that I have not thought of. The self-completion questionnaires consist mainly of questions like the interviews. The original plan was to study one unit before and after deployment to elicit possible changes of attitudes. The idea was to use the questionnaire survey to help me specify generalizations from the interviews and through that justify the scope of the conclusions. Nevertheless, due to practical reasons (mainly difficulties in getting access to participants), I must collect the qualitative and quantitative data concurrently (see Miles and Huberman 1994, 41). Hence, to some extent, results from the survey can also be referred to when interviewing. Another point is related to the issues about authority in the military. Even though all contact with the participants is done in a civilian manner, stripped of military power symbols as uniform, rank and military letterheads, the military power structures may influence how soldiers answer in personal interviews. The survey helps getting around such issues. Moreover, the project is complemented with three group interviews to focus on themes found to be of special interest after conducting the individual study. The idea is to get inputs to the analysis. That is, I apply the survey and group interviews complementary to the individual interviews. Hopefully, this choice of methods helps me in direction of what Layder calls a multi-strategy framework (2005, 51). Concerning sampling, I will describe the process in general as rather complicated. When studying military personnel, several challenges exist related to, for instance, structures and power relations that are decisive for accessibility. Such challenges make the sampling turn more into an ‘art of the possible’ than a straightforward process. Still, it is not a clear-cut convenience sampling. I try to follow some general principals such as including representatives from all the Armed Services, different strata in the hierarchy, various professional groups with different kinds of experience, both genders and personnel with varied backgrounds.33 That is to say, there is an overall element of purposive sampling. Nonetheless, to avoid systematic biases in the sample, there is also some randomness within the different strata in the sense that most of the participants for all the methods are selected by

33 When studying military personnel, a variety in geographical background comes almost automatically. Most units consist of people from various parts of the country, and most personnel are assigned to several units at various locations during their service. 26 points of contact in the units; that is, through a kind of snowball sampling. The rest are soldiers I have come across in different manners, often by coincidence. As all three methods imply various challenges and choices, some words should be added about each of them.

1.4.3 Individual Interviews I consent to Flyvbjerg’s valuable considerations about advantages and limitations of case studies (2010, 66–87). Initially, it seems obvious that the best way of producing context- dependent knowledge about the thoughts of military who have served in Afghanistan is by asking them.34 It is a main point to get as deep understanding of the soldiers’ world view as possible, involving their interpretation of their narratives, some phenomena and concepts, or in Layder’s words: ‘… to tap into their lived experience and the meanings with which they construct their everyday worlds’ (Layder 2005, 52). I choose a semi-structured form of interviewing because it first, helps keeping focus on the topic when talking with a remarkably interesting group of personnel who has a lot to tell about many themes. Second, it facilitates the analysis, in particular the coding process. Third, it increases the possibilities for comparison and hence for drawing more complementary conclusions. I agree with those who call interviewing a craft (Kvale and Brinkmann 2010, 19), and in most crafts there is an ongoing discussion about what should be considered good craft and what is not. The multiple kind of communication called interviewing is no exception.35 Here, there is neither space for reflecting this discourse in general nor rendering all possible sources of error in the present project. For the sake of transparency, I will just mention some of the challenges and choices I face during the interview process. When starting the project, I was recommended to find approximately thirty interviewees,36 as I understand is a minimum if you want to compare a little varied (cf Bryman 2008, 462, referring Warren). The participants are not categorized according to rank but four rather broad categories, labelled ‘officers working in leadership/staffs; officers in other, more executive jobs; NCOs; and regular executive soldiers.’37 Regarding age, most of

34 For the value of context-dependant knowledge related to theory, see particularly pages 38–49; 71–73 in Flyvbjerg’s book. 35 See Briggs 1997 for a thought-provoking contribution. 36 See appendix A for a short presentation of each of them. 37 I do this for three reasons. First, as the Norwegian forces in question are few, it is easier to compromise the anonymity if the interlocutors’ exact rank or position is exposed. This is particularly the case with high-ranking officers and female soldiers. Second, I find little reason to believe that details about rank do constitute a major dividing line between different groups on the matters in question in this project. Other factors as rougher strata between commanders and subordinates, different kinds of job experience, extent of relations with locals and personal affinity are probably more important. Third, as several participants have had more than one tour to Afghanistan in different jobs, sometimes with different ranks, some belong to more than one group even with my rough categories. 27 the interviewees can be labelled relatively young. Twelve were under 25 years old during their service in Afghanistan. Nine were 25–30. Two interlocutors belonged to the group 31– 35, one was 36–40 and six were over 40. As for special groups, I look particularly for commanders, female soldiers and participants with a religious affinity other than the dominant Evangelical-Lutheran, preferably Muslims, as these groups are likely to be able to add alternative perspectives in an Afghan context. It is also a point to question both soldiers who have been dealing with locals and persons who have not. I am lucky to get a high-ranking commander who is willing to participate. This is important because he is representing key personnel who often have extensive contact with local leaders. Three women take part in the individual interviews, one in each of the mentioned categories except the NCOs. It is a drawback, though, that only one of these had a job that gave opportunities to getting significantly in touch with Afghans. I have been in contact with two Muslim soldiers but unfortunately have not succeed getting interviews with any of them. All the participants get information letters about the project, their rights and what to expect in advance. To protect anonymity, they choose or get English pseudonyms for use in the project. Nevertheless, two of the interviewees, Emil Johansen and Ronny Kristoffersen, agree that I use their proper names. The reason is that they both have published significant contributions related to their service in Afghanistan. Parts of their contribution in the present study refer to experience which already is described in clear in the published material.38 An attempted anonymization of this would just appear artificial and probably be transparent for readers who know their stories. I have sent my text to the interlocutors for proofreading before submitting.

On the one hand, it is an aim to see through the eyes of the soldiers as far as possible. Thus, I attempt to ask mainly open, broad and general questions (see Creswell 2007, 61) and to make the interviews run as freely and flexibly as possible without my implementing ideas in the respondents. On the other hand, it is necessary to have some structure to map the different participants’ understanding and thoughts. Thus, I find it useful to have a rather extensive interview guide.39

38 Johansen has published a book about his experience through several tours to Afghanistan (2011). He yields an informative and frank description from the perspective of the combatant soldier. Kristoffersen has authored two articles of which one (2011) is of interest here (see appendix A). Further, he has written an unpublished master’s thesis that is a guide to Islam for soldiers (2012). I think it covers the general military needs of knowledge and deserves, with some adjustments, publishing and to be used by the Armed Forces. 39 The interview guide is enclosed in appendix B. 28

The two first sections of the interview guide have questions about the interlocutors’ background and a general description of the service they have experienced. These are included to ensure that I get the necessary information to compare various categories personnel. The aim is to see if different background or kinds of service experience lead to any patterns concerning attitudes. The third section concentrates on the significance of religion from the soldiers’ own point of view. The purpose of these questions is mainly to consider if divergent affiliations to religions or world views yield different thoughts and attitudes to how they experience religion among the local population and others in the theatre of operations. The fourth section concentrates on the interlocutors’ thoughts and attitudes to religion among these latter groups. The fifth section is questioning to what extent they see connections between religion and code of conduct. Here I have leaned heavily on Mæland’s interview guide in his aforementioned book (2004), which I find covering. The sixth and last section deals with the soldiers’ own assessment of their development and possible changes by serving in Afghanistan. Except from the mentioned problems with categorization of the interlocutors, I have the general impression that the interview guide has worked as intended.

1.4.4 Group Interviews The aim of the group interviews is mainly to discuss some of the most important findings from the individual study with relevant personnel to let their understanding enlighten my interpretation. The groups are not focus groups in the sense of intending to study the group dynamics per se. I do not expect strong disagreement. This can be of some significance, but the intention is rather to make several interlocutors focus on a few delimited topics to elicit a richer interpretation or joint construction of meaning. As with the individual interviews, I try to combine the ideal of a fairly unstructured setting with some structure. It is a goal to keep the communication as natural, informal and conversational as possible. With respect to sampling, the overarching selection of participants is done according to a kind of purposive quota sampling, not in the sense that it can reflect the proportions in all different personnel categories such as rank, age, gender, background, professional specialty etc. It is a somewhat rough representation of different personnel groups of interest. For practical reasons it is necessary to delimit the number of groups to three, named A, B and C. Accordingly, group A is intended to cover basically officers with leadership, staff and planning experience in Afghanistan, group B officers/NCOs with predominantly field experience and group C soldiers at the executive level/regular soldiers.40 It is also a point to

40 See appendix C for a short presentation of the groups. 29 include the voices of women and religious minorities,41 when possible, some age diversification, and some variety in professional branches and services. Except hearing the voices of religious minorities, which have not been available for any of the groups, these requirements have been achieved relatively well. Furthermore, I use elements of convenience and snowball sampling partly to find participants who are willing to attend and available, partly who are likely to come up with valuable contributions and are recommended by others, and partly to avoid too much time-consuming travelling. As the intention is to ask the groups for their assessments of some findings in the individual part of the study, the conversations in the groups essentially follow main topics of the interview guide. However, at some points it is natural to concentrate on different matters in distinct groups. One example is that I find it more relevant to discuss some principal problems about the chaplaincy with the generally better educated personnel in group A. Another is that the understanding of the core value respect is more interesting among group B and C, whose members have more direct contact with Afghans. As indicated by this last example, I should add that to some extent the interviews in this study, the group interviews in particular, have an element of ‘concept interviews’ (Kvale and Brinkmann 2010, 163–164). This is in the sense of uncovering the soldiers’ perception of the nature of some central concepts as respect and not at least religion. Both individual and group interviews are recorded and transcribed to secure a correct rendering of the data. Regarding transcriptions, I am basically influenced by two sources, Kvale and Brinkmann (2010) and Kristoffersen and Molde (n d). I agree to Kvale and Brinkmann’s thoughts about what is good craft on this point and have used a modified version of Kristoffersen and Molde’s conventions. Whereas the transcriptions are relatively close to the oral Norwegian,42 the presentation in the thesis attempts expressing the participants’ meaning in an understandable, written English.

As with the individual interviewees, I have given the group participants the opportunity to read the thesis before submitting it both for ethical reasons and to improve the reliability and validity. Even though it is important to avoid the trap of allowing the interlocutors to become the heroes in their own stories, I find it essential to give them room for negotiating the meaning of their contributions. This is also an analytic step. After all, my

41 By the somewhat imprecise term religious minorities, I mean groups with other backgrounds than the ethnic Norwegian Christian-humanist tradition. 42 That is, in general the transcripts are written according to an orthographic ‘bokmål,’ the more prevalent of the two written standards of Norwegian. Dialect expressions are translated accordingly. 30 aim has been to try to grasp what they think about the topic. The interviews and whatever manoeuvres I have done with them are mainly tools to achieve that goal.

1.4.5 Self-completion Questionnaires As mentioned above, the idea behind including the self-completion questionnaires in the study is to get some simple statistics in order to see the degree to which certain attitudes and points of view are present and vary among the different groups of soldiers. Hence, it can support somewhat more complementary conclusions.43 Another objective is to compare Afghanistan veterans with the population in general about a few aspects. The idea is to see whether the soldiers stand out somehow. Thus, the questionnaire is inspired by and has borrowed some questions from the World Values Survey (WVS). Hence, in line with the WVS, the attitudinal questions are given a choice of options on a scale from one to ten.

Among the advantages of using self-completion questionnaires, one can mention absence of interviewer effects as, for instance, a possible influence by military power structures, the convenience for the respondents and the ensuring of anonymity. Nevertheless, even though numbers often are seen as facts and thus exact and reliable, as Little states, statistical findings themselves are not final or conclusive (1991, 174). Moreover, he continues; ‘The discovery of a statistical regularity among variables rather constitutes an empirical description of social phenomena that itself demands explanation’ (179). Numbers need interpretation, and I doubt whether it really is possible to measure phenomena as, for instance, degree of religiousness or abstract concepts as ‘values’ or ‘motivation.’

The aim of getting a better numerical account of the thoughts and attitudes among the relevant soldiers has also been decisive for the content and form of the self-completion questionnaires. The questions are mainly corresponding to the questions in the individual interviews.44 They are organized in three sections as follows: 1) Some information in order to categorize the participants. This shows a rough classification of personnel categories, age, gender, experience and degree of contact with the local population.45 2) Questions about the soldiers’ own points of view. The questions here refer to the respondents’ affinity to world view/denomination, extent of religiousness, a few religious practices, attitudes to traditions

43 See appendix E for the statistics. 44 See appendix D for the self-completion questionnaire. 45 As mentioned, some sources of measuring errors exist in this section due to the problems with accurate classification. Nevertheless, despite the disadvantage for the reliability, a rough classification is expedient for this project. 31 and trust in people with other affinities. 3) Questions about their thoughts on some topics relating to religion and professional ethic in the Afghan context. This section also includes three open-ended questions that Afghan partners frequently ask about religion. The process of sampling participants to the questionnaire survey is done partly randomly and partly purposively. Due to good door openers, it is easy to get access to lower ranked personnel through contacting relevant units. These are randomly chosen personnel unknown to me. It is more difficult to get participants among officers of various categories. Hence, I use a more purposive approach for these groups. It is particularly challenging to find enough female Afghanistan veterans (7 of 142 participants). Admittedly, there ought to have been more contributors of this category in this part of the study. Nevertheless, female soldiers are covered quite well in the interviews (5 of 43 participants). This reflects the realities concerning the lacking gender balance in this population as well. Since the questionnaires mainly touch the same topics as the interviews, I have achieved some synergy effects for conceptualization/coding/categorizing between the qualitative and quantitative material (cf Kvale and Brinkmann 2010, 210). I think the most relevant use of the quantitative material will be to count individuals having certain characteristics and preferences, or in Flyvbjerg’s words; ‘This type of research is essential … in understanding the degree to which certain phenomena are presented in a given group …’ (2010, 87). Conclusively as regards methods, I find Riis’s arguments for a combination of methods persuasive. Rather than seeing qualitative and quantitative methods as mutually exclusive, he recommends that they should be complementary. Combining them may provide supplementary information, improve validity and strengthen the conclusions (2009, 240–241).

1.5 Outline of the Thesis As we have seen, this first chapter presents introductory topics as the problem and case under scrutiny, the background for finding it interesting, research questions, a theoretical approach and methodology. Chapter two yields a closer look at the soldiers’ understanding of religion in general, what they think it is and how they relate to this phenomenon in their own lifeworld. In chapter three, we go one step further and turn the attention to how religion matters in the special lifeworld of the operative context in Afghanistan. Here, the encounter with the local religion and some related conditions is the main theme. The importance of religion during the military operations in the country will also get some focus. Finally, chapter three includes some words about a phenomenon that came to the fore in 2010 when it was 32 known that Norwegian soldiers apparently had taken up Norse rituals. The fourth chapter focuses on the participants’ considerations of the military core value respect. Here it is an aim to find out how the soldiers see the significance of the connection between religion and the code of conduct towards the locals. Another is to quest if the Armed Forces have developed any procedures or practices on this point. It is interesting to see whether this core value is filled with content somehow or emerge more as a slogan or political ideal. In the fifth and last chapter, I will draw some conclusions on the raised questions and present some suggestions for measures in order to improve practices in this field. Hopefully, this approach will yield a better understanding of religion in the Armed Forces.

Chapter Two

THE SOLDIERS’ THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

RELIGION

As a point of departure for examining soldiers’ thoughts about the significance of religion for their work in the Afghan context, it is worth asking what they think religion is in general. Since this probably is influenced by their affinity to religion and world views, it can be informative to get an overview about what it means in their own lifeworld first. A third factor to consider when studying religion in the military context is the institutional, particularly how the veterans experience the service of the chaplains. From the purpose of the study presented in chapter one, it should be clear that the main intention here is neither to study the soldiers’ religiousness nor institutional religion in the Armed Forces as such. Nor is endeavouring substantial new comprehension of the nature of religion qua phenomenon an aim. Nonetheless, it is interesting to get some empirical data to see if this population understands religion within the individualized and privatized perception that seemingly is so dominant in the Norwegian society, for instance, or if they see it as part of collective and public life. This is particularly suggestive if they think differently than those who are in position of power to regulate the understanding of religion in the Armed Forces. Interestingly, the interviews and the statistical data yield somewhat different findings.

2.1 Affinity and Importance of Religion in the Soldiers’ Own Lifeworld

2.1.1 Main Tendency – a Relaxed Positive Attitude to Religion As expected, the clear majority of the thirty individual interviewees, twenty-six, are members of the Church of Norway (Evangelical-Lutheran). None of these describes themselves as active. They tell about a positive, yet relaxed attitude, using the church mainly for celebrating the high festivals and great family events like christening of children, confirmation, weddings and funerals. The other four claim to have no affinity to any religion or world view organisation. Four of the church members describe themselves as atheists, critical or adversary to religion. Nonetheless, they are still members underlining that they respect 34 believers. These also tell that they at times take part in gatherings or rituals with a religious content. Whether calling themselves religious or not, twenty-seven say that they are positive to the role of religion in the Armed Forces. All the participants speak well about the chaplaincy, especially its role at memorial services and pastoral care as interlocutors. Albeit, four interviewees also express their reservations against being pushed or being too strongly exposed to Bible stories. The interviews yield a largely positive, although nuanced picture. Even most of those who label themselves as atheist or adversary to religion include some positive words about it. These are interesting findings in themselves, inviting us to go deeper into what is hiding behind the responses. As the clear majority is positive, yet rather passive church members mainly using the church at life crises and for enjoying the traditional festivals, I find it most interesting to concentrate on those who think alternatively in the following and start with soldiers critical to religion.

2.1.2 Soldiers Critical to Religion Larry, an atheist, says that he always has been an opponent to organized religion. This is due to his reluctance against buying something that somebody wants to sell without your wanting it yourself (9).46 He tells that he had to receive confirmation in the Church of Norway against his will, but otherwise the upbringing was without religious impact. The soldier affirms that he got what can be called a culture Christian upbringing, although without taking part in activities or the faith dimension (4–5). Larry describes religion as good intentions and maxims, which he understands that somebody is following (10). When asked what he thinks about rituals with a religious content in the collective room, he answers that he has nothing but a positive impression related to the context of the Armed Forces (11). Nevertheless, he definitely sees religion as a private matter (10). A similar example, yet somewhat more critical, is Charlie, the youngest female in the sample. She tells that she has become an ‘involuntary adversary’ to religion because she, like Larry, had no choice when it came to confirmation but had to live up to the tradition and take part in church confirmation in order to get a party and presents (5–6). She describes herself as ‘non-religious in direction of atheist.’ Nonetheless, she respects believers (9) and has a good relationship to chaplains as interlocutors – if they do not talk about God or religion. Charlie is

46 As all the individual interviews in this study were conducted in 2012, I will just render the page numbers when referring to the interview transcriptions in the following, not repeat the year. The interviewees’ names or pseudonyms are included only when this is not made clear in the main text. Here and in the following references to interviews, italics signifies the interlocutors’ emphases. 35 especially critical to references to God and religion at memorial ceremonies (12–13). So far, it is plausible to understand both Larry’s and Charlie’s interpretations of their standpoints, at least to some extent, to be caused by a collision between their own disbelief and the expectancy to keep family traditions. Nonetheless, there is a difference between them. Whereas Charlie is consistently critical to the role of religion in the Armed Forces, Larry is more open to the value of this. Mike is particularly interesting at this point, representing almost paradoxical stances. On the one hand, he is clearly an atheist and adversary to religion (3; 35), describing it as ‘the root of all evil.’ Notwithstanding, he clarifies that he does not mean religion per se by this wording, but rather how the wrong people uses religion to create contention. When I ask him to specify if he is thinking about religion used as a means of power here, he confirms that with an instant and forthright ‘yes’ (8–9). On the other hand, he still is a confirmed member of the Church of Norway using it for high festivals and life event, as the majority. Mike goes on explaining that he is enjoying the Christian traditions and agreeing with many of the values (3). This duality is there also in Mike’s practices when it comes to worship services and similar events. He is conscious not to take part during deployments abroad. He emphasizes, however, that memorial services are clear exceptions, since these are more in respect of those who are to be commemorated. He does not even participate at the normal social gatherings with coffee and waffles afterwards. Mike argues that he refrains from taking part because he has not contributed to the baking (7). Yet, he is strongly in favour of living up to the traditional Christian values of the Armed Forces when staying in Norway (10). He thinks that when you choose working in the military, you should do what you are told. If then someone tells him to go to church at Christmas, he has no problem with that (11). The main aspects I get out of Mike’s interpretation of his stance on religion is that he despite being a non- believer sees Norway as a Christian country. Accordingly, he appreciates Christianity as a source of values and a carrier of traditions both for the Armed Forces and in his private life. Mike wants to keep it that way. Andrew presents another position well worth consideration. Initially, this interviewee speaks frankly about religion as something he does not like. He has no problem with religious people but claims to be convinced that it is nothing for him (5–6). He has no faith in religion. Thus, he will not spend time on it (9). Nonetheless, Andrew has received confirmation in the Church of Norway. He appreciates that for the information it has given and sees no point in the humanist alternative (6). Furthermore, he values memorial services and church funerals (9–10), perspectives that I will present more thoroughly below. Actually, Andrew seems to 36 change attitude during the interview. I think he yields the most notable of his thoughts during our small talk after the interview formally is ended saying, ‘I feel I almost become contradictory.’47 It is unclear if this apparent change in attitude from a rather negative starting point to presenting several positive thoughts about religion is caused by the interview situation, if he just becomes conscious about it then or whether this ambiguity has been there over time. Anyhow, my reflection on this is that even though these interviews develop in different directions, all four participants probably understand religion as faith alone as a starting point. In other words, these are examples that illustrate the impact of the Lutheran sola fide on the comprehension of religion, even among personnel who consider themselves as atheists. If you do not believe, religion consequently easily becomes a concept loaded by negative connotations. Furthermore, I find it plausible that this reflects an interpretation of the sola fide emphasizing faith as a deeply felt personal choice or conversion, an understanding that has had a strong influence in Christian revival culture in Norway in the twentieth century (Stensvold 2005, 337–338; Oftestad 2005, 259–260; 292–293). Therefore, it is natural that such an emphasis on personal beliefs leads some who do not agree to all the Christian doctrine into labelling themselves as atheists. Hence, atheism becomes an easily embraced term for labelling one’s position even though practices may reflect more ambivalent, blurred or situational stances.

2.1.3 Non-believers Positive or Critically Tolerant to Religious Values Among the soldiers who say they have no religious beliefs or affinity to any religion, Bill and Adam yield the most unexpected contributions. Bill tells that he has a non-religious background and reflects a bit whether to call it atheistic or agnostic (4). Nonetheless, he is very aware that the Norwegian community is built on Christian values, that religion has a significant role in society and that he is a product of that society himself. He describes it as paradoxical that he partly has Christian opinions due to this despite calling himself an atheist (9–10). In spite of being non-religious, the soldier sees no point in not taking part in collective worship such as going to church at Christmas or military memorial and worship services (11). He tells that if he should be firm-principled in this, he must refrain from lots of things in life (13), and he finds it nice to be part of something that is appreciated by the collective (13–14). Furthermore, Bill holds that there is only one problem with religion and that is the human

47 Not recorded but rendered according to my notes. 37 beings. When there is evil based on religion, it is not because religion is evil as such but due to its practitioners (22). Adam, has no affiliation to any religion or church (4), does not believe in anything that is greater than he is but thinks that we very much need a way of life to abide by (6). Despite underlining his lack of affiliation to any religion, this interlocutor strongly defends the necessity of religious presence in the Armed Forces (8–10). As no affiliation often is a conscious choice in Norway, it is not common to hear representatives of that category talk so well about religion as an important value in military life.

Despite representing stances that would have led many in direction of a simple privatized thinking about religion, these two interviewees yield reflections showing that they are profoundly conscious about societal aspects of religion. I find it fair to describe their positions as a clear belonging to and endorsement of many societal and cultural aspects of Christianity but not sharing (all) its beliefs. Hence, they have made some important cracks in my presumption that Norwegian soldiers have an individualistic and privatized thinking about religion. The only person among the individual interviewees who is closest to having his background in another world view than either Christianity or no affiliation at all is Andy. This officer is not a member of any religion or equivalent organization himself (6), but his parents have or have had affinity to the Norwegian Humanist Association (4). Andy has inherited much of their world view and is not particularly interested in religion (6; 8). Anyhow, he sees the importance of considering it to be able to do a good job and does respect religious believers who are not fundamentalists (9; 7). When the interlocutor is reflecting on his own development, he underlines that he has become more open to religious beliefs as the years go by, talks well about the chaplaincy and wonders whether we may be need faith when getting older (8–9). My impression is that Andy probably can be labelled as a non-believer who is critically tolerant to religion (5). He is emphasizing the importance of respecting believers to do a good job. This leads to questing what respect actually means, something I will consider more carefully in chapter four. When summing up the responses by the interviewees who tend to describe themselves as atheists, it is evident that the religion they primarily relate to is the Lutheran Christianity of the former state church. We have seen that they all, more or less voluntarily, have made use of it in the sense Skarsaune describes as temple religion (1992). It is also conspicuous that they do not consider this as religion themselves. Largely, they equate being religious with 38 believing in a set of dogmas. Hence, if one does not share these beliefs, one is not religious despite taking part in religious practices as going to church at Christmas and life ceremonies.

2.1.4 Church Members Neither Adversary to Religion nor Believers Even though they are different between themselves in many ways, one group of participants can be classified as belonging to the Church of Norway without calling themselves neither atheists/adversary to religion nor believers. Among these are Bobby, Steel, Clive, Derek and James. Bobby presents himself as an inactive, non-believing member of the Church of Norway who has not offered his membership many thoughts (11). He says he has not found religion for himself yet and probably will not see the value of the church before he needs it (7; 11–12). He thinks that religious faith can be good, but it is bad if strong faith leads to drastic actions (7). As we saw with Andy, this interviewee’s interest in the topic is more for professional than personal reasons. Steel has a traditional Christian upbringing and is a confirmed member of the Church of Norway (4–5). Nonetheless, he is neither occupied with religion nor using the church other than for celebrating the important traditional events in life (11). He does take part in field services now and then but underlines that it is more for the fellowship and the waffles than the religious part of it (15). Steel is among those who argues that the religious part of the chaplains’ activities should be subdued somewhat in a multinational and multireligious society (14). Hence, he has interesting reflections of a more critical kind than the majority towards the role of the chaplains that is worth consideration when we come to that point. Clive is an officer who partly worked in close relation to Afghan colleagues, an experience that has given him interesting reflections on the meeting between cultures. He describes his own stance when it comes to religion as not a very religious person (24) but anyhow a man who has kept his membership in the Church of Norway and uses her rituals on the great occasions in life. He finds it good and natural to take part in the religious rituals knit to military traditions and speaks very well about his experience with the military chaplaincy (49–50). This interlocutor also says he feels a strong respect for believers and the role of religion in the community (24). Nevertheless, he does struggle somewhat to articulate what this means concretely. I have the impression that he is not used to talking about religion despite good reflections, a great deal of experience and much operative wisdom. This is clearly contrasting to his speech about other cultural aspects like eating practices or family relations, for instance. I assume that this may be a consequence of living in a culture where talking about religion is not in focus. 39

I believe that Derek is representing an affiliation to religion which is quite common among Norwegian military personnel. He is baptized and confirmed in the Church of Norway and wants to use the church for the major events in life. Nonetheless, he is not active and do not consider himself a believer. He lost his faith during his teens when a close family member died. He underlines, though, that this experience has not led to any anti-religious attitude or atheism (5–6). Nevertheless, he also says that faith re-emerges in critical situations, such as the tour to Afghanistan. He went to church there and prayed occasionally. He is not sure whether he has regained his faith (7–8). Such utterances are interesting indeed, rising several issues worth studying, not at least from the perspectives of the psychology of religions. There is no possibility to go deeply into these questions here, but Derek’s reflection on his stance does at least make us conclude that attitudes to religion are not as static as it may seem when using questionnaire surveys. For some, perhaps many, strongly felt experiences in life, as loosing beloved ones or the risk of facing death at combat, can influence and change attitudes, perhaps temporarily. Relating to religion can very well be situational. James has much in common with Derek. He speaks openly and in detail about his personal stand on religion, agreeing to most of its values, but not to some central dogmas about God, Jesus and the afterlife (12–13). He does not consider himself a believer but tells about what he calls an unresolved relationship to Christianity. He states that the reason for this is finding himself turn to God in times of life crises even though he does not believe in God. James interprets this phenomenon not as real faith but rather as a kind of desperation, a hope, which he knows nobody really can give him. As a member of the Church of Norway, the soldier wants to use the church for celebrating great life events (10–11). He is clearly positive to the role of religion both in the society in general and within the Armed Forces in particular. He says that the community must build on common faith and values (13–15). When assessing his stance on religion, James is stressing both individual beliefs and the societal impact of religion. He calls his attitude to the first of these aspects unresolved, but he is supportive of the second (9–10). This position seems to be common. I find the reflections of these soldiers interesting indeed. They add perspectives, display how hard it is to delimit what religion is and show how attitudes to religion can be vague, situational and difficult to express. When a person prays to or addresses someone he or she does not believe in, as James, what is that – and what does it tell about beliefs? The officer does not call it faith himself, rather a kind of desperation or hope. First, I find it plausible, then, to interpret his understanding of beliefs in direction of faith in dogmas, in the 40 sense of verbally constructed claims of truth, which one either approves or not. A second question here is; why do Derek and James pray to or address someone when in crises? Independent of their extent of beliefs, they relate to a pattern of reaction. Obviously, these soldiers must have learnt about this option. Hence, there must be a societal aspect of religion that has influenced them.

2.1.5 Vagueness Concerning Beliefs and Using the Church as Temple Religion Some vagueness related to beliefs is to be found among several of those who give the impression of having more or less faith in the religious dogmas as well. It is hard to assess to what extent this renders actual conscious beliefs or rather reflects different ability to articulate beliefs, interviewer effects, wishes to live up to political correctness or something else. Nevertheless, I think the rest of the sample in general can be described as quite typical members of the Church of Norway, not turning up in church frequently but still wanting to keep a positive affinity, using the church whenever they feel like it, naturally with some individual variation. Some statements may be illustrative: Peter, for instance, calls himself a ‘supporter in times of adversity’ (7–8) indicating that religion is mainly something that appears in life crises. Anthony labels his background as ‘very liberal Christian,’ meaning loyalty to and appreciation of the Christian traditions without thinking that religion is particularly important (4). Nonetheless, he finds it good to believe in something that is greater than he is and that there is a meaning behind things (7). Johansen labels himself a ‘traditional Christian’ (3). From other things he says, it is clear that he does not mean something in direction of conservative but that he has a common background keeping the normal relationship to the church and the Christian traditions. I believe Kenny’s conclusion when he is asked how important he finds religion is illustrative for many. After some reflection, he says, ‘So-so’ [Sånn passe] (11). Thor describes his background as influenced by a perhaps slightly more than the average active Christianity, an affiliation he denotes as warm and without any pressure (5–6). Edward yields a particularly interesting contribution when telling about his own development. As most of the interviewees, he describes his affinity to religion as being a typical member of the Church of Norway (5). Nonetheless, his reflections about being shot at are worth consideration when studying religion among soldiers. He says that he almost had thought he were in favour of the secular humanist association until being attacked. Then he discovered that he perhaps was a bit religious after all. The soldier continues telling that he does not necessarily believe in something greater than us, but he is perhaps a supporter in good times. He finds it nice to have 41 something to talk to when you need it, and if there is something there, it can at least increase your odds (14). Edward is another example illustrating how religiousness and attitudes to religion may be situational and vague. These examples show that temple religion is widespread among the participants. They appreciate using the church to celebrate high festivals and transitions in life without emphasizing the beliefs dimension. In general, the soldiers perceive this kind of religion as something positive, and, with few exceptions, they embrace it independent of expressed faith.

2.1.6 Self-Completion Questionnaires Yield More Negative Answers When expanding the picture with data from the self-completion questionnaires, this yields an impression of somewhat more negative attitudes to religion than what emerged from the interviews. This is interesting. It makes us immediately ask why, something that requires reflection. As mentioned in the introduction, there are almost no available statistics specifying the religious affinity of Norwegian military personnel (see Chaplaincy 2009, 83). Hence, any comparison with national numbers must be with the population as a whole. In general the statistics of this study show patterns as expected about the participants’ formal affinity to religions or world views. The clear majority among the Afghanistan veterans are members of the Church of Norway (81.7 percent). When participants with affinity to the free churches are included, Protestants are 83.8 percent (var H). However, a look at the overall numbers of the nation reveals something interesting. The numbers in the present survey correspond well with those presented in Chaplaincy 2009,48 reporting that 81.2 percent of the population are members of the Church of Norway (83). Nevertheless, according to the WVS survey of 2007, which I partly have used as a template for the self-completion questionnaires, the numbers for the nation say only 62.6 percent Protestants (WVS 2007, var 185).49 There can be several reasons for this significant difference and it is not a task to examine these in detail here. However, while the sources used in Chaplaincy 2009 are official membership numbers, the WVS is based on structured interviews.50 This seems to indicate that some Norwegians downplay their formal affinity to religion when being asked, a matter I have found it natural to discuss further in the groups.

48 The sources for the statistics used in Chaplaincy 2009 is Statistic Norway (www.ssb.no) and the Yearbook of the Church of Norway 2008. 49 I find it appropriate to compare with the WVS numbers of 2007 in this study. This is because the experience of the Afghanistan veterans is gathered roughly from the whole period the Norwegian forces have stayed in the country. The numbers of that year are therefore getting close to the mean of their presence there. In the WVS n=1025. 50 For a short assessment of the methodological problems in the WVS, see McAndrew and Voas 2011, 10–11. 42

When asked about the importance of religion in their own lives (var G), the soldiers’ perception of their own religiosity (var I) and typical religious practices as prayer (var L) or attendance at gatherings with religious content (var J), the responses in general signify a rather relaxed and inactive attitude.51 While only 2.8 percent of the Afghanistan veterans find religion to be very important (10.1), 25.4 percent (22.2) say that it is somewhat important.52 38 percent (41.3) think it is not very important and 33.1 percent (26) not at all important.

A direct comparison with the national numbers is problematic. This is due to reasons as, for example, lack of balance concerning the number of participants, gender and age among the military. The WVS even has a different age classification. Nevertheless, the main difference seems to be that Afghanistan veterans give a clearly lower score on finding religion ‘very important’ and correspondingly higher on ‘not at all important’ than their civilian counterparts do. When going more in detail, it is interesting that among the twenty-five presumably oldest soldiers, the ones classifying themselves as leadership/staff officers, there is almost a balance between those finding religion more or less important (48 percent) and those who do not (52 percent). Among the eighty-one presumably youngest, at the executive level, however, there is a strong majority saying that religion is not important (66 percent). Regarding the question whether the participants will describe themselves as a religious person, not religious or an atheist (var I), the overall numbers are the following: 23.9 percent consider themselves as a religious person (40.9), 60.6 percent not a religious person (51.3) and 14.8 an atheist (6.7). The most striking point here is that the military give an impression of being far less religious and more tended towards atheism than the population in general. Nevertheless, when taking age into consideration, the numbers even more out with civil numbers. When broken down according to our four soldier categories, the numbers here confirm the tendency that older participants are more likely to classify themselves as religious than the younger ones. Among the soldiers, 44 percent of leadership/staff officers and 33 percent of other officers describe themselves as religious. Among the NCOs, there are 26 percent. In the group of executive soldiers there are only 16 percent doing the same. The picture gets more comprehensive when adding responses to what extent faith in God is important to them (var K) and data about the two practices, participation in worship (var J) and prayer or the like (var L). According to var K, the military say they find faith in

51 For a comparison with the population in general, the national numbers are given in brackets in the following. 52 Somewhat important renders Norwegian ‘litt viktig.’ The wording in the WVS is rather important. 43

God rather unimportant. The mean score on the scale from one to ten is 2.9. The equivalent total national numbers are here 4.2.53 What concerns religious practices, 26.8 percent tell of experience with prayer or similar practices, whereas 73 percent do not. The national numbers for men are here almost concurring (26.5 and 73 percent).54 A clear majority of the Afghanistan veterans, 47.9 percent, say they attend worship services or other gatherings with religious content only on special holidays (33.1 percent) or once a year (14.8 percent). The national numbers are here 29.9 percent (14.9+15 percent). While 31 percent never attend among the veterans, as many as 41.1 percent refrain at a national level.55 Moreover, participation in this kind of religious practice increased when going to Afghanistan. The number who took part in such arrangements once a week or once a month went up from zero to 11.3 percent and from 2.1 percent to 11.3 percent respectively (var AC). Those participating on special holidays increased to 41.5 percent. The soldiers who only appear once a year shrunk to 6.3 percent and those who never take part to 16.2 percent.

Unfortunately, no official statistics are available showing the attendance at worship services among Norwegian forces in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the overall impression according to this study is first, that the group of military attending worship services or similar events on special holidays double the national numbers. Otherwise, they respond similarly to the rest of the nation. Second, soldiers have been more likely to attend worship services and similar arrangements in Afghanistan than at home. That is to say, they attend worship more but hold religion less important in their lives than the population in general. Obviously, the somewhat higher extent of participation at religious arrangements among the veterans than in the general population can be motivated by other reasons than religious interests. Perhaps the personal attitude to the content is not so important. Factors as the relationship the soldiers feel towards their chaplains, respect for the occasion that is celebrated, a culture of uniformity, for taking part in everything that happens in the unit, or even boredom with camp life can be just as significant. The interviews have shown that these factors have varied. Nevertheless, this can signify that temple religion is more frequent among the military even though they may not regard these activities as religion themselves. This is an interesting point I will come back to when going deeper into how the interlocutors perceive what religion is. In several ways, the questionnaire survey confirms the same image as I have of the population in general. It appears as a people of relatively strong belonging to the former state

53 See the WVS 2007, ‘V192’ for details. 54 See ibid, ‘V193’ for details. 55 See ibid, ‘V186’ for details. 44 church but not active practices and weak beliefs, or rather, weakly expressed beliefs. With a famous aphorism, Davie labels the Britons’ relationship to religion as ‘believing without belonging,’ and the Scandinavians as ‘belonging without believing’ (1990). Apparently, my survey confirms this characterization about Norwegians. However, this part of the study does not say much about contents of beliefs, for instance. The statistics can hardly be used as a measure of religiousness. If talking about extent of religiousness gives sense at all, what the informants perceive as religion and religious practices will be decisive for the responses. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the general impression of the soldiers is not surprising. The formal affinity to religion among a non-immigrant part of the population is largely dominated by members of the Church of Norway. Nonetheless, I had not expected that the younger cohorts of soldiers should respond that negatively when asked about the importance of religion in their own lives and participation in some activities with a religious content in the questionnaires. This appears as a paradox since the study also reveals that they participate more in worship wearing uniform than in their civil life, especially during their tours to Afghanistan. It could be understandable if this referred to a forced participation, a duty they did with displeasure. Notwithstanding, the feedback in the interviews shows that these activities are mostly appreciated. When trying to understand soldiers’ attitude to religion, one is left with questioning why soldiers who clearly define themselves as indifferent, atheist or adversary to religion still bother to keep their membership in the church and use some of its services at some occasions in life. At this point, there seems to be some extent of discrepancy between the soldiers’ self-perception and their actual practice. This is something I will consider as far as the data allows. Even though religion appears not to be particularly important in the soldiers’ lives if things go well, they seem to want to keep it as something to turn to in crises, to keep traditions and appreciate it as a provider of basic norms and values. Can it be that we here simply face a rather delimited understanding of what religion is that is excluding important factors when talking about it? Below, we will have a closer look at the soldiers’ notion of religion. However, first, perhaps the group interviews can be of some help yielding a better comprehension of the findings of the individual part of the study.

2.1.7 Assessments of the Findings According to the Groups Concerning the affinity and importance of religion in the soldiers’ own lifeworld, the group interviews focus mainly on the tendency that the soldiers appear more positive to religion in the individual interviews than in the questionnaire survey. Since the main point with these 45 interviews is to discuss some findings of the individual study, the affinity of the interlocutors in the groups is not a topic in these conversations. Nevertheless, some interviewees tell openly about their standpoints, others do not. All the group participants except one are members of the Church of Norway. The sole exception is a free church member. My general impression is that there is no significant difference between the individual and group informants when it comes to affinity and importance of religion in their own lives. Group A appears to be unison critical to self-completion questionnaires. As mature officers, they have all completed a number of those and point out several weaknesses with the method. Snoopy underlines that you seldom find alternatives that fit completely in questionnaires and often want to elaborate (group A 2013, 36–38). The group finds that by comparison, interviews give opportunities for clarifying meaning. The farmer, an experienced leading officer,56 yields an interesting reflection saying that most people who are asked about their relation to religion will just consider whether they believe in God or not. They do not think about the behavioural dimension. He goes on saying that he easily could have ticked a two on such a scale himself but in reality he is a seven or an eight. He states that in a conversation it would be easier to clarify that he, despite normally not being a very active believer in God, would be so if he was about to drown. At the same time he is highly active when it comes to proper behaviour related to others, something he thinks also has to do with religion (37). The farmer also has an interesting reflection questioning whether young people easily can tick ‘no affiliation’ to religion despite really being church members simply because they do not care (47). We see here that the farmer adds several other dimensions than beliefs to his understanding of what religion may imply. It is natural to interpret his recognition that he easily could have ticked a low score at the question about the importance of faith in God as simply reflecting a spontaneous response to how much this means in everyday life. Nonetheless, he is aware that faith in reality is very situational. In severe life crises, as when facing death, religion comes far stronger to the fore. Moreover, he also sees that there is a connection between conduct and religious norms and values. Finally, the officer introduces the possibility that some young people do not care about their affinity to religion and hence ignore it. I find these reflections highly relevant. They complement the picture of soldiers’ ideas about religion and indicate that attempts to map their thinking through questionnaire surveys

56 This officer participates both in the individual part of the study and in the interview with group A. 46 may be misleading. I find the assessment of group A about self-completion questionnaires as giving inferior information to interviews quite reasonable. Their background as experienced officers and well-educated specialists in their fields, has also contributed to give them a self- esteem that would remove potential anxiety for alternative methods as interviews. Nonetheless, as we shall see below, other categories personnel can see this differently. Group B comments the different results yielded by the two methods stressing mainly two factors. The group agrees that many understand religion or religiousness in a narrow manner as referring predominantly to a personal faith in certain dogmas. Duncan says that this is quite simple for him. On the one hand, he considers himself almost as non-religious, perhaps approximately an atheist. On the other hand, he has grown up learning religion at school, appreciates most of the Ten Commandments and is living according to those because they are the basic values in Norway, including the Armed Forces. He does not believe in the overarching part of Christianity but he does believe in the way of life. He finds it proper to be confirmed, married and have his children baptized in the church. Duncan continues underlining that he believes it is natural for many to live by the norms and rules in society for everything is rooted in religion (group B 2015, 47–48). I follow up asking if this means that the negative answers in the survey are due to an understanding of religion in a narrow meaning as only about sharing personal beliefs in God and Jesus, but not having anything to do with traditions such as participating in worship in the field, going to church at Christmas or baptizing children. Duncan affirms both this and my request if the responses here tell more about how the respondents understand the word religion than expressing what they practice, for instance, of religious traditions. The reason he gives is interesting. He claims that it is because Christianity is inclusive to diversity. It is no problem appreciating the Christian values and rules without believing the spiritual part. You are welcome and included whether you are a believer or not (48–49). Lawrence agrees to Duncan’s view here (49–50). They both see a clear link between Christianity and the basic societal values of the country, and they think it is unproblematic to appreciate the latter without believing central dogmas. They also confirm that many soldiers understand the concept religion narrowly, primarily meaning faith in God. My assessment is that such a delimited understanding may veil religious aspects, which are present in the soldiers’ life, despite eventual disbeliefs in the dogmas. This religious ‘luggage’ may both become a problem and be a potential resource when dealing with religion in countries such as Afghanistan. In order to use it constructively, we must be aware of it. When I draw the 47 conclusion of Duncan’s argument that we need to understand what religion is in a wider cultural context, the group confirms this (49).

The third group member, Joshua, adds that concepts as religion and religious invoke negative connotations in our society. Despite describing himself as a strongly Christian believer, Joshua resists calling himself religious because this term is something he associates with fulfilling strict religious duties. Joshua understands his faith in Jesus as the Son of God rather as freedom from fulfilling duties to obtain salvation. Nevertheless, he is realizing that this is in clear contrast to what most people would think about his stance. He continues stating that people often think about extremists or fundamentalists when considering religious persons (50–51). In accordance with some remarks by group A, the comments made by group B strengthen my theory that the surprisingly negative response about attitudes to religion in the questionnaire survey has something to do with a widespread rather narrow understanding of the concept religion. If one reduces this word to meaning just beliefs in certain dogmas, obviously several collective religious practices as worship services in the field easily fall outside. Moreover, Joshua has thought me a lesson pinpointing how the word implies clearly negative connotations for many. This is a good reminder that we cannot use the expression simply as a neutral technical or generic term for a set of cultural phenomena. It may be value laden, something the Armed Forces should recognize when relating to it. As we saw in the introduction, there has been almost no research on Norwegian soldiers’ relationship to religion. Even the Chaplaincy has based its thinking on a one-sided principal and theoretical approach. More work is necessary to get a deeper understanding of the tacit influence of religion on soldiers’ lifeworld. This is necessary if we are to succeed in the call for ‘comprehensive approach’ and the requirements for encountering otherness that comes with the international turn.

Regarding the assessments of the groups, one should be aware that all the participants in group A and B are officers serving with different services and branches. Hence, they have some extent of theoretical education. Group C consists of lower ranked practitioners from one single Army unit. This may have influenced the answers. Anyhow, the interpretations of group C add different and interesting perspectives to the total picture. Concerning the different attitudes to religion reflected through the two methods, in contrast to group A and B, group C finds that the self-completion questionnaires have given the most reliable answers. 48

When asking group C about their explanation of the different results, I mention a couple of possible error sources. Examples are that on the one hand, a pleasant interview situation could influence people to give a more positive impression of the topic than they really have, while on the other hand, a self-completion questionnaire perhaps is not so good for eliciting what a person really is thinking and believing simply because the questions can be interpreted differently. Carl answers that I could be right about people interpreting differently but adds that it simply can be that participants find writing easier than talking (group C 2015, 32). Gary underlines that anonymity is ensured better when completing a questionnaire compared to an interview situation where others can hear what you say. He also implies that the presence of a priest could restrain utterances, a good point indeed to consider for ordained researchers. When I follow up asking if he thinks the questionnaires have given more correct answers than the interviews, he confirms so, albeit somewhat hesitantly, still emphasizing that anonymity yields more honesty (33). George supports Gary, stressing that a questionnaire is more private and easier than talking, ‘especially if you also are a little strict with us’ following up with questions about what we really mean. He continues saying that the topic both is difficult and very private. George also questions whether the anonymity can be real if you have strong opinions (34). Charles adds that one tends to filter answers (35). This is interesting. I think group C points at important aspects here despite drawing opposite conclusions than the other groups about the quality of the methodology. Seeing the world through other glasses, they are helping to elicit the complexity of interpreting what soldiers utter about their ideas of religion. When some of the younger interlocutors are more concerned about securing anonymity than older ones, there is good reason to ask whether this reflects subtle power relations or cultural differences between units. My background as both an officer and a priest makes it difficult to relate to potential problems knit to power relations here. It may give me a double handicap as a researcher related to personnel at the lower strata. Hence, a stronger use of triple hermeneutics with elements from critical theory could possibly find better explanations – given that it is not falling into the trap of being too closely directed by some emancipatory political program that does not give room for the diversity of the empirical material. Nonetheless, researchers who do not share the same handicaps should assess this. With regard to cultural factors, there may be significant differences between services and units when it comes to real or felt acceptance for individual expressions. However, there is no room for going into this here apart from mentioning such differences as possible reasons for the divergent assessments by the groups at this point. Moreover, there will be many challenges measuring both the influence of potential power relations and 49 cultural factors. The differences can also be consequences of their attitude to religion. If one thinks that religion should be a private matter, it is natural to find it uncomfortable or difficult to talk about. It is hard to measure and comprehend the effects of such factors without falling into any form of assumption or speculation. Summarizing the considerations of the groups, we have seen some differences between them. Group A is above all critical to the use of self-completion questionnaires as a method for revealing religiousness and soldiers’ thinking about religion. Group B has emphasized that many understand religion in what I call a narrow meaning, that it predominantly refers to personal faith in certain dogmas. The group sees a need for understanding religion in a wider cultural context. This group also underlines that religion is a word that involves negative connotations for some people. In contrast to the older participants, the personnel in group C find the results of the questionnaire survey more reliable than responses in interviews. They think the participants answer more honestly there due to stronger anonymity. The group interviews have yielded interesting assessments of the findings in the individual study. They have not explained the soldiers’ attitude to religion. That would be an arduous task to complete anyhow, but they have contributed with aspects that are parts of an explanation, each in their way. Nevertheless, some further reflections are necessary.

2.1.8 Summary and Assessment of the Findings We have seen that the population in this study in several ways can be characterized as clearly more homogenous than pluralist regarding both their attitudes to and practices of religion. That is, the picture has some ambiguity. The complementary data of the self-completion questionnaires reflects a somewhat more negative attitude than the main method, the interviews, when the participants are asked about the importance of religion in their lives and the extent of their participation in some religious practices. The statistics reveal a more negative response than found in the population in general as well. This appears as a paradox since the study also informs that the soldiers take part more in worship wearing uniform than in their civil life, especially during their tours to Afghanistan. These worship services are something they appreciate. We need to have a closer look at this point when studying the soldiers’ thoughts about the importance of religion during military operations in chapter three. When adding the group assessments of the individual study, I have found some differences that challenge the reliability of surveys about religion, probably more so in questionnaire surveys than interviews. Whereas the officer groups have strongest confidence 50 in interviews, the younger soldiers tend to find questionnaires more reliable. First, the groups (especially group B) confirm that we deal with a conceptual problem. It is hard to control how participants understand the questions, particularly in self-completion questionnaires. This even applies to the meaning of such a central concept as religion. The information that the term religion involves negative associations for some soldiers seems partly to explain why the questionnaire survey reveals more negative attitudes to the phenomenon religion than the individual interviews. Interviews do not stop at the immediate perception but invite to a deeper and more nuanced reflection about content and meaning. Second, for some, the conceptual problem implies difficulties articulating what they think about the topic. This also applies to interviews and may be due to lacking language, training in or culture for talking about it. If the ideal is to treat something as a private matter that only concerns people with special interests, it can hinder development of skills in talking about it. I find reason to conclude that some soldiers, but far from all, could need some training in ability to converse about religion to master the encounter with otherness. Third, those who stress that it is a difficult theme, as George (group C), has an interesting point. That invites to reflection about why they consider it difficult. Those who think questionnaires are more reliable than interviews, argue that they yield better anonymity. Those highlight that some soldiers find religion to be a controversial topic to talk about in public. The reasoning behind this argument is probably to be found among three kinds of factors. One is that due to power relations, it is likely that personnel at the lower strata are more reluctant to express opinions about topics many consider controversial than officers are. A second aspect is related to military culture. An army unit is a technocratic organisation, something that, to some extent, sets limits for what it is natural to talk about; religion is probably normally not a theme in focus. The third point is that the participants’ point of view concerning religion may also influence how frankly they want to talk about it. I have the impression that some interlocutors may feel some discomfort or embarrassment about the topic, something that can relate to their having unsettled positions themselves. This entails ethical and communicational challenges. James was the one in the sample expressing this in the most forthright manner using the term unresolved about his stand on religion. If something is unresolved, it may be hard to articulate clear thoughts about it. Nevertheless, James clearly proved that in his case that did not prevent his ability to talking and reflecting. I believe his wording here is expedient for the stance of many. Anyhow, the data confirms that there is some vagueness related to soldiers’ relationship to religion that probably also influences how they understand what religion is. 51

Furthermore, when they say it is difficult to talk about, it is natural to question whether it is problematic for everybody, for instance, Afghans as well, or if it mainly is difficult for Norwegians. In case this is a problem for particular nationalities, we seem to face a cultural or political hurdle for understanding. We will learn more about this below when studying the open-ended questions about how the soldiers respond to the Afghans’ quest about their religion. Nevertheless, the general tendency is that the soldiers have an affinity to Lutheran Christianity, although with a relaxed relationship to the church. Few tell about active participation in a synagogue congregation. However, many are using the church for typical temple religion practices. Interestingly, this is a rather unison response whether the soldiers label themselves as believers, atheists or something in-between. A clear majority wants to keep their church membership and enjoy attending worship at times. They perceive the temple religion positively. Yet, it is conspicuous that many soldiers do not think about their taking part in such practices as religion but as traditions or living up to expectations from their environment. The unison relation to Lutheran Christianity reflects a culture with lopsidedness relating to what soldiers learn about what religion is. This makes me conclude that regarding the soldiers’ attitude to religion in their own lifeworld, they are strongly influenced by a thinking that emphasizes the individual beliefs aspect of religion, not religion as collective practices. If the participants have a widespread understanding of their own stance on religion as something that primarily has to do with faith in a few central Christian dogmas, and they do not share these beliefs, it is understandable that some of them easily label themselves as atheists or non-religious. This may be the case even though their actual beliefs are blurred or situational and their practices habitual or culturally conditioned. Of course, one can criticize the sample for not being diverse here and hence argue that I get the answers I deserve. Nevertheless, as most of the participants are selected randomly, there is reason to hold that this impression of homogeneity also reflects realities among the population in focus. Soldiers are familiar with uniformity. It is not surprising that they have some degree of standardizing when it comes to values and attitudes as well. Now it is time to have a closer look if they really have such a narrow concept of religion also when widening up the perspective from their own stances to considering the phenomenon in a broader sense. 52

2.2 Soldiers’ Ideas about What Religion Is As expected, several of the individual interviewees find it difficult to explain what they think religion is (twelve). For some of them, this topic is obviously not a matter they have thought much about before. Morgan is a good example. He is a young soldier at the executive level who prefers practical and physical activities to theorizing. Nevertheless, when I suggestively ask if he mainly thinks about religion as beliefs or perhaps rather rituals, ethic or traditions, he answers that he thinks it is a mixture all these aspects (8–9). He sees the versatility. Others observe immediately the potential complexity related to the concept and have problems answering because they think it involves so much. Kristoffersen, for instance, an experienced and well-educated Coastal Ranger Officer, is unusually aware of how deeply religious values affect society (9–10), something we shall consider in more detail below. A couple of interlocutors change their ideas during the conversation, and some argue somewhat with themselves. I have anticipated that all the participants think about beliefs when hearing the word religion. According to the survey, var X and Y, there is a noticeably clear tendency that most soldiers understand religion as a private matter in Norway. This may appear logic if chiefly focusing on beliefs. The mean score is 7.0 on the scale assessing religion to be a private matter. In the case of their seeing religion as a public matter, the mean score is lower, 4.3.57 Thus, this lopsidedness towards a privatized understanding is an issue to examine further in the interviews. Interestingly, the face-to-face communication yields another impression. There the soldiers do not stop with equating religion with beliefs. Several interlocutors even primarily mention other factors. Some keywords are frame for life, both ethically and concerning high festivals; rules for society; strong connection to culture; a place for reflexion, even getting a break; meaning and support in difficulties; an assembly point; philosophy; and traditions. In other words, the findings show that the picture is quite varied at this point. I hear the resonance of both Smart’s dimensions and Woodhead’s concepts of religion in the responses. Hence, I find their theories to be good tools for a systematic processing of rather complex data. However, this processing is problematic. Many of the aspects that I have classified under the subtitles in the following are intertwined. On the one hand, it is almost unfair towards the participants to present their complex data according to a simplified theoretical form for analytical purposes. On the other hand, due to the available space, the simplification

57 See appendix D for the phrasing of the questions and appendix E for detailed numbers. 53 is strictly necessary. Hence, when an interlocutor is quoted under one subsection in the following, it does not mean that he or she could not also be labelled under others. One should not read this as a complementing list about the soldiers’ stances. The intention is to draw an overall picture. Since all the interviewees includes beliefs as an important aspect of religion, it is natural to start the presentation with this aspect.

2.2.1 Religion as Beliefs Interestingly, none of the interviewees understands religion exclusively as beliefs, but those who go most clearly in that direction are Andy, Steel and Betty. I find it apt to describe the three of them as critically tolerant to religion. Andy underlines that religion should be a private matter (7). When asked why, he answers that it is what you believe in. It is your thoughts. It does not concern others what you are thinking and what you believe (9). Steel was initially thinking that religion and beliefs are synonyms and accordingly a private matter (13). Nevertheless, as mentioned in the preceding chapter, he does sometimes appreciate the fellowship at military worship services. When discussing the encounter with religion among the Afghans below, we shall also see that he is aware that religion often is invisibly present in cultures. Thus, I find it fair to conclude that Steel indirectly sees a collective aspect related to religion as well. His thinking is not exclusively privatized. Betty is a relatively young, lower ranked officer. Like Andy, she does not have any religious affinity. She describes her thoughts about religion as ‘something good to believe in,’ adding that it is not always good, though. As she also mentions that it has occurred within human relations and relates to behaviour and norms, I wonder whether she primarily is thinking about societal aspects such as ethic or perhaps rituals. Then she emphasizes that she chiefly thinks about it as basic beliefs, which leads to adverse consequences if not observed correctly according to the manner one has learnt to practice. When I ask whether it is actions or rules of conduct that causes consequences, she answers ‘rules of conduct’ (9–10). Obviously, Betty’s idea of beliefs includes some societal aspects, for instance, that religion implies expectations from the surroundings about a certain code of conduct that the believer is obliged to fulfil. Otherwise, there can be sanctions. Regarding the question if she finds religion to be a private or public matter, the same duality is evident. On the one hand, she is clear that it is a private matter because what you believe or not believe is not the concern of anybody else. On the other hand, she continues arguing that it can put you in various kinds of light, and you can be assessed accordingly. Furthermore, she says that it is also a very public 54 matter, referring particularly to her experience of a strongly religious teacher at school, although adding that she feels it has become more liberal now (10). I recognize key words from both Woodhead and Smart’s theorizing in the responses from these officers. Whereas Woodhead places the beliefs dimension within the concept of ‘religion as culture’ (2011, 123–124), Smart labels this dimension of religion ‘the doctrinal or philosophical dimension’ (2000, 8–9; 87–103). For my part, I find it most relevant to talk about beliefs in this context. Soldiers are in general not particularly preoccupied with religious doctrine or philosophy in a strict sense. Faith or beliefs are terms closer to the wording the participants of the study would use, and they employ these wordings in the sense of holding certain dogmas, myths and stories for true. Two of the interviewees who find it difficult to explain what they think religion is, albeit basing what they say on the beliefs dimension are Peter and Anthony. Peter says that it is a combination of things. His immediate thought is that it refers to some kind of faith in a higher power. He adds that there can be practices in many ways. Furthermore, he underlines that strong faith does not necessarily mean that believers go to church. This makes him conclude that there is a personal feeling involved (9–10). That is, he clarifies that religion involves both practices and emotions in addition to beliefs. Anthony includes a couple of other elements in conjunction with stressing beliefs in something greater than oneself. He describes faith as a need and indicates, with some chuckle, that it can be a means of controlling the population. He continues saying that he also has this need himself situationally and that it yields meaning about life. Anthony is clear that what people choose to believe is private, but in the Armed Forces religion is far more than that. He finds it particularly nice that they have a chaplain (7–8). Bobby, Kenny and Frank are among the interlocutors who find it hard to explain what religion is simply because they see several factors of equal importance in addition to the beliefs dimension. After initially responding that religion is a lot, Bobby continues telling that he is disagreeing with himself as he goes along. One example is his assessing whether religion is something positive or negative. On the one hand, it can be good for somebody to believe. On the other hand, if their faith becomes very strong, they can do drastic things. That is perhaps not so good. He is clear that personal faith is a private matter, adding that he is opposed to a state church. After some reflection back and forth, Bobby concludes that this is of principal reasons (7–9). Kenny is an experienced officer at an intermediate level. The first he mentions is faith, but immediately he also highlights religion as a direction indicator in life and links it to ethic. 55

Christianity has appointed several perimeters both for codes of conduct, what should be allowed and not permitted. Without taking part a lot in religious practices, he finds that religion and ethic are tied together closely (8–9). Frank is an experienced and reflective officer at the leadership level. As a typical member of the Church of Norway, he got a Christian upbringing and is coloured by these values but does not use the church very actively (4–5). When asked what he thinks religion is, he underlines both beliefs and the Christian-ethical values as the basic societal values in the country. He sees no conflict between these aspects but finds that they complement each other. Frank also yields a short comment about the Ten Commandments as a fantastic philosophy. These ten norms are so simple, but if you relate to them, you do most things right (7). In other words, he is one of the interlocutors who clearly see the societal and collective perspectives and argue against a one-sided privatized view on religion. Summarizing, we already see that even soldiers who mention beliefs as the basic dimension of religion allude to several other aspects as well. As ‘something good to believe in’ and ‘rules of conduct,’ Betty’s understanding of religion also holds elements of Smart’s experiential/emotional and ethical/legal dimensions (2000, 9–10; 55–70; 104–117). This reflects Woodhead’s points of meaning, cultural order and values as well (2011, 124–125). Correspondingly, Peter mentions the emotional aspects and adds the practical dimension (Smart 2000, 9–10; 118–130 and Woodhead 2011, 132–134). Anthony is aware of the power aspect (Woodhead 2011, 134–138), which also Betty touches on, tells that religion yields meaning to life and that faith may be a situational need. Finally, Kenny and Frank pinpoint the connection of religion to etic as direction indicator for life and basic societal values (Smart 2000, 104–117 and Woodhead 2011, 125–126). They do not understand religion exclusively in a privatized and individualized manner but also as a collective concern. When considering Andy and Betty’s arguments, it seems that the tendency towards privatized understanding is related to an opposition to any authoritative external influence on the beliefs. Nonetheless, the main impression is that an understanding of religion delimited to beliefs is too narrow to render the soldiers’ thoughts and attitudes in a satisfactory manner.58

2.2.2 Religion as Fundamentals for Life and Society As we saw above with Kenny and Frank, several interviewees have revealed a strong awareness of the importance of religion as a communal platform of values. I have already

58 As mentioned, it is not a task to analyse the soldiers’ beliefs here. Although for such an analysis, Day’s multidimensional model is highly recommended. By considering content, source, practice, salience, time and place, it allows a holistic and organic understanding of the complexity of beliefs (see Day 2011 and 2013). 56 mentioned Kristoffersen in the introduction to the chapter. He considers religion both to have a private and a public side. It is partly for the individual but there is also a religion of the societal environment. Thus, it is also a cultural matter (Kristoffersen, 9–10). Religion and culture go hand in hand (12). This soldier thinks religion is particularly important because it is the root of all conflicts. This is not so because religion is bad or wrong but rather due to a widespread lack of respect for other peoples’ religion. Religion is something fundamental in life that is important to everybody. Hence, he believes that understanding and respecting religion is crucial (11–12). Kristoffersen has also done a greater effort than most soldiers to achieve this through self-tuition, something he also has shown through his above-mentioned writings. Among those who emphasize religion as the value foundation of society, Alex and the farmer are also good examples, representing each end in terms of both age and hierarchy. Alex is a young regular soldier. He appears not to be critical at all but expresses a classical loyalty to both the military system and the traditional Christian value foundation of the Armed Forces. He understands religion, including also other religions, as good and proper ideals of life and does not consider it a private matter, rather the contrary (6). Regarding the farmer, in addition to seeing the importance of individual faith – especially in crises – he is pinpointing that religion is guiding society in several ways, also for those who do not consider themselves as religious. He says that even though people perhaps are not very conscious about it, religion yields a set of norms that influences our daily life both through the books and in the performances. As an example, he mentions the influence of the Ten Commandments. ‘You shall not steal’ is a very good societal norm, and people agree to it, but they do not think about its roots in religion. He goes on including the intertwining of religion and politics even if we try to separate them in our part of the world. In the farmer’s opinion, it is good that religion is not directly involved in exercising power. Nevertheless, he thinks there is an indirect connection there anyway and he is happy to keep it like that (8–9). Thor, an officer at the intermediate levels, understands religion very much as hope, as higher ideals about morals and ethical guidelines one is trying to live up to (11). He thinks that religion can be both a private and a public matter (15), that there is a lot of tradition related to religion both in Norway and Afghanistan, and that it can be almost all-embracing (12–13). This participant allows a rather wide concept of religion.

What is particularly striking, however, is how strongly personnel who define themselves as non-believers, as James, or even atheists and adversaries to religion, as Mike, 57 still defend the role of Christianity as carrier of societal values and content of ceremonies/rituals. Even if James thinks faith is private, he stresses that it is difficult to believe something alone. As social animals, human beings need others. We need safety, unity and protection. He finds religion to be objectively strong in that respect. When many emphasize some beliefs, it becomes more than a private matter. It becomes a public matter and can very well become a matter concerning the state (9–10). This officer continues claiming that if it becomes that important for a state or nation, he finds it expedient that the state facilitates religious practices (10). We have also seen that Mike sees Norway as a Christian country and that he wants to keep Christianity as a source of values and a carrier of traditions (see ch 2.1.2). When, describing which basic Christian values he does not agree with, he just mentions homosexuality, abortion and sex before marriage. Otherwise, he appreciates Christian traditions and values (3). In other words, given that this statement is covering for his position, I find it fair to characterize Mike’s stance as having a far stronger concurrence with Christian values than opposition – despite the disbelief. My assessment is that this officer reveals an appreciation of inherited values for individual, family and societal life in general that is knit to a strong tradition. In that respect, there is reason to claim that Mike is a representative for many militaries. We see here several examples of soldiers who highlight aspects concurring with what Smart calls the ethical/legal dimension of religion. We also recognize factors that Woodhouse classifies under the concepts of religion as culture, identity and relationship. Obviously, as mentioned in the introduction, Flood has a particularly good point when claiming that politics, culture and religion are interrelated categories (ch 1.3.2). These soldiers’ ideas correspond very well with that claim. Despite considering the beliefs dimension of religion as mainly private, these interlocutors see a clear connection between religion, culture and society. Kristoffersen uses wordings as ‘fundamental’ and ‘important for everybody’ when describing religion. This is confirming Flood’s words that religion is ‘existential’ (2012, xi). Furthermore, this group of soldiers obviously understands religion as a source that is providing values and guidelines for society. Thor sees it as a hope of higher ideals and calls it almost all-embracing. The farmer talks about cultural norms, which are influencing daily life, both through the books and in the performances. From his example, the Ten Commandments, it is likely to interpret this wording as referring to the Holy Scriptures and all kinds of religiously inspired practices. The fact that also the non-believing interviewees want to keep religion as fundamental for nation and society signifies some extent of conservatism. These 58 interlocutors are not in favour of radical change. When James describes religion as providing safety, unity and protection, I find it natural to understand this as his seeing a strong contribution to identity and belonging here. The military may be a culture that particularly provides the opportunity for this kind of values. Considering the interdependence in operations, the need for unity, mutual trust and interaction in potentially devastating situations, religious values probably helps mediating meaning. Concluding, the data has disclosed a diverse perception of what religion is. This group of interlocutors also see the existential function of religion in society. Hence, respecting religion is essential in order to respect others. Based on the data in this chapter we understand that we do not respect by isolating religion to a private and individual sphere.

2.2.3 Religion as Bearer of Tradition The intention here is to give space to voices who stress the importance of being part of a historical tradition. There is a connection between tradition and religion, and soldiers are aware of that. Among those who promote the tradition dimension of religion in the interviews, I will particularly draw the attention to the contributions by Annie, Adam, Bill and Johansen. Annie is a mature, well-educated officer who is describing her relationship to religion as a relaxed member of the Church of Norway (3). When I ask what she thinks religion is, the first thing she mentions is traditions. The officer tells that she absolutely is a supporter of the state church and that she thinks the church is an important foundation due to the traditions. She goes on saying that it involves a framework and predictability that means a lot to her (6). Annie describes the celebrations in church of the high festivals and major events in life as ballast from her home. She confirms that by traditions, she means public rituals related to, for instance, commemorations, the liberation day or the constitution day (7).

Adam understands religion primarily as traditional, collective maxims. My reason for presenting his view under this headline is that he emphasizes how these rules of conduct have their roots in ‘ancient times.’ Still, he does not find them outdated but thinks that many of these norms are right (6). Since this soldier has presented himself as a Labour Party politician (4), I tell him the story about my experience with his party colleague, the former Minister of Defence, referred in the introduction. The purpose is to get his comment on the minister’s privatized view on religion. Adam answers that he does not necessarily see it as a private matter. ‘Of course,’ he says, ‘it is up to every individual what that person wants to believe.’ Nonetheless, he continues emphasizing that in our society there must be no shame related to affiliation to any religion. Thus, he argues, it is wrong to say it is to be a private matter since 59 that means you cannot display your religious affinity. In that way one is perhaps declaring that the community is not mature for several religions. Adam finds keeping the religious traditions particularly important in the Armed Forces (7–9). Adam’s thoughts about the relationship between religion as a private and societal matter are interesting indeed. His arguing that privatization means a restraint on displaying your religious affinity brings about the quest for power relations from the triple hermeneutics as mentioned in the introduction (ch 1.3.2). Can it be that privatizing represents, consciously or unconsciously, the interests of groups in position of power? Adam’s observation shows that delimiting religion to privacy easily is constraining. His conclusion that this may reflect a society that is not mature for religious plurality is thought-provoking and in clear contrast to our self-image as a pluralist society. Perhaps the rhetoric about religious pluralism in the Armed Forces in our time is covering up what really is rather standardized thinking and simply just reflects ideas of actors that possess the power of defining reality. On the one hand, this recalls Woodhead’s point that religious institutions and elites not only have strong influence on the adherents’ relationship to the other-worldly but also exercise significant this-worldly power over their followers and within society more widely (2011, 134; 136). On the other hand, it shows that politics have a considerable power regarding setting the agenda for what religion is allowed to be and what role it can play in the community. (Cf Flood 2012, 195–206 on the secular public sphere.)

As we have seen above, Bill is very aware how deeply religion influences both himself and society. Despite his own disbelief, he recognises and appreciates the significance of religion as cultural heritage and impetus. This goes for religion in general, not just Christianity. He even says that we would have had a problem if Norway were not Christianized (6–7). Related to that, he also mentions several other collective aspects of religion as its significance for fellowship and rituals. He enjoys being part of someone else’s appreciation of the religious (14), and he thinks religion becomes especially important for the collective in times of crises (10). Unlike Bill, Johansen is a member of the Church of Norway labelling himself a not highly active, yet ‘traditional Christian’ as we saw above. This soldier has heavy combat experience, something that has influenced his reflection on this topic in many directions. Johansen thinks that religion starts with upbringing. He gives the example that no babies have figured out by themselves that it is wise to be baptized. Then you must take a stand eventually (9). The interlocutor explains that he is a Christian according to the standard expected by his 60 social environment. Interestingly, he borrows the term ‘clan’ from the Afghan theatre when describing this (51). He says that he primarily considers religion to be a collective matter, adding that it facilitates fellowship. As I respond that I find that view interesting since many Norwegians would think it is a private matter, he even goes on claiming that it has nothing to do with that. As an example, he says that not many would have married in church if it had to be done in hiding without anybody present (52). Johansen has good reflections on several aspects knit to the military and religion. Among these, he refers experience about soldiers’ superstition, use of amulets and faith in miracles that is unique for this sample. I will return to this in the next subsection. To supplement the picture of soldiers’ attitude to traditions, the questionnaire survey includes two questions about this topic. Whereas the first asks to what extent it is important for the participant to keep traditions and customs handed down from religion or family (var M), the second requests the same about military traditions and customs (var N). The questions are inspired by the WVS (‘V89’) although the numbers are not directly comparable with the national numbers there. This is due to both a different wording and a different scale. Moreover, the question about military traditions is naturally not relevant for the population in general. Nevertheless, the answers reflect some interesting tendencies. When asked about the importance of traditions from religion or family, the mean score is 5.8. That is, the answers spread beyond the scale.59 At large, the participants neither disparage traditions from religion or family nor find them particularly important. One can probably say that they respond with a lukewarm attitude. However, regarding how the soldiers assess the importance of military traditions, the mean is 7.0, a tendency to value this to a higher extent. The survey does not specify what kind of military traditions they value or how this relates to religious content or practices. Nevertheless, several military traditions include both religious and national elements, especially traditions of a ceremonial character. We see that in symbolism as the national flag, the Norwegian coat of arms and corresponding heraldic. It is also clear in ceremonial rituals. Hence, these elements are important when considering the participants’ assessment of traditions. Based on the results of the questionnaire survey, we can conclude that the soldiers in this study value military traditions. Furthermore, we have seen that this group of interviewees does not think about tradition so much in the sense of creating a consciousness of being

59 See appendix E, var M for details. 61

Norwegian soldiers. That is, they do not stress the forming of a national identity. It is more correct to understand their ideas of traditions as reflecting societal basic values. The conspicuous key phrases when describing religion are ‘framework, ballast, predictability, belonging to a historical context, durable rules for life and fellowship.’ Rather than traditions as building national identity, it is tradition classified within Woodhead’s religion as culture and community creating identity. This brings the thoughts toward a need for stability over time and belonging to a collective and greater societal context. I see three aspects as particularly interesting among the soldiers presented under this headline. The first is Johansen’s strong emphasis on religion as primarily a collective enterprise. His argument that babies do not get the idea of being baptized themselves is striking. Religion is something that has to be learnt. It must be handed over from one generation to another. This need for learning applies to soldiers who are to work among any population where religion is important as well. These points are obvious, but they are easily ignored if we think of religion as a private matter. The second aspect is Bill’s clear recognition of being bound by and to our religiously based tradition and values whether we see ourselves as believers or not. We do bring some ‘religious luggage,’ consciously or unconsciously. This must necessarily have some effect when we are encountering otherness, for instance, in Afghanistan. The third is Adam’s critical question whether privatization of religion is delimiting for everybody’s chance of being open about or proclaiming his or her religious affinity. If the meaning of plurality is to be delimited by the understanding yielded by those in position to define reality, it can easily become a restrained or even fake plurality. I find Flood’s description of how tradition works expedient as a summarizing theorizing of the ideas among this group of soldiers. He says, ‘By “tradition” I mean kinds of knowledge handed down through the generations along with the practices that embody that knowledge; “transmission of practices,” to use Salvatore’s phrase.’ Flood also claims that ‘the cultural encounter with something beyond culture is mediated by the structures of tradition, primarily through text and ritual, and when religions fail to be relevant they die out’ (2012, 16). This mediation of ‘something beyond culture’ is certainly still alive in the Armed Forces. In the following, we will have a closer look at some interlocutors’ thoughts about the ritual dimension of this.

2.2.4 Religion as Rituals and Practice Despite Johansen’s words above about religion as something public, he tells that he made up his own religion as well, referring to carrying what he calls hare paws and making your own 62 rituals. For his own part he had a cartridge in his right trouser pocket and a bloodstone he had got from his mother in the breast pocket. He says, ‘I had to bring them … You become superstitious …’ (2012, 7–8). In his book Johansen writes that he needed all the support he could get and carried the bloodstone everywhere. This is something he had promised his mother (2011, 99). The soldier also refers other examples like the tying of shoes and bringing a particular cap on all missions – not to wear it but to keep it under the seat (2012, 9). In his book he tells that this phenomenon happened to several of his colleagues. It could be everything from ‘hitting the knuckles’ with a specific person before leaving the camp to the order of putting on the equipment. Earlier he had found it stupid, but he realized that he also had rituals himself. Moreover, he continues, ‘There is an old saying that goes, “There are no atheists in the fox holes.” That is something I can sign for my part.’ (2011, 99). This phenomenon, that soldiers bring amulets or perform rituals before going to combat, is well known. Johansen’s explanation is that since it went well the last time and the time before last time, he must bring these objects to keep calm (2012, 9). Obviously, the mental stress of facing combat situations and possible death does something to some soldiers. By including the use of good luck charms and rituals which soldiers invent to secure good luck in the concept, this combatant obviously thinks wider about religion than most of his colleagues. Another participant who sheds light on the ritual dimension, although in a different manner, is David. This experienced officer presents his own stance when it comes to religion as a not active but comfortable member of the Church of Norway (4). When asked what he associates with religion, he first mentions that it is something non-material or spiritual that can gather people. He refers to some of the world religions but adds that it also is many other things. Interestingly, this officer emphasizes the value of rituals. There is reason to believe that this is related to his membership in a lodge. He compares the religious and military rituals with those of the lodge and yields a fine reflection about equalities and differences. He says that rituals in the lodge have a touch of religion. It is something a group of people shares, you can identify with, and that gives you something. David underlines the importance of repetitions, explaining that the more you take part in the meetings and the higher ranked you are, the better you understand the symbolism, seeing a parallel in the Armed Forces. He believes it makes you develop as a human being and learn to know your inner self. The interlocutor thinks that this is comparable with religion. You have a kind of denominator that helps you get an inner peace. He describes that he feels relaxed in an equivalent manner also when going to church. It does something to you (9–12), but he finds it hard to explain exactly 63 what. David tells that it is good to lower the shoulders, close his eyes and reflect. Whether that is meditation, searching oneself or religiousness, he will leave for others to assess (13).

David also finds similarities with the military rituals, adding that the military ones have more style. As examples, he is referring to shooting in the air and flying with turning off one engine of aircrafts at memorial ceremonies. He sees clear parallels in the predefined character of the rituals. However, the officer believes there is more content that is religious in a memorial ceremony in the Armed Forces, for example. The lodge intends to promote idealism, not religion. Nonetheless, he becomes unclear when I challenge him to explain the difference. The soldier answers that he struggles with seeing the difference and says that what they discuss and base their symbolism on in the lodge is another way of practicing religion. Eventually, he thinks that the main distinction is beliefs. Whereas religion holds beliefs about forces governing the world, the lodge is rather a philosophy where you learn reflecting. Nevertheless, David concludes that he feels the same when going to church, so he wonders with a hearty laugh, ‘so perhaps I am religious then?’ (10–12). It strikes me how David struggles expressing what allegedly is different or non- religious in the rituals of the lodge compared to religious rituals. Since the lodge is not a topic for this study and of respect for the secrecy it wants to keep, I do not push him about that. Notwithstanding, this conversation illustrates how difficult it may be to distinguish between religious and purely secular elements in rituals and symbolism both in the military and the lodge. David is right. Religion is ‘many other things.’ The contributions referred in this section have clearly expanded common ideas about what religion is among the militaries. It is complex indeed to explain rituals and, even more so, what is going on spiritually, mentally, physically and socially when our soldiers describe their practices here, what it does to them and means for them. In one way, it will always be an attempted wording of the ineffable, of human encounter with the transcendent. Definitions of rituals normally include words as actions according to a set of ceremonial patterns through which human beings express religious ideas about the world and try to influence life. (One example is Rothstein 2007, 24.) However, definitions containing other ambiguous terms such as ‘religious’ are not necessarily particularly useful. They easily lead to new questions. There is not room to go deeply into these issues here, but I will lean on Flood’s The Importance of Religion where he elaborates theory about rituals profoundly. Flood says about religions that they ‘are cultural forms that mediate the encounter with mystery.’ He continues explicating that the invisible is resistant to explanation or complete 64 understanding, although in religion the invisible is adapted to the structures of the visible world. He argues that ‘religions … conform to the structures of reality and mediate the interface of the visible with the invisible.’ This is done through ritual and ethically informed action (2012, 25). The soldiers show that they acknowledge and appreciate their ritual action yet also see the problem of expressing what is occurring. Somehow, rituals work, and they work both bodily and spiritually or mentally. The soldiers feel calm and more relaxed. Repetition strengthens the experience. That is natural in David’s case where he comprehends more of the meaning of the symbolism, the more he takes part in the rituals. Nevertheless, Johansen tells something similar when arguing that it worked last time and the time before last time. There is an element of reinforcement in the repeated praxis. It also works both collectively and individually. David tells that it is something a group of people shares. Johansen describes how individuals among the group of combatant comrades may have different rituals. However, there is one problem which is rather complex; that is, how to distinguish between religious and non-religious actions. Flood argues that what marks religious rituals off from other kinds of human ritual behaviour is text or specifically text that is set off as sacred (59). I see that this can be an expedient distinction, especially for analytical purposes. Nevertheless, even though it is hard to find any better way of discerning religious from non- religious actions, I still think it is a too narrow definition. Neither beliefs nor actions are necessarily textual, although they can relate to some kind of power(s). Woodhead also mentions this point. With reference to McGuire, she writes that ‘the concept of religion as quotidian practice puts more emphasis on the fact that religion may never be formally, textually, articulated at all, but operates at a level of habitual practices and the regulation of emotions’ (2011, 133). Johansen says that he carried the bloodstone everywhere. He ‘needed all the support he could get.’ This does not refer to any sacred text, at the best to a popular myth. Still, he describes it as superstition and making up your own religion. Momen sees popular religious phenomena as amulets, spells and magic formulas ‘as catering to some of people’s deeply felt needs, which the official religion is not meeting: a need for answers to the problems of life, protection against the uncertainties of life, and hope for a better future’ (1999, 389). However, in my case I cannot see that the use of popular rituals relates to the official religion. It seems to be more a protection against danger which is more ritual in a magic sense than a response to official religion. Johansen has a good point. As far as I can see, the religious meaning that is given through the act is not necessarily something conscious or logic. It may also include diffuser longing or hope of support from 65 influencing power(s) without any, or perhaps vague, textual basis. It seems that this especially may be so when facing fear of death–because one needs all the support one can get whether really believing in it or not. Smart’s pointing out how some of the logic of sacrifice is adopted by what he calls ‘modern secular ritual’ is highly relevant in this study. He brings up how paying homage to those who have died for us in battle at commemoration rituals renews our bonds with them, and they gain sacred stature from our reverence. In Smart’s interpretation, ‘dying for a nation enhances the substance of that nation.’ He says that ‘much of the secular or “civil religion” … is … performative acts that enhance the collective substance of society’ (2000, 125–126). I think it is important to add that regarding Norwegian traditions, it is hard to talk about civil religion at this point since there are normally Christian elements of some kind involved at commemoration ceremonies.60 For instance, if there is a military chaplain available, he or she will normally be involved. Furthermore, commemorative ceremonies are not necessarily national. When Norwegian forces are involved in combat operations, those are international. Hence, the multinational group of allied forces and their partaking units are often more important entities than the nation. I tend towards concluding that even though we cannot label every use of rituals as religious, religious aspects are often so interwoven in ritual acts that it is hard to define a sharp distinction with general validity. Many soldiers are aware of and enjoy aspects of the ritual and practical dimension that are related to military traditions, and this converge closely with the social and institutional dimension in the Armed Forces. As David implied, there is also an experiential and emotional dimension. I will turn to that now.

2.2.5 Religion as Emotional Comfort Under this headline I choose to draw attention to contributions by Charlie, Bob, Hasselhoff and Edward. As we have seen above, Charlie is one of the most critical to religion in the sample. She does not really answer the question of what religion is. Nonetheless, as she uses the descriptive expression ‘what makes the boat float,’ I place her within this dimension. When I ask if this expression means that she sees religion as a kind of lifebuoy or strongpoint in life, she confirms that it probably is for many (10). I interpret this as her seeing religion as means of comfort when facing hardships and the meaningless in life. Furthermore, this soldier is also clear that religion is not just beliefs. It is how people chose to live their lives as well.

60 For readers of Norwegian Røislien 2011 yields interesting assessments from a religionist perspective about both the self-understanding and the comprehension of ‘civil religion’ within the Chaplaincy. 66

She holds beliefs to be a very private matter. Unlike several participants, she is aware that state and church have been formally separated at the time of interviewing. Nevertheless, since the church always has been a part of the nation, Charlie thinks religion still also is a public matter (12). Bob’s stance is common. He is a member of the Church of Norway who uses the church to keep traditions and to celebrate major events in life (4). However, religion is not something that occupies him a lot. In Bob’s opinion it is something that helps people find meaning, system and comfort in life. Furthermore, he underlines that it sometime appears as a product someone wants to sell. Because of this, he can easily get a strained relationship even to the concept religion despite being open to its possible truth. On the one hand, this soldier is obviously influenced by a strongly privatized understanding of religion, calling it ‘absolutely a private matter.’ Therefore, it is also beliefs and something for comforting oneself. On the other hand, he continues immediately claiming that religion is something more in Afghanistan. There it is not just beliefs, but also a lifestyle (6–7). Interestingly, later in the interview, Bob adds that even Norwegian common sense has its roots in the Christian religion (28). That is to say, religion involves societal aspects also in Norway. Both Charlie and Bob think that religion has a comforting or consolatory function, although they also have critical comments to the role of religion. I find Hasselhoff and Edward’s accounts particularly interesting because among other things they tell about development. Hasselhoff has moved between the lower ranks in different jobs in Afghanistan. His heavy combat experience has put things in perspective for him. In several ways, this soldier’s thoughts are representing a kind of lowest common denominator of the sample. As so many, he is a confirmed but not highly active member of the Church of Norway, using it for high festivals and special events. However, he has experienced a change for a more positive relation to the church since Afghanistan. After losing several comrades, it has become a natural and comforting place (6). Hasselhoff finds it hard to explain what religion is. The first that strikes him is that it can be both good and evil, and it is important to many people. Hence, he thinks it is crucial to understand it. He says that religion is something to believe in, nonetheless, it is more than beliefs. While faith can be more personal and private, religion is public and much more governing to ways of life. That is, religion is more public than private. Moreover, he thinks that the religion you grow up with probably provides the basis for what you believe (12–13). 67

As mentioned above, Edward is also among those who experienced some change in his own relationship to religion in Afghanistan during combat. This realization, which we can call a situational religious awakening, shows that religiousness, even the beliefs dimension, is not necessarily about articulated faith or conviction. It can just as well be a matter of diffuser hope, longing or search for precaution when facing fear. Consequently, I find it reductionist to understand beliefs or faith in a narrow manner. Notwithstanding, the question about what people actually believe, and in what situations, is a theme that deserves empirical studies on its own. It may add interesting perspectives to our understanding of religion. Moreover, this soldier’s thoughts also change somewhat during the interview. At the beginning, Edward is clear that religion is a private matter. He argues that people should be allowed to believe what they want and underlines, like Charlie and Bob, that it is wrong to push your faith on others. When asked if religion is a private matter in Afghanistan as well, Edward is less clear (8–9). This makes him reflect on religion as a public matter in the Norwegian society as well. The soldier specifies that what he meant by stating that religion is a private matter was basically aspects like praying, going to church and so forth. However, he believes that, for instance, universal human rights are based on Christian values. This participant also pinpoints that as long as the Church of Norway is as reserved as it is and does not push anybody, he has no problem with public or even a state religion. His point is not to prevent evangelism, but he reacts against any use of force (12–13). We can conclude that soldiers presented in this subsection correspond to several aspects with Flood, Woodhead and Smart. Flood’s basic point in The Importance of Religion is that ‘religions are somatic responses to human need in real space and time, responses to our strange world, and sources for the construction of human meaning that we might call expressions of the will to meaning’ (2012, 6). Charlie and Bob focus mainly on the comfort aspect of religion when facing life challenges. In line with Woodhead’s concept of religion as culture (2011, 123–125), they consider religion as means to see meaning. Hasselhoff says that religion governs ways of life. He has a good experience of the church related to losses. Edward tells about a situational relationship to religion and church according to fear. This also reflects the ‘experiential or emotional’ dimension with Smart where he, among several other things, notes that the sensations of grief at funerals contribute to a sense of the sublime (2000, 10; 55–70). At this point, I recognize important aspects of Flood’s theory on subjectivity of religion among the soldiers’ reflections. As we saw in the introduction, Flood prefers to substitute the term ‘experience’ with ‘narrative’ or ‘subjectivity’ (ch 1.3.2). By this last term, 68 he does not mean a Western individuality, ‘but a kind of inwardness that is formed within community and set within a web of relationships.’ He says that religions are fundamentally concerned with subjectivity. This is due to their being responses to human need and to the human condition. Flood continues, ‘we can say that subjectivity is formed in tradition-specific ways; through religious practices and the development of virtue, subjectivity conforms to tradition and is thereby transformed’ (2012, 21–22). In other words, the subjective dimension, soldiers’ experience of transformation included, does not appear in an individualistic or private vacuum but in relation to tradition; that is, influenced by historical and collective perspectives. Hence, we need to have a look at the institutional and social dimension of this.

2.2.6 Religion as Institutional and Social Fellowship Regarding collective religion in the military context, I find it expedient to focus on mainly two aspects. First, the participants’ perception of the military chaplaincy is naturally essential. That is, my intention is not to yield any study of the institution per se. The point is to get an idea about how the service of the main actors relating to public religion is considered by those they are meant to serve. As the ‘religious professionals’ in the organization, the chaplains are normally strongly involved in public religion as worship services and memorial ceremonies. Second, due to the resent development mentioned in the introduction towards multireligious Armed Forces and the quest of some voices for religious neutrality, it is also appropriate to have a look at the soldiers’ ideas on this breach of tradition. Notwithstanding, as some soldiers also are conscious about the societal role of religion in general, not just in the military, it can be worth referring some of those contributions first.

Brian is a young regular soldier who appears to be loyal to both the military system and the traditional Christian value foundation of the Armed Forces. His affinity to religion is the standard average membership in the Church of Norway (4–5). He says that religion is quite private when it comes to beliefs, but the visual part is public. The soldier describes it as a network to fall back on in demanding situations. He enjoys believing that there is something after life but finds it less important what it is called and says, ‘if we call it Heaven or the Valhalla is really no big deal.’61 Interestingly, Brian is the only interlocutor using the term institution about the church and religion (9–10). The soldier has nothing against institutional religion in the public room if it is not forced upon you. He refers to the worship services in the field as examples and tells that there is some expectation about participating, but you do not

61 This statement is particularly relevant seen in the light of the so-called Alfa-case and the development of apparently Norse rituals among some Norwegian forces in Afghanistan, something I will consider in ch 3.3. 69 have to take part, for instance, in the singing. Many come just to have a bun and lemonade afterwards. He continues explaining that he has no problem with this out of respect for those who find it important. Furthermore, Brian appreciates particularly the traditional church frame of memorial ceremonies even though they also have internal commemorations in the bar (11– 12).

John, an experienced staff officer who has had little direct contact with Afghans considers religion partly as an individual choice, as faith in something that is beyond your understanding, and partly as ethic or guidelines for behaviour. He mentions the Ten Commandments in particular (9–11). Regarding religion in the public, this officer is conscious that you get something through the school system (12), expresses some uncertainty about how to deal with soldiers who are not ethnically Norwegian but finds padres to be important.62 He ascribes this to culture and traditions and mentions particularly a memorial ceremony for a fallen colleague in Afghanistan as a fine experience. John struggles a bit explaining what made it feel good but thinks it had something to do with the fellowship, thinking about the family of the deceased and the importance of being well taken care of during deployments (13–16). Nevertheless, when giving an example from his experience with a seamen’s church, he wonders whether the fellowship aspect is independent of religion (24). A plausible explanation of this is that the soldier is influenced by a privatized understanding of religion but nonetheless is very conscious about the ethical and collective aspects, something he finds especially important among the Afghans (19–20).

Almost all the participants embrace the chaplaincy with appreciation, undoubtedly the most important social and institutional actor what concerns religion in the Armed Forces. There is some variation in the extent of enthusiasm and about what they appreciate, but often they mention the same themes. Even those interviewed who think we can do without the chaplaincy talk well about the chaplains as interlocutors. Charlie is clear that it is their talk about God she wants to get rid of, not the padres (15). As we have seen above, Steel thinks that the traditional religious part of the chaplains’ activities should be subdued somewhat. Nevertheless, he appreciates them as a dialogue partners (14). Bobby is especially positive to his experience with memorial services, although adding that others than chaplains, for instance, the commander could do this. Anyhow, this officer sees the advantage in the

62 Padre is an informal term meaning chaplain. Among some forces it is used as a Protestant parallel to the Catholic Father. 70 chaplains’ training in finding the right comforting words and his familiarity with the traditional rituals (9–11). Among those who particularly mention their appreciation of worship services are Morgan, Annie, Clive, David, Kenny, Peter and the farmer. Morgan enjoys the traditional rituals, experiences worship as a good way of gathering people, relaxing and an opportunity for thinking about something else (11; 17). Annie (10), Clive and David describe the services as times for reflection. Clive adds that he normally does not go to church on Sundays, but he has enjoyed doing that a lot during operations in the field (49–50). David says they make you lower the shoulders (13). Kenny enjoys the solemnity of the traditional church rituals (11). He wonders whether his appreciation of military services is due to the potential danger of the job. When you know that you perhaps do not come home again, participating in worship makes you feel more secure and attached (16–18). Peter enjoys the fellowship and finds the content apt, although adding that it depends on the padre (8). The farmer offers a wide focus that is highly relevant from a military leadership perspective. He accentuates worship services as gatherings of a normally spread collective. This involves several favourable aspects, some not necessarily religious in character. They are moments of silence and mental hygiene. Furthermore, they are human and pastoral care independent of the soldiers’ faith. He says that even an atheist should admit that much of the chaplain’s service is good for him as for anybody in his situation (11). In that way, in line with Flood, this leader dissolves the sharp borders that often are drawn between religion and other aspects of human life. I think he has an exceedingly good point in doing that. This is not to say that one cannot distinguish between religion and other factors or that everything is religion. Nonetheless, it means that religious aspects are probably more interwoven with other factors than we are used to thinking. As mentioned, the soldiers especially appreciate commemorations. When describing what he thinks religion is, the first Derek mentions is belonging to something (10). He finds it particularly important in critical situations and when many people die (8; 11). He appreciates worship in the field and emphasizes the value of memorial ceremonies (13). Andrew argues along similar lines, being strongly in favour of church funerals. His reason is that he sees the value of fellowship and support in times of grief (9–10). Bob, who we have seen was clearly negative to being pushed in religious matters, also speaks very well about memorials, inclusively as exercise elements (9). He wants to keep the chaplaincy but, interestingly, has not thought about these rituals as religion. (11). 71

Alex and Anthony are examples of soldiers who have a classical loyalty to the Norwegian military tradition and are positive that religion is so clearly present in the forces. Alex underlines that the presence of religion yields strength, unity and fellowship. He thinks that the worship services are good breaks, interesting and make you reflect (6–8). Anthony argues in a quite equivalent manner, mainly emphasizing his satisfaction with their chaplain as an interlocutor and speaker. He finds what the padre says relevant and that he speaks in a current way. The soldier also appreciates that the chaplain both is an easily accessible part of the unit and outside the structure of command (8–10). Among the interlocutors who mention several aspects, Adam initially stresses the importance of religion for codes of conduct and that this is shared (6; 8). Furthermore, he says that worship services are traditions, something that is very important in the Armed Forces especially due to the implied fellowship (8–9). He finds the chaplaincy absolutely necessary, highlighting the importance of pastoral counselling. Adam values particularly the chaplains’ combination of being strongly integrated in the unit and at the same time critical voices outside the normal line of command that can ask the difficult questions nobody wants to address (9–11). This soldier is not only emphasizing the collective aspects of religion more than the common focus on beliefs, he is also pinpointing an important link to military professional ethic.

Frank finds it decisive that you believe in what you are doing, the values and the ethic you are defending when representing the nation abroad (8). As an officer with a varied service over time, he sees and welcomes a development in the Chaplaincy from being rather civilian oriented to facilitating better for soldiers, primarily at the lower levels. Frank talks positively about this profession, especially as a valuable resource for handling losses in a good manner (9). Yet, unlike Adam (10–11), he does not follow my thoughts about the importance of not mixing the roles of being a commander on the one hand and a supporting and caring person in times of crises on the other. After all, being in command involves a position of power and, thus, a possible threat to the subordinates. This leader has a good point arguing that the commander ought to be able to handle this as well in case he does not have a chaplain, although finding good comfort in the values, the ceremonies, the culture and the counselling in grief of the chaplaincy. Frank continues pointing at the need for interdisciplinary cooperation and that religion is most needed in times of crises and demanding situations (9– 11). The discrepancy between the two here does perhaps reflect divergent foci due to their different position in the hierarchy. 72

Frank also yields good reflections about the quest for religious neutrality in the Armed Forces. Hence, his contribution is a good transition to this point. This soldier connects the neutrality question to the separation of state and church, and the school not being Christian by denomination, asking rhetorically what this will cause. His answer is that he believes we will give up our cultural heritage eventually. He doubts whether neutrality is possible and would rather recommend allowing more diversity and inclusion of imams, for instance (11). Others, as Steel and Clive, propose this last point as well. Clive suggests that a Muslim chaplain would be a valuable advisor for the commander (Steel, 15; Clive, 50). Frank goes on asking who the carriers of the professional competence in ethics, morality and religion should be if there is no academically educated profession for it. He finds the discussion where some are questioning this to be rather academic, a bit silly and immature. The officer concludes stating that we do not need to make a problem of diversity before it becomes one (11–12). I ask what soldiers think about making the Armed Forces religiously neutral in both the interviews and the questionnaire survey (var AB). At this point as well, the two methods yield somewhat different answers. The participants appear to be more in favour of neutrality according to the survey. Among the individual interviewees, only four prefer religious neutrality. Three are either neutral to the question or do not know what to think. Twelve are clearly resisting this kind of change. Six interlocutors do either not discuss the theme or avoid answering. Finally, I will describe the remaining five as sceptical to neutrality or adding balancing nuances making them approach some intermediate position.

Between those who argue for neutrality, Bob finds this to be a sensible choice, but adds that a clear condition is that the chaplaincy must not disappear. The chaplains should still be able to exercise both their units and for their own part (11). Steel questions why Christianity is to keep a monopoly when we develop towards a multicultural society (15). On the one hand, Andy prefers neutrality and welcomes inputs from other world views than Christianity (11). On the other hand, he just wants small adjustments, and he is not in favour of letting everybody have their own chaplain (13). Furthermore, this officer is the one in the sample using the strongest positively laden words when describing his experience with Christian clergy. Related to his experience with funerals and other church contexts, he calls both military chaplains and other priests incredibly professional (8). Among the ones taking some intermediate position, Alex says he is an opponent to religious neutrality but understands those who belong to other religions (8–9). Peter thinks the question is more difficult than the representative organization of the conscripted soldiers 73 seems to believe,63 and that there, in his opinion, already is neutrality (11–13). Betty, who has no affinity to religion herself, tells that she does not feel that the religious practices in the Armed Forces are intrusive or uncomfortable. She labels the worship services as generally applicable (13). As we saw above, Frank questions whether religious neutrality is possible (11), and David prefers to stay neutral to the neutrality question. Nonetheless, he emphasizes the need for a common framework and believes most soldiers appreciated the Christian frames when they had tough times in Afghanistan (13–14). Concerning the majority, who do not want religious neutrality, I find the contributions of the self-proclaimed non-believers most interesting. Mike’s response is that this question depends on what they mean by neutrality – a highly appropriate remark. If this means a freedom to wear religious headgear, for instance, he finds it wrong. Everybody should wear the same uniform. He also states that both Norwegian law and service regulations are based on Christian attitudes and values. Mike is clearly in favour of keeping it that way (9–11). This soldier thinks that if you have chosen to work in the Armed Forces, you should do what you are told and keep things as they are, or alternatively quit. Hence, he has no problem going to church, or a mosque for that matter, if somebody wants him to. It is just nice to get information about traditions and how things are done. Mike is opposed to the present possibility to reserve oneself from taking part at religious ceremonies as nobody forces you to pray or believe anything. He justifies this by claiming that Norway is a Christian country with Christian traditions. To achieve integration, it is important to know these traditions (11). Andrew talks similarly. He thinks that religion comes with family and traditions (6) and clearly sees the collective aspects of religion. Despite not being a believer, he values the Christian traditions and is very much against neutrality. Nevertheless, from this NCO’s argument it is clear that he is sceptical to immigrants. This refers to negative experience with antisocial behaviour by immigrants in his childhood. Interestingly, Andrew is also strongly against making Afghanistan religiously neutral sometime in the future. He clarifies that it is okay to welcome new forms, but it is wrong not to maintain the traditions we have and change to neutrality (10–11).

Among those who are opposed to religious neutrality, Kristoffersen, Thor and Hasselhoff are the plainest. Kristoffersen is clearly against a secular state that puts a lid on religion because it will create strong dissatisfaction among the inhabitants. In his opinion the

63 Here he is referring to a decision by this organization in 2008 that the Armed Forces should be neutral to religion. Cf pt 26, appendix D and var AB, appendix E. 74 state should reflect the religion(s) on its territory, and there will always be a presiding religion (15). As an example, he refers to the military. On the one hand, the Armed Forces do not proclaim religion; on the other hand, they cannot define themselves outside religion because it will be there somehow anyway. All religions are accepted but the main emphasis is on Christianity (15–16). This officer thinks that we should do what we can to respect the Afghan religion when we go there (22). Nevertheless, Norway is a Christian country, and those who join the Norwegian Armed Forces should respect the established rules and traditions of the military (17). Kristoffersen is positive to the chaplaincy and field services. He finds this proper since most soldiers are baptized and will be buried from a church. Those who do not want to join, do not have to. For those who take part, it is up to themselves what they embrace. He also underlines the chaplains’ ability to respect and talk to everybody independently of their faith (20–21). Thor thinks that as a soldier and officer, you are obliged to keep a certain integrity. It is considered cowardice to reject the ideals of your state, especially in Afghanistan. He holds that as soldiers, we should be honest about Norway being a Christian nation and be loyal to these values. This is not problematic when communicating with Afghans and it does not mean that you must be a Christian yourself. Thor believes that the Norwegian Christian values form a particularly good basis for soldiers when taking part in international operations. Everybody will recognize these norms, this way of living, respecting and treating others. He believes that these values help Norwegian soldiers stay humbler, less aggressive and more tolerant than, for instance, American colleagues (18).

Hasselhoff finds it important to keep the traditional Christian Norwegian values. This background helps people to learn about and to be open-minded to other religions, something that is important in Afghanistan. Consequently, this soldier belongs to those who resist the use of religious headgear to Norwegian uniforms (14–15). The interlocutor is positive indeed to the chaplaincy and praises the padres’ work before, under and after deployments, particularly when the unit takes losses. Nonetheless, he is not in favour of changing the Chaplaincy to include humanitarian or Muslim personnel, for instance, but holds that those of other religions who want to join the forces should adjust to what is already there (15–17).

Regarding the results according to the questionnaire survey, we see a tendency toward preferring the Armed Forces to be neutral in religious matters. The mean score is 5.9 on the scale from one to ten. The responses here are spread over the scale with three peaks. The two highest are those in favour of neutrality and the soldiers who place themselves in the middle 75 of the scale, but there are also some who want no change.64 I find it plausible to interpret those ticking in the middle of the scale as either indifferent to the question or that they do not know what to think. We cannot draw general conclusions based on such a small survey, but this may indicate that our sample of interviewees is somewhat more conservative, in the sense of keeping conditions as they are, than the Afghanistan veterans taking parts in the survey. Altogether, the participants’ experience of the institutional and social dimension of religion revolves around topics as fellowship, the traditional rituals and the need for interlocutors. The chaplains are important in all these tasks. With regard to fellowship, key phrases are ‘a network to fall back on,’ ‘gathering people,’ ‘belonging,’ and not at least ‘importance at memorials’ and ‘support in times of grief.’ In the case of the traditional rituals, expressions as ‘a place of reflection,’ ‘lower shoulders,’ ‘thinking about something else,’ ‘apt and interesting content,’ and ‘solemnity’ are at the fore. The soldiers appreciate their padres as experts or masters of ceremonies. As for the role as dialogue partners, the chaplains obviously normally manage to do this with anybody independent of faith. As so, one can label them ‘interpreters of life’ among the militaries. There seems to be a lot of gadamerian fusion of horizons going on in their conversations. At this point, it is relevant to refer to Woodhead’s remark about the trend in the study of religion within the social sciences to assume that religiousness is primarily a matter of organizational belonging. She points out how scholars preoccupied with measuring religion have emphasized indicators as membership, attendance, adherence and affiliation. She does this with reference to Luckmann’s criticism of ‘this approach for taking the historically contingent nature of church-based Christianity to be normative for all religion’ (Woodhead 2011, 129). The present study shows that this criticism is apt. The institutional aspect matters, but other factors are just as relevant as the indicators that traditionally are measured in the social sciences. Well integrated chaplains, who manage to interpret the soldiers’ lifeworld in a constructive and edifying manner, appear to be a more important institutional factor than the militaries’ formal affiliation. This section also corresponds to what Smart either calls the social and organizational or institutional dimension of religion (2000, 8; 10; 131–144). By this dimension he both refers to religion in a broad social context and the actual institutions themselves. In the wide sense this dimension concerns the role of religion in the wider society. A major question is then how far the institutional dimension of religion affects the wider society and vice versa (136).

64 See appendix E, var AB for details. 76

In our case this involves not at least the relationship between the religious institution called the Chaplaincy and the Armed Forces as a whole. This is a large study in itself, and it falls outside our focus to go deeply into that here, but it is significant to see what data we can draw out of this sample. Then we learn that on the one hand, the interviews show an almost unison acclamation of the role of the chaplains. The only exceptions are reservations about being pushed into something religious and a few participants who question what can be called the monopoly of Christianity in the Armed Forces.65 The Christian chaplaincy appears as well integrated and is undoubtedly appreciated, particularly as interlocutors and ceremony masters. Furthermore, a clear majority among the interviewees is critical to a multireligious chaplaincy. Nevertheless, according to the questionnaire survey, there is a slight majority in favour of religious neutrality. This may seem as a paradox. However, I do not think it necessarily is. ‘Neutrality’ is a term that sounds attractive and easy to tick, especially when one can ignore defining what it means and what consequences it may cause. In contrast conversations easily yield better room for thinking twice and elaboration. Possibly, this makes some soldiers appear more critical to changing something they feel works well when conversing in the interview setting. The observations in this chapter also correspond well to Flood’s words that ‘religions offer responses to the human condition, and while these responses vary a great deal, they share strong narrative bases that form communities.’ He mentions great narratives such as the stories of the Exodus, Jesus and Krishna as examples and says that they ‘give shape to religious communities and provide moral resources …’ (2012, 21). I will add that also smaller narratives, for instance, about the nation, the military unit or ‘our fallen comrades’ can be included as community shaping. Flood continues claiming that ‘religions bestow meaning for human communities not as illusions – although they do that too – but because they access the ontological referent that gives rise to those meanings’ (27). As Flood is probably not thinking of military units but larger societies, it is natural to ask whether military units may be religious communities. Flood holds that religious communities are formed by the reception of their sacred texts. He writes, ‘People enact, recite, read and sing their scriptures. The enactment of these texts helps the practitioner to absorb them and this informs other aspects in life.’ (106). That is to say, military units are religious communities in one sense. They are so when they are enacting religious texts, something which is essentially practiced in the

65 In the aftermath of the interviews, the situation has changed in the Norwegian Armed Forces. As the Chaplaincy from the winter 2017 has employed an imam and a member of the Humanist Association, it cannot be called a Christian monopoly anymore (Fjellestad 2017). 77

Norwegian Armed Forces, not only in ceremonial arrangements but also in national symbolism as the flag and coat of arms. Quoting Ford, Flood underlines that we live in a secular and religious society [Flood’s emphasis]. He says, ‘While religions cannot be separated from cultures, they nevertheless lay claim to life and present fundamental orientations to the world and responds to its strangeness’ (Flood 2012, 10). Furthermore, he writes that the religious reception or reading of the text makes ‘it live and be relevant to the present moment and [brings] the community of reception into the here and now, into the world’ (110). This combination of being both a secular and religious community is quite conspicuous in the Armed Forces. One the one hand, their raison d’être is another than being a religious community. On the other hand, religion is so intertwined with the culture that it seems to come automatically to the fore when there is need for solemnity or is an encountering of the inscrutability of life and death. Considering the role of the chaplains in the Armed Forces, this intertwinement is both a natural cause and consequence of their role. As we have learnt from the sample in this study, the soldiers generally find it meaningful. How this would be if there were no chaplaincy, is naturally impossible to say since there is no description of such a situation. However, it is not given that matters would be different. Anyhow, it is time to summarize the findings of the empirical data on this point before making some interpretive assessments.

2.2.7 Summarizing Comments Some traits are clear. The notion that soldiers see religion as a private and individual matter has got some deep cracks. I think it is adequate to say that the participants in general think that religion is both a private and a public matter. Most of them perceive the beliefs dimension as private. Nevertheless, as we have seen pinpointed by, for example, James, Johansen and Hasselhoff, some are aware that even beliefs come into being within a collective. The Lutheran nucleus of beliefs is often the first the soldiers think about, but when they are given time for some reflection, as in the interviews, the picture becomes diverse. The soldiers’ understanding of religion turns out to be far wider than just clear-cut beliefs or something else one can categorize as a private matter. I find two typical characteristics striking which we can summarize in the paradoxical expression homogeneous plurality. On the one hand, there is a stronger and more widespread awareness that religion involves several emotional and societal aspects than I had expected. The data collected from this sample confirm the relevance of both Smart’s dimensions and 78

Woodhead’s concepts as good tools for revealing nuanced thoughts about what religion is. The participants see religion as beliefs but also as culture, meaning, fundamental values for society, as bearer of identity and traditions, as practices, experience/emotions and as playing an institutional/organizational role. In that sense there is a wide plurality. On the other hand, all categories, the conscious believers, the convinced non-believers and those having some stance in-between, seem to relate quite homogenously to an Evangelical-Lutheran frame when talking about religion. Their images of the divine, human life and world view persist within this frame when being asked what they think about religion. That is, in many ways we can label the atheists and the secularized Christians as Lutheran atheists or seculars. They are not, for instance, Buddhist, Jewish – or ‘neutral,’ for that matter. This is no wonder given the dominant position the Church of Norway has had in the history of the nation. Likely, the bias towards Lutheran understanding of what religion is will influence soldiers’ encounter with Afghans. It would be wise of the Armed Forces not to ignore this, but rather consider it as a matter of fact that must be dealt with constructively. That means to help the soldiers to be conscious of the ‘religious luggage’ they carry with them and what it means in their encounter with otherness. In other words, the soldiers yield an impression of having a diversity of ideas about what should be included in the concept of religion, although also being part of a rather uniform culture when relating to this. Now we are sliding into drawing some conclusions about what these findings may mean. Then it can be interesting to have a look at how the groups interpret a few of these results first.

2.3 Some Assessments and Conclusions

2.3.1 Assessments of the Findings According to the Groups I ask all the groups about their thoughts of the key concept religion, not so much to get their interpretation of the results in the individual study as to see if group discussions can add new aspects. I also find it expedient to test the findings about the relationship between religion as a private versus public matter and whether the soldiers’ thinking about religion deserves to be labelled as homogeneous or pluralist. Additionally, I address some themes only in one or two groups. In group B and C the questions about the individualized and privatized understanding are basically angled to get their assessment of why this notion is not so prevalent among Afghanistan veterans. Related to this, I also ask the groups about their experience of participation in worship services and similar events. As chaplaincy is a national concern in 79

NATO, I ask group A about their thoughts on this service during international deployments. These are also asked if they consider religious neutrality to be possible in the Armed Forces.

When discussing what religion is, group A agrees that we think too narrowly about religion as just faith in God. The interlocutors confirm my conclusion that it both encompasses beliefs, actions, societal and cultural aspects as well as constituting a foundation of values and a mental anchoring (2013, 32–35). With regard to my assumption that many soldiers are not used to talking about religion and hence have a poor language for this purpose, the group does not come up with any emphatic, unambiguous answer. Probingly, they yield some suggestions. Emphasizing the significance of religion as normative for interaction, the farmer thinks that young people who are not believers do not see the societal and behavioural influence of religion in their lives. Donald, supported by Scott, ascribes this to environment and adolescence. Scott also tells that he normally is not deeply religious. Yet, when staying in Afghanistan, he felt it was more normal to visit the chaplain and the chapel. He says that he became a little religious there. Snoopy finds that the population in general lacks a religious language, attributing this to privatization. She sees a clear parallel in the privatization of death (5–8). Group B reflects the standard answer that religion chiefly refers to both beliefs in something overarching or spiritual that is greater than yourself and a set of demands or special lifestyle. Joshua even calls it all-encompassing (2015, 72). They emphasize their resistance to the concept as a way of labelling people (71–75). Notwithstanding, the contribution of group B at this point is most interesting related to their Afghanistan experience. Thus, it is more adequate to come back to this in chapter three. Group C is initially hesitant to answer the question about what religion is. They obviously find this difficult until I suggest factors as beliefs, practices, ways and rules of living or philosophy. Mary Lou breaks the silence saying religion is a combination of all that. Most of the participants underline aspects such as keeping duties and living up to certain norms and standards. Charles says he finds it very difficult to explain what religion is, even what it means for himself. Nevertheless, he puts forth good reflections mentioning that he first thought about the different religions and then realized that religion is encompassing, even for non-believers as himself. He holds that religion is a way of thinking about the world that permeates both individuals and societies whether we like it or not (2015, 45–48). Concerning the question to what extent they think religion should be considered a private or public matter, group A is particularly conscious about the public aspects. When I 80 am referring the results from the questionnaire survey where the majority says religion is a private matter in Norway but something public in Afghanistan, the farmer says he would challenge everybody who answers that this is so in Norway (2013, 23). His reasoning is that religion is so essential for normative conduct that every Norwegian is strongly influenced by it. Donald tells about his attempt to explain a group of Afghan religious leaders that religion and politics are different affairs. For them it was one matter because it is so in the Quran (23– 24). Group A gives no support for a privatized view of religion. Despite a tendency towards individualized and privatized thinking about religion among many Norwegians, soldiers with Afghanistan experience appear in general to be open to public religion. Examples are the positive attitude towards the chaplaincy and participation in collective rituals such as field services. I challenge group B to consider the reasons for this difference. The explanation of the group includes the following factors: The veterans need dignity, especially when taking losses. Emotions get stronger in Afghanistan. The professionalism of the Chaplaincy when it comes to ceremonies and ethic gives credibility and hope – also for non-believers. The confidence and atmosphere of tradition yield predictability. All are welcome in the fellowship and there is mutual dependence independent of beliefs or doubts. Field services yield a brake in daily routine. Soldiers often have personalities that are open-minded (2015, 15–17). Perhaps surprisingly for some, Duncan, supported by Lawrence, says he understands Christianity as including and open to all independent of personal beliefs. Thus, it is representing easily appreciated values (49). I find it interesting that they consider the Eucharist as a place of decompression and purification from the negative sides of life, a place where one is purified whatever background or everyday life one lives. Remarkably, the one who underlines the importance of this ritual most strongly is Joshua, one of the most critical to rituals in the sample (18–19). Group B stresses the military background of the chaplains as fundamental. That gives them legitimacy and creates trust. Hence, they are a free haven (19–21). Group C also confirms my impression on this point and explains this with factors as loyalty to much appreciated traditions and a focus on colleagues, fellowship and cohesion. They never face strict preaching or religious requirements. Thus, there are few who resist taking part (2015, 16–17). Mary Lou thinks that they see the worship services where military units go to church at the high festivals not as religion but as tradition (17–18). At this point, she corresponds to Winter and Smart’s finding, referred by Day (2011, 187), ‘that non-church attendees were twice as likely as attendees to emphasize and endorse the “traditional” elements of the church …’ George disagrees with my suggestion that religion is privatized in 81

Norway. His reasoning is that the church traditions focus in a very fine way on the colleagues and the fellowship. Mary Lou problematizes that the fellowship they had in Afghanistan had anything to do with religion. According to her experience, they saw little of the chaplain in her unit. Carl tells a corresponding story about having a chaplain unknown to the unit who appeared to be more interested in organizing volleyball tournaments than his job. Things changed totally when their own padre came to relieve him. That one started his pastoral caring for them at once (19–21). These statements reveal that the experience of the chaplaincy varies, although it is mostly positive. This is obviously natural for many reasons. Nonetheless, this point is of importance for the soldiers’ perception of religion. When I ask group A whether they find the population in the Norwegian society and the Armed Forces to be pluralist or homogenous and, therefore, also refer the statistics of religious affinity in the sample, the group yields ambiguous answers. Donald tells that during his tours there has been several soldiers with immigrant background. The farmer holds that we should distinguish between the Norwegian community in general and the Armed Forces. He thinks Norway appears to be a quite pluralist country in the sense that people from many countries are represented, especially in some areas related to, for instance, the oil industries or NATO. Nevertheless, since foreigners do not pass military service, this is different among the national military. The farmer still finds Norway to be a relatively homogenous society compared to, for example, the UK. Snoopy says that she thinks eighty-two percent Lutherans in the sample is a small number. That is, indirectly she addresses the key point that when using words such as large or small in assessments, it is crucial what we are comparing with. She is right indeed when comparing the numbers with Norwegian numbers some decades ago. However, when comparing with the diversity in many other countries, eighty-two percent is still a massive majority. The farmer adds that some, especially younger persons, who actually are members of the Church of Norway, will write ‘no affiliation’ because they do not feel affiliation to any religion (2013, 45–47). Group B is clear that homogeneity is a far more striking description than plurality, albeit the similarities should not be understood in an exclusionary manner. Duncan, the non- believer, and Joshua, the believer, agree that there is little difference between different soldiers’ professional ethic, for instance. They attribute the homogeneity to a common Norwegian and military culture, a common education and agreement about their assignment. As an example, the group mentions how Muslims and atheists take part in worship in the chapel to join and support the fellowship. Duncan brings in interesting nuances by telling about a Muslim he served with who was positive to Christianity during his time of service. 82

Nonetheless, after leaving the Armed Forces, he had become increasingly critical to everything in the forces in a blog. There he had turned just the opposite. Hence, Duncan wonders if there, despite the inclusivity, is a pressure to adapt.66 My comment is that this shows how politically correct answers may cover many kinds of attitudes beneath the surface. From a critical perspective, there is reason to ask if the Armed Forces promote harmonizing due to operational needs for good fellowship and mutual trust. Notwithstanding, Lawrence adds that some units are looking for stereotypes, something that makes soldiers adopt roles and subcultures to be accepted. Those who leave the Armed Forces can easily renounce this in retrospect especially since they often have been lower ranked personnel with little chance to see the overall processes. The group emphasises that after becoming civilians, such individuals are left with the dramatic incidents reported in the media without colleagues to reflect upon their questions with. They agree that much of the understanding comes in the aftermath through further education and conversation with colleagues. Hence, staying in the military system is the best way to process feelings and experiences (2015, 53–62). In group C, Gary starts responding to my question about plurality/homogeneity in the forces. He answers that there is room for diversity, but he thinks that many Norwegian lives are quite equal with similar schools, impulses and patterns of actions. Supported by George, he says that the civilian Norwegian society is slightly more pluralist than the Armed Forces. George adds that it is natural that educations attract persons with similar qualifications (2015, 35–36). The group confirms that they take part in far more military worship services than civilian ones and ascribes this to traditions at the place of work. It is a custom to take part. Then you do. When I ask if they feel any pressure to join in, they deny that (16–17; 19; 22). However, it is interesting hearing Mary Lou’s story about being a woman in the military and the tendency towards conformity to masculine values. She has seen that ‘girlish girls’ could be struggling, and she finds it easier to adapt if you are a ‘boyish girl.’ For her own part, she has never felt that she has had to be somebody else than she is but also says that she would probably not wear a dress and lipstick at a company party. Charles adds that being a part of the fellowship is basic for human beings. Thus, you will always automatically try to do the things that are necessary to be included in the fellowship (36–38). This is evidently a question to investigate further through, for instance, gender studies. I ask group A whether they find it wise to formalize international chaplaincy somewhat more. The background of the issue is that military chaplaincy in NATO formally is

66 Cf the interesting parallel in the demand to evangelicals to adjust to ecumenism in the US Chaplains’ Corps described in Hansen 2012. 83 a national responsibility. Nevertheless, practice is truly flexible. The discussion reveals that the interlocutors agree that the international chaplaincy within NATO works very well as it is and needs no change. The group interaction allows me to understand the issue in the participants’ own terms. Soldiers normally accept services by the chaplain available independent of his or her background. As an illustrating example, Snoopy tells a story from another theatre than the Afghan referring Roman Catholics addressing the young, female Lutheran chaplain, ‘Good evening, Father’ (2013, 25). However, in my experience, this highly flexible practice may sometimes lead to problems for the chaplains. Anyhow, from the soldiers’ point of view, the general impression is that they embrace the chaplain they get independent of nationality, denomination or gender. What matters is that he or she cares for them. When requesting group A for their assessment of the possibility of making the Armed Forces religiously neutral, I include the cardinal questions of this issue; what does neutrality mean, and is it a possible basis for participation in international operations? Donald underlines that since the Norwegian forces are small, we need a stand not only related to the Afghans, but we also have challenges identifying with our partners. When I suggest that the neutrality ideal probably is related to Western, Protestant individualism, the farmer responds that you probably will not find neutrality here either. He thinks that Christian believers easily will say that religion is important, while non-believers easily want neutrality. However, he finds that what they ignore then is how culture, behaviour in the collective, legislation, regulations, politics and biblical principles are mixed in Norway (20–23). Snoopy also questions how anybody can think that the decision-making in the parliament is done in a neutral vacuum (24). In other words, the idea of making the Armed Forces religiously neutral gets no support by the group. The question what neutrality means gets no answer – possibly, because it is hard to give this ideal any real content in a practical lifeworld. So far, the soldiers’ assessments; now it is time for some conclusive reflections.

2.3.2 Homogenous Plurality and the Expediency of the Political Ideals Regarding the supplementary research question about the soldiers’ understanding of and attitudes to religion, I find it hard to draw too simple and fixed conclusions. The picture has many facets in the sense that the participants yield a diversity of thoughts and ideas about what religion comprises. Despite beliefs often being the first aspect they think about, this turns out to be just one of several dimensions. Nonetheless, the plurality at this point seems to 84 remain within fairly narrow frames, so I choose to call the overall picture a homogenous plurality. Several issues have become clear and some patterns have appeared. We have got an overview of soldiers’ ideas about religion that can help us illuminate their encounter with Afghan religion in chapter three. Concerning what soldiers say about the affinity and the importance of religion in their own lifeworld, some plurality is evident. On the one hand, self-proclaimed atheists can appreciate religious traditions, including public worship, and be adversary to religious neutrality. They can appear as more or less conscious cultural Christians. On the other hand, confirmed church members can be atheists or adversary to religion and open to neutrality. Some interviewees seem to change thoughts and attitudes during the interviews. I have suggested some possible reasons for this above but find it hard to measure any plain causality. However, occasionally I have got a sense that there is a gap between the assessment of their personal relationship to religion, perceived mainly as beliefs, and religion in general, seen as a far more diverse phenomenon. It shows that thoughts about and attitudes to religion are not necessarily fixed and static. To some extent the soldiers’ ideas are flexible, situational and relational. With regard to aspects such as affinity and participation in practices as rituals and ethic, the overall impression is that the sample appears to be more homogenous than pluralist. It is a rather uniform group in the sense that the religion they all primarily relate to is Protestant Christianity whether they consider themselves believers or non-believers. A clear majority see the Church of Norway and her traditions as something they value and want to keep. Nevertheless, they do not describe religion as an important aspect in their lives apart from in existentially critical situations.

In the life of military units, we observe both what Skarsaune describes as temple religion and synagogue congregation. It is quite expedient to characterize most of our participants as temple religious. They go to church mainly at Christmas and the great family or military events that traditionally are celebrated with worship services. The soldiers do not give the impression of having strong religious beliefs. This dimension is often, although not always, considered a private matter. Religion does not influence their lifestyle considerably, at least not in a conscious and outspoken manner (see Skarsaune 1992, 14–16). Another matter is that their lifestyle may be strongly influenced by religious values that are intertwined in the general culture, for instance, relating to ethic or celebrations. The individual may or may not be conscious about this. 85

Nevertheless, there seems to be some dynamics when the military deploy, and their lifeworld becomes a camp life away from home. For some there is a movement from being temple religion in direction of synagogue congregation (16–17). This does not necessarily mean that they focus more on beliefs, lifestyle or morality. The tolerance that is characteristic for the temple religion is still conspicuous and the beliefs dimension is still basically private. However, the attendance at worship services is not limited to special occasions and festivals. It can be regular, perhaps every time there is such gatherings in the camp and the soldier is off duty and can attend. The motivation for taking part can vary, of course, from escaping boredom via being on good terms with the padre, enjoying the fellowship and the content, to handling fear of death. As with the synagogue congregation at home, there is the traditional joint reading and preaching, prayer and fellowship. The preaching is normally of a distinctive character, though. The soldiers often describe it as relevant in their situation. Whereas Skarsaune describes the Church of Norway as a double model where we find both kinds of religion but often at separate times (17), the two kinds seem to fuse together to some extent when the Armed Forces deploy. We will have a closer look at how the soldiers experience this in the Afghan theatre in chapter three.

It is not an aim in this study to examine the participants’ beliefs, neither the content nor the strength of these. Anyhow, Lutheranism has obviously been a success story in Norway even directing how atheists and other religion critics think about what religion is. I find it probable that the tendency to emphasize the beliefs dimension among this category is caused by the sola fide being easily combined with a privatized idea of religion and, hence, appearing as a comfortable way of seeing religion for non-believers. That is, we see a confluence of interests with ideals of the Christian revival culture which has influenced religion strongly by emphasizing the importance of personal beliefs and conversion. This concurrence of understanding of religion by non-believers and some of the conservative Christians is interesting as such, albeit the dominant influence of central aspects of Lutheranism is no surprise. It appears more unexpected that the questionnaire survey and the interviews yield different impressions of the participants’ attitudes to religion. In addition to the methodological reasons argued for above, Day’s comment in her study of Euro-American countries is illustrating: ‘Nominalists may not believe in God or Jesus, but they … believe in what they describe as their Christian roots and their Christian culture.’ We have heard arguments along the same line in my sample. Day goes on claiming that asking people for an identity in a questionnaire or census presumes a unity of self and non-relatedness that is not 86 corroborated by her qualitative research (2011, 73). I see the same tendency in the present project. There are obviously also several challenges related to language and communication which can explain significantly why the two methods yield somewhat different findings. We have seen that wordings are value laden for the soldiers and that the connotations the used expressions elicit among the participants apparently influence how they express attitudes. Where concepts they perceive positively collect ticks, negative wordings score few points. Whereas, for instance, religion, go to church and religious activity seem to be negative phrases; neutrality, tradition, memorial ceremony, worship service in the field and chaplain are positively charged expressions. Given that this interpretation is correct, and religion is laden with negative connotations for many, it can easily prevent personnel both from discovering the significance of their own stance and from seeing the societal impact of religion. Correspondingly, positive words, as neutrality (and respect, which is more in focus in the following chapters) can be embraced in political correctness without any critical consideration about the content. Furthermore, several interlocutors, but definitely not all, struggle somewhat finding words both for explaining what they think religion is and for describing their own position. I have indicated some probable reasons for this above. Despite the challenges felt by some, they all come up with good and qualified aspects during the conversations. Nonetheless, others are very talkative indeed, and these obviously have an advantage when encountering religious and cultural otherness in Afghanistan. The Armed Forces should recognise and value this kind of skill that already exists in their midst. Moreover, training in ability to converse about religious matters can increase this competence considerably. Soldiers, who are used to and trained in talking about religion and its influence in their own lifeworld, will obviously have a benefit when encountering challenges related to religion when deploying to other cultures. Personnel, who are religiously speechless, will evidently be more handicapped. I have implied that the veteran soldiers may think differently about religion than others in both the military and the community in general (ch 1.2). Their answers show that some of them do. Especially as an overall picture, their description of what religion is encompassing yields a striking diversity. The privatized understanding is in no way dominant among the Afghanistan veterans. That is, some of them think very privately and delimit religion to be the same as keeping certain dogmas for true. Privatized and individualistic thinking appears to be strongest among some of those who have an unclarified, indifferent, reserved or negative relation to religion themselves. Nevertheless, this is not so for all of these. Hence, we cannot 87 call it an unambiguous pattern. Many, even among those who define themselves as atheists or close to atheism, are aware that axiomatic values to a large extent have their background in beliefs and religion and that religion has an important societal role to play, also for themselves as non-believers. This is also something most of the interlocutors appreciate independent of beliefs. Obviously, their chaplains are a highly valued institution among the Afghanistan veterans. This is not only related to pastoral care in counselling at a personal level but also regarding public religion in the form of the events they organize at a collective level. This staunch support of the chaplaincy is almost unison. One can wonder why when the attitudes to religious dogmas and participation outside the military frame apparently is rather lukewarm or negative, especially according to the questionnaire survey. As mentioned, the belonging- without-beliefs-perspective is not in focus in this project. Further studies are needed to explore to what extent the support of activities arranged by the padres is due to religious or other causes – or whether the causes are so intertwined in each other that they are hard to separate. Nevertheless, I can mention some suggestive explanations. Perhaps the four most important factors are as follows: the relationship the soldiers feel towards their chaplains, respect for the occasions that are celebrated, a camp life with few alternative activities and whether their unit has a culture for just taking part in everything that occurs for the sake of keeping unity and loyalty – regardless of personal attitude to the content. To the first point here, a meaningful service by the chaplains often appears to have been vital for the soldiers’ attitude to religion during their time in Afghanistan. A chaplain who shows the combatants that he or she cares for them both in life and death will be warmly received. Consequently, they also respect and adopt the padre’s values more easily. Second, the militaries strongly appreciate commemorations with the implicit dignity, solemnity, earnestness and fellowship. The chaplains are the professionals in such situations and can relate to the ineffable through words, symbols and rituals. There is little experience with replacing them by somebody else. Third, when deployed to a delimited campsite with strict regulations on the freedom of movement, there may simply be little else to do in the leisure time. A worship service with some reflection followed by a social gathering with coffee can be a welcome break in boring routines. The fourth point has naturally been dependent on the culture developed by the commanders. When commanders have seen participation in worship as valuable for building fellowships, this has worked accordingly, and attendance has been high. 88

Flood concludes about rituals that ‘the habitual and repeated acts of ritual are intentional and performed and make claims upon the rest of life and the broader narrative of one’s existence. … Ritual allows the practitioner or community to become located within a cosmos’ (2012, 74). He describes that the religious act embodies a shared memory one normally is born into, a shared knowledge by a community. The religious actor acts ‘guided by the cosmology of tradition’ and in doing so expresses meaning. What makes the action meaningful is that it is not random or arbitrary (48). It is hard to assess whether it is the rituals and their embodied messages that create the communality, or the communality that yields meaning to the rituals among these soldiers. I find it probable that rituals and communality work mutually reinforcing. Nonetheless, for most soldiers the rituals yield intersubjective meaning that is formed by tradition and through self-narrations. ‘Tradition is internalized within subjectivity through religious action’ (49). The Afghanistan veterans’ attitude to religion includes a relational element that seems to exceed the general fellowship or societal aspect. At this point, the relationship to the chaplain(s) of the unit is significant. Hence, it is also natural that a majority is negative to changing appreciated and well-functioning traditions to a religious neutrality with unclear content. Moreover, among some respondents there is an outspoken scepticism towards having to consider the religions of immigrants in the practices of the Armed Forces. This may also have influenced the positive attitude to keeping the existing order. There is resonance here of what Day describes as ‘believing in belonging.’ She finds the following when describing ‘nominalism’ [Day’s quotation marks]:

… [A] performative, anthropocentric Christian Nominalist may be someone who neither attends church, has faith in God or Jesus, accepts the creedal beliefs of Christianity, nor thinks religion is important in everyday life, but does find the institution of Christianity important when asked, usually in relation to ‘others.’ (2011, 181)

The main difference between Day’s sample and the Afghanistan veterans of this category appears to be that the soldiers tend to attend worship in Afghanistan, but not in a civilian context in Norway and that faith in God may be more situational, albeit not doctrinal. This chapter shows that Norwegian Afghanistan veterans have a far more nuanced and diverse understanding of what religion is than appeared to be the case initially. A privatized and individualized perception is simply not apt. It turns out that what this population primarily considers as private is delimited to the beliefs dimension. Nonetheless, some have emphasized that even beliefs come into being within a collective frame, not within a private 89 vacuum. In one way this is obvious. It is hard to imagine that faith normally can spring into existence as an individual enterprise. Generally, one must learn something from the social environment as a starting point. Although this understanding cannot be taken for granted in Norway, as summarized in ch 2.2.7, the soldiers have revealed that they consider several aspects as religion. The three interviewed groups assess these as societally embracing. The most conspicuous finding in this chapter is that there is only a weak correlation between the population examined here and the argumentation stressed by both the political counsellors and the Chaplaincy in in the documents referred in ch 1.1.3. First, both the referred Public Report (NOU 2013:1) and the documents of the Chaplaincy seem to take for granted that the Norwegian Armed Forces are religiously diverse and pluralist. This study does not support that perception. Homogeneity is a more prominent feature than plurality when considering the religion which the participants relate to in their own lifeworld. That is mainly Protestant Christianity whether they consider themselves as atheist, believers or something in-between. The plurality is more salient in their description of what religion is. At this point the responses are highly diverse. Second, the understanding of religion as individual needs among the personnel that must be facilitated by specialist personnel has some approval among the soldiers. The empirical data corresponds with the idea that experts should arrange for religion. That is, the overall impression is that the participants want to keep their padres. However, nobody gives the impression of understanding religion in direction of individuals’ rights to be serviced by religious or world view supervisors of their preference. On the contrary, there is no overwhelming enthusiasm for extending the Chaplaincy to include other faith systems. A minority among the respondents finds that this would be a clever way to include personnel with immigrant background, but nobody requests it. Nevertheless, there is no tendency towards wanting to be served only by chaplains of their own denomination. Despite the strong lopsidedness to affinity to the Lutheran church, any Christian chaplain is welcome independent of denomination or gender. Third, these findings show that the development we see in the documents of the Chaplaincy from a one-sided rights-based individual understanding of religion in the earlier documents in direction of a stronger emphasis on collective aspects in later documents is apt. This point is clearest in the consultation response of the Chaplaincy to the above-mentioned Public Report (dated 21 August 2013). In the conclusion of this document, the Chaplain-General underlines that religion and world view services in the Armed Forces cannot be limited to an individual perspective but should also include the collective dimension (8). 90

The understanding of the Chaplaincy is here simply getting more in line with the soldiers’ lifeworld and actual needs than what is achieved by the ideals of the Public Report. I find it fair to conclude that when emphasizing a rights-based individualistic approach, the reporting religious experts and political advisors only partly share the perception of religion with the Afghanistan veterans. Nonetheless, the consultative response of the Chaplaincy to the Public Report has come somewhat closer to the collective aspects presented by the soldiers than is the case in older documents. In the introduction I asked whether the privatized understanding of religion has become dominant due to political and religious ideals rather than because it is reflecting the actual role of religion in lived life. It seems clear that my question must be answered with a yes. In ch 1.1.1 I mentioned that Milbank describes ‘private religion’ as ‘invented’. When sharing the criticism of locating meaning in the private realm in modernity, Flood underlines that the concern with meaning of the religions is subjective, not private. With reference to Luhmann, he writes:

The private realm of the individual is the invention of modernity … but religious meaning within subjectivity is not. Indeed, religion is meaningful precisely because it is not private but is the intensification of subjectivity in tradition specific ways. Moreover, this identification occurs only through action: the religious actions of ritual, meditation, reading, asceticism, and so on, which brings people into the world. … Thus on the one hand we have the private individual of modernity, on the other the subjectivity of tradition and the making the world real through action. (Flood 2012, 58)

In my opinion both Milbank and Flood have proven to have an exceptionally good point when claiming that the ‘private’ is invented. This is so at least related to religion and the population in focus here. The subjective meaning of the individual appears always to corresponds to something collective that is shaped in relation to tradition whether this is clearly expressed verbally or not. For the military, the meaning is particularly mediated through the collective ritual actions of the tradition.

In the case of the Norwegian Armed Forces, privatized understanding of religion seems to be dominant because somebody finds it convenient, not because this is a correct description of the empirical reality. Accordingly, the rights-based approach with preference for individualism gives the impression of being a politically driven idea which is not requested by this relevant sample. This leads to a couple of interesting conclusions. First, it seems clear that by this rights-based, individualistic approach, the authorities in the power of 91 directing the development mainly relate to religion with a political agenda. Consequently, they have the misfortune not to take the phenomenon of religion earnestly qua religion but are left with a reductionist understanding. Second, such a perception of religion is probably not expedient for armed forces that need tools for encountering cultures with more collective and public approaches to this. After all, a reason for asking soldiers what they think about the significance of religion is to relate this to their perception of otherness. Flood claims that ‘religions are not merely responses to questions but responses to the encounter with the problems posed through the human experience of being here’ (2012, 24). The next step now will be to have a look at the soldiers’ experience of religion in a culture with a lot of otherness, the Afghan context – that is, the human experience of being there.

Chapter Three

SOLDIERS’ THOUGHTS ABOUT AND ATTITUDES TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION RELATED TO THE AFGHAN CONTEXT

My research question regarding the soldiers’ understanding of the significance of religion in the context where they are operating involves several interrelated aspects. One is the participants’ perception of Afghan culture and religion. A second is how they handle the encounter with otherness in the Afghan context. This includes how they respond when Afghans challenge them about religion. A third issue is their thoughts about the importance of religion during military operations. This relates to both their own life situations and the military operativeness. Furthermore, it is interesting to have a look at a phenomenon that got some attention in Norwegian mass media in 2010, the development of apparently Norse rituals among some soldiers in Afghanistan. While chapter two concentrated on the soldiers’ initial thoughts about religion and what it means in their lifeworld, we are moving more into the second and third steps of Swinton and Mowat’s four-step model in this chapter. Here I focus mainly on how the participants’ notions turn out in the cultural and contextual setting in Afghanistan and some reflections on the importance of religion in this environment. Theoretically, my basis is in Flood’s understanding of religion in existential terms. With reference to Geertz (Flood 2012, 59), he says that ‘there is no religion outside of culture,’ that ‘religions are inseparably connected to culture and particular languages,’ and that ‘it is through language and culture our somatic responses to the mystery and strangeness of the world takes place.’ Flood thinks that it is ‘these somatic responses we call religions’ (11). However, as shown in chapter two, I will add that this does not mean that all religiousness necessarily is expressed verbally. This understanding means that we must see religion in a wider cultural, political and social context in the following – just as the soldiers encounter it, located within existential human concerns in Afghanistan.

The participants have had varying extent of contact with the local population. Naturally, this means that the data are of different character and quality. Some soldiers have 93 been working in commands or their own camps with little or no interaction with the locals. Others have had liaison or mentor functions, living together with Afghan forces. Hence, some base their assessments on theorizing and matters they have learnt. Others have developed their attitudes related to direct practical experiences. According to the questionnaire survey, a clear majority reports that they both have been working mostly out of camp (73.2 percent [var E]) and gives scores on the upper half of the scale when it comes to contact with locals (the mean score is 6.8 [var F]). However, many appear to have been in touch with the local population only in a superficial manner.

The quality of the communication has also varied among those who have been in dialogue with Afghans. On the one hand, it is likely that the conversations that leading officers have had with local leaders have been more significant than the conversations executive soldiers have experienced. On the other hand, some executive soldiers and officers at lower levels have attained an openness among Afghans that is less probable to achieve among leaders in formal meetings. Equivalently, serving in roles as mentors or liaisons have yielded better contact with Afghans than working in technical or administrative jobs. Due to worsened security situations as the years passed by, the personnel have had significantly better opportunities for interaction with Afghans in early contingents than later. In later periods, the policy changed as well. Gradually, the Afghan security forces should take over the direct interaction with the civilian population. Consequently, the Norwegians did less of that work. During these periods, they had more contact with the ANA and the ANP. Moreover, the quality of the preparatory education has been highly variable. In other words, the participants’ understanding is based on multiple premises. To avoid recognisability, I will normally just indicate brief information about these, neither including accurate descriptions of the soldiers’ roles nor the time or place when and where the incidents in focus have taken place. I should also mention that the referred communication between Norwegian soldiers and Afghans often is done either with or through interpreters. As Johansen informs, it is to them you ask the real questions (36). Some direct conversations with locals have been possible in an English of varied quality. That is, several levels of interpretation and potential sources of error may have influenced these data.

3.1 Thoughts about Afghan Religion and Culture As the participants’ perception of the Afghan community and their considerations of their own relation to this are closely knit together, I find it apt to present these aspects in this same section. In the following I will first yield a general impression of the soldiers’ understanding 94 of and attitudes to the Afghan environment. This is to frame our focus on the significance of religion within a relevant societal context. Then, I will present some issues of special interest more carefully. These are primarily the participants’ perception of the role and influence of religion in the community and their responses when Afghans have challenged them about religion. In addition, it is relevant to have a look at their thoughts about typical characteristics and attitudes among the local population, some social conditions and some gender issues. I will complement the findings with data from the group interviews and the questionnaire survey before presenting some summarizing assessments.

3.1.1 The Soldiers’ Understanding of the Afghan Context in General When asked to label their general notion of Afghan culture and religion, several interviewees find terms as strange,67 different68 or remote69 apt. However, it is not necessary to understand this otherness in a negative manner.70 Adam, who has had several tours to the country, adds that he experienced a development. He felt very strange the first time. During the last tour, things were more familiar even though he did not relate to other Afghans than the interpreters. Nonetheless, Adam understood better the significance of his observations (23). Bob, another soldier at the executive level with many tours to Afghanistan, describes a similar experience. First, he did not understand much but after a while he was content with thinking that it was the Afghans’ choice of lifestyle and their cultural heritage (15). He was happy that he did not have a job where he had to be too involved as his commander was. Bob tells how the boss had to take part in a dinner with a very religious setting and found it tremendously strenuous to avoid making any mistakes (19–20). This soldier also criticizes the Armed Forces for not giving thorough preparations about Muslim lifestyle (13). In his opinion this should be improved considerably (15). Even though struggling with finding the appropriate wording, Bobby introduces a nuance that seems to cover the first impression of many when arriving to the country. He says that Afghan culture obviously is different, but this term is too weak. Distant is too negative. He underlines that he does not think that Afghans have lower IQ, but their way of thinking is different. At times Bobby finds it hard to understand them (20). Kenny uses the metaphor of staying within separate bubbles when describing his experience. It felt as being in one bubble in the camp and another when going out of the camp, sitting in the vehicle observing the

67 Morgan, 21; Adam, 15; Charlie, 27–28; Andrew, 14. 68 Alex, 11; Derek, 20; Steel, 19; Edward, 22–23. 69 Betty, 14. 70 Morgan, 21; Adam, 15. 95 contrast between the boundless poverty in a neighbourhood and then passing houses with gold-plated porches and huge gardens close to it (51). Kenny tells that the locals normally met the soldiers with smiles and waving, but some places they threw stones after them (26). Concerning the interviewees’ thoughts about ethnical differences and division within the Afghan community, I am surprised to learn that most of them seem to be rather uninformed. Since this is an important issue for understanding society and conflict in Afghanistan, I had expected at least a minimum of knowledge to be a compulsory topic during the initial training. For some, the reason of lacking knowledge can simply be that this was not relevant for their job there or at the location where they were posted. Nevertheless, others are well informed. Among those who had little contact with Afghans themselves, Frank is a good example. He is very conscious that the country is an ethnically diverse community with strong clan-, tribal and family systems (14). Johansen is a good representative of those who have been a lot in touch with locals. He describes the Pashtuns as an honorary warrior people. He says that the Tajiks also are a warrior people that may cooperate with the Uzbeks if they must. They have a common enemy in the Pashtuns. Nonetheless, when they have beaten the Pashtuns, they fight between themselves. Regarding the Hazaras, Johansen calls them the Roma who everybody can mock and plunder at any time. He adds that people of all these groups could be your best friend if it favours them. When you have understood who is to benefit from your being there, you are beginning to understand what the conflict is about (54–55). Another interlocutor who is aware of problems related to ethnicity is Mike. He had a varied service in Afghanistan and observed how ethnic division was important for the exercise of power among the national security forces. Where he was stationed, the ANP consisted of personnel from the immediate area. These are not Pashtuns. Mike tells that when operating with them, he experienced that they discriminated the Pashtuns. For example, once the police prevented a ballot box from arriving to a Pashtun area during an election. In contrast he considers the ANA far more neutral in ethnic matters. His explanation is that while the police normally is recruited locally, army personnel is drawn from the whole country. This soldier finds that the Pashtuns were thwarted in Faryab. While welfare has come in other areas, the Pashtun districts are impoverished. Development funds remain with the other groups (17–18). Among other aspects the interviewees mention when labelling Afghan culture and religion in general is how deep-rooted and far back this goes in history (David, 18). Andrew underlines that he saw more of traditions and living conditions than religion in the country. 96

He spent a lot of time in the field and had a job where he could observe local customs and get to know the area well without being particularly involved in conversations with locals (4; 13). This NCO also stresses that he does not feel they got good enough explanations about what religion means for the Afghans during the initial training, adding that he realizes this is difficult without living together with the locals and observing worship in the mosque, for instance (14–15). Edward labels the culture and religion as colourful and multicultural. He had the impression that the religious traditions were the best-preserved elements (25). Peter and Adam have similar thoughts about culture and religion in Afghanistan. Peter explains that religion and culture are interconnected closely but not necessarily two sides of the same coin, although they are linked together strongly in the Afghans’ way of life (20). Adam says religion and culture are very mixed. He pinpoints the importance of strong traditions, belonging and fear of breaking the norm. This participant describes Afghanistan as a really interesting and complicated country with exceptionally many layers of history, culture, religion and relations between people (14–16). Bill is a young but reflecting soldier at the executive level. During his time in Afghanistan, the Norwegian soldiers had little contact with local civilians. Nonetheless, due to a position where he could join the leadership at meetings with the ANA and the ANP, Bill met Afghans more than most regular soldiers did (6). This interlocutor describes the Afghan culture and community in positive and respectful wordings, particularly stressing their generosity and hospitality towards strangers (18–19). He has no problem seeing the beauty in the religions (9) and finds that the view of humanity is good in all of them, in Islam as well. He says that we find extremism within all religions, atheism included, and that is absolutely not good. Still he has seen a lot of good in Islam. The main problem for the Afghans is their disagreement. As many of them do not have anything and it is a non-functional country, religion becomes exceptionally important for them. Bill thinks that if it were not for their religion, they would have no reason to live in some places (18–19). Moreover, he presents an interesting reflection about culture as interpretations based on religion (22).

Several respondents emphasize that conditions in Afghanistan vary a lot according to the extent of education and urbanity. Alex tells about great differences between the well- educated interpreters you could discuss matters with and people in the countryside. The Norwegian perceives the latter as superstitious. As examples, he mentions people who feared that the soldiers could see through the clothes when wearing sunglasses and their fascination 97 with light sticks, which the locals called magic sticks (15–16). Frank, James, the farmer and David express similar thoughts. Frank says, albeit somewhat hesitantly, that he found conditions primitive, especially in sparsely populated areas (14). James, who had a couple of young Afghan students in his staff, also underlines the great disparity between the central areas of the country and the countryside. He tells about some Norwegians who, when returning from a remote valley, reported that the locals believed they were Russians. That reflects something about the flow of information. In contrast his subordinates were active users of the Internet and very curious about Western conditions (18–19). In line with highlighting the large variety in the Afghan society, some soldiers also point at the complexity. The farmer emphasizes the big and complex cultural and socio- economic contrasts between rich businesspeople with relations overseas, bureaucrats at various levels, the militaries and people in the provinces. They all have different approaches to life (6–7). Thor had extensive contact with representatives of the local population, for instance, meetings with Afghan regional leaders and security personnel. Since his job both required and gave better knowledge about Afghan conditions than officers in general needed (9–11), his contribution is of special interest. His general comments are first, that Afghanistan is a multicultural and multireligious community in many ways (12). Second, he pinpoints how we find several strata of conflicts even at the local level. As examples, he mentions historic family feuds with blood vengeance, conflicts about property, ethnic rivalries and conflicts related to criminal activities (14–15). He explains that you cannot simply say that an Afghan is an Afghan. Four to five larger ethnical groups and various smaller ones exist in Afghanistan. It is a ravaged and destroyed people. They are subjected to trials and challenges every day about matters we take for granted. It is all about survival. He describes the Afghan as an opportunist who grasps the chance he gets to sustain life. Thor also says that he in one way understands those who are fighting against us. It is a generalization to say that it is the Taliban. The picture is more nuanced. We talk about people who live in or on the verge of absolute poverty. In one way, they have the choice between two evils. When they get the opportunity to choose between the parties or to gain by supporting one of them, he understands their choices (38–39). Several interlocutors are aware of the significant variation between cultures that are promoting individuality and more collectively oriented cultures. Derek, who at times belonged to ANA commanders, tells an illustrating story how these dissimilarities caused dissenting attitudes at the battlefield. This made him reflect on the views about human life in Norwegian and Afghan culture. At one incident his Afghan commander wanted to shell an 98 area because the Taliban had a position there. However, there was an Afghan soldier posted at the spot as well. Derek says that if they had done as the commander wanted, their Afghan colleague would most probably have been killed. As the Norwegian soldiers found that unacceptable towards own forces, they also refrained in this case. Derek draws the conclusion that this reflects different views on human life. Whereas we see the individual, they stress the group (9). Nonetheless, he also states that Norway does not possess the answer book (25). Summarizing the participants’ understanding of the Afghan context in general, we see that they particularly notice otherness in terms of large contrasts, complexity of interests and the priority of the group over the individual in the Afghan community. Some also emphasize positive aspects as finding it interesting, appreciating the hospitality and, as Bill, even see the religion as a valuable and necessary backbone of society. What I find most striking is that some seem relatively uninformed about the numerous conflicting interests at different levels related to, for instance, ethnicity, clan structures, central, regional and local power structures in Afghanistan. This is partly natural since many soldiers have specialized functions where this kind of competence is not essential. Nevertheless, with some important exceptions, who obviously have special interest and/or training, it seems that the studying of such topics has been left to the individual. Those who have given this attention seem to both grasp the importance of the matter and get an apt understanding.

3.1.2 The Role of Religion in the Community We move into the more specific considerations that the sample yield about religion in the Afghan society with James’s contribution. As a starting point, he perceived Afghanistan as a far retarded country, not only technologically but also with regard to democracy and human dignity. He describes it as a heavily Muslim community where people are truly preoccupied with fulfilling the prescribed rituals correctly. Furthermore, they sincerely believe that Allah’s will is the cause of everything that happens in the world. According to James, this tells a lot about the depth of religion for the Afghan – how real faith is for him. He does not just say that he is a Muslim. It is something he lives and is. This officer thinks it is tremendously important for us to be aware of this since it means that no real distinction exists between religion and culture. They merge closely. Hence, you cannot go to Afghanistan and believe you can discuss politics without talking about religion because they are two sides of the same coin. Politics are based on religion. This respondent thinks that this, largely, is good. It helps the Afghans relaxing. They are not so busy. They can enjoy life and religion despite the poverty, the lack of material well-being and general safety. Albeit, James also reports about a 99 tendency that they may condone the severity of the religion when nobody knows about it (17– 18). Interestingly, this officer finds an openness towards otherness both within the Norwegian Armed Forces and among their Afghan partners. In his opinion we need personnel with another religious affinity than the traditional Christian in the Armed Forces. It yields an increased possibility for learning about others before deployment (15). Moreover, his experience is that Afghans respect Christians. He says that they are very conscious of the common Abrahamic descent (18). Nevertheless, there is great divergence in the understanding of life. Whereas the Afghans James has met believe sincerely that everything that happens in the world is according to the will of Allah, the Norwegians think that they can largely influence their own destiny. As an example, he mentions the handling of accidents. While the Norwegian soldiers would call for an ambulance or use any available transport to evacuate wounded personnel, the Afghans would say that it goes well if Allah wants it to go well. The officer believes this means that the Norwegians, whether Christians or not, think that they can influence their own destiny to a stronger extent. It tells how deeply religion goes with the Afghans as well (17). Another soldier stressing the in sha Allah attitude is Bob. He yields some reflections on the understanding of atheism among Afghans compared to Norwegians. He tells that some of the translators had distanced themselves a bit from religion, saying they were atheists. Nonetheless, as it is part of their lifestyle, they still practise much of the same. The interviewee says they think it is atheism when they just have stopped praying five times a day, while Norwegian atheists have rejected all that has to do with the church. Interestingly, this soldier observes that atheism varies according to the understanding of the god one does not believe in. In other words, it is a question of various images of God and negatively worded beliefs. Anyhow, Bob is stressing that the Afghans leave very much to religion. Hence, it has a lot of power (13–14). Likewise, Alex feels that the Afghans had an in sha Allah attitude to everything. Since it is up to God to decide about life or death, for instance, medical service is not so important for them. He tells that some of the locals accepted medical support, especially among the ANP and the ANA personnel; others did not (25). Derek also focuses on their seeing life and death in a different manner than we do. He tells that he did not observe grief in the same way. As an example, he is describing a child who had lost his dog. The boy showed no sorrow but rather amused himself throwing stones at the dog. When I ask if the reason for this attitude is related to the in sha Allah thinking, he confirms that it probably is (20). Derek adds, though, 100 that people are the same everywhere and that the Afghans are common people like us (22). Edward uses a similar wording [folk er folk] several times (8; 11; 25; 48). The participants perceive clearly that the divine dimension gives meaning to life for the Afghans. The phrase which I refer to as the in sha Allah attitude/thinking shows that the locals count God in. A divine will influences their life; when facing that will, humans must subordinate themselves. The soldiers see how religion is used as a plausible explanation for almost anything that happens in this lifeworld, fortune or misfortune, whether it can be explained otherwise or not. Clearly, they touch on how different images of God in the Afghan and Norwegian cultures cause dissimilar attitudes in practical life. For Afghans this easily implies a more fatalistic attitude. Both the farmer and David assume that a link exists between economic development and religion. The farmer thinks there is a disparity when relating to religion between, for example, the poor villager, who never leaves his local area, and the rich businessman, who at times flies to Dubai with money in his suitcases. When I follow up asking if this means that religion becomes less important the wealthier a country gets, the officer responds that it is a very difficult question. Nevertheless, he yields an interesting reflection about the Afghans’ relationship to wealth. Quoting the biblical first commandment, he believes that money can almost become a god. The farmer adds that he thinks he observed, for instance, local chiefs of police, provincial governors and other employees in the bureaucracy with positions where they could enrichen themselves who got a strong relationship with money and the position and power that comes with money. However, the respondent does not believe that this is preventing them from relating to their god when experiencing crises. He finds it more likely that it varies whether they relate to money or their god (16).

David, who did a service where he often had meetings with prominent representatives of the Afghan society (5–8), believes that religion can be related to conflict between diverse groups in Afghanistan. He finds it daunting that it can go so deep that they start killing each other. The officer adds that it must be difficult for many Western soldiers to understand that religion can be so important for a population. David suggests that if people have truly little, religion becomes the common denominator that gathers the Afghan community (22–23). In that respect he has central points in common with Kristoffersen, who also cooperated closely with the local population (8–9). Kristoffersen sees the conflict in Afghanistan as a conflict of religions. He thinks that we should do what we can to respect the Afghan religion when deploying there. Hence, it is especially important to understand Islam (11–12), and he strived 101 to respect the Afghans’ norms, rules and traditions all the time (21–22). For this officer it is basic to become friends instead of enemies. If you do not understand their culture and religion, you easily become enemies (38). Steel underlines how religion has a much greater place in the Afghan society. There it is dominating everything that happens, both the private and societal life. Largely, religion tells people what they can and cannot do (19). Among others who are emphasizing the societal role of religion as an instrument of power, propaganda or as an argument, we find Bobby, Frank, Andrew, Mike and Edward. Bobby has several tours to the Afghan theatre where he spent a lot of time among the local population (5). Like Steel, his perception is that religion is governing their entire life (18). Frank, who only had marginal contact with Afghans (6), asked himself whether claims that were justified by religion really were religious or just religion exploited as a means of power. This officer highlights the importance of religion for building and governing a community and thinks that the Afghans have an old-fashioned interpretation of the Quran (14–15).

The first aspect Andrew mentions about religion in the Afghan society is their observance of fixed prayer times turned towards Mecca and that they use religion as an argument for holy war. He thinks that this is misuse and feels provoked by it (14). Further, this soldier describes how he finds it annoying how religion rules things. In his opinion this is complicating the cooperation (36). Nonetheless, when I ask if religion possibly also helps relations go smoother in Afghanistan, Andrew emphasizes that what provokes him is when things do not work. He concludes that he understands well that the locals do not want us to change their traditions. He would be equally provoked if somebody came to our country and wanted to change things that he feels are working well (38). Likewise, he finds it just as wrong to work for a religiously neutral Afghanistan as making the Norwegian Forces neutral (10). As tradition is carrying values, one should not erase variation between traditions (11).

Mike is clear that the religious leaders in Afghanistan are the only ones in position to ‘broadcast’ information to the population. They can say what they want and often promote themselves and strengthen their own power (9). Notwithstanding, this officer finds it hard to assess what is really based on religion or rather on underlying interests. On the one hand, religion comes first for the Afghans, even in combat situations. On the other hand, they use religion as an argument in all kinds of circumstances as well. The real issue is often some kind of conflict about other matters such as property or animals. Hence, Mike is clear that religion is used as a marker and an argument in all kinds of cases. At events of disagreement, 102 the locals easily blame their opponent for not being a good Muslim. In the Afghan countryside, it is hard to manage if you are considered not to maintain a good religious standard. Thus, in fear of being labelled as a bad Muslim by the religious leader, you do as you are told (13–14).

Edward had an observatory job concerning the local population where reading their body language was essential to sense whether the atmosphere was friendly (6–7). He tells that he had the impression that the Afghans often used religion as an argument, as propaganda or as a means of power (9; 15). It seemed to him that the locals often reacted according to what they had heard from the imam when coming from the mosque. This was particularly evident among the children (21–22). He also states that while we react based on Christian values, they react based on their religion. Edward underlines that he has no problem with that if they do not push their religion on others (9). Further, this soldier finds that the religion appeared differently in various places. He has experienced other Muslim countries as stricter than Afghanistan and has the feeling that Faryab is a little freer than other places in the country (11). We see here that the interviewees present thoughts of religion as both discourses; that is, in the sense of arguments, and as a means of power. As the gateway to divine power, religion does not only empower religious institutions and elites in their relation to transcendental powers but yields them significant this-worldly power over the adherents as well. Religion is the measure of right or wrong action both morally and legally. Thus, it constitutes considerable social power. The soldiers see this. Hence, they confirm Woodhead’s assessment when she is claiming that ‘the concept of religion as power has been neglected in recent times, not least because of influence of secularization theories which emphasized religion’s loss of social power’ (2011, 134). Obviously, we should not neglect religion as power in Afghanistan. The perceived different appearances of religion made some soldiers question whether religion really is as important in Afghanistan as it may appear to be. Anthony did not feel that religion was more important after deploying to the country (14). This soldier admittedly underlines the reservation that he had had truly little contact with locals (37). Except from some contact with the ANA and the ANP, the interpreter and some workers in the camp, he had little interaction with Afghans. Those conversations led to so little talk about religion that he will not say he has experienced any situations where this was a theme. On the contrary, 103

Anthony is surprised that the Afghans seemed less conservative and religious than he had expected. They appeared more like himself (12–14). Andrew tells an interesting story he experienced in what he describes as a big, much modernized city. Once burqa-clad women passed the Norwegians on a bicycle. A colleague of Andrew had got a woman to ease the veil and wave to him once before. He wanted to achieve that again and he succeeded. According to what they had learnt in advance, this should not be possible. Andrew interprets this as an indication that you can easily be fooled and that there are many ways of relating to the rules. Some people are influenced by the outside world and take them lightly. This experience made this young officer wonder whether the locals are religious at all and to what extent he can make a fool of himself among them. Then, at other times you come to areas in the countryside where it really is important to remember the rules. Andrew tells that he was not prepared to face these variations at all (15–17). Another soldier who has similar considerations is Johansen. He thinks that religion is not necessarily so important among the Afghans. His impression is that they primarily are pragmatics who adjust to what they consider best for their survival. Very much depends on the lifeworld where they are at various stages in life. On the one hand, a teenage boy, for instance, can be deeply religious. He is in a phase where he is on his way out of his home but still has no responsibility for a wife and children. Then the religious male community takes care of him, often through madrasa schools. This is the most probable time for any recruitment to jihad. This soldier thinks that it often is a coincidence whether these boys end up in the ANA or other groups. Much depends on the situation in their area (35). On the other hand, you seldom find fanatic Islamists among the Taliban personnel. Johansen is one of the soldiers who have communicated directly with them. In his opinion they are often what he calls ‘ten-dollar fighters’ or crofters who, according to the tribal culture, have to fight when the local warlord or chief is mobilizing. Perhaps the leader even takes a man’s wife as a pledge. The primary interest of the local Afghan population is to survive and provide for their families. The fanatics normally come from places such as Chechnya, Pakistan, Iran etc, while the local warlords often have their motivation in criminal activities and taxation. Johansen draws an interesting parallel to our reasoning for being there to improve women’s rights. He finds it reasonable that they say they are there for other causes since everybody needs a reasoning to support his real intentions (67–68). This soldier also mentions various other factors indicating that the Afghans not always take religion as seriously as one might believe. The interpreters were, for instance, not always so occupied with keeping the prescribed five times of daily prayer. They normally were 104 careful not to eat pork, but you found those who did as well. Moreover, several brothels exist in a presumably strongly Muslim city as Meymaneh. Nevertheless, as Johansen has understood it, visiting these was usual among people with the means for it. He continues telling about an Afghan driving around with a woman in burqa on his motorcycle, people nearby laughing, shouting and bullying the woman a little. When asking what it was all about, they answered that she was just the village whore. The motorcyclist was driving around selling her services. Furthermore, Johansen tells about the access to drugs and being offered vodka by the Afghan police just after finishing their prayers. He reflects on what this tells about how deeply their religion really goes. He says that they are very religious when praying and saying, ‘God is great.’ Nevertheless, there are consistently double standards of morality (36–37), an issue mentioned by several interlocutors, something I will return to in ch 3.1.4. Johansen holds that religion also is a node for the Afghans. It is through the religion they gather and get their information. It gives them their brakes from the daily work. However, when speaking with Afghans, they are mainly occupied with small talk, worries about the harvest and getting enough food for the winter (35). Edward underlines the same point, claiming that the harvest is just as holy as the religion in Afghanistan (29). Nonetheless, they do speak about religion. Alex says that they enjoy discussing it (10). Several tell that they have been asked or challenged about their religion. Hasselhoff’s story is illustrating. At times, this experienced combatant had a lot of contact with the local population. He recalls an incident when he was on duty in a remote village. One of the locals approached him and asked in a rather poor English if they shared the same faith. Hasselhoff tells that he tried to explain in a cautious manner that they did not but that they still had the same god. He attempted to give an impression of being more religious than he is in order to prevent an escalation of the situation. The Afghan did not understand what religion the Norwegian belonged to and when our man realized that, he first thought he had made a blunder. However, if he had lied and called himself a Muslim, he could easily have been trapped by further questions. Hasselhoff has reflected a lot on this incident in the aftermath but concludes that he would have solved the situation in the same manner today (18–20). My immediate comment is that such incidents show the importance of thinking through that kind of challenges in advance to avoid answers that obstruct the operative objectives. This respondent continues arguing that you cannot go to Afghanistan and say you are a heathen in their eyes. Then you ask for trouble and position yourself with a value lower than their dog (20–21). Several respondents confirm the same experience. Alex tells that the worst you could say to an Afghan was that you are an atheist. Then they would not talk to you and 105 called you a soulless person. When I suggest this means that one places oneself outside humanity, he confirms this (10). Johansen says that he always answered that he was religious when the locals asked him. One thing is being a Muslim or an infidel, as the Christians, but then at least you believe in something. However, being an atheist – that is impossible for them to imagine. Hence, if you are an atheist, you should never tell them (36). In contrast to these interviewees, Clive used another approach, especially when talking to the translators. This officer, who in one period cooperated with Afghans daily, also reports that it was hard for Afghan partners to understand disbelief in God. Nevertheless, he was frank about his lacking religiousness but did not feel that this harmed the relationship. On the contrary, he tells about many good dialogues about all kinds of topics, including culture and religion. Clive has experienced a great openness both ways. He describes these conversations as very, very fascinating and nice (9; 39–41). As we have seen above, the soldiers did not experience labelling themselves as Christians as a problem. Kristoffersen’s story is thought-provoking and instructive for militaries who are to operate in areas where religion is a crucial factor in societal life. This officer was to cooperate with an Afghan police chief who turned out to be deeply religious and keen to fulfil the duties as a good Muslim. First, he appeared to be very uninterested in any contact and the Norwegian officer got rather little information. However, when Kristoffersen started talking about religion, his interest in Islam and Christianity, the Afghan’s attitude changed totally. Especially when the soldier told about his journeys to Jerusalem and Bethlehem and was mentioning Jesus as a prophet in Islam, the relations changed. The local leader gave him all the information he wanted. The interviewee’s own explanation is that when not following the recommendation to avoid talking about religion with Afghans, the police chief respected him as a religious man and, thus, someone he could deal with. It did not matter that he was a Christian as long as he was religious. Kristoffersen holds that it is a fault not to talk about religion with Afghans because this is so important for Muslims, defining their whole life. He discovered that religion rather is a theme that is well suited for building relations to the locals (23–25). Accordingly, I will argue that ignoring the role of religion in a community such as Afghanistan may prevent partners from talking about what, for many, are the most important things in life. We should rather empower solders to do this constructively. Thor sees it as a soldier’s responsibility to be honest to those you meet about your background and what you represent in uniform. He says that we have no problem explaining to the Afghans how Norway is a Christian nation but that we practise our faith in different manners. Then it is up to the individual what he or she will share of his or her personal beliefs 106

(15). The interlocutor tells that it varies a lot how Afghans practise their religion as well. He has met those who have a very relaxed, almost atheist or humanist way of practicing. It is virtually as for many Norwegians, where the religion is put into practice by maintaining traditions. Then you have the opposite where the religious is almost all-encompassing (12– 13). As an example, he mentions a highly revered and respected judge. The officer describes him as very friendly and open minded to Western values. In that home the role patterns were approximately equal to what we find in the West. Everybody took part in the housework. However, the disparity was evident when they got visitors. Then the women were not present, and the men served the food. During meetings the setting was also different. That was done outdoors and then the men did both the cooking and the serving (33–34). When I ask whether religion is a kind of marker of decency in the Afghan society, the answers vary somewhat. However, I am not sure whether the variation is reflecting substantial disagreement. Possibly, the interviewees understand the question differently.71 Steel refers to his experience with both Iraqis and Afghans. They are preoccupied with asking about your religion and background. He assumes that the reason is that this is defining who you are to some extent. For his own part, he has answered that he has a Christian background but that he does not practise very actively. He feels that this has been accepted and of no problem for the cooperation. He confirms my question whether the importance of being classified as a monotheist appears to be the most prominent issue (19–20). The farmer affirms my question about this as well. He believes that many Afghans are honest, genuine and deeply religious. Albeit, when getting close to them and they talk about their relationship to alcohol, for instance, they may confirm drinking now and then when nobody sees them despite knowing that the rule is to abstain. Nevertheless, the religion is a culture and community governing mechanism. The farmer describes it as culturally dangerous not to practise religious duties as the prescribed prayers. Some do because they are expected to and feel they must. Even though the wealthy in the cities may have a more relaxed attitude to the religious duties, he thinks they are cultural requirements both in wealthy and impoverished areas (14–15).

Two voices that are reluctant to calling religion a marker of decency in the Afghan society are Edward and Peter. Nonetheless, I think there is some development during the conversation with Edward. First, he answers negatively to my question at this point and finds

71 What I have been looking for is whether religion seems to be a kind of label or involves a set of conditions that a person must fulfill to be considered as a decent or good human being. 107 it more aptly to talk about double standards of morality. That is, the locals say one thing but do something else when out of sight (9–10). This is a point I already have mentioned above, and it is natural to return to it below when considering the soldiers’ perception of the Afghans’ attitudes. Edward has the impression that it is not religion which is colouring people but rather that they use religion to strengthen arguments. Hence, it becomes a means of power (15). However, later in the interview Edward confirms that religion is colouring the culture (17). Thus, I find it logic to conclude that he thinks it also contributes to setting the standard of good conduct somehow. Peter, having some reservations due to little contact with the locals, prefers to say that the Afghans used religion as a reasoning for their choices or an excuse, either to achieve something or to avoid doing something (20–21). When asked about his general thoughts of Afghan culture and religion, Hasselhoff gives a two-sided answer. On the one hand, he emphasizes that he finds parts of it interesting. On the other hand, he thinks the religion has a terribly destructive tendency for both the Afghans themselves and the foreigners there. In his eyes it is both simple and complicated to relate to and the reason is an inclination to mix religion with madness. When I ask in what way, he refers to actions where religion and criminal activities are combined. I follow up wondering if this means that religion is used as a legitimator, something he confirms with a clear ‘yes.’ The combatant describes how he finds it particularly difficult to relate to violence performed in the name of religion among Muslims. He sees an evident contrast to the verbal message of peace. Hasselhoff concludes that he perceives a clearer tendency to violence in Islam than in other religions, without specifying what he means by that (17–18). Some participants focus on the external effect of religion on the collective. John thinks that religion has a very significant importance and argues that if you do not take part in the religion, you risk being ostracized (19). Kenny describes religion in Afghanistan as a façade. He had some encounters with Afghan teenager boys and recalls them as immensely curious. Sometimes they were keen on asking about religion, for instance, how often the soldiers prayed or went to church. Kenny confirms my suggestion that the locals are probably more focused on what you practise than on beliefs and thinks that religion is a kind of image they display externally (23–24). Clive stresses that the individual means far less in Afghanistan (26). He says that the well-being of the family is the Afghans’ priority and describes how the Afghan soldier just had to leave for his family on payday. He went whether he was allowed or not. When asked if religion is part of collective life to a greater extent than in Norway, the officer answers, ‘Yes, most exceedingly.’ He also knits religion to the Afghan concept of honour. If you are to be 108 respected as a decent person within the collective, you must be a believer (17–18). He says that he is not sure whether all the locals necessarily believe more than we do. In one way they are just as much Muslims as he is Christian. Moreover, the officer’s impression is that, unlike us, they do not have the opportunity of choosing. He thinks that they can probably do it deep down, but not externally. Clive can refrain from going to church. His religion is a private matte and the state does not interfere with what he believes. People in Norway can choose whom to marry, to have a live-in girl- or boyfriend, to have children out of wedlock and to have them baptized or not. On the one hand, the officer believes that his Afghan colleagues found our lifestyle exciting. Yet, it was a utopia for them to have such choices (18; 43). On the other hand, Clive also discussed religion with a profoundly believing interpreter who challenged him about his religious stance. The Norwegian told him openly that he appreciated the traditional religious values as a good basis for the community, but that he did not count on an afterlife or being responsible to God for his life. That was hard to understand for the interpreter. Clive tells that this was really an eye-opener for him about how different the two of them were. However, he did not get the feeling that this influenced the good relationship to the Afghan negatively (39–42). Even though the interviewees use various wordings, they see clearly that the relationship between religion, culture, economy and politics is an integrated totality in the Afghan society. For instance, James calls religion and politics two sides of the same issue – that politics are based on religion. Several soldiers refer to what I call the in sha Allah attitude, in other words, that the locals understand everything that happens as God’s will and, hence, out of human control. Steel says that religion is defining who you are. David refers to religion as the common denominator that gathers the Afghan community. The farmer thinks that religion is a cultural and social governing mechanism. Several mention that the Afghans largely use religion as an argument or an instrument of power and propaganda, although at times they show a pragmatic attitude. The soldiers grasp that religion plays an important societal role that we cannot neglect but have also experienced that the picture is not as one- sidedly fanatic as it may be presented in the West. They often perceive acceptance when saying they are Christians. Sometimes the locals also can break the rules of good Muslim conduct. Nevertheless, religion is clearly a factor that soldiers must consider. In short the interlocutors reflect our theorists’ understanding of religion as a phenomenon with existential meaning for both the individual and the Afghan society. It is a provider of values for the culture. David’s point that it is difficult for Western soldiers to understand that religion may have such a strong influence needs careful regard. Hence, they should learn about it, learn 109 relating to it and learn talking about it. The answers to three open-ended questions in the questionnaire survey display the importance of this kind of education as well. These concentrate on how the soldiers would respond to questions from Afghans about religion. Now I will turn to the findings they have yielded.

3.1.3 Responses When Afghans Ask Soldiers about Their Religion The intention with including the open-ended questions in the questionnaire survey is to get a somewhat broader mapping of the soldiers’ answers than possible through the interviews. This is to find potentially informative patterns. These questions have turned out to be adequate. Several of the veterans have confirmed my assumptions that Afghan counterparts asked them about their religion. My impression is that the locals are more curious about the soldiers’ religious practices than the content of their beliefs. In the first of the open-ended questions the soldiers are asked what they would answer if an Afghan quests what their faith or religion is. The second requests their answers about where and how often they pray. The third is examining whether they fast and if so, the duration of their fasting.72 Interestingly, the answers seem to yield a pattern that partly reflects an intentional policy among those who have carried out the preparatory training.

Concerning the first question, the largest answer categories are those who would say that they are Christians, believe in God, are members of the church or use some formulation showing that they want to appear as Christians whether this is true or not. Among the participants 77.4 percent give this image. 10.5 percent would answer straight forwards that they are atheists, non-religious or non-believers, while 4.9 percent would take some intermediate position. 2.1 percent would rather avoid the question or give a situational answer. 5.6 percent have not responded. The soldiers would answer that they are less religious than their formal affinity should signify, but more so than they do when the question is not related to the Afghan theatre. (Compare with var H and I in the questionnaire survey.) They are inclined to say to Afghans that they are more religious than they are. It seems that serving in the Afghan theatre has made many of the veterans think that it is wise to yield pragmatic, calculating answers where their true self-image is balanced with an appearance they find beneficial. Several soldiers tell that they have been recommended to say that they are Christians, and some have probably just acted accordingly. Nevertheless, it is hard to assess to what extent that advice has been official policy.

72 For the wording of the questions, see appendix D, point 21. 110

With regard to the second question, about prayer, the participants have obviously not received any instructions or recommendations for answering. The answers present a magnitude of combinations of practices, frequency and places of prayer. It appears that it has been up to the assessment of the individual to respond to this challenge. Among the responses here, 45.1 percent would say to Afghans that they pray. This is a lot more than when asked about their prayer practices in general where 26.8 percent answer the same (see var L). The largest group within this category would use flexible wordings about their praxis such as ‘praying anywhere,’ ‘at any time,’ ‘when suitable’ and similar. 9.2 percent would respond that they pray not very often, rarely or almost never. 25.4 percent would say that they do not pray. 4.9 percent would formulate some intermediate answer and 5.6 percent would answer evasively. 9.9 percent of the self-completion questionnaires are unanswered at this point. The variety of answers shows a diversity of practices. As with the first open-ended question, it also reveals that many soldiers find it wise to answer in a calculating manner, giving the impression that they are more religiously active than they are. The high number of unanswered responses to this question may reflect an uncertainty about what to answer. When it comes to the third open-ended question, about fasting practices, the answers are in general not inclined to pretend to Muslims. Most of them are clearly not calculating at all. Only three soldiers (2.1 percent) would say to the locals that they fast. Among these, one seems to carry out other Christian practices such as going to church and praying. This veteran says that he or she is fasting for forty days before Easter. Another would also answer ‘forty.’ Presumably, he or she means forty days without making this clear. The third says he/she is fasting one week for Easter. A couple of participants (1.4 percent) would yield answers that I classify as a kind of intermediate position. 1.4 percent answer evasively. 7 percent have left this question unanswered, and the rest (88 percent) would answer that they do not fast. Nevertheless, several among the respondents that do not fast add a comment of some kind. Some include some words about their personal practices. Others would try to present ideas about Christian fasting practices. Further, there are those who would say they do not fast due to their jobs as militaries, and some would emphasize their respect for people who fast. The answers about fasting practices are not surprising. Above all, they tell that fasting is not a widespread practice among Norwegians. A few of them make any effort to appear otherwise. The responses to the three open-ended questions seem to reflect what we can call three levels of calculation. The participants tend to exaggerate the significance of religion in their life when asked about this by Afghans but yield answers more or less in accordance with reality when asked about fasting. Regarding questions about their prayer practices, they 111 appear to end up somewhere in-between in the sense that more people say they pray to an Afghan than in a questionnaire meant to be read by a compatriot, nevertheless, fewer than when asked about their religion. I interpret this as reflecting a threefold preparedness for responding to such questions. Several explain that they were recommended to say they were Christians in Afghanistan but apparently the instructors have not given any advice for responding about prayer and fasting practices. Furthermore, the soldiers obviously know more about Christian prayer than fast. Many would simply answer that Christians do not fast. Anyhow, these numbers can naturally not be used as a measure of the soldiers’ religiousness or religious practices. They just give an idea of how Norwegian soldiers appear when Afghans challenge them about their religion. The answers do not reveal much about the reflections among the soldiers concerning why Afghans ask about such matters, and we do not know whether or how the picture they yield to the locals is significant for those asking. It is not a task in this study to examine the Afghans’ reasoning for asking such questions. Nevertheless, we know that they do. In addition to natural curiosity, it is likely a way to label or categorize the foreigners. For many Norwegians it is unusual and perhaps even unpleasant to be asked about their religiosity. Thus, it is worth thinking through what to answer before getting such questions. The open-ended questions help us draw attention to the challenge about honesty versus what is paying off in self-presentation when meeting the local population; what is wise when one’s task is to cooperate with partners of other religions? I see this as a professional ethical dilemma for the military since there is probably no fixed answer book to consult. There can be many good reasons for answers to vary in different situations. Nevertheless, as with many dilemmas, some answers are better than others are. In the following, I find it adequate to listen to a few voices from the individual interviews to get a notion of how this is attempted solved in Afghanistan. Two interlocutors who chose to lie about their stances to religion are Bobby and Andy. Bobby said he believes in God when asked by Afghans about his religion. When they asked about his prayer practices, he answered that he prays as often as possible. He is arguing that such white lies are okay since he believes it helps solving the mission (13). Andy, whose family have some background in the Humanist Association, responded that he is a Christian. He confirms when I ask if it is right to call it a lie of convenience. The officer would also say that he prays but when it comes to fasting and going to church, he would respond that we do not do that very often. Andy would add that fasting is not a common tradition (15). 112

As we saw in ch 2.2.6, Thor has an interesting perspective thinking that it is considered as clear cowardice to reject the ideals of one’s own state in Afghanistan. Thus, the soldiers should advocate the Christian values. The officer argues that everyone in Norway today, even non-Christians, will recognize those norms and the corresponding conduct. Thor states that we bring our inheritance of Norwegian values when we deploy, and we should be aware of that. It comes to the fore without our thinking about it. As an example, he mentions the encounter with homosexuality in Afghanistan. The soldiers know that it is practised despite not being in accordance with Muslim ethic. However, it is also a tradition that men often hold hands when talking confidently. A Norwegian soldier, who has not heard about this, will easily perceive it as two homosexuals in an intimate conversation. The officer tells that once during an inspection of a polling station, an Afghan guardian soldier took his hand and led him by the hand to the entrance before releasing him there. When Thor asked his interpreter afterwards what that was about, he explained that the guardian soldier showed his responsibility for bringing the Norwegian safely to the polling station. Thor’s reflection is that many with Norwegian ideas of homosexuality would understand it as a gay signal. He calls it a typical stereotype we bring from home. Then it is easy to get a view of Afghans as having a religion where homosexuality is forbidden but still is practised openly. We see a mismatch and from that further stereotypes evolve. The soldier states that the holding of hands has nothing to do with homosexuality in the Afghan context. Hence, one cannot conclude that religious Afghans are violating their own religion (31–32). We can learn several lessons from these data. Thor is right; we do bring our prejudices and can easily misinterpret situations due to lacking understanding of the other. Hence, we should learn to know our own values, including the prejudices, and where they come from as well as possible. Likewise, we should be hesitant with drawing conclusions about the local population. Furthermore, the Armed Forces have only developed a weak readiness for responding to challenges about religion. Many soldiers handle such challenges expediently, but one has obviously developed little common policy for support. Much is left to the prudence of the individual. There is much sense in the advice many veterans got saying they are Christians. However, many appear as rather uninformed about Christian traditions that may create recognition among Muslims as prayer and especially fast. There has obviously been no guiding policy about how to communicate what being a Christian means regarding practices. An improvement at this point will require some education. Those who cannot say they are Christians due to their integrity should get support to get around the questions. It is quite possible to tell Afghans that Norway is a Christian country with Christian traditions 113 without compromising personal convictions. It is probably not the personal beliefs of the individual the Afghan is wondering about anyhow. It seems that the Afghans who have asked soldiers about their religion mainly have focused on what Day calls ‘performative beliefs.’ That is, ‘beliefs that are brought into being through rituals or social acts …’ She says that ‘this version of belief is not pre-formed but created …’ It is about ‘creating an image to influence others,’ but it is also an ‘act of creating and influencing one’s own identity through social interaction …’ (2013, 287–288). As Steel says, the religion is defining who one is, or to use Day’s wording about beliefs, where one is ‘belonging’ (2011). Such matters are information about the soldiers which is interesting and useful for the locals – and it is clearly a more natural thing to talk about for Afghans than for Norwegians. For several soldiers, the privatization of religion is clearly building a hurdle against communicating with Muslims about topics of importance for them.

3.1.4 Perception of Typical Characteristics and Attitudes among the Local Population Naturally, the Afghans have met the soldiers with a variety of attitudes and the Norwegians have perceived their experiences differently. Some have pinpointed positive aspects, others negative conditions. Clive’s story is illustrating in many ways. As we have seen already, he enjoyed a high extent of frankness and inclusion among his Afghan partners. His considerations also reveal that the Norwegian policy towards the locals has not always been consistent and carefully prepared. The information this officer got before his first tour created fear of local conditions. They were warned strongly against eating local food, for instance. The impression was; if you touch it, you will die. Nonetheless, during the second tour the ideal was to operate alongside the Afghans, not on their own. Everything was to be done together with them. The reasoning was that success depended on making the Afghans do the job, support them in that and make them independent. This soldier’s attitude is obviously sensible; you simply cannot refuse repeated invitations, for example, for lunches. He goes on telling that despite eating lots of Afghan food, he never got any stomach issues. After all, they always serve you the best they have. For Clive it was just an exciting and pleasant experience (15–17). In line with Clive, several participants stress the hospitality. Thor tells that the Afghans have extraordinarily strong traditions on this point. Even your worst enemy should be met with hospitality. This is knit closely to religion and the duty to give alms, something that the chiefs and warlords practise frequently. (34). James recalls that he underestimated the Afghans before deploying due to all the problems in the country. He has reconsidered that 114 impression totally. Now he finds them tremendously smart and adaptable, but they act according to situations he did not understand earlier. James concludes that he likes the Afghans. He has seen a people that assesses life differently than he does. Nevertheless, they do what is right for them in their situation (42–43). Despite experiencing a strained atmosphere some places, Andy highlights the hospitality as well. He adds kindness, openness and pride about their country and traditions as characteristics (17). Even though norms and traditions are strong in the Afghan community, this officer perceived the picture as complex. People’s private preferences vary (9–10). Interestingly, David, who had frequent meetings with representatives of the local population, mentions respect among their most significant traits. He finds Afghans generally very generous and respectful to strangers. In this, they absolutely surpass the Norwegians. As an example, he tells a story about his visiting an extremely poor family. They offered the best they could obtain for him. In the aftermath the interpreter told him that families that low on the social ladder often would struggle to afford food for a week after having visitors since the guest is to be offered the best. David told that it makes you embarrassed being a so-called stranger when visiting Afghans. He continues stressing that prominent officials met him with the same attitude. They always receive you very well. This officer says that he wishes he could have stayed there longer. With such short tours, you must leave the country when you start learning to know your local partners (30–31). Here he is probably touching one of the greatest challenges for Norwegian military detachments trying to establish good relations to local populations. Individuals never stay long enough to be able to build enduring confidence.

Bobby represents a kind of intermediate position between the enthusiasts and the critics regarding his perception of the Afghans’ character. As an experienced soldier with several tours spread over a period from relatively early to relatively late during the Norwegian presence in Afghanistan, he has his impression from a variety of perspectives and in different security situations. As many others, he finds the local population truly hospitable. When asked if he liked them, he answers that they are pleasant people, but he adds that some are not nice at all. As an example, he tells a story about helping somebody who had driven over the edge of the road. After lifting the vehicle back on its wheels, his group was scolded for not tarring the road. Nevertheless, Bobby also says that he has full respect for those who fight for what they believe in. He repeats that on the one hand, the Afghans are very hospitable; on the other hand, they may shoot you in the back when you are leaving. This young officer wonders whether this is about double standards of morality but concludes that one should not judge 115 them by saying that at this point. Bobby simply does not understand the underlying logic (18– 19). Such experience shows that soldiers need to learn something about local logic and kinds of rationality that are different from their own.

The farmer gives a two-sided picture as well. Referring to mentoring Afghan soldiers, he tells that on the one hand, they are easily trained in emergency situations and pick up quickly what to do when somebody shoots at them. On the other hand, where Norwegian soldiers are trained in using calm situations for preparations for the next effort, the local soldiers prefer relaxing. They do not understand the Norwegians’ inclination for working always. Afghans do not plan in the same manner. They take time as it comes and struggle with preparing the next situation, especially with thinking about logistics in five days’ time. The farmer believes that this is conditioned by the culture. He thinks, though, that they can learn through observing and cooperating with the Western forces. Nevertheless, falling back to culturally governed patterns of action is also a great possibility (28–30). The officer goes on stating that the Afghans are just as wise as we are. They manoeuvre just as smartly as we do in their world. They must manoeuvre according to security, family, local militia, the ANP and the ANA. They do what is necessary to secure themselves. They are highly intelligent people who do not buy the job NATO is doing for Karzai just like that before seeing that it is lasting. They do not get rid of all other options. The farmer thinks the Afghans can take more responsibility themselves. They must choose a form of government that can last over time whether it is a centralized or a regional version. They must reduce the corruption. He thinks that some are strongly interested in achieving this but if you have a position where you can enrich yourself, you are not particularly motivated for a change. When I ask if it is possible to sum up his view by calling it a critical respect of the Afghans, he confirms that. The farmer is adding, ‘… there is no doubt that the Afghans are capable. But … they are capable within their way of being, within their cultural frame’ (40– 42). Concerning our criticism of Afghan conditions, the farmer says that we should look at ourselves, mentioning distortions in the Western election systems and that we have our own kinds of corruption with gifts and privileges for those in position of power. The farmer concludes that one should be very careful not to get on one’s high horse (43–44).

Whereas hospitality and respect are the main key words that can label the soldiers’ perception of positive characteristics among the Afghans, lack of confidence may serve as a collective term for negative traits. Alex, Derek and Andy tell that they do not trust the 116

Afghans. Alex nuances by adding that he does not trust them a hundred percent. He is arguing with stories of treason, knowing about the espionage of the Taliban and that they constantly meet new Afghan soldiers. This makes you uncertain about how to relate to them (33–34). Derek tells that he did not know what side the locals were supporting. Many were farmers during daytime but joined the Taliban in the evening. He has spoken to several who he claims that he knows were Taliban fighters, but he could not prove it (21). In addition to finding the Afghans untrustworthy, Andy perceives them as indifferent. The in sha Allah attitude is dominant [my emphasis]. Thus, their answer is often that they cannot do anything (18–19). The participants use other wordings as well. Kristoffersen finds the Afghans normally to be truly pleasant. He had no problem talking to them and felt very well received. Nonetheless, his general impression is that Afghans are rather lazy (22). Peter tells about half lies and a lot of waiting and nagging for answers, and when they finally got answers, these were vague. He felt that the local partners were afraid, that they would rather not do anything and were happy with matters as they were. This officer thinks that their way of being and living is linked closely with their history, culture and religion (20). Peter would not yield any general statements about diverse groups in the Afghan people. He knew that his commander had to relate to that issue, but it was not relevant in Peter’s position (21–22). However, Andrew, who had more contact with the local population, felt clearly varying atmospheres in different places. He also reports about low confidence in personnel both from the ANA, who normally get good references by Norwegians, and the border police. The reason for this feeling is basically their poor assessments when using weapons (39–40). Double standards of morality or hypocrisy are the negative terms appearing most frequently in this sample. The issues that make the interlocutors use this kind of phrases are what they presume to be obvious violation of good Muslim morality. As we have seen, James has emphasized how deeply religious he has perceived the Afghans to be (ch 3.1.2). Nonetheless, he tells that they occasionally adjust their ethic as well. They could drink a little alcohol – if nobody knew about it. Furthermore, one of his employees had been to a brothel in Kabul. It was not allowed, but it was important for him to examine such matters before marrying (18). We saw above that Bobby is reluctant to describe the Afghans’ traits by the phrase double standards of morality. Nevertheless, he makes use of this wording when I ask for his thoughts about Afghan culture and religion. He stresses that it is not the religion per se, but Afghans who practise Islam who do that with double standards of morality. However, he adds that he understands that it may become so. Sometimes the religious duties are preventing 117 them in the struggle to cover basic needs as getting enough food. Still, they must keep up the good religious standards externally (16). Regarding alcohol, David tells an illustrating story about a meeting with an Afghan general who held a position in the Afghan government. Once a colleague of David had been visiting this general, the two of them had easily emptied a bottle of whiskey together. The general was an outspoken Muslim who should abstain from alcohol. David emphasises that he does not want to call this a double standard of morality. Nevertheless, in line with Kenny’s description of religion above (ch 3.1.2), he talks about religion as façade. Further, this soldier mentions the impact of honour here. He thinks that honour killings, for example, are nothing but façade. The point is to avoid losing face. Difference exists between the image presented externally and what is going on privately. David does not believe that the conditions are as dogmatic as they appear to be. Albeit, he is adding that he thinks we should relate formally to the dogmatically correct. Then, through closer contact with individuals, we discover that they are normal human beings as well – that they are compromising the outspoken Muslim principles (23). Edward also mentions that Afghans may have an ambiguous relationship to alcohol. Furthermore, he observed eating in hiding during Ramadan. Edward does not assess this as double standards of morality but rather concludes that people are the same everywhere (10– 11). Nonetheless, a phenomenon in the Afghan culture that this soldier obviously finds unacceptable according to his own values is the use of bacha bazi.73 He expresses some vague hints that he would have liked to root out that tradition but concludes that we must accept that the Afghans have other world views and ideas about human dignity (27–28).

Frank yields interesting reflections about what some soldiers perceive as double standards of morality. He thinks we tend to say the same about Americans and does not interpret deviations from Muslim ethics as double standards. Quoting John 8:7, that the one who has not sinned can throw the first stone, the officer understands such lapses rather as typical missing attitudes by fallible humans. If you are in a difficult situation or get tempted, there may be a slip in attitudes occasionally. He adds that power corrupts. If you live in remote places and possess power through religion, it is easy to abuse it according to your own head sometimes to make things work. Frank believes that most people of any population in

73 Bacha bazi is Farsi for ‘boy play,’ a term used about young boys who are exploited as sex slaves/dancers by older men. See IRIN 2013. 118 the world primarily wants to feed themselves and their families. Then they are drawn into power conditions they must come to terms with (16–18). We have seen that several contributors above are coloured by a thinking about humanity that entails ability to recognizing themselves in the others. This empathy reflects an attitude that people are alike even if living conditions may differ considerably. Some of the participants have also expressed their respect and understanding of their adversaries. Bill tells that he is naturally not thinking that the Taliban, as we imprecisely call them, are doing what is good. Nevertheless, he understands why they are shooting at him. He understands that they do not want him there. This does not mean that he agrees with them, but he understands them. He does not look down on them (8). Peter expresses similar thoughts. He says that the Taliban soldiers are incredibly clever. They adapt rapidly. He does not like their values but respects them as soldiers. They are not good at planning and cooperation but surprisingly good with support functions such as communication and medical services (35).

The negative political challenge that the interlocutors mention most frequently is corruption. They normally refer to this phenomenon as an attribute to other issues or in relation to ethical breaches. Thus, I find it most expedient to return to this in due course. Furthermore, it is interesting that the soldiers do not always assess corruption as negative. Some yield valuable considerations about why the system is as it is. One may perceive corruption almost as a ‘societal system.’ In that sense, it can be understood as a backdrop for the social conditions we will have a look at in the following subsection. Summarizing what the soldiers perceive as characteristics among the local population, we see that on the positive side, they emphasize hospitality, generosity, frankness and respect towards strangers. Even the extremely poor offer the best they have to visitors. Nevertheless, some areas are hostile, and some participants have experienced rather unpleasant situations when trying to help locals. Some soldiers find that the Afghans are clever in adapting when living under difficult conditions. What is most interesting in our case is their perception of the Muslim morality, within what Smart categorizes as the ethical dimension of religion. When they observe deviation of what they think is good Muslim conduct, some interpret this as double standards of morality. The incidents they mention are above all drinking alcohol, eating during the fast and the use of prostitutes, in other words, matters related to individual ethics. Others prefer not to talk about double standards but understand departure from the norms more as pragmatism in a hard lifeworld or as the human lapses one finds everywhere. The soldiers see that some Afghans are more preoccupied with façade religion and appearing 119 as good Muslims externally to their compatriots than they are both privately and among Norwegians. The interviewees’ comments about what they understand as hypocrisy reveal that most of the soldiers seem to be relatively well informed about some basic Muslim ethical standards, but less so about local variation and cultural plurality. However, some of them appear to be good at reading why the Afghans act as they do. On the negative side, other key words are indifference and laziness, often expressed religiously through the in sha Allah. Several interviewees tell that they do not trust the Afghans. This is due to being unsure what side they are supporting in the conflicts. I find Johansen’s and the farmer’s words about the Afghan pragmatic attitude to their security situation to be a plausible understanding of this kind of experience. As David states, when our personnel stay there for just some months just to be replaced repeatedly by new contingents, we cannot expect to be able to build much confidence among the locals. It is natural that they adjust their support according to the force that is in power. The Afghans know too well that power relations may change and adapt to what they find best for themselves at any time.

3.1.5 Understanding of Some Social Conditions Neither religion nor what soldiers might perceive as the characteristic features of a nation exist in a societal vacuum. I have already hinted to some social conditions above but add some aspects to reflect what the interlocutors have been pinpointing. Among living conditions in the Afghan community, the encounter with material poverty has been the most challenging. They have focused on some power structures as well. Some have experienced the encounter with Afghan culture as a shock. Larry mentions key words as the various ethnical groups, the patriarchal family system, and the tribal and almost feudal village system. He adds that it is almost painful to see how the Afghans treat each other, and you ask yourself why they do not become like us. Yet, he says that when you have been there a while, you understand that they do not have the same conditions neither for thinking differently nor changing things easily. The soldier continues telling that their treatment of women and children is not nice. He particularly reacts to the view of women. He also refers to the girls’ schools we are trying to introduce in a sneaky manner and hopes they are not burned down or blown up. Another matter is the enormous contrasts between the villa- like compounds and those living in hopeless poverty in the streets outside. Larry claims that if you just belong to the right families, you get positions (14–16). Annie emphasizes the contrast between the poverty among the Afghans and our lives and possibilities (24). Clive compares the Afghan community with Norway several hundred 120 years ago, a time when both religion and the family institution had a much stronger influence. Where we expect the state to take care of us when getting sick or old, they are dependent on the family (23–24; 26). Morgan says that the Afghans live in the Stone Age. Nevertheless, he adds that this does not mean that he looks down on them. On the contrary, he describes them as very hospitable and is positively surprised that they were not more opposed to foreign soldiers (21–22; 26). However, Anthony tells that the encounter with Afghanistan meant no culture shock at all for him. He ascribes this to being used to travelling in Muslim countries before this deployment (12).

It seems that the soldiers that react most negatively to the conditions in Afghanistan relate this to low material standard, unequal distribution and repression of women – issues that are in sharp contrast to the egalitarian welfare and family ideals of the Norwegian community. As we have seen above, some respondents think that a concurrence exists between the poor economic development and the dominance of religion in society. Others see a connection between low education and strong religiousness. For instance, Edward links the conservative thinking and world view in Afghanistan to lacking enlightenment, while he finds that the locals who are educated, as the interpreter, have a more Western-like view of religion. They see it as a private matter (14–15). Steel knits the dominance of religion in the Afghan community to the level of education as well. He thinks that the religion has a firmer grip on those with little education. Nonetheless, he pinpoints that this is guesswork, not something he can substantiate (20).

None of the participants say directly that Norwegian or Western values are developed and the Afghan undeveloped, and they are careful not to use attributes as ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ ‘better’ or ‘worse.’ Nevertheless, I cannot escape the impression that some feeling or idea of superiority is hiding behind what is outspoken. I interpret this as reflecting a tacit, albeit not necessarily conscious, development optimism where the Western society, with its promotion of education, material welfare and rights, is considered superior to more traditionalist societies. I do not mean this as a normative assessment of the soldiers’ attitudes, just that they – as we can expect – are deeply rooted in Western value standards. Nonetheless, concerning the soldiers’ perception of the Afghans’ attitudes, the picture is balanced in many ways. Some admit bluntly that they do not understand. Bobby, a soldier with sustained experience in observing the local population, tells that he still finds it difficult to interpret the Afghans’ body language. As examples, he mentions that two may seem to be quarrelling noisily while they really are the best of friends and that Afghans have quite different intimacy zones (23). 121

Naturally, in a poor country such as Afghanistan, several locals consider the presence of Western soldiers as a possibility to achieve benefits. Clive and Betty tell a couple of thought-provoking stories. When guarding vehicles at the Norwegian embassy, a gang of boys approached Clive and his mates. They were trying to sell things to the militaries, begging a little and chatting with them. The boys had obviously divided the soldiers between themselves. A little chap had prior claim to Clive. The boy had taught himself English, French, German and Russian in addition to his Pashto to get in touch with the Westerners. The officer calls this hope of getting benefits survival tactics. It was winter. They went barefoot and the boy asked Clive to get him some boots or shoes from Norway. The soldier describes this incident as the strongest meeting with the local population during that tour. It really makes you see the problems at home in a new perspective (7–8). Betty had some contact with Afghan employees in their camp. These were strongly interested in getting hold of benefits as well, especially footwear, far more than they possibly could wear out themselves. She was unsure whether the local workers gave the equipment to family and friends or sold it, but it disappeared. Thus, they had to introduce better control systems (6–7). These stories highlight the ethical challenges of relating to poverty for soldiers in operations abroad. The various kinds of loyalties and power structures are difficult to comprehend as well. Peter, who met representatives of the army and police force, experienced the Afghan system as surprisingly messy. He questions their selection of personnel and their organisation, and he feels that these were based mostly on cronyism, especially among higher strata. The Norwegian says that the Afghan colleagues were looking for what we could do for them all the time rather than joint solutions (17–18). To me, this experience sounds as an example of a classical culture clash. Kenny yields good reflections about different kinds of management, describing it as we are coming there trying to push a state system on somebody who does not know what a state is. Afghan farmers have no feeling of a state (51). John refers a British general who had relations to Afghan politicians. According to that commander, ordinary Afghans do not know what democracy means (11). Alex tells that many among the local population do not believe in democratization. They rely on their own cultural heritage and that is something that makes them proud (33). Mike says that what surprised him mostly when cooperating with the Afghan Army was how exceptionally cumbersome it is. Where we are trained to take initiatives and do something, an Afghan platoon commander does nothing until his company commander tells him exactly what to do. It changes nothing if the leader is far away. This officer finds it so 122 frustrating that all initiative must come from superiors (17). In contrast to Mike, Brian, who worked on the level of executive soldiers, describes the Afghan colleagues in more positive terms. He finds them eager to learn (8), although also felt some frustration with the hierarchical system. The dialogue with Afghans always went from leader to leader. If you want to talk to someone, the commander must contact the village elder or the imam. Then you are likely to get the official opinions of leaders instead of honest points of view from those who disagree (17–18). We have seen that with regard to social conditions in the Afghan context, the encounter with poverty, the accompanying search for benefits by locals and relating to far stricter hierarchical power structures than they are accustomed to have been the most salient challenge for the Norwegians. This is natural with their background in a society with a well- functioning welfare state and relatively strong egalitarianism. What I find particularly interesting at this point, is that few interlocutors refer to concepts of honour as an important phenomenon. As we have seen above, Johansen calls the Pashtuns an honorary people (ch 3.1.1), Clive relates honour to religious beliefs as a necessity to gain respect (ch 3.1.2) and David mentions honour as the motivation for killing (ch 3.1.4). These are important aspects, but the lacking focus on this point among many does probably reveal quite much about Norwegian soldiers’ perspective. In general, it seems that many of them are not used to thinking about categories as concepts of honour and protocol. Furthermore, the soldiers do not seem to perceive the connection between the hierarchical societal system and another image of God in Afghanistan than they are familiar with from Norway. It is natural that a society with values based on a religion with a strict and authoritarian image of God easily also develop authoritarian societal power structures. When Norwegians do not think along such lines, this may be a consequence of not being aware of the impact of religion on the values, power structures included, in their own country. If one perceives religion and politics as separate entities, it is hard to grasp how they mutually influence each other. However, as we shall see in chapter four, phenomena as honour and authority are just as crucial as tolerance when attempting to fill the core value respect with content. Now it is time to turn to gender issues, a topic that is more conspicuous.

3.1.6 Consideration of Some Gender Issues In addition to the above-mentioned bacha bazi tradition, the issue that probably is most difficult to accept for Norwegians in Afghan culture is the treatment of women. I find it natural to start with perspectives presented by the female participants at this point, albeit I 123 have the impression that they do not want to be labelled as female soldiers. They are soldiers and professionals on equal terms with males. Nonetheless, when serving in Afghanistan, they may have experiences and thoughts that are unique for women. Thereafter, I will also include men’s considerations. Moreover, the reader should be aware that women in the Norwegian Armed Forces in Afghanistan primarily have worked in what are male roles in the Afghan community and thus largely in a male environment. This delimits the scope of local women’s perspectives they possibly have experienced. The tree females in this sample who have yielded contributions to the individual interviews represent three strata in the military hierarchy and different positions occupationally. While Annie was a relatively high-ranking officer who was working solely among own forces (5), Betty was a young officer serving mainly in their camp. Nevertheless, she also had tasks outside the camp and better possibilities for meeting Afghans than Annie had (6–8). Charlie was a soldier on the executive level with relatively much contact with locals, especially during her first tour (8). Annie tells that she had very little contact with Afghan women. She wanted to, but it was exceedingly difficult. At the few occasions she was out of camp, local women were dressed in burqas and appeared as unapproachable. When I ask what she felt about that, she responds that she found it tremendously sad, that many women are suffering and have few possibilities. Annie describes that she was touched by seeing the poverty and misery, knowing how little they could do about it (13–14). Nonetheless, despite the poverty and the lack of education, the Afghans seem to have a respectful refinement. Annie agrees when I suggest that this may be due to their value system; where we see the burqa as a kind of prison, perhaps they rather see protection. She adds that it looks frightening and anonymizing when they wear these ghostly clothes, but she does not know what they feel about it themselves (18). Betty took part in some social patrols and experienced that Afghans approached her at several occasions. Burqa-clad women contacted her in the streets. That did not happen to male soldiers. She got the feeling that some of the locals were concerned about her appearance, for instance, that they commented on her outfit and blond hair. She found it difficult to interpret the significance of these incidents due to language problems. Nevertheless, Betty did experience it as hospitality, as a kind of pleasant welcome (8–9). During one such social patrol, a little boy of about six years shouted, ‘Hi, you woman, why do you not wear a burqa?’ Betty says that she held the hand to her heart and smiled at him. Then he answered, ‘I love you.’ She tells how that incident made her start reflecting. Already as a six-year-old, he noticed her as an exotic unveiled woman. The officer felt really visible and was frightened by 124 how strong these issues are. They give perspective to the cultural aspects (20). Such experiences elicit several challenges for the military code of conduct regarding gender issues.

When I ask whether the Afghan society also has good norms, Betty responds that it is hard to know since she never got a chance to talk to the locals. Her only experience was what she could observe and interpret herself. Nevertheless, the interviewee also refers to another experience that was not accessible for her male colleagues. She took part in the celebration of Women’s Day together with lots of women, pinpointing that this event made the strongest impression on her. The place was well fenced with no visibility from the outside, so the women took off their burqas. Betty remembers that she found the event very interesting but can recall neither the content of the speeches nor the name of the organizer. There were two women present that did not take off their burqas. They were sitting pitifully with a stoop under a tree. When asking her interpreter about those women, she understood that they were just waiting until the meeting was over to beg for money. The soldier wanted to be inclusive and asked through the interpreter if they would come and sit with her party, but they could not do that. The interpreter was a man. That could perhaps have influenced their answering, but this is naturally hard to know (15–16). My assessment is that this story may reflect ethnical disparity in the Afghan community. This soldier has not been preoccupied with ethnical differences. Nonetheless, Betty tells about her stance between feeling sympathy with women and children and her accepting the norm of the Afghans (19).

Charlie tells that she has met various kinds of women in Afghanistan. Normally, they wear burqas, but some wear hijabs and others no veiling (15). This soldier has seen many kinds of headgear, especially in the countryside where it often depends on their participation in work (24). A religious gynaecologist, she met, had a hijab combined with a tight fitting, pink costume (15). In other words, the reality is literally more colourful than the picture that often is drawn of Afghan women in the West. At one occasion the interviewee got a chance to spend some time behind a compound wall together with the women. There was also a male interpreter present and a male family member as a chaperone. However, when they after a while got more confidence in both the interpreter and this foreigner, the chaperone disappeared, and the conversation became more valuable. The women asked why the soldier did not wear a veil and why her hair was so dirty and tangled. (She had spent seven days in the field.) They were very curious about her and found it exceedingly exciting to meet this Western woman, who had an education, a job and was not accompanied by a man (16–17). 125

This soldier believes that the main problem in Afghanistan is not religion but the interpretation that came with the Taliban. She says that the women are sorry for the Western women for being scantily dressed and being exposed to men (17). When I ask whether she finds the Afghan view of women strange and perhaps provocative, she answers, ‘at times.’ Albeit, she adds, it is not necessarily about their religion. It relates to their values and attitudes as consequences of religion. Their basic faith is not so bad, but the norms and customs that have come out of it could be hard to handle (20–21). The participant tells that she has met many fine individuals and had a lot of fun with Afghan colleagues. She almost says that they look at her as one of them but catches herself, emphasizing that they do not that. She is a girl and that is contrary to their system (22). Moreover, the interviewee stresses that she has encountered a variety of attitudes to her presence. As an armed, unveiled woman in uniform, she felt as the main attraction in a zoo. Sometimes it was so uncomfortable that she almost understood why the women wear burqas (28). Charlie speaks generally well about the contacts with the ANA personnel but tells that the police almost spat at her as a woman. She thinks the reason is that it is unfamiliar for them. Knowing that these security forces recruit their personnel from diverse groups, I wonder whether this could have influenced the reactions. The interlocutor responds that she has not thought about that. They got truly little education about ethnic variation in the Afghan community during the preparatory training. That topic was left to the initiative of the individual and Charlie was too busy to give it any attention. My assessment is that this is a clear deficiency in the preparation system. The soldier agreeing, saying that it obviously is since the understanding of religion varies in different tribes (22–24). Charlie is the voice of the sample that most clearly illustrates dilemmas related to gender when serving in Afghanistan. This concerns several aspects both related to the employment of female soldiers and the alleged reason for staying in the country. The participant tells that she chose never to wear a hijab or something similar in Afghanistan. The interpreter suggested that she perhaps should. The soldier says that she almost reacted by sticking her nails in his eyes. She admits that it was okay of him to suggest it but underlines that she is there as a soldier, not to satisfy the Afghans in that manner. Charlie tells that she understands that some civilian Western females, such as doctors and the police, wore hijabs now and then. The then Minister of Defence wore a veil when visiting. The soldier pinpoints that she does not in Norway and asks rhetorically why she should do it there. She continues telling about another female colleague who had been told that she had to wear a veil if she wanted to join the others out of the camp. Charlie describes that she almost flew into rage 126 when hearing about it, explaining that she had a feminist background. When I ask why she thinks some other women wear vails, she is clear that it is a wish to respect or to be respected (18–19). Charlie is particularly upset about the ill-treatment of women in Afghanistan. A couple of times she met Afghan women that were injured by mistreatment. The soldier gives an example where a woman turned up with a closed rib fracture that had been healed wrongly, her husband standing there telling it just became like that. Charlie explains that you do not get rib fractures without a good reason. She tells that she cannot handle ill-treatment of women whether it is done by Christians or Muslims, but there it is socially accepted because of religion (21). The dialogue with this soldier about women’s situation really brings to the surface some of the core dilemmas the Armed Forces must face in a country such as Afghanistan. One thing is the challenges related to female soldiers working in roles that among the local population are men’s work. Another is what a military force can do to empower or at least improve the situation for local women. Some soldiers have experienced the argumentation for staying in Afghanistan at the political strategic level in Norway as highly problematic. We have seen Larry indicate this concerning the ideal of establishing girls’ schools. Kristoffersen is another example. He thinks that doing this against the will of Afghan men is a good example of colliding values. He found this to be a frustrating example of how the right actions according to Norwegian democratic standards becomes tremendously wrong in Afghanistan since it creates discontent and conflict (12–13). Thor brings up another thought-provoking story illustrating a gender challenge. A Western, female doctor had an exceptionally strong desire to contribute to liberation of Afghan women. She got an opportunity to give a speech at a meeting just for Afghan women and female ISAF personnel. However, she was close to being chased away from the assembly room when she tried to tell them about her view of women and the burqa. The locals informed her that the burqa is a traditional piece of clothing that women choose to wear. The soldier says that of course one can discuss the origin of this and the link to the interpretation of the Quran. Nonetheless, it was unthinkable for them that an outsider woman should come and tell them how to live their lives. Thor adds that there are misunderstandings about the view of women in Afghanistan. In many ways the women are the inner nuclear family. Men can be chauvinistic, but the women are those that maintain the family. In that sense they are very, very important. The officer concludes by stating that it can be right in some situations that 127

Afghan women are supressed since they wear burqas, but the picture is not one-sided negative (34–35). Kenny is also one of those who emphasizes the subservience of the women when asked about his general impression of Afghan culture and religion (19). He says that if they do something wrong, you can actually beat them up (9). The participant wonders why it is like that, suggesting that the reason probably is both cultural and religious. It makes him ask why we should go there to tell them what to do. Recalling conversations with a local contractor, it turned out that Afghan and Norwegian family fathers did similar things in their spare time, such as playing with the kids, taking trips in the weekends, visiting family etc. Nevertheless, Kenny assumes that it would not be that balanced if their wives were talking. In town he saw that the wives often went a couple of steps behind their husbands (19–21). They must cover themselves out in the streets. However, if you let your gaze slide down to their feet, you see that they have painted toenails, nice footwear and beautiful dresses. They are beautiful women who enjoy dressing up but must do it within the walls of the house. Otherwise, there will be trouble (14). The soldier concludes that one registers the differences, albeit, there is nothing we can do about it (21). The view of women is obviously one of the strangest issues for Norwegian soldiers to relate to in the Afghan context. Nevertheless, gender issues are not only about women. Relating to men was easier for the soldiers. Two interlocutors, Clive and James, have yielded reflections about their communication with males about gender issues. Clive tells that when talking to many of the Afghan soldiers, it primarily became clear to him that ‘boys are boys.’ He did not initiate conversations about topics that could be touchy, such as religion or women, but they did once they had got to know each other. Clive describes his Afghan counterparts as quite like us. They said that they had to ask the boss at home. It was clear that also for them the wife was the chief within the walls of the house. They are joking about their wives, telling how they are commanding them to buy this or to fix that, just as Norwegians do (18–19). As mentioned above (ch 3.1.1; 3.1.4), James refers that some Afghan men have a taste for Western liberties. The officer tells that his Afghan employees were actively investigating the Western society on the Internet. There they were searching for everything that young boys search for, for instance, girls. They were particularly curious about city life and how people could socialize in the West. The young Afghans were astonished that girls could go to discoes without their parents when there were boys present as well. They asked James whether this really was true. The officer tells that he got the impression that his employees were firmly rooted in their religion. Nonetheless, they were 128 immensely interested in investigating another lifestyle. He also tells that one of them escaped from Afghanistan and settled in the Netherlands. These participants do not draw a picture of men who are particularly conservative or different to Westerners. Once they open up, many similarities appear. Hence, one should not overestimate the otherness. Johansen is clear that you can chitchat with an Afghan, but you do not talk to him about his wife or ingratiate yourself with his daughters. He adds that this is not because of Islam but this is how it is in tribal societies. Daughters are currency (35). Edward tells that he found it a bit strange that the Afghan women are so secluded even though the soldiers were prepared for this (23). However, he experienced significant variation as well. Whereas he believes we have a more unison thinking about women in Norway, he experienced considerable distinction in Afghanistan. He suggests that very much depends on the parents (11–12). Edward perceived the women as curious. They try to keep track of what is happening. Sometimes they hide if you throw a glance in their direction; other times they are pushed away (22). This NCO has experienced that people acted differently when they were alone. At such incidents even women could come and greet the soldiers while the husbands continued their work on the fields in the background. Nonetheless, in villages where several men were gathered, the women disappeared (24). These experiences invite us to do similar reflections as Andrew’s burqa story rendered in ch 3.1.2. What the local population considers as a correct conduct is closely related to what others can observe. This signifies a morality and religion which is clearly more collective and extrovert than we often find in Protestant Christianity. Unlike what is possible within the male community, the Norwegian soldiers’ perception of women’s lifeworld in Afghanistan has been far more limited. Nevertheless, both Charlie’s story from meeting women within the compound walls and Betty’s presence at the women’s day arrangement are interesting encounters of the otherness in the two cultures. Charlie tells that the Afghans were both curious about her and sorry for her as she had to be exposed to men. In Betty’s case the social divide between groups of women made a stronger impression than the content of the meeting. In general the picture the soldiers draw is more diverse and not so one-sided negative for Afghan women as the image one often can get. It seems, though, that the subservience of women is among the kinds of otherness they find it hardest to accept. We have seen them describe that the use of burqa in public space reinforces the feeling of otherness and unapproachability. The soldiers’ immediate interpretation of this clothing is as a symbol of suppression, not of protection. As far as I can understand, they try to balance their negative feelings regarding suppression of women with respect for the 129 cultural and religious otherness. Nonetheless, the participants obviously experience a contrast between the rhetoric at the political strategic level in Norway about being in Afghanistan to improve the conditions for women and children and what they can do anything about as militaries. Gender issues related to the Norwegian presence in Afghanistan rise complex and difficult challenges. These highlight questions about intervening a country with military force to change cultural and religious patterns, how to relate to the local female population and the treatment of female Norwegian soldiers both by our own forces and by male Afghan partners. There is not space for going deeply into these problems here. They deserve thorough studies on their own. Now it is time to have a look at how the groups assess the findings of the individual interviews.

3.1.7 Perceptions, Experiences and Considerations by the Groups In ch 2.3.1 I mentioned that I should come back to the understanding of religion in group B at this point because their explanation is so intertwined with the description of their Afghanistan experience. Hence, their contribution here is more comprehensive than the other groups, so I will present those first. The main contribution from group A on this point is about the role of religion in society. The interviewees are clear that religion and politics are one matter in Afghanistan. Donald tells that he has observed how many younger soldiers thought that they got a private question when Afghans asked about their religion. However, the officer explains, they do not ask you personally, rather whether Norway is a Christian country. Hence, he thinks, some probably get into a little predicament already at this starting point – if it develops into any dialogue at all (2013, 6). Moreover, Donald adds that Afghanistan has large cultural differences. Hence, it is a challenge understanding whom you are talking to in order to know what is important. Many places they are preoccupied with anything but politics (24–25). One finds strong conflicts between diverse groups, including about religious questions. It is not easy for anybody among us to relate to these (10–11). The farmer says that according to his experience, religion, culture and politics are so interwoven in Afghanistan that you cannot talk about the community without relating to all three of them. Since you must relate to all three, you need to know about them before deploying (12). Group C informs that the Afghans could use religion in a relaxed and humoristic manner as well. Carl tells a story about how they made a Norwegian recite something he did not understand. It appeared to be the shahada, the Muslim creed. Afterwards, they patted on his back saying he had become a Muslim. George continues telling that he has been together 130 with interpreters and experienced that religion can be a good way of breaking the ice in a conversation. The Afghans are clear that religion is important to them with duties that must be carried through. However, it did not seem that it was important always. When they were out on missions, Afghan soldiers could eat during the fast. They were also telling that they should visit whorehouses in Northern Afghanistan when they got their pay and leisure time. When I mention that I have got the impression that it is important not to be seen by other Afghans when eating at fasting time, for instance, while it is not so problematic when they are together with Western soldiers, George is confirming this. He says that they follow the prescribed rules but can test the limits a little when nobody is watching. Further, Mary Lou adds that Islam is negative to homosexuality. Nonetheless, Norwegian soldiers have beheld two men ‘in symphony’ on some hill more than once. She says that afterwards they have just parted, and it never happened. Carl tells that they also have been invited to take part. Mary Lou asks if he has experienced that himself, something he confirms. Carl renders a story about a police chief. First, he wanted them to get drunk of whiskey in his basement. Then the Afghan wanted the Norwegian soldier to stay overnight. The soldier says, ‘Luckily it did not come to that.’ He continues explaining that they brewed whiskey in the basement and started drinking right after work. It seemed to be okay because there was a roof. Carl’s perception is that they could break the rules when God could not see them (2015, 12–14). When I ask if they believe that the Afghans see any dilemma in their own practices compared with the official ethic of their religion, something we easily would label as hypocrisy, George answers that he does not think so. He believes that it rather is the norm there and then. They did such things since they had no other obligation there and then, at that stage in their lives (18). My reflection is first, that these observations of group C tell that it seems easier to see religion with the other than in our own culture. When I asked what they think religion is (ch 2.3.1), they were initially a bit reluctant answering before coming up with highly adequate reflections. However, here they immediately presented concrete examples related to local religious rules. Second, it reflects something important about religion in the two societies. Where it is knit to outspoken rules and visible lifestyles in Afghanistan, it seems to be subtler and more tacit in the soldiers’ culture. This reveals that there may be a need to increase the ability of talking about the religion of our own tradition within the Armed Forces. Concerning the understanding of religion in group B, some disagreement appeared related to the individuals’ faith affinity. Lawrence saw little difference between Afghan and 131

Norwegian religion in overarching matters. He thinks that we believe in the same goal. The distinction is mainly the way of getting there (2015, 74). Joshua prefers to reserve the concept of religion for religious rituals, lifestyles and duties as you find in Afghanistan, not for the freedom of faith in Christianity (72–73). Nevertheless, Joshua adds that he found a common denominator with the Afghans in their in sha Allah attitude because that was important for him as well. He felt that the faith in God helped him get a good contact with them. Confirming the individual interviewees, Lawrence adds that in sha Allah is used for better or worse as well. As an example, he mentions situations where the local partners openly resist doing something. They do not say no directly, due to good code of conduct. They hide behind in sha Allah (13–14). Duncan had quite much contact with Afghans daily, albeit mostly the same fifty–sixty people. He feels that religion is a more open matter in Afghanistan than in Norway. It is not taboo in Norway, but it is not necessarily something we talk about openly and freely. This point is where he sees the largest difference. Lawrence had an even closer contact, operating with the ANP (7–8). He tells that he decided to read the Bible and the Quran together with the interpreter to compare and chat about it. The officer says that there was no discussion but a polite exchange of viewpoints because this was something you should not do. They could also point out disparities since the interpreters were influenced by Western ideas (9). Joshua thinks that we do not need God or something supernatural in the West due to our wealth and security. In other words, he reveals some influence by a functionalistic idea of religion. Comparatively, the officer believes that the Afghans have greater need for hope. Hence, religion becomes more societal, and as so, it can be used and abused. Joshua thinks that the local population has a religion where they must earn salvation and that they think harsh conditions are caused by not deserving a better life. He sees this reflected in the interpreters, who had better living conditions. They did not need faith that much. During operations they had to fast in case somebody saw them, but as soon as they were back in the vehicles or the camp, they had the food or drink they needed (11–12). The officer claims that the Afghans must be very faithful to their religion on the surface and when observed, but if you get to know them better, you see that it is perhaps not so important (23). Joshua continues telling a story to illustrate his point. At an occasion the Norwegians visited a girls’ school. It was no problem being inside the school if nobody saw them. Nevertheless, when the locals observed that they were visiting the school, there were increasing speculations and rumours accusing the Norwegians of abusing the girls and intending to steal them to bring them to Norway. The actual case was that the Norwegians got 132 the idea to bring a girls’ team to Norway cup, a football tournament for youths. An Afghan boys’ team had taken part before, and now it was the girls’ turn, well in accordance with Norwegian egalitarianism. The soldier says that they learnt quickly that such an idea was not so smart (23–24). I see this story as a brilliant example of how difficult it is to leave one’s own values behind when deploying, despite earnest ideals about respecting otherness. When hearing Joshua, Lawrence recalls a similar experience of ISAF being accused of stealing Afghan resources. His story sounds even odder in Western ears. When digging trenches, the rumours said that they were looking for gold. The locals silenced when the soldiers asked back why they did not dig for the gold themselves. Lawrence calls it a kind of blind obedience (24–25). Further, the group refers to religion as a means of power – or in Joshua’s wording, ‘how religion is abused.’ They mention literates that manipulate and rule to promote themselves. Lawrence says that knowledge yields an incredible power in that community and the religious leaders rule with a rod of iron. The further away from the city one gets, the more power they have. He tells an illustrating example. At one incident the locals let him see a video sent out by the Taliban. It included some scenes cut from an American film where a large spider went around on Manhattan shooting with lasers from the eyes. The locals believed in real earnest that this had taken place in the USA as God’s punishment for lacking faith. Their religious leaders had informed them that this would also happen to the Afghans if they supported the other side. Lawrence holds that if they had done the same in Kabul, people would just have laughed (22–23). Joshua describes Afghan attitudes to religion and power conditions as an eye-for-an- eye-mentality. He says we must understand that when the Afghan solutions violate the law of war, for instance. Where the Western forces tried to help the Afghan government in implementing democracy and a national judicial system, the locals preferred judgements by the imams according to sharia-like traditions. Lawrence adds that he has experienced many examples. Their mission was partly to support the message of the Afghan government. However, trying to convince people in remote areas of the country that they need a state is not easy. They preferred getting the Taliban back. After all that worked. The police just turn up once a week or something like that. If somebody stole when the Taliban was there, it was sharia. They just chopped off the arm, and the bargain was over. Lawrence concludes that the locals have a strong sense for what yields effect quickly. Joshua says that the locals preferred taking the case in their own hands since they experienced that many simply were released when handed over to the central authorities. The officer concludes that such issues make us 133 start understanding how we have failed related to lacking notion of cultural and religious conditions, sharia etc (64–65). At this point the experience of the group clearly is touching a major problem with the mission in Afghanistan. How is it possible to implement the values of a state society in an ethnically diverse tribal clan community with a religiously based legislation? Moreover, it turns back as a boomerang on ourselves; to what extent can we claim that the Western legislation, which we like to perceive as democratic, is not based on axiomatic values derived from religion? To stay within Joshua’s eye-for-an-eye-metaphor as an example; by what authority have we learnt that an eye for an eye is not a good principle of law?74 Perhaps even Western legal systems have deeper roots in religion than we recognise ourselves. It is naturally not my task to attempt answering such questions here. Nevertheless, this ought to be a central issue to consider when involving in such missions, not at least at the strategic level but also at the tactical level, in order to give the soldier on the ground realistic perspectives about what it is possible to achieve. The group interviews about Afghan culture and religion have confirmed many of the findings of the individual interviews. We have seen group A affirming the impression of large cultural differences and multiple conflicts between diverse groups in the country. These also include religious issues. Westerners, who are to operate in societies such as Afghanistan, should bear in mind their important observation that religion, culture and politics are so intertwined that you cannot talk about the community without considering all three factors. In this they illustrate well the theoreticians I am consulting. Likewise, group C tells related stories as the individual interviewees about flexibility among the locals regarding observance of religious duties. They inform about breaking the Muslim conduct related to eating regulations, use of alcohol, visiting brothels, observing and even being invited to taking part in homosexual activities. Both group C and B are confirming that the most important appears to be to avoid being seen when possibly breaking the rules. However, the local population does not seem to consider such breaches as hypocrisy. That is, the kind of religion the soldiers have observed is an Islam which is adjusted by local conditions. It is a religion with strong communal and performative elements in accordance with Day’s findings. We have also learnt that it is easier for some of the soldiers to talk about religion in the Afghan culture than their own. Among other things this is due to the clear relation between religion and the visible lifestyle in the Afghan community. Duncan (group B) emphasizes

74 See Matt 5:38. 134 something important when holding that the main difference between Norway and Afghanistan at this point is that Norwegians do not talk about religion openly and freely. Consequently, some soldiers have difficulties with this. The explanation coming up in his group is that religion becomes less important in the West due to wealth and security. In Afghanistan people are in stronger need for hope and they see good material conditions as caused by good religious conduct. Hence, religion gets more societal and can be used as both a means of power and an excuse. Group B stresses how a literate religious leadership uses the religion to secure support from the inhabitants, especially in remote areas. They describe the Afghans’ attitude to religion and power conditions as an eye-for-an-eye-mentality. The locals often prefer a legislation according to sharia-like traditions because it is more effective than a government-judicial system. Furthermore, the in sha Allah attitude is used by anybody both to state reasons for happenings and as an excuse for not acting.

3.1.8 Some Statistical Data As mentioned in the introduction to the chapter, the veterans have carried out various tasks and filled many dissimilar roles during their mission. The extent of contact they have had with Afghans has varied considerably. Therefore, it has been an aim at this point in the study to categorize the participants to see whether I find significant variation between the categories. The questionnaire survey contains three questions to examine whether soldiers with extensive contact with locals have different attitudes than colleagues with little contact.75 Nevertheless, these issues have turned out to be hard to measure and not so relevant. In general the participants’ experiences have proven more exciting than category patterns. The interviews made it clear that the length of time spent in Afghanistan and positions in the organisation were not so important factors for the extent of contact they had with the local population. Varied job roles and changing security situations were more decisive. Accordingly, the categorization in various soldier groups would have been more useful in a case with more stable working conditions. Thus, the most important information to be drawn from the data of the mentioned variables with reference to personnel category (var A) is just the rather obvious that soldiers and officers in the field have had a more extensive contact with Afghans than staff officers have. Despite the reduced relevance of my attempted categorization, the questionnaire survey is helpful for getting an overview of some overall tendencies about the participants’

75 These request how many tours the veterans have had abroad (var D), whether their place of service was mainly within their own camp or externally (var E) and to which extent they were in touch with the local population (var F). 135 thinking about Afghan religion and culture. When asked whether they consider religion to be an individual/private and a public/collective matter in Afghanistan (var Z and AA), the veterans yield a rather different picture than they do when facing the same questions about the situation in Norway. As referred in ch 2.2, the mean score is 7.0 regarding religion being considered a private matter and 4.3 a public matter in their own country (var X and Y). When they get the same questions about the situation in Afghanistan, the mean tick is 4.1 private matter (var Z) and 8.6 public matter (var AA). The tendencies are clear. According to the survey Norwegian soldiers perceive the role of religion to be mainly a public and collective matter in Afghanistan, while they see it more as a private and individual matter in their own society. Moreover, the responses to two further questions support these findings. In these the participants are asked whether they consider the Afghans’ world view (var AD) and thoughts about human nature (var AE) to be characterized by religious values. In both the mean score is as high as 8.2.76 Conclusively, the questionnaire survey gives the impression that the soldiers perceive Afghanistan to be a more religious area than Norway and that religion plays a stronger societal role there than in their own country. It is interesting that they consider religion so differently in the two nations. It may simply mean that their assessment is right, that Afghanistan is a more religious country than Norway. However, there are other possibilities as well. For instance, it may be that Afghanistan appears to be more religious than their home country since references to religious aspects are more common in language and social conventions there. It may also be that religion is not so visible in Norway, of another character or possibly just understood to be something else as, for example, traditions, ethic or universal values. It is not an aim in this study to discuss the facticity of this. That would require careful examination of many questions. My point is just to emphasize that these results possibly tell more about the soldiers’ perception and the methodology than the actual societal role and importance of religion in the two societies. It probably illustrates that it is easier to observe something that appears conspicuous with an outsider’s perspective than to see and understand oneself, a point made by Hiebert in Transforming Worldviews (2009). I will come back to this when assessing the learnings from the participants’ considerations as a whole in the following.

76 See appendix E for detailed numbers. 136

3.1.9 Assessments of the Findings In many ways the participants in the present study have yielded an understanding of the culture and religion in this theatre that shows they are seeing through ‘Norwegian glasses.’ In line with Day’s informants, the soldiers are untroubled by the varieties of meaning academics struggle with related to the concept of culture. They feel a belonging to their own ‘Norwegian’ or ‘Western’ culture, are born into it and are fond of it (cf Day 2011, 185). When deploying, they are encountering the otherness of the ‘Afghan’ culture. On the one hand, the veterans are deeply rooted in their own value system and sometimes expressing frustration and lacking understanding of the logic behind the otherness they observe among the Afghans. On the other hand, their experience has led them to a lot of thought-provoking reflection and good assessments as well. I do perceive a genuine strive among the soldiers for fulfilling the military core value of respect towards the local population to achieve smooth relationships. Several of them seem to have developed an empathy with the Afghans in line with the ideals of the phenomenology of religion and interpret their perception for the best (cf Flood 2006, 97). With a critical perspective, one could suspect that some contributors perhaps respond according to political correctness, in line with what they believe they should answer. This does not mean that I think any answers are false, just that they should not be taken as concluding proofs of actual attitudes. Eliciting actual attitudes needs more thorough questioning. Nevertheless, the respondents have contributed with clarifying information about their stances, something that is useful for further work with relating to religion in the Armed Forces. In The Importance of Religion (2012), Flood aims at showing three aspects of religion. First, religions are ‘forms of culture within which people live meaningful lives.’ Second, people find meaning through ‘mediating the human encounter with mystery.’ Third, ‘there are political and social ramifications of these cultural forms’ (3). These soldiers give interpretations of their experiences that correspond well with these three points. Religion appears as the carrying value system in the Afghan community, more so than the laws and regulations implemented by the state.

Further, we learn that the respondents at several points hit Woodhead’s five concepts of religion in the bull’s eye. They describe religion in Afghanistan as something that yields meaning, cultural order, values, tradition and as a means used in discourse (Woodhead 2011, 124–127). Concerning religion as identity, they describe it as community-creating, boundary- forming and claim of identity (127–129), something that also echoes Day’s findings of 137 believing in belonging (2011). Some interviewees are aware that when Afghans ask for their religion, they are not basically interested in the soldier’s private beliefs but their religious affiliation, in particular, whether they belong to traditions of Abrahamic monotheism or something else. With regard to religion as relationship, they are reflecting both religion as social and super-social relations, in other words, relations with the divine (Woodhead 2011, 130–132). As for religion as power, the participants are particularly conscious about the political power of religion, its importance for status and recognition, and how it works as personal and interpersonal empowerment/disempowerment (137).

When considering the soldiers’ understanding of Afghan culture and religion as reflected through the three methods combined, we have seen that the most conspicuous features revolve around three aspects. As a starting point, they perceive the Afghan culture as more permeated by religion than the Norwegian is. Second, the soldiers see politics, culture, economy and religion as a totality in the Afghan community. A third aspect is their experience of a complexity of differences, interests and conflicts between various agents in the country. Fourth, we can conclude that when relating to otherness, we need to attempt seeing the world view or religion we bring with us from the outside. In the following, I will have a closer look at these aspects.

3.1.9.1 Afghanistan perceived as more religious than Norway As to the soldiers’ understanding of Afghanistan as a more religious country, this tendency is stronger in the findings of the questionnaire survey than in the interviews. The latter give room for more nuanced reflections. There it comes to the fore that what can appear as deeply religious in Afghanistan may conceal substantial flexibility regarding actual observance of the religious duties. Likewise, as the interviews give better room for reflection, the interlocutors also realize that their own values are not necessarily universal or neutral. The encounter with otherness helps them to see more of the influence of religion on public life in their own country as well. One reason for the veterans’ perception on this point relates to language. The phrase that I have called the in sha Allah attitude above, exemplifies Flood’s reflection on the relationship between religion and language. He considers how the language, with its structures and metaphors, informs and influences our experiences in significant ways. It builds the pattern of narratives within a culture. ‘These patterns of narrative and imitation of cultural forms – which are forms of cultural knowledge – are conveyed through the generations as traditions.’ Flood continues stating that it is in such cultural forms or traditions 138 the importance of religion lies. Moreover, ‘… religious traditions mediate the human encounter with transcendence, the invisible …’ The language is important ‘… in the making of religious meaning’ (Flood 2012, 125–126). The participants see clearly how the divine dimension gives meaning to life for the Afghans. The mentioned phrase shows that the locals count God in. A divine will influences their life; when facing that will, humans must subordinate themselves. The soldiers see how religion is used as a plausible explanation for almost anything that happens in this lifeworld, fortune or misfortune, whether it can be explained otherwise or not. However, this common Muslim phrase is not just a pious reverence for the divine and mysterious in life. When convenient, it also implies a brilliant causality or excuse if one is hesitant or unwilling to do something. One obviously cannot do something if the Almighty himself does not want it done – an indisputable and convenient argument. As we have seen in chapter two, Flood argues that religious meaning is given primarily through action. Two forms of religious action exist, ritual and ethical. These are intimately related and sometimes confluent (see 2012, 60 as well). In our case the contributors have observed more of the ethical kind of action than the ritual. As it has been a policy for the Armed Forces to keep a distance to what they consider holy places for the local inhabitants, such as mosques, the soldiers have observed little worship except from the Afghan colleagues’ prayers during joint operations. Otherwise, they have mainly heard about the ritual form of action through speech. Thus, they have not observed enough to comment much on that issue. When considering what the soldiers have perceived in Afghanistan, Skarsaune’s distinction between synagogue congregation and temple religion is not that relevant. Nevertheless, in a country where Islam is as dominant as in Afghanistan, it is more apt to talk about mosque congregations. The impression the interviewees yield is that it is important for Afghans to appear as good participants in the mosque congregation, and the assembly at the mosque is primarily identical with the male part of the local community. This means that even though some of the soldiers have had incredibly frank conversations with Afghan partners about religious questions, it seems that their experience is more about societal practice than beliefs and cognition. It is disputable whether beliefs or action is the most important in religion. On the one hand, Flood is right when stating: ‘Religions are ways of life, ways of behaving, of performing ritual, and of acting in the world’ (2012, 65). On the other hand, he recognizes the argument that ‘all behaviour is based upon a particular view of the world, i. e. a set of beliefs’ (78). Further, the significance of beliefs and practice, respectively, varies between different traditions. There is no place to elaborate that 139 question here. Nevertheless, the data yielded by the participants suggest that action is predominant in Afghanistan. As it is easier to observe people’s actions than their beliefs, this is what we could expect. The soldiers are particularly describing the Afghan religion according to what Flood calls a ‘second level,’ a level that ‘expresses an interpersonal realm of tradition, social forms, dietary law, marriage laws, and so on’ (127).77 That leads us to the second aspect of the soldiers’ understanding, the societal impact.

3.1.9.2 Politics, economy, culture and religion are a totality in Afghanistan As we have seen, when describing their perception of the Afghan community, the contributors in this study are in line with Flood’s claim that the world is simultaneously political, social and mysterious. Religion is not a sector within society that exists alongside other sectors, as politics, economy or law, with watertight compartments between them. The soldiers have observed that religious leaders may have considerable political power and great authority in legal matters. They have experienced a culture where the religious traditions claim primacy over the population more than the state does (cf Flood 2012, 202). The soldiers tell how religion yields rules, values and laws for what Afghans consider as respectable conduct both privately and publicly. In that context the Western tendency to separate religion from culture and society and relegate religion to a private sphere is simply not adequate. At this point the soldiers’ data also corresponds well with what Smart calls the ethical or legal dimension of religion. Smart states aptly that attempts of setting up ethics independent of traditional religious beliefs ‘cannot be completely successful, because every ethical system seems to raise questions about the worldview behind it’ (2000, 105). The participants have seen how the Muslim law defines details of community life. As Smart says, ‘It covers much more than morals in the narrow sense: It embraces questions of finance, slavery, ritual, and so on’ (110). It is obvious that these soldiers have encountered a culture where religion has played a different role historically than in Europe. In Afghanistan, there has not been the medieval separation of monastic life and the saeculum where people were living ordinary lives, as in the West. There has been no reformation with a Martin Luther (1483–1546) making salvation an individual matter through linking it to faith alone. Nor has there been the teaching of the two regiments creating a basis for a separation between politics and religion with a corresponding loyalty to the state. Furthermore, there has neither been deistic ideals of reason

77 The first level is that religious imagination conveys cosmologies and soteriologies. At the third level, these concerns are embodied in the person and subjectivity. 140 nor the thirty years of religious warfare strengthening the separation of religion and governance, religion and politics, sacred and secular, that has become common in the West (cf Flood 2012, 13; 156; 191; 205 and Smart 2000, 69; 133). The soldiers have obviously observed the consequences of this disparity when interpreting their perceptions of the Afghan context. Politics, economy, culture and religion are simply a totality in Afghanistan.

3.1.9.3 Afghanistan experienced as a complexity of differences, interests and conflicts The third aspect summarizing the soldiers’ thoughts about Afghan religion and culture is their perception of large contrasts and complexity of interests in the Afghan community. It has been suggestive to learn that many soldiers are sparsely informed about diverse conflicting groups of interest in the country. Nevertheless, Johansen has a good point when stressing that it is first when you know who benefits from your being there that you understand the conflict (55). Consequently, a military force in a theatre of multiple conflicts must be conscious of the effects of its presence on local power structures. Among those in the sample who are particularly aware of power structures, the farmer and Kristoffersen have pointed out a couple of illustrating examples. The farmer tells how a man’s own cousin, especially in the Pashtun areas, may be his potentially most dangerous enemy. He must be prepared constantly to hold his position of power against challengers even within his own family (30; 40). In his above- mentioned article, ‘Bleeding for the Village,’ Kristoffersen refers to this phenomenon as well. The networks of local leaders strive to maintain their power and the foreign forces become part of that game. The officer recommends forces combatting terrorism to tap into cultural structures and focus on winning the support of local leaders. He aptly calls them powerbrokers. Afghans are adjusting to the power structures that exist at any time. Sometimes their loyalty depends on which side they believe has the best chance of winning. Concerning the special interest for our case, the relation to religion, it is striking to observe how soldiers’ religiousness and interest in religion open doors for cooperation with Afghans. Kristoffersen’s story about how the deeply religious police chief changed attitude when the Norwegian showed positive interest and knowledge about his religion is a good example (see ch 3.1.2). As a military force in a complex theatre of multiple conflicts, it will obviously be impossible to prepare all soldiers for everything about local conditions before deployment. It is hard to keep updated always. There is simply no time for it and this is unnecessary for many who do not relate to the local population. Therefore, the main priority during preparations for the encounter with religion and culture should be learning how to read the applicable, local code of conduct and interpret what is important for the population in the area. This may not always correspond with textbook versions of Islam. However, it is basic to 141 be conscious of the effects of one’s presence. This involves trying to see oneself from the outside. Then we will realize that we must relocate religion in the social, a point that will be my conclusion of this subsection.

3.1.9.4 Seeing ourselves from the outside and relocating religion in the social The participants’ ability in the art of comprehending their own culture with an outside perspective has naturally varied. The tendency I found, primarily in the questionnaire survey, that they perceive religion mainly to be a public matter in Afghanistan and something private in Norway is illustrating. I think it is plausible to interpret this partly as a consequence of not being particularly conscious of the collective and public role of religion in their own society. Many respondents have probably not thought about the impact of religion on fields such as their language, the basic ethical values behind laws, the development of the school system, social and welfare systems, calendar and festivals, to mention a few. While the societal influence of religion appears as more visible in Afghanistan due to the otherness, it seems to be taken more easily for granted in their own community, sometimes even as universal human truths. In his above-mentioned book Transforming Worldviews, Hiebert yields valuable considerations about this topic. Even though his concern is world views, I see the same relevance for my subject, religion. Hiebert focuses on missionaries’ encounter with otherness, but many of his points are relevant for others as well. He writes that ‘learning to see our own worldview is a long and difficult process’ and goes on describing how we first examine another culture using our own cultural assumptions when entering it. Gradually, when studying the culture, we become aware of aspects of the people’s world view they are not aware themselves. They often take these aspects for granted as the way things really are. In Hiebert’s own words, ‘As we learn to see the world through the eyes of others and then return to our own culture, we come back as “outsiders” and begin to see it through new eyes’ (2009, 321). This is what many of the soldiers have begun doing. It is important that Western forces learn to see their own world views and religions from the outside, especially when operating in distant territories. Hiebert challenges church leaders to engage in dialogue about both their own and others’ world views. He says, ‘In this dialogue we need to listen carefully to non-Western Christians who tell us how they see us’ (321). In our case this kind of dialogue is naturally useful independent of the religious affiliation of the involved personnel. This study shows that some of our veterans from the service in Afghanistan have engaged in such dialogues, but I have also learnt that we cannot take such a dialogic attitude for granted. My impression is that 142 when this has worked, it is not so much due to preparedness yielded by the military system. It has rather been dependant on good initiatives by individuals. Although it clearly has military operative significance, it is difficult to examine world views, in particular our own. As Hiebert phrases it, this is so ‘because it is hard to think about what we are thinking with.’ He says that ‘the problem with worldviews is that they are largely unnamed, unexamined, and unassailable’ (320). Hence, they should not be concealed in a private realm of the individual but be discussed in public. In Day’s study of 2011 she relocates belief in the social (193–194). Her focus is beliefs; however, I find this relevant about religion in general. The narratives where the interlocutors in my study tell about their encounter with otherness show that religion is far more extensive than what can be situated within a private room of the individual. We cannot only study what people say about their possible religiousness but must include what they practice, in what situations and in what collective environment (cf Day 2011, 159). Religion must be relocated in the social. Through her multidimensional analysis of beliefs, Day elicits a rich understanding of the concept. Likewise, when we study religion in a larger societal context, it is easier to see how it influences and intertwines many cultural factors, conflicts, economic and political interests. Hence, this yields a wider and deeper understanding.

3.2 The Importance of Religion during Military Operations As we have seen in chapter two, the participants have diverse thoughts about what religion is. Notwithstanding, the diversity is delimited to a relatively narrow frame. I call this a ‘homogenous plurality.’ In ch 3.1 we got an idea about how the soldiers consider important aspects regarding religion in the Afghan community specifically. The next step is to examine their thoughts about the importance of religion related to the very special lifeworld they experience when operating in that context. In one sense the sample is in unison when asked about this. Nobody says it is unimportant. Nevertheless, there is some variation in how the contributors understand the question, what they find important and how important they think it is. Some answers are somewhat woolly. Two aspects appear as particularly significant. The first is the importance for the soldiers’ own lifeworld and the second, the importance for the military operativeness. Thus, I will organize the data correspondingly in the two following subsections. In the first of these, the information is based on the individual interviews. The second includes some statistical material as well. Finally, we will have a look at some more data from the questionnaire survey and the assessments of the groups. 143

3.2.1 Importance of Religion for the Soldiers’ Own Lifeworld The responses given in the individual interviews can be roughly classified in three groups at this point, those who find religion more important during the operations in Afghanistan than during normal life at home, those who do not think it is more important and those who have a position in-between. Starting with the last of these, Alex says that he believes this varies a lot. Referring to an incident when they lost a comrade, he tells that some increased their use of the chaplains’ support; others did not (9). Bill considers religion in general as an important part of the collective in times of distress. However, he does not think this necessarily is so in the Armed Forces. His reasoning is that the military often find themselves in emergencies. Hence, they are mentally well prepared. The soldier adds that personnel who are believers in their normal life but may be not highly active, can become more religiously active during deployments. Nonetheless, he has not seen this in his own unit. His unit did not have worship services before combat missions, for instance (10–11). This interviewee thinks it is extremely varying how working in Afghanistan influences the personnel (14). Mike has an intermediate position in the sense that he believes religion becomes more important in the Afghan context for many others but not for himself. On the contrary, as we saw in ch 2.1.2, he avoided worship in Afghanistan even though he took part in the Christian traditions in Norway. Among those who do not think religion becomes more important for soldiers during such missions, we find Steel and Bob. As referred in ch 2.1.4, Steel even suggests subduing religious activities somewhat during multinational operations. I assume, however, that when answering, this experienced staff officer thinks more about staff work with diverse personnel from many nations than the situation for executing soldiers in the field. It seems that Bob has a somewhat ambiguous stance on this question. On the one hand, rather than finding religion to be more important in their situation in Afghanistan, he felt that it was foisted upon them. Concretely, he mentions the worship services at Christmas. He tells that it was not compulsory to participate. Nevertheless, he felt they had to, adding that it perhaps can be called a voluntary compulsion. In this soldier’s opinion, we should rather focus on the job, not religion (11–12). On the other hand, while Steel did not experience commemorations (16), Bob also tells about taking part at a memorial service after taking loss as a very good experience. He was surprised by his own reactions. It was like what the unit had done at an exercise in advance and went surprisingly well (10). When asked whether he thinks religious issues should be subdued in the phase of preparations before deployment, Bob responds that that is another matter. He considers especially the teaching in Muslim beliefs as too superficial (12–13). 144

I see these interlocutors’ understanding as a logic consequence of their inclination to a privatized view of religion and the rather indifferent to negative feelings about it in their own lives. Nonetheless, the majority of those who comment on this point think religion became more important in the soldiers’ lifeworld in Afghanistan. However, we should not overestimate the significance of the number of respondents in each category here. It is quite natural that participants who have experienced that religion becomes more important for them are more likely to respond to this issue. If one has a steady, critical stance on religion, the question is not that relevant. It is simply less probable that one has anything to tell. Among those who think religion is more important in their life in the Afghan context, the farmer emphasizes a significant point. He says that independent of what considerations the individual soldiers may have about this, religion clearly is present. The collective cannot escape neither the religious message nor the religious practices because we bring chaplains when deploying for international operations. Among other tasks, the chaplain is to officiate worship once a week. That is a normal activity in the Norwegian contingents, and it is described in the SOP. Hence, the role as chaplain becomes a link between the collective and religious practices. Nevertheless, the individual has freedom to choose whether to take part or not – in contrast to the situation for Afghan groups. The farmer thinks that the worship services are not necessarily religiously important for every soldier. Anyhow, they yield a social and mental break that is positive (9–11). I think it is right to add that the officer here describes the normal situation what concerns chaplains. Exceptionally, this profession is not present. Morgan tells that there were neither worship services nor commemorative ceremonies during his tour. The only incident was once the bier of a fallen American was driven to the airport; the Norwegians took part in standing along the route (11–12). This soldier thinks that there probably was a padre in his unit, but he had no contact with him. This is not due to a negative attitude to chaplains. He thinks their presence is positive. They gather people and help them think about something else. He explains the lack of contact with his being on missions out of camp much of the time (16–17). For my own part, I will add that the chaplains have obviously had varying activity levels. If they want to hide, they can; if they are outreaching, they can be harder to avoid. As Morgan is hinting at, the soldiers’ job situation varies a lot, and for some it may be difficult to take part in communal events. Peter is a good example. He tells that he wanted to take more part in worship during his service in Afghanistan than he does at home. He adds that he understood many others felt as he did as well and that they were a lot more open about going to church there. Going to church was accepted in the unit, and the chance that 145 somebody gave you an odd look if you did was less than at home. However, Peter was often prevented from taking part because of his work situation. Alternatively, the chaplain was visiting the soldiers in their workplaces, something Peter appreciated a lot. When reflecting on the reasons why many felt it more acceptable to go to church while working in Afghanistan, he tells that it is more natural. You live in a small camp with short distances. There is not much else to do on Sundays. They had a particularly good relationship to the chaplain and the threshold is lower. At home you need a good excuse for going. Peter says that if he had told his family that he took part in worship in the field, nobody would have reacted. However, it would have been much weirder if he said he was busy going to church at home (13–15). Peter’s reflection her is very interesting, touching on several significant issues about religiousness among Norwegians. I will point out two aspects that are of special interest here. First, some Norwegians appear to feel a kind of embarrassment related to religion, especially taking part in public religious activities. This is the opposite of what the participants have perceived among their Afghan counterparts, where being religious has been understood as societally advantageous. Second, a similar experience as Bob felt about being exposed to a ‘voluntary compulsion’ to participate is also sometimes felt the other way – that it is not always socially acceptable to take part in worship unless one has a good reason. These experiences are probably not unique for those two interlocutors. They rise several questions, which could deserve studies with different perspectives, but must be left unanswered here. Nevertheless, this possibly reflects an ideal among these Norwegians that religion should be a private matter. Whatever one believes, one should keep it to oneself. This is suggestive with reference to what Day says about believing in belonging. Among some, one should not show too strong beliefs in order to belong. Religion, or rather taking part in ‘performative beliefs’ (2013, 287–289), becomes a real or felt negative marker of boundaries – negative in the sense that if belonging to ‘them,’ the performative believers, one does not belong properly to ‘us.’ Correspondingly, this reflects a negative version of Woodhead’s description of religion as community-creating and boundary-forming (2011, 127-128). Since this understanding of religion as something private that should not be exposed too strongly in public is contrary to the attitude the soldiers have met among the Afghans, it easily becomes an obstacle for communicating with the locals and establishing mutual understanding about important issues in their lifeworld. Hence, the Armed Forces will do wisely in overcoming this embarrassment to dealing with and talking about religious issues. 146

When it comes to worship services, most of the interviewees report that they took part more often when deployed than they do at home. Particularly, they appreciated memorial services. John tells about such a ceremony as a very fine experience, although he finds it difficult to describe why. He thinks it has something to do with fellowship, explaining that you think about the deceased person’s family and that you are taken well care of when deployed (15–16). This participant pinpoints that the service of chaplains is significant during deployments because it is important to have someone to communicate with outside the chain of command. John believes that even though Norwegians often are open minded, it might be difficult to talk freely about personal problems with your superior (13). James is also focusing on the role of the chaplain when talking about religion in his unit. He does not emphasize the padre’s role as a helper concerning beliefs but rather on his or her practical expertise when handling deaths. The officer compares it with your car insurance. It is something that really can come in handy. Thus, he thinks the chaplain always is valuable for everybody. James is clear that his first choice for support in case of fatalities is the padre, not a doctor. He tells that he is uncertain about the religion in this. What is important for him is the support and the understanding. It is about managing to go ahead. I ask if what he appreciates is the role as an interpreter of life, the one who expresses in words what is difficult to deal with. The soldier confirms this. He says that the chaplain is good at articulating things – not that he has all the answers, but he expresses in words and can possibly help others finding answers. When conducting the rituals and using the symbols, he is providing a forum for processing emotions, for talking and not at least finishing. ‘Because,’ James states, ‘we have to proceed.’ I wonder if the reason for his preference of chaplains in times of fatalities has something to do with their being harmless compared to, for instance, doctors or psychologists. James is confirming my supposition with an emphasized ‘yes.’ The other professions can make a diagnosis, affect your health profile and, hence, your career. This is especially important for operational personnel. James feels that doctors are more occupied with yielding answers. He thinks that he needs more than that. Immediately, the officer is arresting himself, saying that now he is generalizing about the doctors. Nonetheless, he finds the padres and experienced psychologists better since they do not try to explain what happens intellectually. James believes it is okay talking to the stress management team, but they can make you a diagnosis as well. He does not fear that for himself but can easily see that many other personnel categories can be very worried about this. As for the chaplains, James really experiences them as harmless. He concludes claiming that he knows the padre wishes him well. That is part of his job (49–53). 147

According to James, the chaplains enjoy a strong confidence. It is not obvious to what extent this has anything to do with their status as religious personnel. However, it counts in the chaplains’ favour that the soldiers consider them competent in understanding and supporting their fellow humans, especially in life crises, without being in a position of exercising threatening power. Insofar as they have power, this is experienced as a matter in favour of the personnel. As with the service of the chaplains in general, Adam thinks that religion is important during international operations. One should take care of the traditions and the counselling. Nevertheless, he suggests that worship should be limited to the chapel and the camp. The soldier is worried that it could be understood as missionary activities during operations. However, he does not see this as a problem in Afghanistan and praises the chaplains for being clever at adjusting to the personnel they are serving. Adam has never experienced a full worship service in the field before operations. He does not see anything that should prevent it though. What they had, was a short devotion where the padre said a few words almost as a wish of luck. The soldier thinks very well about the possibility to worship once a week in the camp. He did not go there frequently himself, often due to missions in the field or the need for resting. There were personnel in his team who took part every time there was a chance.78 When more personnel took part in worship in Afghanistan, this interlocutor ascribes it to circumstances of life that made them more aware of deeper issues, homesickness, and because it meant solid and good routines (11–13). Kenny tells that the tour to Afghanistan was the period in his life when he went most often to church. He has not reflected much on why but thinks that possibly, it has to do with feeling more at home. It is a safe environment. You are a bit closer in a somewhat harsh life. Kenny finds that very nice. He mentions that they also have social gathering with waffles afterwards. It is an occasion for commemorating the fallen soldiers. Further, this is a reminder to do a good and professional job to ensure that everybody can return home safely. I ask whether the worship services become occasions for reflection, perhaps a kind of reflection we do not feel that we need at home. The officer responds that he believes I am on to something there. He is struggling to express his thoughts about this point (16–17), and I should be careful not to read too much into the answer. Nevertheless, there is a vague essence here that when danger gets close and one does not know whether one gets home again, having been to church matters. I think Kenny, through his lacking words here, is reflecting something

78 A team or section is the lowest scheme of command in the Army. It consists of between five and twelve soldiers. 148 important when attempting to understand religion; a lot is hard to express verbally. Yet, it is existential enough to influence action. Some would classify it within what Smart calls the emotional dimension. I think it is far more to it than that, for instance, related to belonging, fellowship, ritual praxis and non-verbal beliefs. As we saw in ch 2.3.2, Skarsaune’s temple religion and synagogue congregation tend to merge when the forces deploy. Further, we have learnt that this movement from a relatively passive kind of religion in direction of a more active one is caused by several factors. With Kenny’s example it is natural to pinpoint the effect of relating to what Flood calls ‘mediating our strange world’ (2012, 6–8). Without accepting his explanation, Flood is referring to Freud’s description of a subjective dimension to our sense of the uncanny that corresponds to an external situation. Rather, Flood says, ‘indeed the strange world resists explanation … but is saturated with meaning …’ (7). It seems that the chaplains and what goes on in the worship services and other gatherings they arrange correspond well to this meaning. Through rituals and symbols, they express the unutterable. According to Flood, this strange world is culturally mediated through systems of signs and symbols that link us to each other, to the past and to the future (7). In the words of my above-mentioned interlocutors, religion creates fellowship and belonging (John and Kenny), maintains traditions (Adam), yields hope for the future through the caring in crises (James), the returning home safely and even for doing a professionally good job (Kenny). Several interviewees explain the increased importance of religion with reference to the need for mental security and confidence; that is, mainly related to the emotional dimension. Anthony tells that he found himself praying a couple of times in Afghanistan. He cannot remember that he has done that before (34). Betty thinks that religion is especially important during military international operations for those who are practicing at home. It means bringing something well known, good and safe from Norway. Even for those who do not practise at home, serving abroad can give time for resuming it. Moreover, it is a nice tradition to be able to celebrate worship services at Christmas and other festivals. She says there would be something lacking without it. One may feel insecure (13–14). Brian tells about a team that had been especially subject to attacks where things almost went terribly wrong. That team started going to church every Sunday and one of them was baptized. They felt they needed religion as a support for the operations to go well. When I ask if religion becomes more important when life is at its strongest, for instance, when death is close, he answers that he believes it is (13–14). 149

Annie describes herself as not immensely religious but tells that she has become more religious during her service in international operations (3; 7). She thinks this is because death is getting closer. Then she feels a need for the spiritual aspect that is not so strong at home. However, she is a bit surprised that the colleagues did not seem to be affected by this. Her wording is interesting, ‘how little religious others pretend to be.’ They never talked about religion and few of the others seemed to care about taking part at the worship services. This officer finds religion important when deploying, albeit, not due to personal contact with chaplains. What she stresses is the worship services and the sermons. They made you reflect about life. Annie thinks that this need is something that comes with age, especially when taking part in international operations since things can happen quickly. Then it is easy to recall the Christian basis (7–11). We see here that worship provides an arena for reflection about life. Some participants emphasize that beliefs emerge in critical situations. Derek, who lost his Christian faith in his teens (see ch 2.1.4), is one of them. He believes that faith means a lot when you see many dying and there is ‘a lot of crap.’ Then he thinks it is especially important to be able to believe in something else or something greater that looks after you (11). For Andrew, it just had importance related to fatalities (12). As referred in ch 2.2.5, Edward experienced some extent of religious awakening when in battle situations, albeit not necessarily labelling this as beliefs. As we learnt with Kenny, this experience shows that religiousness, even the faith dimension, is not necessarily just about articulated beliefs but also diffuser hope, longing, search or precaution when facing fear and the like. In chapter two we saw how Johansen is among those in the sample who yielded the most comprehensive understanding of what religion is. It includes both beliefs and superstition, both official rituals for worship and the use of good luck charms, both preparing for his own death and fearing the consequences of causing the death of the enemy. I see clear indications that many of these reflections are related to his experience from the battlefield and the Afghan context. The first he mentions when talking about religion in Afghanistan is that the atheist is tried out. When I ask him to tell more what that means, he says that his unit always started attack operations with a worship service, and it was crammed. The soldier thinks that the participation at the services has decreased somewhat in the aftermath since the tempo of the attack operations has declined a bit. Albeit, in Johansen’s time the personnel queued up for worship and they took part in the Eucharist. Johansen says that he does not know whether it means that people suddenly became tremendously religious, but he believes it has something to do with having confidence in a well-known culture. This combat soldier 150 thinks that facing death was the main reason for the strong turnout for worship. He continues telling that something happens when you every day prepare for death. It is not expressed in words, but you greet your buddy as it was for the last time. When asked if it is right to say that the ritual yields words to what is inexpressible, he confirms that he believes so. Then, after a little pause, he mentions one word – communion. Johansen goes on reflecting; you have some rituals yielded by religion and some you make yourself (61). The soldier tells that when you see grown up men who you are used to think of as hardy chaps sitting there thinking about their woman or their kids, run down with tears, wanting to have what they can on their side; then it is real fear. He believes that if a god exists, most people think it is fine to keep him on their side. At the same time, you confront and have it out with yourself. Johansen concludes that he believes this is the best way he can explain the strong turnout. When I wonder if this is mostly about beliefs or perhaps a kind of insurance, he answers that whether people think they are Christians or not, they all want to be buried at the cemetery. The Christian promise of a paradise and a life after death is attractive for human beings. The soldier says that while religion is flourishing in countries of great distress, people easily forget religion when having welfare. However, many retrieve it again when facing death. It is like that for the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan as well (6–7; 62). The interviewee reflects further about his thoughts on damnation. He says that when you start thinking about what you have done, taking other peoples’ lives, many actually [think]; if there is a heaven and a hell now, I will end up in hell. He continues emphasizing that you can justify the actions for yourself because the Norwegian state has allowed it. There are no consequences anymore. Actually, the consequences occur if you do not kill. Somebody else can die. You do not do your job. It is your duty to do it. Nevertheless, you still have your morality and ethic in the aftermath when you are to sleep at night. Johansen tells that he has been struggling, waking at night and thinking that he will end up in hell. This soldier does not consider himself tremendously religious. Nevertheless, he associates his taking lives with going to hell (7–8). Later in the interview he says that he is ‘not a religious type.’ When I ask what he means by that,79 he explains that he does not practise a lot. If you are a religious type, then you go to church, you follow the fixed rituals, you pray and make use of God actively. Johansen tells that he does normally not, just at the high festivals and in stressful situations as

79 This question also refers to his using the same expression in his book (2011, 157). 151 in Afghanistan. He still has a relationship to Christianity and God. I go on asking him whether it is possible to be non-religious in the sense that one does not have beliefs, not have rituals, not have ethic – among other things. He responds that he does not think so – adding; several would probably claim that they are not religious, that they do not have any beliefs and so on. However, he says that they will have to relate to a world view eventually, and if you remove God, you are left with a secular humanist world view. Nevertheless, it is incredible how much divine influence one can find independent of how secular humanistic people claim to be. The soldier concludes that it is difficult not to believe in anything (63–64). This interlocutor’s strong experiences at the battlefield make him compare with Jesus’s miracles. He says that ‘for us’ survival was a miracle. He confirms when I ask if he felt protected somehow and goes on telling that you do not understand it; you compare with cats with nine lives. When they finally lost a comrade, it was okay in one sense despite feeling the grief. It had to come, eventually, because they had got away so cheaply for so long (10). Then you start thinking about how far you can keep going yourself before biting the dust. The soldier says that when staying at the front line, it was nice to have something to believe in. For Johansen that is God. Nonetheless, as mentioned above (ch 2.2.4), the interviewee also yields interesting reflections on the use of good luck charms. In Johansen’s case these were a cartridge and a bloodstone. He told that even if reason says it does not make any difference, he felt uneasy without the cartridge because things went well the last time he brought it (8). It works instinctively for man under pressure. He feels the brass of the cartridge and is reassured (59). It is very strange, he says; it would be terribly stupid to die without bringing the bloodstone given by the mother both of respect for her and the related symbolism (60). As for chaplains, this interviewee thinks they have a job in supporting and trying to help the soldiers to live with their emotions and experiences (11). He says that it was nice to hear what the padre had to say. It brought peace to the soul. He had much sensible to bring up (62).80 When I ask him why the chaplain was popular and what he said that they found sensible, he answers that compared to the long ritualistic worship services in Norway with civilian priests, the padre knows where the shoe pinches. He knows his congregation. As a priest in Oslo cathedral, you cannot know your congregation as a military chaplain can. You do not know their challenges. The padre is not just a religious preacher. He is the nodal point to the human, goodness and decency. ‘He gets us away from the hell we live in just now.’ After breathing deeply, Johansen continues saying that for chaplains this capability is

80 At this point in the interview I refer to Johansen’s book (2011, 157). 152 decisive. The chaplain organized a sanctuary for them where they could put down their weapons and wipe away some of the blood from the soul. When choosing a Bible reading, he did so according to their needs that day. They had perhaps done terrible things. Sometimes they had also been helpful. At this point in the interview, it was natural to get back to an issue that Johansen had mentioned earlier; that is, the Communion. When I ask if the sacrament worked as a place to leave behind those terrible actions, he confirms that. He compares it with the Catholics’ confessions (65–67). My comment is that this frank testimony tells us how important it is that the Armed Forces take the religiousness of their personnel earnestly whether they describe themselves as ‘tremendously religious,’ ‘not a religious type’ or something else. In general the sample of this study confirms Flood’s claim that the strangeness of the world takes a special focus in the extreme situations in life. He mentions death, bereavement and love as situations ‘where religions come into their own as resources for mediating these encounters and allowing us to deal with life in suitably expressive ways’ (2012, 8). As Johansen displays, combat situations, with all their atrocity, call on a mediation that points to a reality beyond themselves, not only for fear of losing one’s own life but also to deal with the guilt that easily comes with taking part in such activities. The religious rituals seem to fulfil a mental hygienic need even for many of those who do not have any relationship to their theological content as a starting point. Hence, Johansen’s reflection shows that a link exists between religion and military professional ethic that should not be ignored. This is not just related to the encounter with religious otherness but also to such important aspects of leadership ethics as care of the combatant. By sharing his experience about his own religiousness when facing fear of death in daily service and the feeling of guilt when killing on behalf of the state, Johansen is challenging indirectly both the Armed Forces as an institution and everybody working with religion and care of the combatant. It concerns not only a better understanding scientifically, but also pastorally and mental hygienically. In general the sample yields a varied impression of how important religion has been in the soldiers’ lives. It is natural that different individuals experience this heterogeneously and, further, that various units develop distinct cultures when it comes to activity. This depends on several factors, not at least the attitude and relevance of their padres. Chaplains, whose work appears as relevant for the militaries, get listeners and the soldiers use them as interlocutors. Practices have varied in different units and at various periods. Some have had worship services before combat; others have not. Some have had active chaplains; others have seen 153 little of him or her. As the interlocutors’ stories are coloured by their subjective perception and assessments, they cannot be used as measures neither of the religiousness among soldiers nor the activity of chaplains. Nonetheless, we can conclude that according to the participants in this study, religion has been important in the soldiers’ lifeworld in Afghanistan, presumably more so than at home. In the following, we need to look at some more aspects of the context of operations and we start with some thoughts about the relevance of religion for military operativeness.

3.2.2 Importance of Religion for the Military Operativeness Almost all the individual interviewees find religion important for the military operativeness in Afghanistan. Some variation is to be found in how strong wordings they use about the extent of importance from simply ‘important’ to ‘fatal’ or ‘the alpha and omega.’ Nonetheless, one soldier says something else than ‘important.’ Kenny tells that he is uncertain about the importance and his reasoning is sensible enough. He believes that even though the country is presented as religious through her name, for instance, there can be equally major differences internally in Afghanistan as in Norway when it comes to practicing (21–22). With such an almost unison agreement, the most interesting point here is the reasons they state for their stands. Relatively many argue in a rather general manner without concrete examples. There can be many causes for this. Obviously, those who have had close contact with Afghans are more likely to illustrate their arguments with experienced stories, while those who have had no or few encounters with Afghan religion normally give general reasons. Among these are James, Annie and Betty, who primarily served among their own forces. They all hold religion to be important during the operations. James even says it may be fatal to go abroad without understanding the religion and culture of others (16). Annie’s formulation is ‘absolutely important.’ She adds that she believes it is more important in Afghanistan than other places because the culture is so permeated by the religion (19). Betty argues that it is ‘very important’ to render the religion harmless and to understand it (13–14). I have chosen to classify the rest of the participants claiming that religion is important in military operativeness in four categories according to a rough understanding of their arguing. I call these operational arguments, arguments emphasizing respect for the other, adjustment arguments and finally, arguments stressing the importance of understanding otherness. By operational arguments, I mean the thoughts of those finding religion important because it is useful for solving the military mission. Respect for the other focuses on what benefits the needs of the local population, while adjustment arguments are preoccupied with 154 what is best for our own forces. Understanding otherness is covering those who see the search for knowledge as valuable as such. In one way it is somewhat strained to classify the interlocutors’ reasoning. Nevertheless, I find interesting nuances in their thinking worth some analytical considerations. In addition to be useful for systematizing a vast and compound material, knowledge about how soldiers think about this may prove useful for the future work with the preparatory system for international operations in the Armed Forces. As with their thoughts about what religion is in chapter two, it is important, though, not to read too much into this categorization. The arguments are often closely intertwined, and it can be a coincidence what pops up as the first idea in the participants mind during a conversation. The categories are not meant to be exhaustive.

3.2.2.1 Operational arguments One who is arguing mainly according to operational arguments is the farmer. He thinks religion is important in international operations regardless of where one is. Albeit, the extent of importance varies (45). The officer tells that they occasionally had as many South Europeans as Norwegians at their worship services in their camp in Afghanistan, and he believes that religion is more important among others than among Norwegians. Nevertheless, he finds it vital to get familiar with religious and cultural conditions before deploying. The tours are normally for six months. Thus, the first and second meetings with your local contact will be decisive for your relationship to him. There is no time for correcting a bad start. This is also a point that commanders, such as COMISAF, emphasize (13–14). The farmer says that religion is particularly important during comprehensive approach situations with reconstruction, creating confidence, and getting the community up and going (see ch 1.1.2). When building nations, it is crucial that you are good at these matters. In pure combat it can be very important in some situations but in many settings it does not matter. The officer concludes that it is important to understand and be conscious about what the mission may entail regarding cultural and religious challenges (45–46). Steel also finds knowledge about religion and culture important wherever you are deploying for international operations. In line with the farmer, he pinpoints that the extent of importance depends on where you are going and what you are to do, but where the farmer has the overall missions in mind, Steel seems to think of the individual’s perspective. He says that those who are in contact with the local population experience a significantly different situation than those who are not. In the case of Afghanistan, religion is far more comprehensive. Thus, cultural awareness is particularly important there. After some 155 reflection, he agrees that we often do not see our own cultural luggage but take it for granted (17–18). Larry tells that he was not involved with the local population at deeper levels (19). Nonetheless, he emphasizes that to get anywhere in Afghanistan, you have to know about the influence of the hardliner interpretation of the Quran by the Taliban. You must meet people on their premises if you are to win their hearts and minds. He says that you can shoot anyone at a distance independent of his religion. Although if you are to influence conduct, want somebody to get along with you or try to change something without coming into confrontations, you need a good, deep understanding and respect for this. You must play on their terms and adjust to the culture of the locals. As an example, Larry mentions following their behaviour pattern. The senior officer always did the talking. The others were standing neatly behind. If the leader was present, he should nag a bit at his subordinate. The soldiers used the standard politeness phrases, were drinking tea with the Afghans and related to their everyday life when something should be done (17–18). Clive is among those who pinpoints that we must understand something about the culture to do a good job. You can walk into so many ‘mine fields’ unconsciously, and you easily make a fool of yourself due to conditions you do not understand. Clive thinks this is important wherever we deploy, and it involves knowledge of history, culture and religion. It may seem smooth on the surface, but there can be historical wrangling that makes it important to watch your steps. The officer tells that this was an essential issue in his job, cooperating closely with Afghans at times. He and his colleagues got an education in advance that made them understand several relations with regard to, for example, ethnicity. Despite the political ideals from the top leaders that Afghanistan should be gathered to one nation, an Afghan is not an Afghan. They are just as much Pashtuns, Hazara, Uzbeks and Tajiks. He claims that it never has been one nation, or at least, the people has not felt as being one nation. Clive concludes this point with stating that the culture and religion are knit closely together (20– 22). Edward is clear what concerns the importance of awareness about local culture and religion. In his opinion you fail totally if you err on this point. He argues with the need for intrinsic safety. It is about avoiding being perceived as provocative. This respondent is aware that for many locals, foreign soldiers may appear as frightening. You must respect that and do things as positively as possible. You have to show the locals that you are a decent person, not just a warrior (17–18). Edward says that you need awareness about this wherever you deploy. 156

Whatever religion that is present or whether the country is religious or not, there will always be a culture with important values. Several examples of failure exist on that point (26). Another participant whose reasoning is related to intrinsic security is Bobby. He thinks that we absolutely should consider religion in Afghanistan. You have to pay attention to it and be careful. He tells that you must think carefully before acting and when talking to the local population. The soldier does not know whether this is more important in that theatre of operations than other places, but he says that you cannot say that you are not a believer in Afghanistan. He describes it as ‘very extreme’ compared with Scandinavian or European countries. If you are not religious there, you are at the bottom of the social ladder. Thus, he does not hesitate to tell the locals that he is a Christian despite not believing. Bobby thinks that such white lies are useful for solving the military mission. When I ask if this is a military guideline, he responds that in his case it is not. It is a conclusion he has drawn based on his own experience. In his job he had much contact with Afghans. Hence, the confidence of the local population was especially important (13–14; 21). As an example of encountering local religion, the interlocutor tells a story about once his unit had based itself for the night on a hill. From a purely military perspective, this was sensible since the site was easily defendable. However, this created disapproval among the locals. The location turned out to be a graveyard. When the soldiers discovered the failure, they apologized a lot and moved their base to another hill. Bobby did not talk to the locals himself at that incident, but he got the impression that the matter was resolved smoothly. He holds forth that very much is based on being humble, accepting the situation even if you must renounce some of the military requirements and avoid provoking (15–16). Thor has an interesting experience that is illustrating how religion is not just a challenge for the soldiers but also can be a useful door opener for mutual understanding. The officer describes that he was really surprised by the positive effect of bringing a military chaplain to a village meeting where the local religious leader was present. They discovered that when focusing on the similarities in the religions, the discussion went far smoother. That made talking about differences possible as well. Thor labels this meeting between the chaplain and the Afghan religious leader as a great success. It was almost difficult to stop the conversation. The Norwegian soldiers discovered that the similarities between Islam and Christian faith are more extensive than they believed (13). Alex tells that it was a bit provoking when the Afghans aborted missions. He experienced that the local partners left due to slaughtering lambs and that they took brakes for prayer during operations. When I ask how they solved these challenges, Alex says that it 157 always depends on the timing of the missions. The Afghans were always allowed to stop but the Norwegians did not always wait for them. In such cases they reunited afterwards. Alex believes that the Afghans did not care what the Norwegians said but did what they found right themselves (11–12). My assessment is that this sounds as classical culture conflicts, which the forces solved with situational practical pragmatics.

David’s contribution can be a good transition to the group that highlights respect of the other as the main argument for finding religion operatively important. He argues partly operatively and partly with the need for respect. He states that it is important with some knowledge about various religions at all levels when deploying. Otherwise, it will be exceedingly difficult to do a good job. He tells that many Americans lack this understanding. They believe it is the American community which is to be implemented around the world. That is way off the target (14). Nevertheless, he adds an example showing that there also is room for improvement among the Norwegians. When they suggested preparing a prayer room for their Afghan collaborates at his unit, there were those who met this by sneering. This officer finds it vital to team up with both local officials and the current value system in the area of operations. He refers an example about an incident when ISAF had lost two soldiers due to an IED. To deescalate the situation, they met with one of the most prominent religious- judicial leaders in the area and his staff. The intention was to ask this highly respected local leader to use his influence through the Afghan mass media to help calming the tension. David tells that it helped tremendously. When the supreme religious leader spoke through the media, people calmed down. The soldier goes on telling that he does not see Islam as a problem. When staying in a country where Islam is the predominant religion, we must take into consideration where we are and use the mechanisms, the religion and the men of power to help us accomplish the mission. The interviewee adds that he does not believe that the Afghans demand us to fulfil obligations according to their religion, although it is important to engage in dialogue about the differences between the religions. This goes for all levels where we operate in Afghanistan. David thinks we are to respect the Muslims for the religion they have but disapprove of the violence in some extreme groups (16–18). We see a clear awareness that religion matters to do a good job operationally. This yields another picture than given in earlier studies, for instance, Haaland’s above-mentioned dissertation about role perceptions in the Norwegian Armed Forces. According to her findings, hardly any description of local conditions exists in the documents other than assessments of threat (2008, 186; 194; 228). We cannot draw general conclusions based on 158 the present material, but at least, it is fair to claim that this sample of Afghanistan veterans expresses a much stronger awareness about the importance of religion – and culture in general, for that matter.

3.2.2.2 Arguments emphasizing respect for the other When I ask if religion is a more important factor in Afghanistan than other places, David answers that issues as respect, learning about religion and culture are relevant in any operation where we have contact with the local population. You do not need to like, sympathize with or be an adherent of the religion. Albeit you identify a difference, you respect that disparity; you respect the view of the other whether it is religion, culture, values or norms. David admits, though, that we do struggle with some of the Afghans’ norms, for instance, how to relate to corruption, the subordination of women and so on. Respect is in many ways a keyword for David’s thoughts. He claims that if we are not respectful when deploying, we will fail (19; 25). Respect is a concept used by many. However, this is a vague term that easily gets a slogan-like character. Thus, it should be filled with content. Now, we need to listen to some more voices stressing the importance of this value. Brian thinks it is important to learn about attitudes and traditions in the country you visit to respect others. He finds it best to have sessions about Islam and compare with our own values, not only the differences but also similarities (14). The soldier does not think this is important just when deploying to an Islamic republic, but we should be conscious what people believe wherever we are (19). Andy says that you must take religion into consideration to do a good job when working in countries where religion is public, such as Afghanistan (9). When serving abroad, you have to adjust as well as possible to local conditions. This involves getting knowledge about local beliefs and traditions. One should respect it as well as possible and adjust the service accordingly (14). Andy thinks that the soldier must adjust wherever he or she goes. Otherwise, any interaction with the local population becomes impossible (19).

In Derek’s opinion religion is particularly important during international operations because strong faith often is so obviously present, and correct conduct is essential. He says that in contrast to the Muslims you meet in Norway, the Afghans are poor and hungry. They have experienced war, been victims of IEDs and exposed to misery. Then it is obvious that their beliefs are strong. The soldier tells that they were prepared in advance that signals may mean diverse things. For instance, the locals could interpret waving as your showing them the finger. It is particularly important how you act there. Nevertheless, teaching religion is a time- consuming field. It is difficult for soldiers to acquaint themselves with it, so it must be 159 simplified. He says they have pinpointed the importance of respect (16–17). This interviewee thinks that religion is important wherever we deploy but it does depend on the conditions where we go. It would be easier to fight in Sweden than Afghanistan. Derek adds that anyhow, we are also to respect the enemy – as a person but not his choices (22–23). Charlie, who has experienced many meetings with Afghans, holds that the most important in international operations in general is respect, not necessarily beliefs. Nevertheless, she says that in countries as Afghanistan the beliefs are really strong. Thus, to respect the local population, beliefs are prominent issues in conversations and relating to others (15). The soldier tells that they could easily see how religion was guiding the operations for their Afghan colleagues, for instance, through the rules for fasting, prayer and going to bed. They are very in sha Allah; if God wants, we will do it. She says that this makes it difficult for us who are used to following the clock. Time is more important for us; they are more ruled by religion (24). Here Charlie touches on a challenging subject when encountering other world views. Various understandings of time have often caused frustration for many militaries operating in distant cultures. As we saw in chapter two, Kristoffersen finds understanding and respecting religion crucial. He says it is particularly important to study Islam because it is likely that there will be Muslims wherever we deploy (11). Furthermore, this officer is among those who are conscious that religion is not just a root of conflict. It can be the solution. Kristoffersen thinks that all religion is peaceful as a starting point. Islam is also a peaceful religion even though the extremists make it seem different. The religions teach that you are to be nice to your neighbour; you shall not kill. The problem is those who interpret bits of the religion in extremist ways (14). With his focus on religion as a source for solutions, Kristoffersen sees a point that many Western militaries undoubtedly have neglected when deploying to areas in the world where they were to deal with populations basing life on other than Western values. We see here an expressed will to respect the view of the other despite perhaps not sympathizing with his religion or values. If this is not a gadamerian fusion of horizons, it is at least a willingness to see the horizon of the other and that he has diverse perspectives that are worth our consideration. The soldiers appreciate learning about local conditions and are willing to adjust to them. They find this especially important where religion is a significant factor in the society. Further, some see religion as a source for solutions, assessing both similarities between the religions and the religious values of the other as resources, not problems. 160

Interestingly, the attitudes presented by these soldiers have similarities with the dialogical model Flood presents for research. While that model implies that researcher and researched are co-partners in dialogue (2006, 8), the soldiers promote a dialogic attitude to the local population and their culture. I find a willingness to show sensitivity to the context and the otherness of the local population. Moreover, dialogue is not agreement or consensus with the other but can be clarification of disparities (cf Flood 2006, 35). A critical point here is that when using a reflexive dialogical model, one must be ‘aware of the narratives in which it is embedded.’ This requires a critical reflection on all aspects of the conversation (39). As the scholar of religion, the soldier in dialogue also communicates from a place. That requires knowledge and understanding of that place; that is, his or her religious and cultural background. Nevertheless, military dialogism will normally have an instrumental purpose. The soldier is there to fulfil a mission, although the most significant difference is that he or she will probably not be aware of the dialogue theory implicated in Flood’s account (2006, 143–168). Now we should listen to those who argue that religion is important during operations since it pays off, what I called adjustment arguments above.

3.2.2.3 Adjustment arguments Morgan finds it significant to learn about religion before international operations to be able to improve cooperation with the local population. He argues that if you treat them with respect, you will receive the same in return. Albeit, he could do without the Afghans’ prayer brakes during missions (19–20). Morgan does not think that religion is more important in Afghanistan than other places and confirms my suggestion that religious values often are embedded in the culture without our thinking about it (23). In line with Morgan, Anthony finds no difference between operations in Afghanistan and other countries regarding the importance of religion (11; 14). Nevertheless, he says that the conflict depends on winning the hearts and minds of the local population. If we fail there, we can fight as much as we like in vain (27). Bob, who at first found the Afghan traditions strange but gradually was content that it was their way of life, is clear that we should have far better instruction in local conditions. His reasoning is that he has seen less experienced soldiers fail related to Muslim beliefs. As examples, he mentions eating with the wrong hand, showing the soles of the feet to the person sitting in front of you, not hiding or squatting down when going to the loo etc. Bob tells that at the worst such matters can be used against us and label us as heathens coming there to destroy (15–16). 161

When asked how important religion is, Hasselhoff tells that religion can strongly influence the approach one can use in military missions. In Afghanistan religion is so deeply rooted that it easily collides with Western thoughts (13–14). He thinks it is interesting to understand the local religion because it is a part of the job as a soldier. If you do not understand, you are on thin ice (6). This interviewee thinks that the traditional Christian values in Norway yield a sound openness towards otherness. They give you a possibility to see things differently when you are in Afghanistan. Hasselhoff adds that you also understand how difficult religion becomes for those who have not learnt about alternative thinking (14). Mike finds religion important to a very great extent in order to assess the security situation in Afghanistan. His reasoning is that their culture is based on their religion. That makes their conduct and mindset dissimilar. Whereas the Norwegians prioritize the missions during military operations, Afghan soldiers stop for the lunch break with the prescribed prayers. Mike describes the ANA as useless towards the end of Ramadan because they are starved and exhausted. As Morgan, he admits that this was annoying, especially stopping for prayer when they were about to make a breakthrough at the battlefield, but he explains that they did not reveal these feelings to the local counterparts. After all the Norwegians were prepared for such conditions (12–13). We see here that these arguments represent a version of respect with a somewhat different motivation than in the previous subsection. The main distinction compared with those emphasizing respect for the other is that focus here is what pays for us. That is to say, the instrumental purpose of the dialogical attitude is more salient. These soldiers do not argue that respecting religion is important per se. They see religion as important since it is a culturally significant factor. It constitutes basic values in the local community, something the militaries must take into consideration to build confidence among the Afghans and avoid trouble. To use a common military wording; what is important is winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the locals. Except for Hasselhoff’s assessment of Christian values as good means for openness towards others, these participants do not see religion so much as a resource, rather something that we must consider. However, despite this nuance in motivation for respecting the other, there does not need to be any difference in practical action. The two last groups of arguments involve a wish for empathy, albeit the second a somewhat more instrumental version. Empathy is also a key term in the phenomenology of religions. This is a problematic term, but as soldiers normally have a practical understanding of this kind of attitude, I see no point in referring the philosophical background for the use of 162 the term in phenomenology of religions here.81 Nevertheless, we see that the interlocutors come closer to Flood’s than Smart’s version of the image of moccasin walking. Whereas Smart attempts walking a mile in another’s moccasins (see note 31), Flood finds it more accurate to claim that dialogism suggests ‘… walking alongside in open dialogue in which a discourse is produced in the interaction of self and other’ (2006, 166). It is interesting to hear militaries trying to do something similar.

3.2.2.4 Arguments stressing the importance of understanding otherness Under this headline I have categorized those who emphasize the importance of knowledge about the other to understand why things happen. Here we find contributions by Peter, John, Adam, Bill, Frank and Johansen. They all add perspectives or tell stories focusing on religion as important in operations because they see a general need for understanding otherness to act properly. Peter describes understanding the religion as especially important to realize how the system works. He says that if somebody does not do his job or behave in this or that manner, there is always a reason. Action or no action is normally caused by some motive. For instance, if the system is corrupted, there is a good reason for it. It becomes difficult if we do not grasp the reasoning behind the actions of local partners (19–20). Here the officer is emphasizing a crucial point. A comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes can be essential when dealing with otherness whether we are trying to respect to please the other or to achieve something for our own aims. John emphasizes that knowledge about religion helps you get a picture of the total situation. You need some comprehension of it. Nonetheless, he underlines that the degree of importance varies according to the tasks of your job. It will be important if the local population has other beliefs than us (22). For officers it should be a topic throughout the military education system (38). In other words, John is stressing the importance of otherness. Adam tells that in the case of Afghanistan, we tend to focus on Islam as the essential theme – and Islam is the largest religion there. Nevertheless, there are also many other underlying norms and rules. These are perhaps not always consistent with Islam. Yet, they can govern a lot, particularly among the Pashtun population where the history and traditions are exceptionally valued. This interviewee thinks that we are awfully bad in educating the

81 For a good overview of the difference between Husserl’s understanding of empathy and the version of dialogism, see Flood 2006, 159–166. 163 personnel in, for instance, normative systems such as the Pashtunwali,82 local history, local power relations, alliances, clans and tribal relations. As an example of a local historical challenges, he refers to an operation where the Norwegians should cooperate with both the Afghan police and the army. When the two Afghan commanders met, the Norwegians observed that they sent each other icy looks. The ISAF soldiers understood that there was some history behind this. It turned out that the Afghan commanders had been fighting each other at the same spot during the Soviet era, one supporting the Russians and the other the Mujahedin. Old friendships and hostilities are under the surface but are decisive for relations in Afghanistan (16–17). They can be hard to understand and handle for foreign militaries. This soldier calls attention to issues that have too little focus when deploying to what I call culturally, relatively distant areas. This applies not only to the tactical level, where most of the participants in this study have been working, but also strategically. I find it appropriate to question to what extent Western operators understand what power structures and alliances they interfere with. It is not my task to answer that here. Yet, it is the duty of the Armed Forces to prepare the soldiers as well as possible for the power structures they may encounter. Hence, we need to think through how to do that. Bill finds that religion is alpha and omega in general during military international operations because religion is culture (16; 20). The Armed Forces are dependent on soldiers who understand the culture. He underlines that you do not need to agree, but you have to understand since the enemy is not defined as in 1940. No uniform tells you what to do. You must understand the human beings you are to relate to (16). Nevertheless, the operations in Afghanistan are particularly difficult, being a clan- and tribal community with a strongly religious population having various interpretations. Bill believes that Afghanistan is a good example of a conflict where understanding may be more important than using military power. He says that you gain nothing by shooting a Taliban soldier. Since Afghan culture prescribes blood vengeance, you just get several new enemies (21). This soldier experienced some encounters with Afghan values that were challenging his understanding concerning how to relate to women in a respectful manner. At a spot road check, a car turned up driven by a woman in burqa, something that is not legal due to traffic safety. The dilemma for the soldiers was that they had to check the car, but to show the prescribed respect for women, they could not talk to the chauffeur. Thus, they had to get hold

82 The Pashtunwali is the traditional tribal law and code of conduct in the Pashtun areas. In some matters, it differs from the sharia laws. Marsden 2002, Crews and Tarzi 2008, and Rashid 2010 yield some notices on the relationship between the two jurisdictions within the Taliban. 164 of a female soldier who could do the control. Notwithstanding, the woman stepped out of the car, took off her burqa, kissed Bill on his cheek and said, ‘Relax. No problem; just look at my car. Thank you for the job you are doing.’ At another occasion, his group had been in heavy fighting for quite a long time. When entering a village that mainly was opposed to the sharia-based view of the Taliban, they came to a girls’ school. Suddenly, the soldier found himself surrounded by forty women who kissed, hugged and lifted him up, making him their hero. Bill finds it absurd to experience that in Afghanistan. He describes it as nice but also as a kind of religious crash with his expectancy and what you normally experience (17–18). Such incidents add perspectives to the gender question. In addition to helping us think through what respect for women means in the Afghan context, it yields inputs for the employment of female soldiers and not at least; it reminds about the danger of getting a stereotyped understanding of the local population. As the other participants, Frank underlines the importance of having good knowledge and awareness of other religions and norms. Otherwise, you cannot do your job because it must be done in interaction with a local authority (13). As we saw in ch 2.2.6, he also stressed the significance of believing in the values one is representing as soldiers in international operations. He pinpoints, though, the importance of leaving the proclaiming or evangelizing part of religion at home. However, when I problematize this idea slightly, he realizes immediately that we bring our own values anyhow (8–9). The officer concludes that if you are not confident with your own religion and ethic, you do not have any stand for assessing the religion and norms of the other. He says that you have to compare. You need to create a model or theory to understand the other, and you build that on what is your own (13). Here Frank is adding a highly appropriate perspective when searching for the best possible conduct relating to otherness. He is both confirming Flood’s point that perception and dialogue is done from somewhere (see ch 1.3.1) and Hiebert’s that our assessment of other cultures necessarily starts with our own values (ch 3.1.9.4). Few interlocutors have emphasized this point, so he is probably touching one of the main challenges. It is normally no problem to agree that respecting the other is a wise principle. As we have seen several times above, it is far more difficult to say what that means, especially when encountering phenomena that are colliding with values we believe to be universal truths in our own culture. The final voice we are to listen to at this point belongs to Johansen. His perspective is also apt indeed but even more challenging. Johansen tells that given a brief time for readiness, preparations about religion cannot always find place. In some possible theatres of operations, especially in tribal areas, you do not have a chance to grasp the local values. Albeit one thing 165 saves you, in Afghanistan as elsewhere and that is normal good manners. As an example, he mentions nudity. In Islam, this is a very delicate matter. Nonetheless, it is not considered as good manners to undress completely in Norway either. Even if you make some exceptions on the beach, you are to dress according to the required dress code in work life. Johansen states that if you manage to keep some formality, you are normally okay when facing all religions. Politeness and gratitude are universal, but you must understand the significance of religion in the area you are. The soldier believes that as a rule of thumb, the poorer area, the more important is religion. Where they have no Internet or other transmitter of news and general information, the local religious leader does this. Johansen says that it is arrogant to call this ignorance and draws parallels to the power of the local parish priest in ancient times in Norway (20–21). Johansen’s thoughts here are to the point. They make us question what it is realistic to achieve. It is, for instance, easier to promote ideals about respecting the other than learning enough about him or her to do it properly. Sometimes no time is simply available for preparations in this field. Moreover, what people consider to be ‘good manners’ is sometimes not clear at all. Relating to religion in international military operations is an arduous task in many ways. Nevertheless, as this sample shows, our soldiers experience that it is an important one, not only to promote care of the combatant but also operationally. On the one hand, we have seen that this group of arguments mainly emphasizes the importance of knowledge about religion to understand the motivating causes behind the actions of the local population. This is particularly important when things do not work as expected. Without good awareness of the local religion and norms, one often cannot do one’s job because it must be done in interaction with local authorities. On the other hand, other sources than official Islam may well have influenced local religion and norms. Those can be tribal traditions and power systems, local and historical conflicts or loyalties, issues that can be difficult to detect or reveal by outsiders. Furthermore, lacking time for preparations will often obstruct the good ideals about knowledge and understanding. An awareness and ability to handle the unexpected is required as well. We can conclude that the participants in general think that understanding local religion matters in order to do a good job. This is so whether they argue with a focus on operationality, respect for the local population, what is smart for own forces or the importance of understanding as such. I should add that it is not my intention to say that the categories of arguments which are presented in this subsection are mutually exclusive. Neither do I assess them as more or less valid according to any ethical ranking list. They are all valid in slightly 166 different manners and they may appear in combinations. Nevertheless, they may prove useful when it comes to finding apt ways of relating to religion in the Armed Forces, both the religion of the other and our own tradition. Interestingly, I see parallel ideals in the soldier’s arguing and the dialogue method Flood is presenting. His approach consists of four elements, language as the location of values, friendship, outsideness, and unfinalizability and boundary. Understanding involves interaction of the languages of the two parties and attempts to familiarize with that of the other to grasp his or her values. Whereas mutual friendship facilitates understanding, absence of friendship does not create objectivity. Some distance or outsideness is necessary for comprehension and explanation. Boundaries are important in the dialogic encounter. There are differences between the self and the other, between their cultures, but the borderlines are also connecting them. Moreover, the traditions are not closed. Everything temporal changes. Hence, understanding is never final but an ongoing, open process. (Flood 2006, 210–216). The interviewees express a willingness to communicate mutually and to adjust to local conditions both to be respectful and because it pays. Further, some soldiers see religion as a resource for better communication with the local partners. I find a wish for empathy within the soldier’s arguments in the sense of willingness to an open dialogue with the local population. Alongside the emphasis on the importance of knowledge and understanding, among the last group of arguments, we also hear that any ideals about this must be balanced by the art of the possible. Even though it is limited what our militaries possibly can learn when deploying to an area of conflict, one aspect is not difficult to facilitate. They should learn about the place from where they observe and assess. If they are not confident with their own religious and ethic traditions, they are not conscious about their own stand. Thus, they will easily become handicapped in a dialogue. There is an underlying ethical challenge here. The pursuit for understanding is related to the aim of acting correctly or at least as well as possible. However, as Flood states, ‘The inquiry into religion is not ethically neutral, but the question of the ethics of practice is deeply problematic. Ethical positions arise within traditions …’ (2006, 220). Hence, as the researcher of religion, the soldier who is dealing with religious otherness faces an ethical encounter. As Flood says, this is deeply problematic. We cannot go thoroughly into that here. However, I find one point especially interesting for this project; that is, whether the interlocutors see any connection between religion and ethic. I will have a closer look at some aspects of this in chapter four. Before that, we will complement the picture in this section with findings through the supplementary methods, have a look at a special phenomenon appearing among the 167

Norwegian ISAF forces in 2010 – that is, alleged elements of Norse religion – and summarize with some concluding assessments.

3.2.3 Statistical Data Support the Findings To get more figures for a better overall impression of the importance of religion during operations, the questionnaire survey includes three questions. The first of these (var Q) asks for the participants’ idea of the importance of understanding the Afghans’ beliefs and customs to interact with them in a respectful way. The second (var R) requests whether an understanding of local religion and customs is important for assessing properly the security situation in the area of operations. The third (var S) questions if one must know something about the religious and cultural diversity in Afghanistan in order to understand the conflict there. The responses of the questionnaire survey correspond well with the interviews. For all these questions, there was an overwhelming majority who ticked the upper half of the scale. Concerning var Q, the degree of the importance of understanding the Afghans’ beliefs and culture, 2.8 percent ticked a five as the lowest. The rest ticked at seven to ten, with 52.8 percent tens. At var R, whether understanding religion is important for the security situation, 2.8 percent of the veterans ticked a five or below. Here the numbers were more scattered over the upper part of the scale. Nonetheless, the largest group was the tens with 34.5 percent. When asking whether knowledge of religion and culture is important for understanding the conflict (var S), the numbers are similar. All tick at six to ten except 1.4 percent who tick a three. Here the largest group, the ten, gets 49.3 percent.83 We can conclude that according to the questionnaire survey, the participants find knowledge of local religion and culture important to interact with the local population in a respectful way, to assess the security situation and to understand the conflict in Afghanistan. Now it is time to turn to the group interviews to have a look at how they consider the importance of religion for the operativeness.

3.2.4 Assessments of the Groups It is interesting that the voices of the sample are rather unison when it comes to saying that religion is important for the operations in Afghanistan and that the reasons given for this vary. Some argue clearly, and others somewhat woollier. I have tried to elicit what the groups assess to be causing this wooliness and whether a privatized and individualized view of religion is preventing communication about religion with the local partners. Moreover, they

83 For detailed numbers, see appendix E. 168 have spoken freely of the importance of religion in such operations, emphasizing slightly various aspects, mainly with the perspective of the individual soldier. The clearest voice stating an overall perspective is the farmer, calling religion an operative success factor (group A 2013, 15). As mentioned in ch 2.3.1, Snoopy is the one in group A who is most clearly tending towards ascribing the blurredness in the reasoning to a lack of religious language in the Norwegian population. She finds it probable that many say religion is important during international operations since everybody understands it is politically correct to do so. Nevertheless, she feels that we all fall short when explaining why because religion is not important any more for Norwegians. When it is not important, we lose our language for talking about it. However, referring to what happened at the churches after the terror attacks 22 July 2011, she adds that people seek religion after all in crises (7–8). In group B Joshua responds that he believes Norwegians in general are inadequately prepared for talking about religion. He ascribes this to an individualistic community where beliefs become relativistic and private. They become truths ‘for me’ (11). When I ask whether this means that we need to establish a state of readiness to be able to talk about such issues with the local population wherever it is necessary, group A affirms this. Donald says, ‘Obviously.’ He thinks about several reasons. One is that we are never alone. We cooperate with many others. They are preoccupied with religion as well. Another cause is the relationship to the local population. Sometimes the local imams get in a squeeze. As an example, Donald tells about a revolt where the camp gate was attacked in Meymaneh. However, the crowd made fools of themselves setting fire to a car that held ten Qurans. Afterwards the imams visited the camp. They wanted to talk to the chaplain to check out what to say at the upcoming Friday prayer (8–10). Furthermore, the officer states that whatever job you have, you need to relate to Afghan employees in a respectful manner (18). Donald also mentions another aspect it is easy for us to forget because it is not so conspicuous for personnel living in state cultures. Religion is not always important. With reference to the Afghan ‘Minister of Religion,’ he says that the clan has priority and religion comes second in all Afghan societies. That becomes obvious in all conflicts there. Nevertheless, if religion can be used to underline a point, to get a compensation or a break from the ISAF invasion, it will naturally be done. Then they get support from the complete Muslim world (14). As to the importance of religion for the soldiers during international operations, I ask group A how they consider the participation in arrangements with a religious content. Donald 169 tells that everybody was present at special tragic incidents happening in Norway and at special occasions in Afghanistan. The exceptions were those who had guard duty. Scott says that when he was in the chapel, albeit, that was not so often, it was normally full. He recalls once people were standing outside because it was crammed. The officer experienced such gatherings as a break from all the other things that took place without thinking about the job, threats and so forth (31). Snoopy reasons that secularization has not come so far that we are at zero about religious belonging in the Norwegian community. She thinks we see remnants of religion when the crises and large catastrophes occur. Then we remember the tools we have used to handle such matters from ancient times (32). Regarding thoughts about importance of religion for the soldiers in group B, Lawrence tells that all emotions become much intensified when you are out there. The distance to the family does something to you, especially if you have had a hassle with your wife. When seeing each other as at home, it is easier to square things. When deployed, you have a sense of uncertainty. This officer believes that it works in an analogous way with religion in Afghanistan (16–17). Concerning the relationship to the chaplain, Lawrence says that we are all equal when he stands there digging trenches alongside you. Duncan adds that his padre during one tour had background as an assault trooper. He joined them on missions out of camp all the time. Lawrence underlines that the chaplains are hugely different. Some are young and unexperienced, stressing their role as priests. Others join in as one of the boys. The latter are easier to relate to (20–21). The aspect of this problem that gets most attention in both group B and C is the importance of religion when meeting Afghans in conversations. After informing group B that some respondents have experienced particularly good opportunities for communication when talking to Afghans about religious issues, I ask if this is something they recognize as well. The answer is simply, ‘Absolutely.’ Lawrence says it is as culture; if you can say twenty-five words in their language, you show them that you engage in their culture. He adds examples of right conduct during meetings as sitting with the legs crossed and taking the shoes off before walking on the carpet (27). Nonetheless, the officer is also nuancing the aspect of talking about religion saying that his experience is two-sided. There were significant differences between talking to someone you knew well and worked closely with and any other police officer. Due to many incidents and the green-on-blue-threat,84 he was very reserved. It was

84 The expression is used when Afghan security personnel fire at allied forces. 170 difficult to sense where you had them. When talking to common Afghans about religion, Lawrence said that he has a faith without answering precisely. They accepted that (28). Duncan informs that one thing was talking about religion. That was normally okay. Talking about family was touchier. It could possibly be a minefield to use that as a door opener. The reason is that so many tragic incidents occur related to deaths of children, diseases and so forth. You ought to know the person well to speak about such matters. Duncan adds that Afghans do talk about family themselves, but especially at negotiation situations you need to ensure a positive starting point. Lawrence tells an example about a colleague who was asked if he had children. The soldier answered that he had a daughter and that his wife was pregnant with a second girl. The Afghan’s reaction was to take his hand and say, ‘I am sorry for you.’ Duncan responds that he asked a local about his children once as well. The Afghan answered, ‘No boys.’ The boys were what mattered (29–30). Group C, representing the youngest strata, also confirms that it is important to be aware of religion in Afghanistan. Gary says it helps a lot if you try to bring people to talk. They emphasize this as a prominent issue to spend time on during the initial training. Further, the group stresses how important the interpreters are as sources of information. All the time they came up with hints about how incidents influenced the locals and what were important issues in diverse districts (15). Nonetheless, the answers of group C reveal that they have some differences in experiences and assessments. George tells that, in his opinion, religion is primarily important as a foundation wall. According to his estimation, he has had between twenty-five and fifty conversations with Afghans, but he has never been asked about his religion. He holds several other things to be more important as laws, rules and the ROE. Moreover, during his more than thirty combat missions, this soldier never saw the chaplain in the field. However, he thinks that the chaplain did many good things in the camp underlining the value of conversations after the missions (6–7). Charles’s experience is that as George, he has not been asked about religion in meetings. Albeit, in conversations under four eyes it has happened very often. Hence, he thinks it is okay to think through these matters in advance. He finds the issue to be a good door opener. The soldier says that if you are a Christian, it is okay. However, the Afghans are more concerned with norms, traditions and so forth than beliefs (7–8). My comment is that this confirms my point that it can be more important to be aware of other dimensions of religion than just the beliefs when deploying. Gary and Carl affirm Charles’s words. Gary adds that he thinks the Afghans are generally curious. They want to know something about you and then religion is a good 171 starting point. Carl tells that the Afghans assume that we have the same rituals as them, for instance, related to fasting. They are preoccupied with our practises, how we do things and at what time. The Afghans’ activity was low during Ramadan. The fast was often a period of ceasefire. When I ask if the group members have experienced situations where operations together with Afghans have not worked because they should conduct some ritual or something similar, George answers, ‘Yes, there have been problems.’ Nonetheless, he says that these are not so much caused by religion as the Afghans’ inclination for customs and fixed frames such as lunch hours. Carl adds that the conditions depend somewhat on who is the authority in the area in question. The towns are divided in small districts. Some places are more religious than others are, especially if the local leader is a religious leader as well. The neighbour district two blocks of houses away can be ruled by a police chief. There you almost find no religiousness at all. The soldier tells that these things also vary according to ethnical groups (8–12). When it comes to the gender perspective, the two female participants in the group interviews have similar experiences. Both tell that no one talked to them about religion in Afghanistan. Snoopy says that she believes the Afghans do not talk to women about this issue (group A 2013, 25). Mary Lou tells that in contrast to when male soldiers were greeting the locals, they turned their backs to her when she did the same. She had no conversations with Afghan women. The female soldiers who have had such contacts are those who have been working at MEDIC posts in the field (group C 2015, 9). As far as I can see, both Snoopy and Mary Lou are robust soldiers who can handle differential treatment constructively. Nevertheless, their experiences shed light on important challenges when deploying to countries where the local population understands gender roles in such a different manner than Norwegians do. Independent of the extent of gender segregation in areas one deploys forces, female personnel are obviously a significant resource, although probably in diverse manners in various places. This is naturally so also for males, but my point is to stress that the Armed Forces ought to consider in what roles the qualities and competence of both genders can be applied most adequately. This is not only for operational reasons such as winning the hearts and minds of the local population. It is essential to ensure a proper care for the personnel as well. Conclusively, the responses of the group interviews focus mostly on the importance of religion from the perspective of the individual soldier. They consist mainly of what I have called operational arguments or adjustment arguments. Hence, I find reason to say that regarding the importance of religion during military operations, the group interviews are more 172 complementary to the findings of the individual study than analytic. To some extent, I believe this is caused by my way of raising the question. The wordings have probably been too general and abstract. To elicit more analytic material, I think it would have been advantageous to focus on some concrete examples from the findings of the individual interviews. However, this is also a finding. Nonetheless, one of my main assumptions have been confirmed. Our language for talking aptly about religion in the Armed Forces could have been better. Furthermore, the groups have come up with some highly relevant conclusions. Group A affirms that we need better preparedness and tools to increase the ability to talk with the local population about religion. However, the vide variety of deployment processes makes creating the instruments for achieving this challenging in practice. Group C confirms the value of religion for establishing good contact with the locals. Group B claims that this primarily is about raising awareness and understanding. Duncan says that if you step on someone’s toes, a response occurs. You can create trouble for yourself in future dialogues, negotiations and so forth. You need awareness and prescience about cultural and religious variations. Joshua adds, supported by Lawrence, that many of the mistakes we do are related to lacking cultural awareness. He thinks we would benefit from being more aware of history, ethnicity and belonging among the different peoples just within Faryab (33–34). It is hard to disagree with him in that.

3.3 Development of Apparently Norse Rituals When studying the understanding of religion among Norwegian Afghanistan veterans, one special incident needs some considerations. In the autumn 2010 mass media reported that a Norwegian unit, Mech [Mek] 4 in Telemark Battalion, had shouted ‘to Valhalla’ [til Valhall] before going to battles.85 As this occurred about simultaneously with an article in the first issue of a magazine called Alfa, this incident is often referred to as the Alfa case among militaries. The magazine was focusing on topics as masculinity, violence and sex. It joined Mech 4 to describe the combatant soldiers’ conditions in Afghanistan. Among quotes that created fuss in the media was a soldier reported to say that combat is better than sex. Several voices questioned whether the unit had developed a negative warrior culture.

85 In Norse mythology Valhalla [the hall of the fallen ones] is thought to be the place where Odin, the oldest and most powerful of the gods, gather half of those fallen in battle. Those are called einherjar [those who fight alone]. The other half goes to Freya [Frøya], goddess of love, fertility and death, in Folkvang [means either combat field or the populous place]. Every day the einherjar fight and kill each other. After the battle they come alive again and enter the hall to eat and drink. For a good reference to Norse mythology in Norwegian, see Steinsland 2005. In English see Leeming 2005 and Lindow 2002. 173

It is neither my intention to go deeply into that discourse nor to yield any thorough analysis of the various aspects of the incident here. However, reference to Norse religion in our time is so special that one cannot leave it out completely when discussing Norwegians’ attitude to religion when deployed to Afghanistan. Many elements of this are treated elsewhere, not at least in various articles in the mass media.86 Furthermore, several titles are written about topics of ethics, professional identity and warrior culture. Such aspects have become particularly relevant in the aftermath of what I have called the international turn of the Norwegian Armed Forces in ch 1.1.2.87 My point here is just to quest what the sample thinks about this incident, in particular why soldiers have turned to Norse mythology to choose a combat cry and whether this involves any religious significance at all. Moreover, I do have a theory about why this phenomenon got popular when deployed to Afghanistan and want to hear whether my sample finds it probable. After all, those who served there were not the most vociferous in the debate. It is wise of the Armed Forces to listen to their understanding. Methodically, the data in this section is based on the individual interviews. Some of the participants in this study have served with the unit in question during the actual period; others have not. To ensure the required anonymity, I do normally not specify who belongs to which group.

3.3.1 Overview of the Soldiers’ Thoughts about the Battle Cry ‘to Valhalla’ The reason for turning to Norse mythology appears as prosaic enough. The originator of the combat cry is Johansen, a significant interviewee in this study. He tells that the combat cry came into being during a winter exercise before deploying. It was thirty-five degrees below zero. The unit needed a combat cry to boost themselves and strengthen the fellowship. When looking around, Johansen saw that all their vehicles carried names taken from Norse mythology (30). Furthermore, the unit badge is a Viking ship. Their headquarters is named after a famous Viking long ship, Ormen lange.88 Telemark Battalion has a history of using references to allegedly Viking warrior values in their recruitment brochure.89 In line with a naming tradition in the unit (and a number of other places in the Norwegian Armed Forces)

86 Hein’s above-mentioned master thesis (2014) gives a good overview of the mass media debate. 87 The best gateway to the discourse about military ethic in the Norwegian Armed Forces is the journal of military ethic, Pacem: Tidsskrift for militær etikk. The best source for literature about professional identity and warrior culture is the library at the Norwegian Defense University College [Forsvarets høgskole]. Personnel at this institution has produced several titles on these topics, not at least masters’ theses. The most comprehensive book regarding warrior culture in Norwegian is Edström et al, 2009. 88 According to the Icelandic poet, Snorri Sturluson (1178–1241), Ormen lange belonged to the Norwegian Viking king Olaf Tryggvason (ca 963–1000). See Hødnebø 2003, 171–172. 89 However, after taking criticism these references have been removed. 174 that makes use of many elements from Norse mythology, the idea of shouting ‘til Valhall’ came up since they were willing to sacrifice their lives in battle when sent to war.90 Johansen explains that the combat cry is just symbolic, and he claims aptly that a lot in the Armed Forces has reference to Viking mythology. When I ask what he means by symbols and why we make use of Norse symbolism, he responds that all countries do the same. The Japanese use the samurai ideals. In Norway the Royal Police Escort makes use of the Viking axe in their coat of arms. Johansen ascribes this to the Viking age as a time when Norway was strong. Hence, it works unifying and builds an identity related to strength and warrior culture (12–14). This soldier has a good point. The use of references to the Viking era is quite extensive in Norway, especially in the Armed Forces but also elsewhere. A good example is one of the units that used to educate NCOs for the Navy, RNoN Harald Haarfagre. The unit is named after Harold the Fair-haired [Harald Hårfagre] (ca 850 – ca 932) who is considered the first king of most of Norway. At the NCO courses there, they gave the exercises Norse names. The exam exercises in military leadership were named Exercise Einherjer, and the commander called the non-commission officer cadets einherjer after passing. Naming of offshore oil installations is an example from civilian work life. It is even possible to question if the Church of Norway makes use of a Viking symbol of war in her coats of arms. Heraldry experts disagree whether the two axes symbolize St Olaf’s martyr axe or his battle axe. It seems that such references hardly face neither internal self-reflection about the use of the symbols within the enterprises adopting them nor external criticism as long as they are not related to controversial situations. However, something happens when somebody presumably lives out or embraces the meaning of what the Viking symbolism represents. Concerning the meaning of the praxis in question here, the shouting ‘til Valhall,’ almost nothing in the data of this study signifies that the soldiers actually believed in aspects of Norse mythology, for instance, the gods or that the fallen warriors actually will reunite in Valhalla in the afterlife.91 More significant than asking for possible beliefs in Norse religion is the question why personnel who obviously are non-believers still adopt a slogan with a religious wording as their combat cry. I will come back to that in the next subsection. When summarizing the responses to the dispute after the Alfa case, this sample largely has reactions as one could expect. They agree that the case came out of proportions (see Anthony, 18–19; Andrew, 23–25; Brian, 25; Charlie, 29–30; Derek, 27; Edward, 30). In

90 Johansen has described this process in further detail in his book Brødre i blodet (40–43). 91 Derek is an exception. He says that he knows somebody who believes in the mythology (28). 175 general the sample perceives the description in mass media as misleading. Otherwise, the pattern is as follows: on the one hand, the lower levels usually see no or few problems with using such a battle cry. On the other hand, the intermediate and higher levels are rather critical, see the potential of developing negative subculture and are concerned with effects externally. The lower levels primarily think about the internal functionality at the battlefield and experience that the cry works well. They emphasize that it helped achieving benefits such as an elevated level of alertness, combat moral, solidarity and fellowship.92 Mike explains that combat that goes well yields a tremendous feeling of mastering. He compares it with the ultimate gaming (22). This group of soldiers praises their colleagues in the unit as excellent soldiers.93 They are strongly critical to the reaction of the military and political leadership at home. They use unconcealed formulations such as the soldiers being stabbed in the backs (Bob, 21; Hasselhoff, 24; Mike, 25), it was handled terribly badly (James, 27), the leaders are letting their soldiers down or not supporting them (Brian, 24; Hasselhoff, 24; Alex, 16; Bobby, 25). Some of the veterans, who clearly defend their colleagues in Mech 4, consider job related jargon as a common phenomenon. Not all of it withstand public scrutiny. Although these do not find the jargon problematic. The underlying values are what matters.94 Adam yields arguments that break the pattern among the younger and lower ranked personnel to some extent. Rather than playing down the incident, he thinks that most involved parties have handled it awkwardly. He sees no point in introducing a battle cry and has never experienced that during operations himself. He is particularly critical to using an expression as brimming with symbolism as ‘til Valhall’ (24–26). Among the officers, Steel and Andy are the ones that most clearly find this kind of actions unacceptable. Steel understands it as invidious subculture and believes it may be among the challenges one can get when professionalizing the Armed Forces. He finds it unacceptable (27 –29). Andy calls the battle cry unprofessional independent of where it is taken from. He finds it unnecessary in a warrior culture (23). Both Betty and Annie understand this incident as a means for building a strong unity. Nevertheless, Betty thinks they went too far and finds it dangerous since one cannot withdraw (17). Annie calls it a boyish prank (25).

92 For details about expressions used, see James, 25–26; Alex, 18; Morgan, 28–29; Anthony, 22; Andrew, 24; Derek, 28; Bob, 22. 93 See Andrew, 23; Edward, 31 for good examples of wordings. 94 Bill, 27 and Charlie, 29–30 have interesting reflections on this point. 176

Several participants present a balanced combination of understanding of and criticism of this incident. Larry says that, on the one hand, he understands the adrenaline rush you go through in combat. He describes it as almost an intoxication.95 It does something to you. On the other hand, Larry also understands the reactions at home because the Norwegian society is so distant from being at war and these kinds of feelings (22). One of the higher officers, the farmer, thinks that we should not overestimate the importance of this incident, but parts of it is negative culture, elements that could have been a great matter (33–34). He emphasizes what is important about the strategy in the Afghan theatre – to support the Afghan government in obtaining the confidence of their people (31). Hasselhoff is critical to all the involved parties. As we saw above, he criticized the leadership of the Armed Forces for letting their soldiers down. He also blames the unit for giving media that kind of access and the personnel for being so happy with uncritical P R. He thinks that openness is fine, but soldiers should be protected against mass media since they cannot give a correct picture of the military culture that is understandable to outsiders. Furthermore, he sees the war cry, ‘til Valhall,’ as positive for motivation but is aware that it easily can become a ‘Rambo-like’ negative culture. Hence, he prefers the tradition used by his own unit – to motivate through talking carefully through the possible options of a mission beforehand (22–25). As Hasselhoff; Anthony, Edward and Frank consider it positive that things came out to the civil community despite the media yielding an incorrect picture. It has become more open (Anthony, 19). The incident became an awareness (Edward, 30), a reminder that the Armed Forces should not get too distant to the rest of the population (Frank, 20–21). I find it natural to end the overview of the soldiers’ reaction to the ‘to Vahalla’ incident with Thor’s contribution. His analysis of this phenomenon is striking and very useful for the Armed Forces in their future work for avoiding development of negative subcultures. He sees the popularity of the battle cry as a natural development when the security situation gradually worsened in Faryab. This made the Norwegian soldiers focus more on their own protection and warrior culture than solving the primary aims of the mission at the strategic level. Thor assesses this as both regrettable and understandable, given the threat soldiers were facing during the later periods in Afghanistan (22–23). Obviously, it is difficult to keep the confidence building appearance of a low intensity conflict when the risk of being killed is part of one’s daily work. Seeing this in a long-term perspective, Thor adds an important point

95 James also uses such a term [en fantastisk rus] (26). Morgan (15; 27) and Alex (20) talk about the effects of adrenaline. 177 regarding development of culture. Nevertheless, we need to get a little deeper understanding of why turn to mythology to find rhetoric for a combat cry and in addition consider some analytic perspectives. I turn to this in the following subsections.

3.3.2 The Significance of the Mythological Content of the Combat Cry As for the reason for choosing a combat cry inspired by Norse religion, some of these soldiers stress that Telemark Battalion has its foundations in Viking culture. Many soldiers in the unit are interested in Norse mythology although they are not believing in it (See Charlie, 31; Brian, 26–27; Bobby, 26; Mike, 23–24). Clive says that it has nothing to do with beliefs (28). Derek claims that we are Vikings still (28). That is, the sample links the combat cry to what they consider as Viking culture rather than religion. Some soldiers hold the Viking warrior culture as something we should be proud of in our history (Anthony, 21; Bobby, 26). It builds identity (Larry, 22; Kenny, 30; Adam, 28). Others use expressions as ‘what makes us Norwegian’ (Edward, 32) or ‘cultural heritage’ (Bill, 28; Frank, 22–23). It is a recurring argument that the combat cry is related to building warrior culture. Bobby thinks that Norway needs a warrior culture and that soldiers must be allowed to be warriors (25). Those who pinpoint the Viking arguments explain that mythological elements were embraced because Viking culture is considered warrior culture and professional culture (Clive, 28–29). This culture is an expression of power, strength and courage. It builds loyalty to the unit and is a means to be able to solve the mission (Alex, 18–20). Bill holds that the combat cry symbolizes the philosophical aspect that good warriors, who do their best and die in combat, are rewarded. For him shouting ‘til Valhall’ is just a way of expressing that we are to do our best; we are to be proud of what we do and if we die today, we did so when doing a good job. Moreover, he adds, ‘We did it with dignity according to our basic values’ (26–27). Interestingly, the values of the Norwegian Armed Forces that were applicable during the mission to Afghanistan were based on ‘the Christian and humanistic tradition of the community’ as we have seen in ch 1.1.2. They did not refer to Viking traditions. The statements echo several aspects of Day’s expression ‘believing in belonging’ and correspond to Smart’s dimensions of religions/world views. The soldiers describe the adoption of a mythological rhetoric, which they claim not to believe in, with a double kind of belonging. They see a belonging both to an ancient warrior tradition and perceive that the battle cry strengthens the internal unity and interaction of the unit, the internal belonging. This double belonging is obviously something several of them believe in. When saying that soldiers do not believe in the Norse mythology, the interviewees probably understand beliefs 178 in direction of what Day calls propositional beliefs, emphasizing truth claims or dogmas. I do not see elements of what she calls felt (emotional, embodied) or performative beliefs (beliefs brought into being through rituals or social acts), but at least the combat cry involves a strongly felt experience of belonging and a ritual performance. Consequently, I think Day’s multidimensional model of contextualising beliefs and Smart’s dimensions to be relevant analytical references for interpreting this phenomenon (Day 2013; Smart 2000). There is a content, which the participants often refer to as ‘warrior’ or ‘professional culture.’ Even though they do not define or exemplify this culture clearly, it is presumably representing a set of skills and values typical for combatant soldiers, a professional ethos. Concerning time, I find a sense of belonging to and being in line with a mythic past that is supposed to be glorious.96 Moreover, the combat cry was used at certain points of time, before expected combat operations. Relating to place, the sample understands not only the geographical place but also the situational place these soldiers are in as very special. One can, with good reason, call it extreme seen with an average Norwegian’s perspective. Several interlocutors point out that people at home do not have the prerequisites for understanding the lifeworld of the combatants serving in Afghanistan (see Andrew, 23; Derek, 33; Hasselhoff, 23–24; Brian, 28–29). As we have seen, the soldiers who defend the use of the combat cry argue with its functionality. It simply works according to the intention. It boosts the combat moral and unites comrades who face risking death at work. In that sense an experiential/ emotional dimension is present here. The salience is rather obvious. The combat cry is certainly not a secluded ritual going on in silence. Even though it is meant for an internal boost within the company, it has had strong societal effects also externally, especially when known to the public. The social dimension is clear. The source that governs action here is not the rule-based provisions, regulations, techniques and traditions that normally control military practice. It is a slogan borrowed presumably from Norse mythology. We can describe the verbal content and bodily practice as ritual. The military context, with its well-developed systems for joint movement and action in everything from tactical manoeuvres to memorial ceremonies, is a brilliant arena for ritual action. Accordingly, by referring to Day’s multidimensional model of beliefs, it is not my intention to claim that there is faith in the mythology or any worship behind the combat cry. The smartian doctrinal and philosophical dimension is only present in the rhetorical

96 This seeing one’s group or nation in line with a mythic past is well known. Here it is relevant to mention that militaries who have served in operations in the Balkans will recognize interesting parallels with Serb understanding of the historical sacrificing role in glory of their nation. Malcom 1998 is informative. 179 utterance. Nevertheless, I find reason to suggest that we need to think more broadly about what beliefs are and correspondingly, what religion is. This becomes clear through Day’s multidimensional model and Smart’s dimensions. Beliefs are certainly more than truth claims. Likewise, symbolism, rituals and bodily action can turn out to be more significant expressions of religion than beliefs are. Whether such expressions also carry a meaning for the participants that includes beliefs or deserves to be categorized as religious, is another matter. I do not intend to examine that here. Kristoffersen, Anthony and Larry present interpretive arguments that shed light on the ‘til Valhall’ practice in interesting manners. Kristoffersen, who is the officer that most clearly expresses sympathy with the position of the lower ranks, underlines the standard perception that the combat cry does not have any religious meaning. He describes references to mythology in the Armed Forces as cultural. He calls this phenomenon a symbolism that works as a motivation boost. When asked why one takes something from religion then, Kristoffersen answers that most of the symbolism comes from religion. Thus, it is exceedingly difficult to choose something that is not religion (30–31). Although symbols are at the core of cultural systems in general and develop from lots of other sources than religion as well, I believe this officer has a very good point here. Given an understanding of symbol as something that stands for something else than itself, it is quite natural that much symbolism is related to religion, especially when facing the danger of death. This recalls Flood’s reflection on the meaning of death. As we have seen above (ch 3.2.1), our sample confirms Flood’s claim that religions are resources for mediating encounters with the strangeness of life, especially in extreme situations such as death. ‘Death is given meaning through religion’ (2012, 74). Nevertheless, one can still wonder – why invent a ritual apparently based on Norse mythology? Why not base it on Christianity? Would not that be closer to the tradition on which the Armed Forces claim to build their values and yield better hope for the afterlife – more ‘meaning’ to death in Flood’s terminology? Well, as we have seen, Christian rituals and symbols have also been used – probably more so than Norse. We have heard about crammed worship services and use of the Eucharist before attack operations. Nevertheless, Anthony and Larry have interesting points. Anthony tells that at least you cannot have Christian symbols when going in combat. He finds that completely wrong. Thus, it becomes quite easy to bring up the Norse symbols (20). Larry calls the Norse a more warlike approach to religion than the Christian turning to the other cheek. He believes it is easier to associate a bunch of armed twenty-year-olds with ‘to Valhalla’ than the Lord’s Prayer. Furthermore, he holds that shouting ‘Odin’ or ‘Valhall’ involves no 180 commitment. It is more as group suggestion (23). Obviously, these last comments reflect ideas that some religion does not go well with warrior ideals. Christianity, or rather, some aspects of Christianity do not. Nonetheless, the overall picture is that those supporting the use of the combat cry have had no problem combining values presumably from Norse mythology and the Christian/humanistic tradition.97 We can interpret this as a paradoxical combination of religious traditions but also as a confirmation that the Viking ideals in reality just boil down to doing a good job as soldiers, emphasizing values as unity, pride, strength, courage and readiness for sacrifice. My interviews in this study give the impression that the latter interpretation is more salient. Another matter is that this case implies that the Armed Forces seem to struggle, to some extent, with determining the content of their values and their communication of this both internally and to the wider society. I will conclude that no significant religious beliefs or devotion is to be found related to the use of the combat cry. Nevertheless, this case is demonstrating an important point made by Haaland in her dissertation about the role perception of the Norwegian Armed Forces. In her conclusion she finds it evident that the changed role from a national defence force to the more multifaceted role of being an instrument of Norwegian security interests lacks a ‘metaphysical underpinning.’98 With reference to her own findings and international research, she says ‘that military personnel need an ideological conviction in peace support operations as well as in wars and being a security policy instrument does not fulfil that need’ (267). It is beyond my focus here to discuss the meaning of and relationship between terms as metaphysics, ideological conviction and religion, but my findings confirm that Haaland’s observation of 2008 still is relevant in the aftermath of the operations in Afghanistan. The ‘to Valhalla’ incident seems to reflect a need among some soldiers to relate to the supernatural somehow. The participants experience something with the religious rhetoric as strongly unifying, reinforcing and motivating when performed in the group before combat missions. As we have seen in ch 3.1, the soldiers have observed an extensive use of religious rhetoric among the local population in Afghanistan, sometimes combined with not taking the religious duties very earnestly. Possibly, a parallel emerges between the soldiers and the locals at this point. Although there is no room for going deeply into this here, I find it to be an

97 As indicated in ch 1.1.2, there is good reason to problematize what was meant by both the reference to the Christian/humanistic tradition in the 2011 version of the basic values of the Armed Forces and the omission of this in the version of 2015. However, that is too complex a discussion to be examined thoroughly in this study. 98 I understand ‘underpinning’ here as a solid foundation. 181 interesting phenomenon that deserves further studies both seen with psychological, sociological, religionist and theological perspectives. Nevertheless, I want to check out another approach with the sample. To some extent it is likely that we can understand the popularity of the presumably Norse element with a theoretical perspective borrowed from globalization theory, at least to some extent. In the following I will test what the interviewees think about such an interpretation.

3.3.3 Glocalized Armed Forces and Identity I do not expect anyone in my sample to be familiar with globalization theory or to be prepared to see his or her military roles from that angle. Nevertheless, I find this to be a highly relevant perspective when trying to understand the ‘to Valhalla’ phenomenon, especially concerning what my informants have told about the symbolic importance this combat cry has had for building identity and culture. Hence, I do not intend to challenge the interlocutors with the complex theorizing in this academic field. Yet, it is interesting to see if they think that working in a global or transnational context causes a stronger particularistic identity in addition to the identity as a multinational military force. As a starting point, I believe it does. I present to some of them a strongly simplified version of Robertson’s theory on concept pairs as globalization – localization, universalism – particularism, and homogenization – heterogenization. Concretely, I introduce them to the glocalization concept to indicate that when dealing with the world community, for instance, by taking part in a multinational force, this is a two-sided process.99 We are not just drawn into a globalized setting in the sense of compression of the world. It also involves invention and imagination of locality and tradition (Robertson 1995, 35). A multinational military force such as ISAF has, literally speaking, a uniformed, universalistic culture. Yet, participating nations, military units and levels/groups within units develop their own cultures and subcultures with their own characteristics. The sense of being part of a united security force is strong among the units operating in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, units develop diverse and sometimes mutually contradictory subcultures.

99 The term was made popular in Europe by Robertson, but apparently has its origin in the Japanese 土着化 (dochakuka). Robertson says it is ‘roughly meaning “global localization”’ (2000, 173; 1995, 28). However, since the two first characters in the term means aboriginality, indigenousness, nativity when combined, and the third can be translated influence, transformation, change, converting into – and some other things according to the context (see Nelson 1990, 265; 126), I find Kelly’s description of the term more accurate than Robertson’s translation. In Kelly’s words, ‘The term captures the sense that local appropriation is seldom simply assimilating and imitating. Rather, it is generally a process of indigenization – of appropriating the foreign objects and practices by recontextualizing them into local matrices of meaning and value’ (2012, 136). For a thorough reflection on the relationship between glocalization and globalization, see Robertson 1995. 182

Sometimes these are influenced by strong caveats and guidelines by the different national authorities (see Frank, 6). This is well known in international military cooperation. Considering details about that must be left out here. The point is simply to get the participants’ response to my wondering whether the embracing of the so-called Viking culture is an example of such a highlighting and creating a particular identity within the grand scheme of a multinational force. The majority of those I ask about this support my theory (Kristoffersen, 32–33; Clive, 28; Annie, 25–26; Adam, 28; Thor, 25; Hasselhoff, 26; Kenny, 31; Frank, 24–25). Nevertheless, one interviewee opposes this thought significantly. Charlie calls it an over analysis – some women’s talk (31). Two of the interlocutors occupy a kind of intermediate position. David answers, ‘It can be so’ (34). Edward’s first response is a combination of no and yes [nja], but as we talk, he agrees to my theory, seeing acceptance of one’s background, culture and tradition as part of self-realization (33–34). Adam says it has a lot to do with identity and belonging. He explains that Telemark Battalion is a relatively young Army unit, and one has a need to make oneself noticed (28). Thor responds that seeing the presumably Norse elements as an example of glocalization is a very good interpretation. He says that unlike colonial and Great Powers, Norway had no warrior culture in the invasion defence. Hence, after repeatedly going through combat, one resorts to the nearest in history. The Viking age and Norse mythology is the nearest we come a warrior culture. It yields belonging, something the Norwegian Forces can identify with as their contribution within the greater interaction (25–26). Frank tells that you tend to become more Norwegian abroad than at home. He adds that you risk getting other rules, rules where you allow yourself things you otherwise would not have done. He ascribes this to group psychology and belonging (23–24). Kenny compares it with going more to church in Afghanistan than at home. You want to relate to something that is well known. The boys know about Valhalla and you feel a belonging to a group. This soldier compares with cheering in sports, for instance, spectators wearing Viking helmets (of plastic) during the ladies’ world championship in handball. You feel well-joined together. Nobody has ever criticized sports fans for using such Viking symbols (31–32). One of the most highly decorated combatants in the sample, Hasselhoff, confirms in a sense my interpretation. He explains the combat cry with reference to how other nations see Norwegian soldiers. They see them as Vikings, rough, experienced in international warfare and never giving way. Nevertheless, what he pinpoints is that he understands the combat cry more as a need or thirst [trang] internally than a necessity. As a soldier in international 183 operations, you are to know who you are and what you are representing. He finds it unnecessary to tell that you are a Norwegian in such a manner (25–26). Summarizing the responses yielded by the participants, I find reason to claim that glocalization has contributed to making ‘til Valhall’ a popular combat cry. Yet, as a self- critical reflexion, I also must conclude that it is hard to say to what extent the support I have found for my theory is due to interviewer effects. Although highly skilled in their fields, these interviewees have hardly any relation to globalization theory as a starting point. Hence, they may become easily influenced by my reasoning. Nevertheless, it seems correct that working in a global or transnational context may cause a stronger particularistic identity. At this point I find Robertson’s term ‘reality construction’ relevant (2000, 91). Interestingly, he considers both states and individuals as cultural constructs (112; 104–105). Robertson claims ‘that we are currently in a new phase of accelerated, nostalgia-producing globalization’ (158). The Viking reference shows that nostalgia does influence creation of subcultures in the military field. It is apt to ask; are Norwegian soldiers really Vikings? What do we know about Viking warrior culture and what do we just believe we know? If they are the Vikings of our time, many other traits are more salient than references to Norse mythology. As indicated above, there is a kind of search for relating to a particularistic historical time of greatness that can make ‘us’ and our unit stand out positively in relation to significant others. With reference to the period of rapidly accelerating globalization in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Robertson describes what he calls an ‘urge to invent traditions’ (155). I find reason to ask if something similar might be going on in these small- scale military units when encountering a universalistic military culture. Why should Norwegian forces otherwise prefer Norse mythology as a source to increase morale and not something else? As we have learnt, no evidence shows that soldiers believe in Norse religion. Facing the lack of scientific documentation suggesting otherwise, I suspect that this incident of ‘Norse’ rituals can be characterized more as invention of than discovery of tradition (cf 148) and as so, a construction of the local. We have seen as a recurring argument among soldiers that the reference to Norse mythology is just symbolic. Internally, it yields a feeling of professional fellowship. As a combatant team, the members are literally dependant on the reliable performance of each other for their survival. That is, this feeling of interdependence is a rather existential experience. Coinciding with this effect of building group fellowship, the symbolism is marking boundaries to the external. This recalls the description by our religionist theorists, Flood’s point that the strange world is culturally mediated through systems of signs and 184 symbols (2012, 7) and Woodhead’s reflection on religion as community-creating and boundary-forming (2011, 127–128). I agree to Beckford’s statement that ‘Robertson’s concept of “glocalisation” is the best-known attempt to capture the relativising dynamic between the global and the local’ (2003, 125). There is reason to believe that my case with military units is an example that Robertson is right in stating that globalization not only involves the linking of localities, but also the ‘invention’ of locality [Robertson’s quotation marks] (1995, 35). The local culture of the military units, the ‘warrior culture’ included, with its values and attitudes, rituals and symbols, patterns of communication and action, is probably developed, constituted and invented in self-reflexive reference to the international context. However, I do not think that we can fully explain the subculture that comes so expressively to the fore through the ‘to Valhalla’ incident by globalization theory alone. It involves many factors in human life and can be studied with an array of disciplinary perspectives. Nevertheless, participation in multinational forces such as in Afghanistan does something to the participating units. It is important that the Armed Forces are aware of which mechanisms that influence their experience of identity and can lead the development of unit culture, fellowship and even boundary marking on sound fundamentals.

3.4 Some Assessments and Conclusions – Understanding Religion Is Crucial When Relating to Afghans We have seen that the interviewees of this study mainly have described what Flood calls the ‘second level’ of religion in the Afghan context, the level expressing an interpersonal realm of traditions, social forms, different kinds of law etc (ch 3.1.9.1). The ‘first’ and ‘third’ levels among Afghans are less accessible (their cosmologies/soteriologies and personal convictions). The veterans perceive Afghanistan as clearly more religious than Norway. They also understand politics, economy, culture and religion as an inseparable totality in the Afghan community. The group interviews and the questionnaire survey clearly confirm these tendencies. In other words, the Western inclination to see religion as a separate sector is simply not adequate in that theatre. Religion permeates all aspects of civic life. Hence, it is important for operative success. Constructive dialogue with locals about religious issues yields better trust and access to essential information. Another aspect is that our soldiers experience the Afghan community as a complexity of interests and conflicts, something it often is hard to understand and handle. 185

Due to these factors, we must relocate religion in the social. As security providing actors in a foreign country, the soldiers should learn not only about that society but also to see themselves from the outside. The need for critical self-reflection about the cultural values our forces bring with them to the international scene has become particularly conspicuous through the adaption of a presumed Viking culture in an important unit. In addition to the existential character of the combat experience, this phenomenon reveals the need for a thorough reflection about Flood’s three levels of religion among the militaries and Haaland’s request for a metaphysical foundation for the Armed Forces. Due to these findings, Kristoffersen and the farmer have inspired the wording in the headline of this concluding section. I believe they are expressing the main point in this chapter when holding religion to be of crucial importance when operating in Afghanistan (ch 3.1.2 and 3.2.2). I find it apt to organize the conclusive lessons learnt in this chapter under three subsections. First, it is necessary to focus on the need for competence about religion and ability to converse on this issue both with the Afghans and among the militaries themselves. Second, I will present some thoughts about what it means that religion is essential for military operations. Third, it is necessary to have a look at how ‘Viking’ or ‘warrior’ culture easily obscures basic values.

3.4.1 The Soldiers’ Experience Calls for Improved Knowledge and Wise Dialogism Several interlocutors talk well about the briefings they have got about local conditions before deploying, but many have expressed a need for better knowledge as well. Some have appeared as rather uninformed about the numerous conflicting interests in the Afghan community, presumably since they have had jobs where detailed knowledge about this has not been assessed to be necessary. Others have been facing local power brokers directly and experienced their interests in influencing the foreign military force. Those who master relating to the local power struggle, understand the interests and values of the locals, and grasp the local code of conduct, witness about better success in fulfilling the aim of winning the hearts and minds. Constructive interpretation of local conditions and a dialogic attitude do not only require knowledge and understanding of that place. As the soldiers also communicate from a place (cf Floods dialogism), it is crucial to be able to see one’s own cultural and religious bonds from the outside, at least to some extent. We have observed that some soldiers are less aware of the role of religion in their own society than in Afghanistan but also that many have begun seeing the religious elements and world view they are influenced by from an outside 186 perspective. Independent of their beliefs, some have proven a high level of reflection about the societal significance of religion. The participants perceive religion as having existential meaning for the Afghans. In their community it signifies whether one is a decent person or not. The locals appear to expect this to be the case for the Norwegian soldiers as well. Thus, they have often asked the soldiers about their religion and religious practices. This is unusual for Norwegians and many are uncomfortable with it. However, the militaries confirm that talking about religion is a good approach for getting in contact. Asking about family, for example, may be risky since many Afghans have experienced tragedies among relatives. Questions about religion require at least a minimum of skills in talking about the topic simply because the Afghans ask about this. Soldiers should be able to respond sensibly. However, the findings show that the readiness of the Armed Forces in facing the local population’s challenges in this field is relatively weak and arbitrary. When the participants have managed such challenges well, it appears rather to be due to the individual’s competence, shrewdness and interest in acting dialogically than systematic preparedness provided by the military education system. Furthermore, the answers the soldiers’ give the Afghans when asking about their religion expose a rather lax knowledge about Christian practises that would find resonance among Muslims, such as prayer or fasting. The reason for this is partly to be found in declining participation in organised Christian activities. The time when most Norwegians got at least a minimum of competence about Bible stories and Christian practices at school and Sunday school are passé. Partly, it displays the significance of the point in Hiebert’s reflection on the role of world views that I referred to in ch 3.1.9.4 when describing them as ‘what we are thinking with’ and ‘unnamed, unexamined, and unassailable’ (2009, 320). We tend to take our own values for granted as neutral, universal truths. Finally, as we have seen in the military documents referred in the introduction, the Armed Forces reveal some extent of restraint when it comes to dealing with religion. Normally, this is just left as a task for the Chaplaincy. Nevertheless, reticence on communicating about religion with religious people easily prevents mutual trust, while recognition of similar traditions creates appreciation, acceptance and sometimes even friendship. Hence, the Armed Forces should dispose of their restraint on this point. The forces should have courage to create a culture where it is okay to talk about religion independent of the affiliations or stands of the individuals. To learn about the other and promote a dialogic outsider perspective on the values of our forces, religion should be taught, talked about, discussed and understood within the social as a whole, not delimited to a 187 narrow private realm. The contributors in this study have both proven that this is possible independent of personal religious conviction and a willingness to do so. To understand otherness and their own background, the militaries need to get simple tools for developing a ‘model or theory’ to think with, to use Frank’s wording (ch 3.2.2.4). This is a field where it is easy to introduce improvements without spending much time- consuming energy, especially regarding information about tradition and practices in the predominantly Christian Norwegian culture and advice on how to get around any uncomfortable questions from locals in disarming manners. Compared with the resources spent on international law of war and military ethics, for instance, it is amazing that this topic has been so little in focus after the international turn. The Chaplaincy can achieve a lot in a couple of sessions. I will present some suggestions about how in the concluding chapter.

3.4.2 Understanding Religious Rationality is Essential for Military Operations We have learnt that almost all participants find religion to be important when operating in the Afghan context. Religion is an inescapable factor whether considering cooperation with Afghan forces or the lifeworld of the soldiers themselves. Concerning relations to the local actors, the arguments vary somewhat from emphasizing respect for the other to what is expedient for solving the military tasks. The Afghans’ religion matters. Even during attack operations, they may take their brakes to perform their prescribed prayers. The Norwegians describe their local colleagues as ineffective towards the end of their fasting. For some Norwegians, the act of taking lives recalls thoughts about divine condemnation despite knowing it is an obligation on behalf of the government that comes with the job. Many take part in worship before combat. For some this relates to uncertainty when facing their own death. We have also seen that expressions with some extent of religious content may appear even when there is no faith in them, exemplified by the rather peculiar phenomenon I have called the ‘to Valhalla’ incident. Religious phenomena are not delimited to beliefs, but simply seem to permeate social life, not completely, although they are obviously hardly avoidable. Rituals with a religious content seem to fulfil a need mental hygienically in extreme situations. Some soldiers have said that they did not understand the locals’ logic. This is no wonder. Militaries are normally well trained in the technical skills of their field and a purposive kind of rationality. It is an ideal to be at the right place, at the right time, with the right effect.100 To put it short; such ideals are not always fulfilled in the Afghan theatre. It is

100 Norwegian Defence Staff/Air Staff 2006 is illustrating. 188 natural that encountering other values, priorities and rationalities may cause frustration, irritation and even conflict or contra productive action. A little teaching about various kinds of rationality can be a valuable tool for helping militaries in understanding why events do not go as expected.101 Likewise, it is striking that few soldiers are concerned about concepts of honour when describing their interactions with Afghans. This probably reflects that honour is not a salient feature in their own democratic and relatively egalitarian culture. Hence, it becomes more difficult to see how the more hierarchical societal system in Afghanistan relates to more authoritarian images of God, differences in view of human life and divergent world views. Nevertheless, it is useful to see, for instance, how the image of God reflected in the in sha Allah attitude and sharia legislation yields other consequences for human life than the Christian teaching of salvation through faith and divine grace alone. One aspect that the participants in this project have observed is how the Afghans’ image of God causes a more fatalist, sometimes even passive, attitude to life. Furthermore, we have seen that the most difficult challenge to handle for the Norwegians related to another view of human life is the role and treatment of women in the Afghan community. They experience an imbalance between the ideals at the political strategic level in Norway and the reality with regard to possibilities for improving conditions for women. Another issue that needs careful consideration is how the forces can use their resource of female soldiers optimally and respectfully. My impression, based on the limited sample of female participants in this study, is that being situated in Afghanistan hardly has influenced the roles of female soldiers at all. They have been used as if they were in Norway. One can wonder whether it is wise to transfer uncritically a praxis based on Norwegian ethical standards to a Muslim society. Yet, it is neither an issue to assess how the local population has regarded the role of female soldiers nor to suggest alternative practices in this study. Nevertheless, factors as concepts of honour and treatment of female personnel illustrate a need for improving the understanding of how diverse world views, images of God and understanding of human life influence both the local population’s and the soldiers’ lifeworld. Hence, they also affect operational options. Hiebert has a good point when recommending to ‘surface’ world views – ‘to consciously examine the deep, unexamined assumptions we have and thereby make explicit what is implicit’ (2009, 319). As for religion,

101 Suggestively and inspired by Habermas 1974, I find it expedient for militaries to distinguish between purposive, relational or communicative, critical, ideological and religious rationalities. 189 it simply matters – especially in extreme situations. It should not be hidden or suppressed, but rather be used as the resource it is for increased mastery.

3.4.3 ‘Warrior’ Culture Easily Obscures Basic Values In this chapter I have included an excursus about a presumably Norse combat ritual seen with perspectives borrowed from globalization theory. I have found that this phenomenon is more an invention of than a discovery of tradition, a construction of the local that has become popular not because anybody believes in its content but since it is experienced as fulfilling a need on the international scene of combat. We should not overestimate the importance of such an incident. Apart from the focus on being good soldiers emphasizing values as courage, endurance, responsibility, loyalty and willingness to sacrifice, I find little more that is ‘Norse’ in what many of these soldiers refer to as ‘warrior culture’ than some rhetoric. Nevertheless, the military forces are actively and passively taking part in the globalization process. The ‘Viking’ subculture did develop and was immediately condemned and cracked down by a unison political-military leadership once it was known to the public. What is more important, I cannot see that the leadership has replaced the subculture with any good alternative. It seems that general Diesen’s request, which I mentioned in the introduction (ch 1.1.2), the call for a ‘professional culture,’ still has not succeeded when it comes to developing fundamental values for the professionality. Perhaps it never can. Possibly, the best we can hope for is a continuous discussion about what the fundamental values should be. It is thought-provoking that at the time of gathering data for the present study, the former CHOD’s wording has changed from ‘professional’ to ‘warrior’ culture in many soldiers’ language. This is no wonder given the heavy combat experience many have endured. In his above-mentioned article, Diesen holds that it is not the distant and elevated ideals that carries the individual soldier through when facing the extreme strains but the internal companionship and cohesion of the unit. In one sense he has got a point that every combatant can recognize. Although this is too simple. This study has shown that even among the toughest combatants, there are those who need metaphysical fundamentals, to borrow Haaland’s point, when facing their own death and feeling guilt for killing. On the national level, it is a huge question whether internal companionship and cohesion of the unit are sufficient values for participating with military force on the international scene. Diesen does not say what he means by the ‘distant and elevated ideals,’ only that he finds them disqualified for carrying the soldier through. His argument neither mentions the core values (respect, responsibility and courage) nor that the 190

Armed Forces base their values on the Christian and humanistic tradition of the community. As in so many military documents, the meaning of these ideals remain blurred or unspoken. The Armed Forces will probably benefit from a thorough thinking through how to handle constructively both the need we have seen among soldiers to relate to the supernatural and the value tradition of the community they represent. Religion is indisputably present both among the Norwegians and in the context where they are operating. Consciousness about this is necessary in respect of the individual soldier, the military units as collective systems and the wider society. I find reason to ask whether a subculture inspired by Norse mythology would have had a chance to develop if the Armed Forces had been more outspoken about what values that come with the ‘Christian and humanistic tradition of the community.’ Perhaps the blurredness, and even silence, about the meaning of basic values unintentionally have contributed to letting subcultures occur. I think general Diesen is right. We need a professional culture. However, Smart is equally right. It is hard to find a value system that is not based on some world view (2000, 105). It is not professional to neglect that. What we need is a professional military culture that lives in harmony with the fundamentals of the community, not a warrior culture rooted in presumably mythological symbolism. In the following I will have closer look at one of the core values of the Armed Forces that are particularly interesting when encountering otherness; that is, respect.

191

Chapter Four

RESPECT WHEN ENCOUNTERING AFGHAN OTHERNESS

As mentioned above, despite being a cue term when relating to otherness, it is hard to grasp what the military core value respect means. Hence, it is important to have a look at this value from the soldiers’ perspective. I find it useful to take a starting point in Vikan’s much readable article, ‘Soldiers and “Respect” in Complex Conflicts: An Afghan Case’ (2018). Vikan yields interesting ethical reflections about the meaning of the concept in a dilemma situation experienced by Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan. She is clearly critical to the soldiers’ assessment of what is respectful conduct in relation to the local population. Thus, her article is a relevant reference for considering the contribution of the sample in the present study. By this we touch on what Flood calls ‘a moral skill of acting correctly in particular situations’ (2012, 58); that is, the second of the two kinds of religious action he discusses, the ritual and the ethical (8; 17; 60). Nevertheless, the relationship between ethics and religion is complicated, especially concerning those who insist that they are not religious yet want to live up to high ethical standards. There is no space to go deeply into that here, but Flood is obviously right when stating that an interrelatedness exists between sacred texts, ritual or liturgical expressions, and the ethical, legal and political dimensions. As we have seen in the present sample with Frank (ch 2.2.1), the farmer (ch 2.2.2) and John (ch 2.2.6), Flood exemplifies with the influence of the Ten Commandments. He says, ‘Through laying claim to action outside of the ritual sphere, the text lays claim to all kinds of human interaction, and so to politics broadly understood’ (2012, 104). When considering the case of Norwegian culture and values, one can ask what would be left of the code of law, for instance, if everything that has Biblical roots is taken away. I find reason to state that we would be left with a thin booklet mainly consisting of laws which have come into being over the last few decades. Due to these considerations, my aim is to present some reflections about the impact of culture and religion on the understanding of respect.

4.1 A Critical Ethical Perspective on Soldiers’ Understanding of Respect The intention by drawing attention to Vikan’s article is not to enter the ethical discussion of the case she is presenting per se. The article was published in 2018, well after finding the data 192 for this study. Hence, it enjoys the privilege of hindsight that often is typical in ethics. Nonetheless, her theorizing is highly relevant and illustrating for the complexity of challenges the soldiers are facing, and her aim is the same as mine, contributing to yielding the core value respect meaning. What makes Vikan’s article particularly interesting in the present project, is her rejection of culture as an argument when facing ethical dilemmas. This is a point of view I will question. The case Vikan assesses is an incident where the soldiers’ task was to build trust with a group of mujahedeen, a necessity for ISAF of security reasons. However, when it became clear for them that the mujahedeen practiced bacha bazi (see note 73) and after discussing the situation among themselves, the Norwegians decided not to intervene to protect the boy. Apparently, their only action was to turn down an offer to take part in the sexual abuse. Vikan does not discuss respect related to encountering religion directly, rather a phenomenon which is reflecting a morality and view of human life, alien to Norwegians. We can call it an example of extreme otherness. Yet, some of her arguments should be taken into consideration here. One aspect is that the bacha bazi practice is probably the phenomenon Norwegians in general find most disgusting in Afghan culture. Another is that the security is at stake, possibly not only for own forces and the involved boy but others as well. Thus, this case shows the complexity of defining what respect may mean related to all parties involved. Furthermore, as we have seen in chapter three, Flood’s and Smart’s point that every ethical system is linked to some underlying religion or world view has largely been confirmed by the findings in this study. Hence, our reactions to child abuse reflect something about our own religiously based cultural luggage when assessing otherness, or to borrow Flood’s wording, ‘… our moral being is our religious being …’ (2012, 205). Vikan says that the soldiers should be capable of distinguishing between perspectives of respect and toleration of intolerable practices. She finds it unacceptable to link condemnable practices to culture as something that should be respected. She argues that the soldiers should be able to judge between a non-moral perspective of respect as responsive respect of the mujahedeen and recognition respect for persons and human rights. Vikan concludes as follows:

Acknowledging the moral stakes implies not using irrelevant concepts, such as culture, to justify unacceptable practices. Instead, it is important to see the unacceptable practices and accept the moral compromises that follow from having to choose between competing moral obligations. (2018, 18)

193

I agree with Vikan that classifying practices as culture does not exempt them from moral assessments. Cultural criticism is legitimate. However, I wonder whether it is wise to disqualify culture as a relevant factor when attempting to give respect a meaningful content. All moral assessment is done with a starting point within some cultural framework. It is never culturally neutral. That applies to Vikan’s reasoning as well. She argues that the international humanitarian law and the UN Convention on Human Rights make it ‘possible to discuss respect with reference to a formal, minimum concept of shared standards across cultural differences’ and that these conventions are signed by both Norway and Afghanistan (10). This is true. These conventions are probably among the best tools we have, but even they have come into being under particular historical and cultural conditions. They are not culturally neutral but based on a Western view of human life with underlying ideas about the value of the individual. The formal signing by Afghan authorities does not mean that these conventions are understood and implemented in the practical lifeworld in the same way there as in the West. They do not change the fact that the rights of the individual have rather strained circumstances in Afghanistan. Violence and brutality that clearly interfere with international law and human rights are widespread in that community. Many soldiers witness about such incidents; for instance, fathers beating their children, children mistreating smaller children (Kristoffersen, 28; Andrew, 26), beating and throwing stones at children to discipline them (group C, 43–44), men beating up their wives and even harming themselves to get transportation by the medical service (Alex, 24). Bill tells about an armed contact with the enemy where his group tried to protect a village. Even though the ground was boiling by impacts, children were still outdoors playing. A six-year- old was killed by the enemy’s fire. Bill explains the population’s attitude by describing the village as very in sha Allah (33–34). At a distance Thor observed an incident where the police were beating up one of the chauffeurs after a traffic accident. A big crowd of spectators was present. To Thor it seemed that they had a collective agreement about the question of guilt, and the culprit was punished at the spot (28). As referred above (ch 3.1.1), Derek experienced a dilemma where his Afghan commander wanted him to shell a site held by the Taliban despite risking the life of an allied Afghan soldier. Further, he tells that they often saw beating of children and animals. Once he had waved to a boy, he could see that his father beat him up afterwards (24). Vikan’s point of departure is ‘Kant’s account of respect as acknowledgement of a person’s dignity as ends in themselves’ (6). If we also apply the Kantian principal of generalizability of norms in the sense that Norwegian forces should have intervened in any 194 case the soldiers came across where human rights were violated in Afghanistan, they would certainly get a busy time. Possibly, it would involve violation of the Afghans’ concept of honour to such an extent that it might cause the opposite effect of the intention. According to Andrew, one understands quickly that there is little one can do with all these incidents of maltreatment. He says they were told not to intervene because it just causes more fuzz. Instead of achieving anything positive, you just offend them more (26). Likewise, Kristoffersen is clear that they would not intervene in domestic violence unless it was to rescue someone’s life. If they did, the violator would immediately become an enemy (27–28). Reversely, what in Western eyes are small incidents, even rumours, have ignited enough anger among the locals to cause severe revolts. (Cf Donald’s and David’s experiences referred above, ch 3.2.4; 3.2.2.1). My point is not to suggest any alternative to Vikan’s reasoning or any solution to the dilemma of the case. I find her arguing principally strong and consistent. Nonetheless, despite emphasizing the complexity of the situation, she does not mention several significant complicating factors that could have obstructed her argument. First, she takes for granted that the Norwegian authorities’ justification for staying in Afghanistan, to protect the civilian population, is valid. The soldiers tell that this is only a qualified truth. They must relate to the commands they serve under and political guiding of the leading nations there. The priorities of those are not necessarily following Norwegian political ideals. The participants describe the Germans as yielding narrow regulations for what they can do. Americans have a strict focus on own protection and tactics but are struggling with concern for local culture. Although they buy their way with dollars (see David, 35–36; 47; Thor, 29; Johansen, 45; Edward, 43; the farmer, 21–22; Peter, 24–25; 31). Second, other than the possible security problem, consequences for self-respect and moral injury, Vikan does not consider wider possible consequences of intervening, for instance, what a possible conflict between the Mujahedeen and the Norwegians might involve for the abused boy or the local civil community. It is not given that an intervention of the soldiers would improve the boy’s situation. As we saw in Derek’s case, the child might have been punished for being a source of embarrassing the men. Third, we do not know anything about possible ways of protecting the boy after an intervention. Without knowing more about the case than Vikan’s description, I suspect that pride and honour may be cultural phenomena of importance here. This is not to say that the soldiers’ choice of not intervening was more respectful than acting. Firm action to stand up for the boy might also have fulfilled the core value respect better. As we shall see below, 195 strength and firmness are highly valued in Afghan culture. My point is that unlike Vikan’s conclusion, I suggest that cultural aspects should not be disregarded but taken into careful consideration. Respect does not mean the same in different cultures. We cannot hear the soldiers’ perspective in Vikan’s case, but now it is time to listen to the thoughts of those in the present sample.

4.2 The Soldiers’ Perspective on Respect We have seen above that the interlocutors express clear intentions of respecting the local population. In chapter two we found that they hold respecting religion to be essential (ch 2.2.2). The soldiers understand religion in a wide sense, as several other things than beliefs, such as culture, meaning, fundamental values for the community, as bearer of identity and traditions, as practices, experience/emotions and as institutions/organisations (ch 2.2.7). In chapter three we learnt that they consider Afghanistan to be a more religious community than Norway and that many soldiers request improved knowledge about local conditions (ch 3.1.9.1; 3.4.1). They have experienced that talking about religion is a good approach for getting in contact with Afghans. It follows from these aspects that religion is a key topic related to showing respect in Afghanistan and that we do not appear as respectful by delimiting it to a private sphere. When considering the soldiers’ perspective on respecting local culture and religion, I ask the participants whether they had norms, standards, procedures or a code of conduct for treatment of the local population. I hear about preparations and actual performance related to procedures and code of conduct; for instance, whether they have experienced any dilemmas between respecting and performing military necessities. Furthermore, I request whether they think religious values have significance for the military professional ethic. What I learnt is organized in three subsections. The first reflects the soldiers experience of preparedness and procedures for respecting the locals. The second emphasizes that respect for the other presupposes confidence in one’s own stand. The third lesson learnt is that in Afghanistan respect does not only require understanding the other and oneself but a self-confident authority as well.

4.2.1 Procedures and Preparedness for Relating to the Local Population

4.2.1.1 Procedures and guidelines The participants tell about some variation concerning procedures, professional ethical guidelines and code of conduct for relating to the locals. To some extent that is natural. Conditions have changed over the years the forces have stayed in Afghanistan, the overall 196 experience has increase, and the interlocutors have received different training according to the job they were to do. Unit commanders have also had different interests in giving priority to the topic. Nevertheless, with some exceptions, the soldiers report that little focus has been on procedures or guidelines for showing respect other than what is general standard for military code of conduct in any theatre of operations. Quite many interviewees say that they either do not know of any procedures or that they do not remember. However, this cannot be read as no guidelines existed on this point. Given the various lengths of time between their service in the country and the interviews, it is understandable that such details may be forgotten. As could be expected, several explain that procedures for the use of power, such as the ROE, security, collateral damage and carrying out the mandate, were very clear and carefully drilled (see Frank, 27–28; John, 24; Edward, 29; Larry, 34–36). Staff officers, especially deploying from NATO staffs, tell of getting little preparatory information about local conditions. Albeit among this category, Steel yields a different picture. He informs that ISAF HQ gave a written list of do’s and don’ts (21–22). Further, they have issued several directives that affect ethical questions. Two examples mentioned are how to conduct night raids and restrictions on driving. Subordinate units were to report that these were read and understood. This is not a new system, but it has got an improved focus using the above-mentioned COIN- theory (note 11), which has a more careful consideration of cultural aspects – in a wide meaning of the term – than was the case traditionally (Steel, 34–35). Anthony also believes that intentions/procedures were coming from COMISAF (26–27). At the executive level, the personnel had a threefold rule of thumb as a simple guideline in addition to the formal regulations for use of power. They should ask themselves whether the intended action was legal, tactically wise and they could live with it in the aftermath. They should refrain from carrying out the action if the answer was no to any of those questions (Mike, 29; Brian, 31). Both Brian and Clive tell about written norms at the unit level. Brian says that they used these ideals at their self-evaluation (29–30). Clive thinks that they were genuinely concerned about professional ethic in his unit. They wrote and operationalized core values of the unit based on those of the Armed Forces in general. The personnel were conscious about talking through and learning from negative incidents (31–32). Working closely with Afghans, they adjusted to the daily routines of the locals, such as withdrawing during their time of prayer. Clive’s experienced a mutual respect towards the local colleagues (38–39). According to Peter, task unit commanders were particularly conscious about conduct (24). 197

Some participants mention concrete rules. For instance, Kenny says that they had to observe some clear don’ts. The most explicit they had in Mazar-e-Sharif was to keep far away from the Blue Mosque (26). Kenny was often outside a hospital. They were not allowed to hand out any food or water there. The reason was the security problem with attracting too many locals who wanted to get something. Nevertheless, the leadership was also emphasizing the importance of ordinary good manners and treating the Afghans with respect (24–25). Unlike in Kenny’s case, others tell that they sometimes asked drivers whether they could give water to their children when they had to wait during searching (Derek, 23–24). Other examples are not to take direct contact with or look at women, do’s and don’ts related to greetings (Anthony, 15), not to eat or drink openly during the fast, use politeness phrases and thank Allah for sons during conversations (Bob, 17–18). As for gender issues, we saw from Betty’s and Charlie’s stories (ch 3.1.6) that there has not been any systematic policy about female soldiers related to dress code, such as wearing hijabs, for instance. Charlie confirms my comment that no precise policy or procedures seem to have existed concerning code of conduct when encountering the locals, rather sporadic advice and recommendations (26). Adam finds it difficult to make procedures for relating to the local population. He says that you can have that to some extent, but at last it will be based on experience and confidence (20). He holds that common politeness and good manners often is enough (19). Along similar lines, Johansen informs that everything cannot be written in the ROE or other similar documents. Some things are situational and must be decided there and then. He mentions a few examples. In incidents with a standstill during combat with fallen enemy soldiers lying on the ground, it can be tactically smart to let them lie there to elicit more enemy soldiers who want to come for them. However, it can sometimes be wise to let the enemy gather them to fulfil their Muslim burial regulations in the right manner. The interlocutor tells that if the Western soldiers do not fulfil their ethical standards, the enemies use that in their propaganda to blacken them. Nonetheless, it is a problem that the enemies do not follow their own religious guidelines. Johansen explains that they may kidnap each other’s corpses without bothering about the twenty-four hours rule for burials (17–18). The Norwegians do sometimes observe young combatant enemy soldiers posing threats that it undoubtedly is legal to eliminate. However, the soldier stresses that there is no point in doing that unless it is necessary (19). Further, David emphasizes the assessment of the necessity of the action. He holds that expediency should be the ruling principle depending on the circumstances in specific situations (41). 198

In short, Johansen’s explanation, that they stressed common training more than formal procedures (40), appears as generally adequate. When summarizing what the interlocutors tell about relating to incidents of violence and crime among local civilians, such as family violence, small-scale production of opium or maltreatment of children along the lines of the mentioned case in Vikan’s study, they report about few procedures for such situations. This was a matter the Norwegians talked about and related to pragmatically (Larry, 32–33; Thor, 28). This is reasonable as it normally would be matters for the national police.

4.2.1.2 Preparatory training and teaching As to preparatory training and teaching in local conditions, most of the interviewees tell about learning basic greetings in local languages, simple mnemonic rules about do’s and don’ts, civilities, dress codes, treatment of local women, and some history and religion. This has been done mainly in briefings before deployment and through transfer of experience from predecessors (Larry, 27; 31; Clive, 22; James, 20–21; Morgan, 24; Bobby, 22; Kenny, 25; Alex, 12–13; Derek, 23; Adam, 18; Bill, 23–24; Kristoffersen, 28; Frank, 18; Peter, 23; Edward, 26–27; Mike, 16; group C, 44). It is naturally not a task to assess the quality of this teaching here, but the participants’ statements seem to reflect that this has varied. Some find this field badly covered. Bobby calls the content very poor. His unit had only half a day with this kind of teaching (22). John labels his preparation at this point as minimal (24). David had a similar experience (26). He thinks it is important with good information in this field before deploying whatever task we have, and that preparatory education never can be good enough (38; 46). As many do not see the consequences of self-centred actions, Andrew misses training in handling the consequences of minor mistakes, for instance, how problems can develop based on rumours (29). Andy tells that they had some few sessions about history and religion, but it was very general (20). Edward says that his unit had many briefings about Islam and everyday life. He feels he got a relatively clear picture of what they would encounter. Yet, he had expected more information (26–27). Larry says his contingent was lucky because they were briefed by Afghan, Muslim interpreters, although a clear potential for improvement is obvious about understanding the background for conflicts, local culture and religion. He thinks too much learning has been left to the individual soldier and that it has been more of a learning eventually through getting experience in the theatre (34–36; 18). This point is made by Andrew (21), Andy (20) and Derek as well (24). Alex recalls that his unit had a briefing by a Norwegian who had lived in Mazar-e-Sharif. He found it very good, but it lasted only for an hour and a half (13). In 199

Kenny’s case they had several briefings both before and after deploying. He emphasizes that there ought to be a balance between regulations from the leadership and transfer of experience from those who have been there before (25). Hasselhoff informs that in his unit, their chaplain helped them prepare in this field. He challenged them with questions about what they would do in demanding situations, and they discussed possible good solutions afterwards (21–22). Since Steel has had several shorter tours to Afghanistan over the years, he can add a longitudinal perspective. He has experienced a strong improvement of the cultural awareness. The first time he went, they had no preparatory support at all (11), but later this was given a lot of space during training. It included group discussions with Afghans taking part in the training (21–22). Among the most positive voices about the preparatory training, we find those of Frank, Thor, Anthony and the farmer. Frank finds the briefing and transfer of experience he has got to be satisfactory, but he adds that he does not know whether it is good enough (18). Thor thinks he was as well prepared as he could have been at the time he deployed. Nevertheless, in hindsight, he would have made greater demands on both the content and time spent on his education and training (41). On the one hand, he believes it is a strength among Norwegians to prepare mentally on handling difficult situations. On the other hand, even with the ROE and the strict political caveats from the German leadership, the procedures should have been clearer (28–29). Anthony’s unit had a commander who was particularly concerned about keeping good relations to the local population. He provided the subordinates with a library of literature, encouraged self-tuition, arranged workshops with teaching and group discussions (27). Adam tells about several commanders who are very skilful at this point as well. In his opinion education in this field is particularly important among commanders since they have most of the contact with the local population (20). Like Steel, the farmer informs that the consciousness relating to conduct towards the local population has improved in military training. When deploying, they try to get hold of representatives of the local population to yield broad information about culture, religion, do’s and don’ts. As few informers from the Afghan theatre have been available, the quality has varied but most of them have given valuable contributions. However, over time only the good informants are invited back (17–20). The farmer thinks that the quality of the databases of experience and the transfer of knowledge have improved successively (26). In other words, clear indications show that the Armed Forces manage to learn and preserve competence in this field. 200

At this point the questionnaire survey includes three questions asking to what extent the soldiers felt prepared for handling challenges related to religion and culture, to what extent the military system had taught this, and their satisfaction with that education. Furthermore, they were asked where they got their education. In general, the statistical data show a reasonably high degree of felt preparedness. The mean score is 6.4 (var T). It is somewhat lower, 5.7, about received training/teaching (var U) and 5.6 concerning satisfaction with this (var W). When asked where they have got their training, the peaks are as reflected in the interviews, during training before deployment and through self-tuition (var V).102 These data reflect that the international turn has not entailed significant emphasis on studies of culture and religion in the general military education system. Mission specific training is the exception, and this has improved considerably over time. The numbers basically give an impression of what the participants feel about this education. Any assessment of the quality requires more thorough measures.

4.2.1.3 The use of interpreters and Afghan colleagues As we have seen above, the interpreters have been of essential importance, not only as verbal mediators but as interpreters of social relations and code of conduct as well. Adam tells that after learning the basic politeness rules, he learnt more through communicating with the interpreters and the local population, for instance, about how they reacted to the soldiers’ body language. He feels that the militaries often get nervous about how to proceed among the Afghans since the culture is so different. Then they easily appear tough. The soldier believes this is due to their considering it too carefully. As the security situation has worsened, that has influenced their appearance further, making them more focused on the operational tasks (18– 20). Alex’s experience is that the interpreters were good helpers in showing respect through their examples when building relations with the village elders. They were careful socializing before gradually getting into talking about the real concerns (29–30). Derek tells that it was a challenge to achieve something without upsetting the Afghans. He emphasizes the importance of instructing the interpreters to translate in a polite manner, especially during combat incidents together with the ANP. The Norwegians’ style of communication may otherwise be rather rough at such occasions. They knew that some of the police officers were corrupted and informants to the Taliban. Derek says that they had to watch their tongue because they could not trust the Afghan police forces, even when fighting side by side (18–

102 See appendix E for details. 201

20). James describes the interpreters as having good understanding of Westerners. They came up with suggestions about what they ought to do in different situations. In cases with medical treatment of Afghan women, they also acted as witnesses that everything was done in a decent manner (21). David thinks that his interpreter was of inestimable importance. He describes him as a mentor regarding what to do in different contexts. Since David had to interact with top level Afghan officials, he found that reassuring, especially to avoid insulting anyone (26). In ch 3.1.2 we learnt about Clive’s open-minded relationship to the interpreter, something that included good conversations about beliefs and religion, different practices in the two countries with regard to married life, children outside marriage and so on. Although he adds that Norwegians are perhaps not professional enough in relation to the interpreters and tend to become friends with them. Clive wonders whether hidden agendas could have been behind the Afghans’ interest. Nonetheless, as the Norwegians were conscious about letting the interpreter cover his religious needs and visit his family when possible, the officer believes that the interpreter felt very respected by them (39–43). Several interviewees tell that gradually, most of the direct contact with the local population was done through their Afghan colleagues (Bob, 26; Adam, 34; Bill, 23; the farmer, 31; Mike, 30). This is in line with the intention of training the Afghan security forces to be responsible masters in their own house. As Adam explains, the idea was to kill two birds with one stone, both to train the Afghans and to avoid dilemmas between respecting the local population and doing what was militarily necessary (35). Nevertheless, they had some challenges. We will have a look at those now.

4.2.1.4 Experienced dilemmas and challenges concerning treatment of the local population I have referred to some dilemma situations and challenges above. Here, we focus on what the soldiers tell about experienced conflicting considerations between showing respect and factors as the given military procedures, actual performance related to these guidelines and the militarily necessary. Interestingly, most of the interlocutors’ message at this point is that they either did not experience dilemma situations or just saw trifles in the grey area, as Andy calls it (28–29).103 This response is somewhat unexpected to me. It is hard to imagine operations in Afghanistan that do not involve dilemmas or at least situations with difficult choices. Vikan’s above-

103 He mentions examples as turning up dirty at meetings, encampment at places where they were looking down into a village from above and behaving with a tough approach to intrinsic safety. 202 mentioned article is a good illustration. Yet, the response seems to reflect that the Norwegian forces in general have had a functional professional ethical standard. The pedagogical tactic of letting their Afghan allies gradually lead more and more has obviously had a wise side effect of avoiding such challenges. Albeit this does not mean that the approach of the Afghan forces is more respectful to the civilians. According to Mike, it is rather the opposite (30). Furthermore, it is natural that those who have had little or no contact with the locals have few experiences at this point. Others have perhaps forgotten or not seen incidents as challenging. Even though I have expected to hear about more dilemmas and challenging situations, several have come up. They are rather different in character and cover issues from combat situations to more trivial incidents of breaking the courtesy rules. I will present those that apparently involved the gravest consequences first and more thoroughly. Then the smaller issues will be mentioned more briefly. Johansen tells about two incidents where the dilemmas were about using fire or not. The soldiers of his unit put their pride in avoiding civilian casualties (70). Once they were to clear a village that had been held by the enemy. Before entering a house, Johansen should have thrown in a hand grenade according to the procedure as enemy soldiers could be hiding there. Although he did not, finding that no rebels were inside, just an old woman. Johansen describes it as a decision taken instinctively there and then (48). He was willing to sacrifice several of his lads to avoid killing civilians as this old lady. He says that he is prouder of the grenade he did not throw than killing fifty enemies and hopes he could have said that if they had lost someone of their own in that situation as well. They were willing to take some risks but did the right thing, and he wonders whether that possibly protected them. He asks himself whether this experience was a miracle or such thinking is superstition (71). The combatant explains the acceptance of risks with wanting to get home with a pure conscience (48), professionality and wishing to delimit the combat only to those who are warriors (70). In another incident Johansen refers, he was to check a driving rout for a VIP. The soldier got allegedly certain intelligence data about a car bomb. He found the vehicle in question close to where the VIP should pass. No one was inside it. No other ISAF soldiers were nearby for support. Our man had to decide to shoot the driver to kill if he turned the car and drove towards him. The chauffeur arrived and drove the other way. Later, Johansen heard that the police had stopped the car and arrested the driver without finding any explosives in the vehicle. He reflects, ‘What if the car had turned, and I had shot that one down based on the information I had got?’ The interviewee says that he could have had a pure conscience since the intelligence data gave him the permission. Nevertheless, Johansen concludes that 203 facing such dilemmas comes with the job. One thing is standing alone in an Afghan city with all the what if questions, another is thinking about what furore it would have created if an ISAF soldier had shot an unarmed man in a civilian car (48–50). Along similar lines Derek describes situations where the Taliban attacked the Norwegians in towns. The Norwegians had to show force by entering inhabitants’ houses to clear the place of enemy soldiers. He says, ‘Luckily, there has not been any civilian casualties when we were there ...’ The soldier did not experience any inconsistency between the procedures and their actions, albeit stressing that combat in a built-up area is frightening for many civilians (37–38). A recurring theme in the soldiers’ stories is how they have been exposed to fire from positions on what presumably is holy ground for Afghans and hence should be protected areas according to the regulations (see Adam, 33; Andrew, 32–33; Mike, 30–31; Johansen, 47). Still, the Norwegians normally complied with the strict regulations about keeping a distance to mosques and graveyards. However, the interviewees do refer to incidents of getting too close to holy sites due to navigation error (Andrew, 33). Bob tells that he has been scolded by a local mullah for parking fifty meters from a mosque. He even tells about incidents where soldiers have intended to hide when going to the loo without discovering that they have urinated on the wall of a mosque. Bob describes this as mindlessness on the verge of idiocy. He warns against messing with something that is so important to people (16–17). Other repeatedly mentioned issues are incidents of destroying the crops on farmed fields and related to treatment of local women. The forces had routines for repaying for damages on farmed land (Alex, 30; Bill, 24; Edward, 45). However, treatment of women could be a delicate matter. Edward, who had a job that involved watching for possible enemy snipers and similar danger, tells that in some areas this meant that women felt exposed to staring. If the soldiers came to look at a woman without a burqa in a compound, she hid. He says they tried to avoid that or possibly wait until she had withdrawn, but if the gut feeling was bad, you simply had to watch out (16; 44–45). Concerning the job performance, Mike reveals something that probably will cause disgust among most civilians. He tells that they practised a lot using the ROE correctly before deploying, so he never doubted when to shoot and when to keep his fire. He did not experience any norm conflict related to the mission but yields a good and thought-provoking reflection about feeling the lust for killing (28). He adds that this is a common experience among many soldiers. War and killing is fun as long as it goes well (Mike, 38–39). I have heard about this phenomenon from others as well, and it is not difficult to agree with him that 204 this really should be taken as an important challenge for future teaching of ethics in the Armed Forces. As most teachers of ethics are chaplains and, hence, non-combatants, they should cooperate with soldiers as Mike, who have experienced these feelings and are brave enough to admit it and willing to talk about it. James and Hasselhoff are two of few who clearly admit that the actual conduct was not always consistent with the procedures. James tells that they did whatever they liked in the traffic (24). They behaved aggressively, hooted a lot, threatened people by cocking the gun and pointing the weapon at civilians. The officer says that they secured themselves, but simultaneously, they caused disapproval and that was not good. However, gradually they found less aggressive ways of driving but still without letting the locals get too close to them (37–38). John reports of another issue about traffic and security. Once they came across a traffic accident and wanted to support those involved, the chauffeur informed them that they were not allowed to halt due to the security precautions (35). Hasselhoff believes the basic attitudes Norwegians bring when deploying are good. Yet, he makes certain reservations seeing that different individuals do have their ways of being and thinking. Some manage to keep basic values and to adjust when coming to the area of operations, but some fool about. There are those who do not manage the task and become a danger to themselves and others. Very much depends on the military training they have got before deployment. He says that you easily see who knows what they are doing (11–12). A similar point is made by Kenny and group B as well. Kenny tells that his unit consisted of a vast array of professions. Some were civilians dressed up in uniform without real military background. In situations of crises, this could be problematic as you expect the highest ranked to be able to take responsibility and lead (34–36). In line with Hasselhoff, group B finds that the Norwegian soldiers have a good reputation in international operations, and they are concerned about keeping it. The group considers the basic values to be good, but, with Duncan’s phrase, some ‘loose cannons,’ who do have the same values but lack self-control, always turn up. He says the system works well but the selection of personnel and a post selection after enlisting could be even better (group B, 42–44). With respect to dilemmas, Hasselhoff is clear that if security is at stake, he would not have big problems with offending local religion, but he would think thoroughly through the consequences. As an example, he mentions that he would think very carefully before touching a woman in Afghanistan. He refers an incident at a spot road check. A car appeared with two men and a woman. As the female looked very ill, one of the soldiers wanted to give her a bottle of water but stopped in time realizing that he had to give it to the man besides her for 205 him to give it to her. Hasselhoff concludes that it is terrible to say it, but everything is much easier if you can relate to the men there (30–31). Other challenges mentioned are related to the enemy’s use of children for manning militarily legitimate targets, particularly as scouts and at observation posts (Johansen, 47); children giving them the finger and threatening to kill the soldiers (Derek, 18); smaller blunders as soldiers who eat with the wrong hand, show the soles of their feet to the person sitting in front of them during meals and not hiding when going to the loo (Bob, 15-16). Kenny describes it as in the grey area to being disrespectful that we throw a lot in the waste which Afghans find valuable and that local contractors sometimes had to wait a long time for their transport assignments (38–39; 41–42). Alex tells that the Afghans have a culture of sharing. They expected the militaries to have the same and could easily be provoked when discovering that they did not (30). As we have seen recurrently above, gender issues have sometimes been a delicate matter for the Norwegians in Afghanistan. Yet, it is at the core of the reasoning at the political strategic level in Norway for being there. Kenny points out an interesting question about who is to adopt to whom in this cultural encounter and to what extent. He exemplifies by referring to female Norwegian soldiers wearing t-shirts even though Afghan men understand disposal of bare skin as signalling a wish for sexual contact. However, at incidents with such advances by Afghan men in the camp, the message was clear; if it happened again, the Afghan would lose his job. Kenny’s answer is that there has to be a balance. We must know about such cultural factors, but we cannot let the Afghan employees set the premises within our own camp. It is different outside the camp since then we are in their sector (39–40). The gender issue is challenging at several levels. Some participants find the politicians’ ideals so troublesome that they call the whole operation a dilemma. We will have a closer look at the soldiers’ experience of this cultural conflict in ch 4.3. First, we need to gather the treads about procedures for respecting the local population.

4.2.1.5 Summarizing comments The interlocutors have left the impression that apart from general guidelines when it comes to the use of power as the ROE, collateral damage and mandate, few formal standards and procedures existed for the treatment of the local population. Although they report of simple principles and rules of thumb. Several tell about good and apt preparatory briefings and transfer of experience by competent external informants and predecessors. It is not my intention to assess the quality of the professional ethic concerning the local population here. As we learnt above, some personnel do not have sufficiently thorough 206 training for the mission. Nevertheless, despite blunders, I think it is fair to conclude that based on information from this sample, the conduct seems in general to have worked quite well according to the intentions. The participants’ stories reflect dilemmas and challenges over a wide span of situations from combat actions to the more trivial as following politeness rules. There is a factual contradiction in trying to combine combat in built-up areas with respecting the local population, for instance, but my impression is that these soldiers have managed to balance this. Some report that they have been willing to take greater risk to do so. I assume this is a result of a highly professional attitude to careful drilling of the ROE. However, as Vikan points out, the primary consideration has been the security of own forces. Edward describes it with the old military slogan, ‘Solve the mission. Take care of your men.’ The goal was that everyone should get home again (34). James says that they went there to contribute to creating something, but all of them also wanted to survive. He tells that in early periods of the Afghanistan mission, Norwegian soldiers walked in the streets and socialized with the Afghans, something that created closeness and understanding. When the security situation worsened, they made routines to protect themselves, which to a considerable extent resulted in distance (37). In group C, Carl describes respecting the local population as listening to what they say whatever it is and understanding that they have a totally different culture and respecting the way they do things even if it is completely wrong compared to what you have learnt yourself. If you do not, they may not like you since you do not understand them. The group explains that this was an issue they discussed during the initial training. George follows up, saying that you can put in a lot of more education, but it is often simply about ‘how would I have wanted to be treated if … other forces turned up in my neighbourhood?’ (group C, 43–45) It strikes me that by his indirect reference to the golden rule, something comes to the fore about the standard of values our soldiers carry with them. It obviously holds some religiously based norms. By this we should move towards some considerations about how understanding of our own stand influences what respect for the other means.

4.2.2 Respect for the Other Requires Understanding of and Confidence in Own Stand With reference to Flood’s perspective that perception and dialogue is done from some position and Hiebert’s that our understanding of other cultures starts with our own values (see ch 1.3.1 and 3.1.9.4), I find the soldiers’ self-understanding of their stance important for their ability of respecting. Further, this topic includes challenges regarding expectations and guidelines from the political level at home. It is naturally not an aim to evaluate the 207

Norwegian military assignment to Afghanistan as such here,104 but as some interviewees have found the aim of the mission problematic, it is a point to consider whether it was built on a cultural and religious self-confidence that corresponds constructively with the challenges that come with encountering religious and socially normative otherness. Furthermore, as we learnt in ch 3.3 and 3.4.3, a group of soldiers had developed a subculture based on what they perceived as Norse mythology. There I wondered whether such a phenomenon would have had a chance to develop if the Armed Forces had been more outspoken about what is meant by the wording ‘Christian and humanistic tradition of the community’ in the document describing their basic values. I concluded that we need a military culture that lives in harmony with the fundamental values of the community. This requires not only accepting what these values are and adopting them as decisive for the code of conduct but also seeing their true origin and not believing they are general, universal truths. Hence, it is a point eliciting what the interlocutors think about the origin of these values. In this project that means some focus on how they consider the relationship between the underlying ethical norms of the conduct and religion, for instance, whether they think religious values have significance for the military professional ethic at all.

4.2.2.1 Soldiers’ criticism of the mission Some participants label the whole Norwegian military assignment in Afghanistan as a dilemma. Hasselhoff is clear that the mission in Afghanistan had to go badly. He finds it politically ruled, that the rebuilding of the community goes too slowly and that it is implementing complex systems. He thinks it must be done simple and adjusted to the local environment. A little crime is tolerated all the time. The crime increases. In the end it becomes dangerous being there. For Hasselhoff the result is that he loses his faith in solving the mission and concentrates on the training and the cohesion with the lads (28–29). Peter did not experience the Norwegian political leadership as supportive, even when visiting his unit. He thinks that ISAF did many wrong choices and finds that conditions became worse by their being in Afghanistan (29–31). James says that while the Norwegian embassy did a formidable effort in building girls’ schools, the military mission would not have any great effect in the long run. He thinks we are very optimistic believing that we can change religion and culture in a country that is not ready for it. As examples he mentions the attempted promotion of democracy and women’s rights. The officer tells that you cannot

104 For the government official evaluation of the mission, see NOU 2016:8 A Good Ally: Norway in Afghanistan 2001–2014. 208 create a democracy among people who struggle with day by day survival. To be able to see further than the nearest needs of your family, a surplus is required. James questions whether the women’s schools will be maintained when NATO leaves, albeit emphasizing that he does not know this (32–35). The interviewee says that when he comes there as a Norwegian, he feels it is more for his own sake rather than contributing to something positive for the Afghans (25). Kenny finds it completely wrong to say that we are in Afghanistan to give local women a better life. As James, he is not negative to the establishment of schools for all children, both boys and girls, but he is equally sceptical to whether they will still be continued after ISAF has left Afghanistan. With reference to stories about poison attacks at girls’ schools, he thinks it may become worse. He believes that the emancipation struggle is something the Afghans must take themselves in the same manner as Norwegian women have done. Kenny is clear that the real reason for being there is the American aim at reducing the influence of rebels such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban (36–37). In both Kenny and James’s opinion, Norwegian soldiers bring foreign values to Afghanistan, including tacitly Christian values. Kenny mentions the use of the Norwegian cross flag on their vehicles, something he believes may be provocative, especially near locations or at times that are important to Muslims (39). James says that since we are in the country not just to chase terrorists but also to do something with values and morality, and that values and morality to some extent is based on religious beliefs, we have tried to push Christian, Western values on Afghanistan (36–37). He finds it wrong to change the local religion but sees that parts of Islam, some sharia laws and the way the Taliban interprets the Quran create human rights violations. This is something that enforces reactions in the Western world. When we intervene, it becomes a reason to respond with war since we are touching the roots of peoples’ faith. As the officer thinks religion, culture and politics are a unity to a substantial extent, he says we should be very careful not to change things there. He does not excuse Afghanistan as it is a country that is built on dominance of war, production of opium and sale of heroin. It is ruled by warlords who abuse their power and perhaps use religion as an excuse. James feels that this gives a reason to support with regulations. Yet, the challenge is that when withdrawing from the country, the production of drugs and the war lords will be back. Then the West has contributed with educating insanely good police officers and soldiers who now can be used as mercenaries in the war lords’ execution of power and corruption (35– 36). 209

The quest about possible divergence between procedures and actual conduct brought an aspect to the surface that frustrated some interlocutors. That is, a tendency among Norwegian politicians to direct their soldiers at the tactical level from the side-line without considering neither that this sometimes collided with guidelines given by the ISAF commander nor that it was awkward to the Afghans. Edward describes this as sometimes having two fronts to argue with to achieve something (43). As with several issues in this study, the soldiers’ experience differs according to their job situation and the point of time for their service in Afghanistan. Participants who did not experience gaps between political expectations and their tasks as militaries are to be found as well. Among these are Steel (31) and Bill (32). Although, with reference to the Alfa case described above, Bill misses an ethical consensus between the leadership and the executive level. He finds that such matters should be sorted out before deploying and that it is unacceptable that the lads were criticized in the aftermath (36). Frank tells that he experienced tensions between expectations from authorities at home and what was possible to obtain both politically and militarily. A military operation is overall described by ends, ways and means, and the plans were always much too ambitious and completely unrealistic. He says, ‘One is to set lofty aims. One is to believe in what one is doing, but it is perhaps a little unrealistic what one manages on own guard.’ This is nation building. We have to stay there for many years (25–26). In ch 4.1, we learnt from Andrew among others that they could do little with all the incidents of maltreatment and other harsh conditions they observed. He wonders what the Norwegian state believes they as rank and file can do to improve life for the Afghans. Nevertheless, when seeing a father with a little girl on his arm waving and smiling, he thought there perhaps was a meaning in what they were doing after all. At least some appreciate their being there, so, at the time of the interview, he is still motivated to go back again to do a job in the country. The alternative with the Taliban is much worse (26–28). Johansen is among the more critical. He describes how the strategic level had instructed them to ask how the rights of women were attended to when entering a village. Nonetheless, the interpreter was struggling with translating that. The inhabitants are worried about considerably more existential matters such as getting a little electricity, clean water and perhaps a doctor close by. Johansen tells that you must think for yourself what are relevant questions for the locals. What guides you then is experience from earlier missions, leadership and role models. He says that sometimes he feels the strategic level gives objectives which have no chance of success. At the same time, you try to compromise when you stay there 210 between what you can achieve and the real intention. We can very well say it is to improve women’s rights and democracy but at the end of the day, it is due to Norwegian interests. You feel you are just a piece doing the dirty job in a higher political game. Johansen thinks politicians should be honest about this. For a soldier that is much easier to relate to than being confronted with all the unsuccessful ambitions when you have not lost a battle and have not done anything wrong (22–24). The political strategic level undoubtedly recognizes a moral obligation to contribute to implementing human rights and improved life on the international scene. However, I think it is fair to conclude that these soldiers hit a nerve with respect to the political reasoning for deploying forces to Afghanistan. The dual aim of the armed chasing of terrorists and the humanitarian improving life for women and children is a paradox. This makes it understandable when those who are sent to fulfil the mission stop believing in it. As the farmer aptly reminds us, one must be very clear about the task and what it implies related to cultural and religious challenges (46). I find reason to ask whether the attempted implementation of a Western view of women was respectful at all or perhaps rather an example of cultural imperialism. Obviously, various groups within the Afghan community have had different interests related to the presence of foreign soldiers and ideas. It is not a task to assess whether the local population felt respected by the foreigners’ entrained values here. What is certain is that the mission was clearly problematic concerning respect for the other. Moreover, if it is possible for foreigners to reach such an ambitious goal as changing the culture regarding women at all, it is weird to make that a task for armed forces. To succeed in a manner the local population would acclaim, would most likely demand a different competence than can be expected from soldiers. Deployment of soldiers for other purposes than strictly military is not a new phenomenon.105 A main problem seems to be that apart from financial means, the politicians often do not dispose of the right resources to fulfil their ambitions. The farmer formulates this strikingly saying that it is difficult for the state to avoid using military units for completely different tasks than their real purpose, for example, policing. It is, in fact, an instrument that has power, material and personnel which is ready for action (25–26). While the Armed Forces are more easily tangible and secured a steady recruitment through the conscription system, the police force or civilian experts, for instance, are not that easily deployable. Those who insist that military forces should be used for what

105 One example is the need for forces largely for supporting police assignments in Kosovo. The main Norwegian contribution was military forces not particularly trained for policing. See Mæland, 2004. 211 they are trained for, if used at all, have a good point. That is also part of respecting. Another aspect is being aware of the background of the values the forces entrain when deploying. Much seems to signify that the political strategic level believes they are religiously and culturally neutral and universal. The next step is to have a glance at what our interlocutors say about that.

4.2.2.2 Soldiers’ understanding of the background of their ethos It is difficult to respect something one does not comprehend, and it is hard to understand representatives of other cultures unless one grasps the fundamental values of one’s own. Thus, it is important to ask whether our soldiers understand – and respect – what values the Norwegians are influenced by themselves. In this subsection, it is natural to provide most of the space to the voices of the group interviews. The individual interviews have, to some extent, yielded somewhat woollen responses. My impression is that several interlocutors have not thought a lot about this issue. Yet, the individual responses largely fall into two categories according to the interviewees’ own religious standpoint. Hence, the assessments of the findings by the groups are more interesting. The questionnaire survey includes two questions about this issue as well. As we have seen, especially in ch 3.1.3, many of the Norwegian soldiers have been encouraged to appear as Christians. However, no guiding policy existed for communicating what that means when it comes to religious practices. Thor’s description seems to be adequate and representative for most of the deployed soldiers. He tells that the policy was to say that they were Christians and that they had nothing against Islam. Although no instruction was given to appear as something else than they really were. It was rather an incitement to appear as Christians, but it was left to the individual to tell how he or she practises or relates to religion (15–17). Hasselhoff informs that they discussed the issue in his unit before deploying. They agreed about this approach to avoid provoking the Afghans. For instance, they made a point of saying that we believe in the same god as the Afghans. He emphasizes that one thing is what one believes personally, but one must think about the collective (21). Obviously, the intention has been to show the local population respect by complying with the importance of monotheism in their lives. As mentioned, the interviews reveal a pattern with regard to the soldiers’ understanding of the fundamental values behind their professional ethic. Those who consider themselves as religious, see a clear connection between code of conduct and religion. Many of those describing themselves as non-religious respond that they see their ethic as common 212 sense and general human truths. They tend to understand this as religiously neutral. However, some exceptions are to be found among the latter group. Some who define themselves as non- religious notice the connection between religion and ethic immediately. Examples are James, who’s points of view were presented in the previous subsection, Adam and Mike. Yet, Mike does not see religious norms behind the ROE other than the required respect of religious buildings (30). Adam says that ethic and religion goes hand in hand. He finds parallels between the ROE and the Ten Commandments and sees that religious norms, rules and ways of life are relevant in the military profession (29). In the questionnaire survey, the participants are asked first, to what extent they think religiously contingent norms are of importance for military professional ethic (var AF). Second, they are requested about their opinions to what extent religiously conditioned norms ought to be of importance for the professional ethic (var AG). Concerning their view of the present status, the mean is 5.5. There the alternatives 5–7 form a small peak. When it comes to their thoughts about how it should have been, the mean is slightly lower, 4.7, with the figures more scattered on the scale with exception of the fives, which form a peak with 23.9 percent and the ones and twos with 25.3 percent altogether.106 With exception of the relatively strong resistance to the influence of religious norms in the ethic among some, I find it reasonable to interpret the dominance around the mean alternatives as expressing that this is not an issue most of the participants have strong opinions about. Possibly the results in var AG indicate that many participants are uncertain about what to think. In that sense they confirm an impression of the individual interviews. Slightly more respondents wish that ‘religiously conditioned norms’ should not influence professional ethic. The question does not specify the content of this wording. Hence, the results in the questionnaire survey cannot signify what the respondents mean by their answers. However, as we have seen in chapter two, the word ‘religion’ attaches negative associations, whereas several religious phenomena are experienced as positive. Thus, the statistic responses help us learn something about the connotations the participants have regarding the term ‘religion,’ but we still do not know what norms the participants understand as religiously conditional. When focusing on the issue more in detail in the interviews, more interlocutors notice a connection between religiously conditioned norms and the professional ethic. When discussing the possibility of making the Armed Forces religiously neutral with the groups, we

106 See appendix E for detailed figures. 213 learnt that group A gave no support for such an idea. In short, the response was that those who want neutrality ignore how culture, behaviour in the collective, legislation, regulations, politics and biblical principles are mixed in Norway (ch 2.3.1). The farmer is truly clear that people tend to believe that religion only is about faith in God. In contrast to this, he finds that the ethical foundation of our thinking is in a combination of religion, politics and culture. He claims that these factors influence each other strongly and are very hard to separate. Religion is a tool that yields direction for ethic, norms and morality. It is guidelines for culture and law (32–33). Group B confirms my impression from the individual study; that is, that conscious Christians easily see that the values promoted in their professional ethic have their roots in Christianity. Others consider these values more as common sense and are not so preoccupied with their origin. Joshua elaborates somewhat how certain Christian values such as compassion for the neighbour and the golden rule influence their ethic, for instance, related to treatment of prisoners of war or on what grounds it is right to open fire. It must be out of love to protect others (37–38). Duncan’s perspective is that he is not occupied with from where the norms originate. With respect to the Ten Commandments, he finds that they, with exception of the content about believing in and honouring God, are based on common sense. Further, he thinks that the principle of proportionality and the law of war in many ways can be linked back to religion, but this is common sense in a well-developed society (39–40). When I ask whether ‘common sense’ means the same in a Norwegian and an Afghan context and they think our soldiers need better understanding of their own basic values when deploying, the group emphasizes the need for knowledge and awareness about differences because ‘common sense’ is something else in Afghanistan [Duncan’s emphasis]. They also state that Norwegians in general are good at seeing the larger picture (40–41). Interestingly, as in the questionnaire survey, several express that they wish the connection between ethic and religion was not there. This is so especially in group C but also with some individuals. For example, Charlie says that she likes thinking that the values the Norwegians bring along are not related to religion but adds that she has not reflected a lot on this (33). As we saw with Thor, Group C confirms that they were recommended to say that they were Christians, but it was up to the individual to follow the advice (24–25). In group C Charles propounds very well that questions whether they see any link between religion and professional ethic are difficult for common soldiers. Many soldiers obviously find it hard to answer such questions because of lacking competence. Albeit responding for his own part, he thinks that ethic and religion are closely connected. It can be hard to separate them (29). 214

George follows up, finding the question somewhat uncomfortable. He argues that the reason is partly that he does not know enough about it. He agrees with Charles that ethic and religion blend into each other, but he partly also finds it dangerous to mix religion and the military profession. In his opinion a clear distinction should be drawn. George finds too much religion in the professional culture. He thinks that religion is a very good foundation wall, but the law of war should be enough during military operations (29–30). When reflecting on the attitude of Norwegian soldiers compared with other nations, group C agrees that it is important for the Norwegians to contribute without being nasty to anybody. Mary Lou says that she knows that common rules as we shall not loot, steal or destroy for others come from Christianity long ago but now they have become part of society and are simply good manners. For her own part she knows that such norms come from Christianity, but she does not think it comes from Christianity. She follows them, seeing that it is wrong to do such things whatever world view one has (30–31). Interestingly, despite the observed pattern of different understanding of their ethic between participants defining themselves as religious or not, the data does not yield any reason to believe that there is any significant corresponding difference in the soldiers’ practical conduct. The sample appears to be ethically and morally homogenous. My assessment of the responses is that they reflect a culture that is both uniform and tolerant, but without strong self-awareness about the relation between ethos and religion. First, it is largely unitary when it comes to values and code of conduct. This is combined with tolerance of the coexistence of different world views, including an outspoken openness to respecting Muslim values. As we saw also with Vikan’s case (ch 4.1), this tolerance is, to a large extent, considered as expedient for the mission. Second, except among mainly declared religious believers, there is generally vague consciousness that many norms of their professional ethic are based on religion. This is especially so in the beginning of our conversations about this topic. The sample has almost no knowledge about the roots of military ethic in the Lutheran king Gustav Adolf’s so-called ‘Swedish discipline’ from 1625, for instance.107 However, when being asked, many seem to recall a tacit knowledge about the origin of norms. It is as they have not been conscious about it because it has not been focused on during their training. The soldiers have learnt their professional ethics and adopted it as

107 Fletcher 1963, 299–301 yields a condensed version of the ‘Swedish discipline’ in English. It includes, for example, prohibitions against larceny, plundering, outrage and fraternizing with loose women. For an overview of the influence of different religions on the military ethics of several cultures, see Aho 1981. The influence of Protestant ethic, incl Swedish discipline, is treated on pp 194–217. 215 their own but have caught less of why it is as it is and how it has come into being. These findings correspond well with the lacking competence about Christian practices and what Day calls ‘performative beliefs’ among many as we saw in ch 3.1.3. There I concluded that the Armed Forces have a weak readiness for responding to challenges by the local population about religion.

4.2.2.3 Summarizing comments I interpret the findings in this subsection as illustrating a culture that is strongly influenced by Western, or more precisely, Protestant, Christian values, but where this is so integrated in the ethos that many do not see the origin of the values. Consequently, both the strategic political level and many among the military understand them as universal human truths. As far as I can see, this delimited comprehension of our own values also contributes to restricting what it is possible to achieve, not to say change in Afghan culture. Respect of the other presupposes both confidence in one’s own stand and understanding of the religion or world view of the other. As we have learnt, especially with Kristoffersen’s story about cooperating with the Afghan police chief (ch 3.1.2), competence in this field yields considerably better ability to accomplish the military mission.

My impression is that despite speaking unanimously very well about the professional ethic, having internalized these norms, and knowing something about their origin, several non-believing soldiers are reluctant to recognize any link to religion. This is interesting as it seems to reflect some extent of embarrassment concerning religion and religiously based values in their own society even when they have adopted those as their own. My assessment is that we here face a challenge for the military teaching in ethics and culture for forces that are to encounter value systems based on other religions. It will be hard to understand the other in the future if we do not acknowledge the glasses through which we see and the values by which we interpret.

With regard to respecting the local population, the interlocutors certainly emphasize the importance of having a listening attitude to the voice of the other. I will call it an echo of the golden rule. However, respect is not just something one grants the other; it is something one must earn as well. In Afghan culture, one does not achieve it by being embarrassed on behalf of one’s own stand but by appearing with self-confident authority. We need to have a look at that aspect as well. 216

4.2.3 Respect Requires Self-confident Authority Several interlocutors have used the term humble when describing the right attitude towards the local population or as a characteristic feature of Norwegian soldiers (Betty, 18; David, 17; 49; 50; Bill, 27; Bob, 27; Thor, 18; 21; 23; Bobby, 16). Charlie adds an interesting questioning of that ideal when describing how she lived up to being humble as they had learnt during the initial training. She describes the picture that was drawn for them of Afghans before deployment as rosy. However, her experience as a female soldier there was not to be respected back (19–20; 36). Further, some participants are clear that in Afghanistan, humility must not appear as subservience. In Adam’s wording, we have lost much respect exactly because we are as orderly and ‘kind’ as we are. The Afghans are used to authoritarian rulers who lead by fear, by punishing and setting warning examples. Adam explains that since we are to keep within our system and cannot do such things due to our values and ROEs, the locals loose respect for the ISAF soldiers (30–31). Thor tells that he did not observe any procedural violations of the conduct during his time in Afghanistan. He mentions the Norwegian MOTs in particular and describes their conduct as very humble, perhaps almost too humble. He explains that this must be balanced. When you represent an armed military power, it is very important to convey a clear message and appear resolutely. Another significant factor in Afghan culture is that the strong one is strong. If you are too humble, you appear as weak, unclear, and not to be trusted. The officer tells that they faced this problem whenever Afghans asked why they were in the country and what they did there. The foreign soldiers’ reference to the overarching mission of supporting the Afghan government in building the country was not trustworthy in the ears of the locals since they could not see any improvement. Thor says the local population knows that the Taliban will remain for decades after ISAF has gone. He believes the choice is very easy for them. The only thing that could create confidence to the Western presence would have been a massive improvement of basic needs (35–36). The officer finds it important to attend to the set of values we have in the Armed Forces as it makes up a basis for encountering another culture in an open and good manner. He says it is important to be conscious about the ballast you bring when deploying since it forms you and your reactions (42). Johansen thinks that we sometimes are kind to a fault. We are very considerate, sometimes in such a manner that we appear as weak. He is warning strongly of not becoming submissive. It is extremely dangerous to appear weak. The soldier tells that if he does so when talking to leaders in a village under Taliban control, he knows that he will be shot at when driving away from there. He says that respecting a religion and being submissive are different 217 things. If you present yourself as Christian, that is okay. You should not play a part as a Muslim (38–39). Whereas many of the interlocutors express satisfaction with the preparatory education they got in Afghan religion, Johansen is clearly critical at this point. He thinks it was more a question of subservience than understanding of religion. The usability of all those do’s, don’ts and politeness phrases they learnt was very situational. It was fine during politeness visits at somebody’s home. The interviewee explains that Afghans are pragmatics. They are used to being led by war lords. If you want them to listen to you, you must be a credible factor of power, not appear as a tourist. When the Taliban enters a town, it is with full strength. Johansen tells that the essence of winning the civilian population for your side is to understand the religion, show respect for what is theirs, but never let there be any doubt about your intentions by being there. If you are submissive, they do not see you as a factor of power they care about (40–42). When explaining how they understand respect, group B emphasizes both the need for humility and clarity about your background and why you are in the area. The group concludes that it means to acquaint oneself with the reasons for the actions of the local population, to be humble about their own lack of understanding, and to show compassion and charity to those who are opposing us, even the rebel forces. Humility implies seeing and understanding the human, historic, religious and cultural aspects. As Johansen, the group says that it is essential to be clear about your intentions but in a manner which is according to Afghan conduct. Many Afghans see limitations more easily than possibilities, but they have a taste for authority. You are not worth relating to if you are weak. Group B refers to Norwegian officers who have become immensely popular with the Afghans by taking clear leadership without appearing humble at all, becoming a kind of big brothers (65–68). From the conclusions drawn in ch 3.4, I saw that the soldiers experience a need for improved knowledge and wise dialogism. In line with Flood and Hiebert’s dialogism, it is crucial to see both the other and one’s own cultural and religious bonds with an outside perspective. When adding the attitudes recommended by the soldiers in this subsection, it appears that the combination of a clear religious stand and firm exercise of power is a successful way to achieving respect in the Afghan community. Hence, rather than a one-sided humility, a professional modesty that is listening, open and understanding to otherness yet based on firm confidence to own values and choices appears as expedient. The farmer ascertains an important point stating that rather than being too self-critical, we need to have a positive self-image without making it problematic the other way. That makes us more culturally confident as well (22–23). 218

We cannot examine this from the Afghans’ point of view here, but respect is a two- way process. Obviously, one has to earn respect from the other. The one who appears as weak, is not worth being taken into account. One does not grant respect in Afghanistan by promoting only a one-sided humble, Christian servant attitude. That is, we must consider how the understanding of respect is influenced by culturally and religiously based values.

4.2.4 Summary and Some Conclusions of the Soldiers’ Perspective on Respect In ch 3.4.1, I pointed out that despite the soldiers finding communicating about religion to be an important topic for interacting with Afghans, the policy of readiness within the Armed Forces is rather weak at this point. When collating this and the soldiers’ experience of procedures and preparedness, confidence of own stand and the requirement of appearing with a self-confident authority to acquire respect in Afghanistan, some factors are conspicuous. First, the aspect of respecting that often has been the concern of the Norwegians is to avoid insulting. It is a general finding that the soldiers want to behave respectfully and professionally towards all parties in the theatre. Their dialogism is clear regarding the need for listening and openness to the other. Nevertheless, most of them struggle with accounting both for applicable procedures for practicing respect and for the basic norms of the professional ethic at this point. This must not be read as a critique of the content of the ethic, the soldiers’ practical morality or the dialogues the veterans have taken part in during their service in Afghanistan. The finding basically reveals that the ethic is largely integrated in the general code of conduct without being specified into extensive regulations for the Afghan theatre. Largely, this is sensible because it allows the soldiers to make situational assessments rather than being ruled by detailed regulations. The seamy side of the matter is that it easily reduces the consciousness about the religious and cultural fundamentals of the normative values that guide their assessments. Second, the inconsistency between the two different grounds the soldiers were given for the mission, improving life for women and chasing rebels, has obviously made it more challenging for them to grasp what to think of a concept as respect in the Afghan context. The attempted combination of not insulting and a strong promotion of parts of Western ideas of human life must have been both confusing for the soldiers’ self-understanding and hard to explain to Afghans. This duplicity seems largely to be due to a weak awareness within the whole Norwegian Afghanistan project about the normative place from which they communicate. 219

Third, clarity, firmness and consistency about the Norwegian Forces’ own values and intentions create mutual respect. It is quite possible to combine a firm maintenance of the traditions and the basic values of the country with tolerance and adjustments for religious minorities within own forces. Such adjustments have been practised in the Armed Forces for a long while already concerning, for instance, diet, uniform, times and places for prayer, leave for pilgrimages and high festivals, and voluntary participation at ceremonies with a religious content. Quite another matter is if the majority, members of the Church of Norway, should have to waive practicing Christianity due to some neutrality ideal. That would be the opposite of respect. In an Afghan context, such an attitude would not be understood. It is likely that the Norwegian soldiers will be seen as weak if they fail respecting their own history, religious traditions and values, and referring to this with some extent of pride. Consequently, their attempts to show the other respect will be in vain.

It is time to consider what conclusive consequences we can draw from the experience of this sample regarding the ambiguous core value respect.

4.3 Concluding Lessons Learnt about the Core Value Respect

4.3.1 Respect for the Other Requires Cultural Adjustments As many other things in life, what is considered respectful is strongly influenced by culture, religion and world views. Hence, respect is a multifaceted value. Attempts to respect somebody without taking his or her culture into consideration will probably not always be understood by the other. It is evident from the interlocutors’ contribution in the present chapter that rather than Vikan’s denouncement of culture as a factor to be assessed, I will recommend step two and three in Swinton and Mowat’s four-step model presented in ch 1.3.2 about preparedness for encountering otherness. Step two is a cultural and contextual analysis in order to map the what and why questions that are at stake. The third step is a critical reflection. To respect related to otherness, the reflection must not only include an assessment based on Western values. It requires considerations of the impact of religion and culture on the encounter with otherness. In this, dilemma situations are no exception. The Norwegian political level seems to have had an unrestrained faith in the applicability and transferability of Western ideals relating to gender questions in the Afghan culture. Yet, the veterans tell that it has been difficult for them to make a difference in this. Even though groups supportive of the Western ideals on gender probably exist among Afghans, the breeding ground was poor for this cultural change within the local population. 220

One cannot conclude that the self-confidence of the Norwegian political leadership matches well with respecting traditional local values at this point. Interestingly, in contrast, the Norwegian self-confidence what concerns the religiously based fundamentals of their ethic is considerably less conspicuous.

4.3.2 Respect for the Other Requires Understanding the Place from Where the Dialogue Is Done In ch 4.2.3 we learnt that the interviewees recommend strength and boldness on behalf of own position and intentions as the key to achieving respect in Afghanistan. Apparently, this is an unusual way of thinking for many Norwegians. A tendency to believe that respect requires a toleration of everything as equally right seems to be widespread. However, respect is not the same as compliance. It is rather a balance between playing with and not offending what values that are already there yet remaining steady on the values one is representing as uniformed personnel. That requires knowing them, being able to stand up for them and presenting them in a dialogic manner when being challenged to do so. When considering Vikan’s above-mentioned bacha bazi case in this perspective, the interlocutors’ recommendation could well be in support of her assessment of acting to protect the abused boy. However, in this case such an intervention would be contrary to disregarding Afghan culture. It would be playing with the power mechanisms that create respect in the actual culture instead of becoming humble in a submissive manner. Humbleness is necessary, but the humbleness which is required should be of a kind that is listening to the other, sensitive for what causes mutual respect, not an acceptance of any norm. Something unresolved is coming to the fore related to the understanding of the values the Norwegians bring with them when deploying. Among some militaries, but not all, there is a certain extent of paradoxical attitude to the normative, religious fundamentals of their own community. On the one hand, we have seen that the soldiers in general appreciate some religious aspects in life, for instance, the service of the chaplains, the religious rituals and ceremonies. On the other hand, it seems that some do not recognise the religious basis of the values they are representing. For a few this is probably just due to not being used to thinking along such lines, but we have even traced some extent of embarrassment about those fundamentals in their own society that come from religion. This is not exceptional. It is no surprise that someone who does not consider him- or herself as religious, does not think that his or her ethic has roots in religion. Although that does not mean that they are not influenced by religious values. It is rather reflecting that Christianity has had so deep habitual and 221 normative influence on the Norwegian community that many regard much of its ethic as non- religious common sense. As we also have heard from several others above, Bill is right when he recognizes that the basic norms and values in Norwegian culture, the understanding of good and right, and the judicial system are taken from a Christian view on humanity (32). If we do not realize that and believe that the Norwegians are neutral or that their ethos is universal, it is more difficult to understand how to relate to a culture based on Islam. The paradoxical attitude to values with background in religion in Norway has become even more conspicuous in the 2015 version of Forsvarets verdigrunnlag [The basic values of the Norwegian Armed Forces].108 This work claims that respect for the other is based on knowledge about own culture and roots. Yet, the previous formulation that these values are the ‘Christian and humanistic tradition of the community’ are omitted and replaced by a general wording about respecting the ‘basic values and cultural traditions of the community.’ Clearly, the changed formulation is related to another salient ideal in the document; that is, ‘in modern armed forces, plurality is of intrinsic value.’ As far as I can see, one can ask both whether this embracing of plurality has become the real core value and if the Armed Forces, by not admitting the former reference to the Christian heritage, do exactly the opposite of what they claim to do when saying they are respecting the basic values and cultural traditions of the community. The unresolvedness in the Norwegian attitude to encountering otherness makes me conclude that they need to build a stronger understanding of and confidence in their own cultural heritage and values. This is so both among the militaries who are to deal with locals at the tactical level but certainly also among the politicians at the strategic level who give them guidelines. It appears that some of the boldness expressed with respect to the gender values with advantage could be transferred to the area of religiously based fundamentals. Despite the good situational work done by individuals, it is a question whether not all levels of the Norwegian Armed Forces still have got some work left concerning systemic consciousness on their own stand before they are fully able to utilize their potential when encountering otherness with respect.

108 Updated in 2016. (The point about legitimacy was updated in 2019.) 222

Chapter Five

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

When calling for greater emphasis on religion from the viewpoint of globalization, Beckford writes that ‘religion is good to think with’ [Beckford’s quotation marks] (2003, 104–108). I find this wording very much to the point and will add that this is correct seen from several other perspectives as well. Studying military forces in an international environment is no exception. The international turn of the forces makes this evident. If using the military as an instrument of Norwegian interest in international politics is to be continued, religion is a topic the Armed Forces should consider more thoroughly. The abandonment of the state church system does not alter that. The feedback of the sample in this study is practically unison; religion is militarily important both internally and related to the local population when deployed. In the same manner as the Armed Forces strive to yield their personnel the best possible preparedness what concerns equipment and training, work on fields as culture and religion is a worthwhile investment. It is an intention with the present study to contribute to an improved conversation about the comprehension of religion related to the Armed Forces. This is done not at least through requesting, listening to and reflecting together with a highly relevant group of soldiers who has served in an adequate theatre of operations, Afghanistan. I have the impression that so far, the institutional thinking with religion related to the Armed Forces has been entrusted to a few theoreticians within the Chaplaincy. A few more voices have taken part in the thinking about religion, including some of world views opposed to religion. Nevertheless, these are also of a rather elitist character and do not always represent neither the needs nor the interests of the executive soldier in the field. Thinking with and about religion is too important to be left to a small political and religious elite. It is essential to give proper voice to the soldiers’ experience. Religion is something the forces encounter, are challenged by and must relate to when deploying. The ‘to Valhalla’ incident is an example that religion may turn up internally as well, at least in the form of symbolism, outside the influence and control of elitist or specialist institutions. It is important that military symbolism is not in discrepancy with the values the Armed Forces are 223 intended to defend. This is so not only to avoid development of negative subcultures but also misunderstanding of subcultures by outsiders. Religion is good to think with. The Armed Forces have at least two tasks relating to religion. They must relate constructively to the theatre of operations, something that involves ability to communicate with and respect counterparts with other religions and value systems. Further, an internal task exists that is part of what we can call ‘care of the combatant.’109 It seems that the policy documents referred in the introduction (the Public Report [NOU 2013:1] and the writings of the Chaplaincy) basically have been concerned about the second of these tasks yielding principals for spiritual caring of the personnel on equal terms. I find this focus reductionist and think it shows that the Armed Forces need to engage in a broad and multidisciplinary discourse about their relationship to religion. However, if such a conversation is to take place, the militaries need to get a language for communicating about the topic, and not at least; an attitude must be created for seeing the value of such a discourse. After concluding the findings of the study, I will present some suggestions for a renewed principal thinking at some points and some practical action in line with step four in Swinton and Mowat’s model, revised practice. Hopefully, this can be a contribution to an individual and collective phronesis when relating to this existential aspect of human life.

5.1 Soldiers’ Understanding of Religion and Its Significance

5.1.1 Respect, Trust and Knowledge of Partners In ch 1.1.2 I questioned what the ideals of ‘respect, trust and knowledge of partners’ within the NATO call for ‘comprehensive approach’ mean in the Afghan context. This study has made clear that religion has an existential and societal function in the theatre of operations. Thus, it is a decisive factor for Norwegian military operating in Afghanistan. Understanding and relating to religion is necessary in order to fill the core value respect with content. In chapter four we have seen that it is hard to achieve mutual respect with the local population without recognizing the societal significance of religiously based norms and practices both with the other and oneself. Respect is a two-way process. On the one hand, culture is a factor that must be analysed and assessed critically. If situations are considered solely based on Western values, it is likely that the chosen ways of responding to them do not communicate well cross- culturally. Adjustments to what is good conduct in the local culture are necessary. Naturally,

109 Here I use the term combatant in the widest possible sense, including supporting elements. 224 this requires knowledge of local conditions. On the other hand, respect for the other necessitates understanding of the place from where we communicate as well. A firm consciousness about own stand, not humility, is clearly a measure when Afghans assess whether somebody deserves respect and trust. I have observed a genuine strive to fulfil the core value respect among the participants in this study. They have a willingness to a dialogic attitude and a sensitivity to otherness and to the context they work in. However, in their preparations, respect seems mainly to have been understood as appearing humble when relating to Afghans and avoiding insulting them. Rather than the Norwegian ideal of tolerance, the Afghans value appearance with a self-confident authority. The one who appears without it, will be considered as weak and unworthy of respect. That is, we cannot expect to be respected back if we do not respect ourselves, our religion and traditions. This requires attention, knowledge and understanding not only of the other but also about ourselves and the basic values with which we observe. The clearest example of lacking competence in cross-cultural respect, trust and knowledge related to the Afghan theatre has been displayed by the political strategic level through the attempted implementation of Norwegian egalitarianism in the gender issue. It has been hard to notice any inhibitions at the political level with pushing a Western view of women at the Afghans. This is a stark contrast to the attitude of humility to local practices taught at the preparatory training of the soldiers. It has not been a task in the present study to examine the political aims of the military mission to Afghanistan. Hence, I have not gone deeply into the underlying values and the fundamentals for these in religion. Nevertheless, future studies of such factors could prove significant as means for achieving better understanding of the place from where we communicate. Here, I will first conclude the findings when considering the soldiers’ experience of religion when encountering otherness in Afghanistan. Then, I will reflect what this means for their comprehension of religion before pointing out a few considerations about an adequate understanding of religion in general.

5.1.2 Religion When Encountering Otherness Quoting Michel de Certeau, Flood points out that historians of religion in emphasizing cultural, economic and social factors often have overlooked religious and spiritual dimensions while theologians hardly refer to cultural, economic and social dimensions of religion (2012, 11). I find this observation very apt, reflecting a tendency of the academic world to divide reality into sectors that fit neatly within its disciplines. According to the data presented in this study, these factors are interrelated in Afghanistan. Thus, I see need for interdisciplinary and 225 broad thinking about these matters. The sample finds Afghanistan to be a far more religious country than Norway and has observed that religion permeates social life. Religion is apparently so interwoven with cultural, economic, political and social factors that these should be taken into consideration as an entirety when operating in the country or relating to the inhabitants there. Hence, as summarized in ch 3.4, seeing religion as a separate sector is simply inadequate. In other words, the main finding in the present study is that the tendency to consider religion as a privatized phenomenon, which I referred in ch 1.1, is mistaken with regard to the observations in Afghanistan. Rather than a private or individual matter, religion seems to penetrate the culture in general. Thus, if religion is to be understood and related to adequately, it should be replaced in the social. The participants tell that talking about religion is a good door opener among Afghans. They are curious about the Norwegians’ religion and, interestingly, not so much about their doctrinal beliefs as their practices and normative rules; that is, what Day calls ‘performative beliefs.’ If the Norwegians encounter the Afghans with an attitude which is emphasizing religion as ‘personal beliefs,’ this will blur what the Afghans are looking for when asking about the soldiers’ religion. For the locals, religion is obviously a marker of who one is and what values one stands for. Hence, it is a key factor when building relations. The interlocutors report that it is okay among the local population when they say they are Christians. There is no point in appearing as Muslims. It seems that the main concern for the Afghans regarding religion is to submit to monotheism, not to a particular set of doctrinal beliefs about God. The participants who have engaged in conversations with locals about religion report that ability to dialogues about the subject yields better trust and access to information, an important aim of the military mission. Unfortunately, it seems that apart from recommending the soldiers to say that they are Christians, the preparatory education has not given them support in explaining what that means when it comes to practises and normative rules for life. Many have been rather uninformed about Christian practices when challenged about their religion by Afghans. At this point it seems clear that the Armed Forces have had a weak readiness in the shape of any carefully prepared policy. When this communication has worked well, something it often has, it appears basically to be due to the prudence and competences of individual soldiers. The findings when studying how the participants experience religion in Afghanistan show clearly that it is easier for them to discover religion with others than within their own community. That is as expected and to some extent inevitable. As we have seen Hiebert emphasizes (ch 3.1.9.4), it is hard to observe oneself from the outside. Largely, but not 226 exclusively, the standards by which the soldiers consider their observations are brought from their own culture. Many are not conscious of the standards they bring from home both when assessing the Afghans and in their own self-presentation among the locals. However, the participants in the study have shown that they have started seeing themselves with an outside perspective. This is a very useful process, although it is a topic Norwegian soldiers who deploy to countries with other cultures should learn more about. This has become particularly conspicuous through the gender issue. One consequence is that the military need better information and reflection about their own values. At the present it seems to be too random, and too much is left to the individual soldier in finding his or her own standards. But as Frank expressed aptly in ch 3.2.2.4, we need a model or theory to understand the other. We build that on our own stand when comparing. Thus, we must know our position. Now it is time to draw some conclusions for relating to our stance on religion in the Armed Forces.

5.1.3 The Soldiers’ Comprehension of Religion In the introduction I asked whether the dissolution of the state church system in Norway would change soldiers’ thinking about how the Armed Forces should relate to religion and values. As far as the feedback from the interlocutors goes, most of the participants want to keep things as they are, while some prefer the forces to be religiously neutral. The main impression is that the constitutional change with respect to religion rather is a principal problem than causing practical challenges. The political change does not seem to have implied any attitudinal changes. As referred above, the Afghanistan experience has displayed clearly that a privatized and individualized understanding of religion is inadequate. However, a slight development emerges between the findings in chapter two and three. The position of religion within the collective and social is obvious to everybody who is observing the Afghan community. The soldiers also express an overall wide comprehension when discussing what religion is and its significance more generally and in their own lives in chapter two. They see it as several other things than beliefs such as culture, meaning, fundamental values for the community, as bearer of identity and traditions, as practices, experience, emotions and institutions (ch 2.2.7). What differs before we draw the experience from Afghanistan into the picture is mainly that some of those who consider themselves as non-believers feel religion is a private matter. The first the soldiers think about concerning religion is often beliefs. They are obviously influenced by an understanding of religion that emphasizes individual faith. As a starting point, many see this aspect as private. However, when reflecting on the topic, the collective aspects come 227 more to the fore. The pattern is ambiguous, but it is apt to claim that they see religion as both a private/individual and a public/collective matter. However, the private understanding is not dominant among these veterans. Among the most striking findings in chapter two, is the weak correlation between the understanding of the participants in the present study and the assumptions made by the referred Public Report (NOU 2013:1) and Chaplaincy documents. Two factors are particularly interesting according to the present empirical material. In ch 2.3.2 I concluded by using the expression homogenous plurality. First, the soldiers are not as religiously pluralist as the policy documents presuppose about militaries. The authors of the documents seem to take for granted that an increased diversity in the Norwegian community at large entail a corresponding diversity in the Armed Forces. As no statistics exist of the militaries’ religious affinity (presumably because it is considered sensitive, confidential information), no general data can confirm this assumption. One cannot generalize from the findings in this study, but my assessment is that the political and religious leadership overestimate the religious plurality within the Armed Forces. I see support for this consideration also in the numbers (and assessments) of the Chaplaincy in the case of the relationship between membership in the Church of Norway and support of the Armed Forces among conscripts.110 My twenty-eight years of experience at different units tell the same story. There are few soldiers with affinity to minority religions or world views. The biggest minority group appears to be those who have no affinity to religion or world view. We have learnt that the military culture described in the present study is more homogenous and uniform than pluralist what concerns religion. The religion the overwhelming majority relate to in their lives whether they consider themselves as religious or not is the Evangelical-Lutheran of the Church of Norway, and they mainly do so through what Skarsaune calls temple religion. Although a movement is to be found in direction of Synagogue congregation when deployed. In that sense the described culture is rather homogenous. This does not imply that it is narrow-minded towards otherness or excluding to diversity, rather the contrary. The aim of respecting partners with other religions is clear enough. It means that the military culture is uniform with strong collective values and religious traditions. The unitary culture is particularly conspicuous in the soldiers’

110 Interestingly, the Chaplaincy finds that the support for the conscripted military service and the affinity to the Church of Norway to a considerable extent are strongest in the same geographical areas (Chaplaincy 2009, 83– 93). The religious plurality is mainly to be found elsewhere. I see neither good reliability when using such numbers nor good correlation between the empirical data and the conclusion of the Chaplaincy at this point. 228 professional practical morality. The religious traditions are maintained mainly by activities initiated by the traditional Christian chaplains. To a large extent, these activities are well integrated in the units and appreciated by the soldiers. Despite the existence of a few minorities and personnel that are slightly less uniform than some decades ago, we, the levels of power included, need to recognise this homogeneity and not believe that the forces are more pluralist than they are. Otherwise, we can easily risk implying just another kind of robertsonian ‘reality construction’ as we saw with the alleged ‘Viking’ culture in ch 3.3.3. From a critical perspective one may quest the reliability of answers by a group that appears rather homogenous. A question that remains unanswered in this study is to what extent there is a tacit pressure to adapt to uniformity. Both group B and C have touched on this. Charles suggested that the uniformity, among several similarities in cultural background, simply can be due to the human need for group belonging. Duncan implied that it may be related to the requirement of the Armed Forces for good fellowship and mutual trust (ch 2.3.1). Such a pressure can be caused not since it is imposed by anybody but as a natural effect of good teem building and training in professional interaction. Another matter is that one needs good reasons to suggest that the personnel would yield a false picture of their thoughts. It is hard to see why they should want to appear as more uniform than they are. Anyhow, examining this aspect is a complex issue that has been beyond the possible frames of this project. Second, I find it right to claim that the soldiers in this sample think wider and more nuanced about what religion is than we see in the mentioned policy documents. This is the point where the real plurality is to be found. Apparently, the interlocutors in this study have come further in the process of observing themselves from an outside perspective than both the political and religious leadership in the military. They see how closely religion is intertwined with other societal aspects as politics, economy and culture in Afghanistan. Through that observation many discover that something similar is the case in their own culture, although not to the same extent as in the Afghan. For instance, some still prefer calling the traditional military worship services ‘tradition’ rather than ‘religion’ despite the use of rituals with texts, prayers and hymns. Furthermore, several find that they get more flexible thoughts about the topic. Experiencing life at its extremes, as combat on the borderline between life and death, sometimes with an implicit feeling of guilt, influences us. The soldiers’ relationship to religion may become more situational than static and involves phenomena that can be labelled as magic or superstition. Some aspects are rather vague and difficult to express verbally. 229

In other words, whereas the presented leading, authoritative documents are biased in their focus on internal freedom of religion, mainly understood as equal rights of the individuals and a duty of the state, the participants of the present study express a wider and, hence, more adequate comprehension of religion. The encounter with otherness seems to have made the soldiers understand better the place from where they communicate. This place is rather homogenous, and it is strongly influenced by the Lutheran Christian tradition. We have learnt that this is so independent of how the participants describe their own faith or absence of faith. The Armed Forces do wisely in listening to the experience of this significant sample and examine what consequences that should be drawn for the role of religion within the military. The most significant consequence is that religion must be replaced in the social if we want to understand it closely. Religion is present, anyhow, both when deployed and at home whether we see it or not. However, this will be a difficult exercise if we continue thinking about religion as a separate cultural sector in our own community. Then chances are huge that we only partly manage to see ourselves with an outsider’s perspective. We will easily take phenomena that are rooted in religious values in our own culture for general human truths or common sense. This is even so when it comes to practices as rituals and ethic. In ch 2.2.6 I have described military units as religious communities in the sense that they are enacting religious texts in ceremonies, national symbolism and the professional ethic. Although that is not all they are. They are good examples of being both secular and religious societies. Their raison d’être is secular. Yet, religion is permeating the culture and comes especially to the fore when there is need for solemnity or handling existential situations. It remains, then, to consider how we should understand what religion is and present some thoughts about how to relate more constructively to it.

5.1.4 Religion Should Be Understood Broadly As evident from the findings in the present study, a broad and comprehensive notion of religion yields a more correct picture than a narrow and reductionist understanding. Further, it is more useful for military operativeness, both concerning the internal ‘care of the combatant’ and the communication with externals. Through the participants’ reflections and with good analytic help of Smart’s dimensions and Woodhead’s concepts, we have seen that religion is both significant and multidimensional. Day’s model has displayed that even phenomena in religion as beliefs prove to consist of diverse factors. The Armed Forces are unwise if neglecting the multitude of aspects of this issue in human life. 230

How should we define religion, then, to yield the Armed Forces a proper concept they can relate to adequately? When referring Flood’s definition in ch 1.3.2, ‘value-laden narratives and behaviours that bind people to their objectives, to each other, and to non- empirical claims and beings,’ I called it ‘largely adequate.’ However, I am still very reluctant to defining religion. It is so intertwined with other truly complex categories in human life that are hardly definable as values, language, politics, society and culture. When defining, there is always a danger of leaving something relevant out and creating new reductionist inventions that blur proper understanding. That is not particularly useful. Herbert is expressing this aptly, claiming that ‘how one defines religion has crucial implications for one’s assessment of its role in contemporary societies’ (2003, 30). Hence, by defining, we can easily delimit our comprehension. Furthermore, as we learnt by comparing the findings using self-completion questionnaires and interviews, the term religion is carrying negative connotations for some. This is so despite their embracement of the presence of religion in their units, for instance, in the role of the chaplains or clearly collective, religious practices as worship services in the field. It has not been an aim in this project to explain the reasons for these negative connotations. Nevertheless, I believe reductionist ideas about what religion is have contributed to that kind of attitudes. When religion is reduced to be no more than just considering a set of dogmas for true, one easily ignores religious elements in one’s own life and community. If religion is made something it is uncomfortable or even dubious to talk and learn about, it is hard to see not only how the Armed Forces can achieve their intentions of a ‘comprehensive approach’ to partners but also obtain adequate ‘respect, trust and knowledge’ of themselves. Then, the Armed Forces will easily fail this part of their attempted preparedness. Conclusively, it is important to dispose of the idea that religion is something so controversial or negative that it should be hidden in the private room and that neutrality is good and progressive. On the one hand, religion will probably always be present in the public, somehow, because we are rooted in our traditions – and it deals with serious life and what is inscrutable. On the other hand, neutrality appears more as a populist slogan than an alternative where it is possible to determine any content. Norwegians are neither as pluralist nor religiously neutral as some seem to believe. Accordingly, I find it more important to dispose of reductionist ideas that make us blind for what religion is, how it influences societies, and the negative connotations to this phenomenon in human life than trying to find a definition of religion which is encompassing all its aspects. Reductionisms and negative connotations 231 prevent us from using knowledge of religion constructively as a means for improved dialogic communication with partners and counterparts who think differently. I will recommend using the Afghanistan experience to learn about ourselves and recognize that the multidimensional phenomenon we call religion is present and interwoven in a multitude of aspects of life in Norway as well. Although the presence of religion is often of a concealed or tacit kind and not necessarily accompanied by beliefs in dogmas, a lot of it is still mixed into ethic and morality, law, politics, economic and social systems, calendars, language and understanding of time – to mention some cultural phenomena where this is easily traceable. Rather than inventing realities, whether this is making religion a private matter, believing that Norwegian soldiers are Vikings or that it is possible to be religiously neutral, one should recognize what is there, shaped through history and tradition. Soldiers should learn about the societal influence of religion. I will close this work with some reflections and suggestions about how it can be done.

5.2 Soldiers and Religion Reconsidered So far, many things have worked well within the Norwegian Armed Forces regarding this topic. Religion has not been a big ‘problem,’ neither as a source of conflict nor due to difficulties with handling religious diversity. Nonetheless, as in most fields, improvements are expedient. The military system appears to maintain two synchronous and partly contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, there exists a rather conservative preservation of collective traditions with respect to organisation structures for handling religion and religious practices such as worship services, memorial ceremonies and spiritual counselling. According to the data of this project, these traditions are largely appreciated. The traditional chaplains normally enjoy a strong confidence, including among soldiers who describe themselves as non- believers. On the other hand, I also observe a systemic negligence of, or perhaps anxiety for, communicating concisely about religion and a preference for leaving it to the private realm. This is evident in several ways. What is most significant in the present study, is the information the soldiers give about a weak and sometimes non-existing preparedness for talking about religion with Afghans yielded during the training, despite the obvious benefits of mastering this. In addition to the implicit ideas about what religion is and what role it should have in the Armed Forces, this evasiveness may have to do with the interpretation of freedom of religion, concern for discrimination of minorities, and unsettled understanding and stance on religion among decisionmakers. Nevertheless, it is delimiting a full valuation of religion as a 232 resource both when encountering otherness and for internal edification. At this point there is an unexploited potential for improved preparedness. The Armed Forces should have courage to free themselves from their restraint of talking about religion, empower their soldiers in this, and create a culture where it is just as natural to communicate about this issue as any other topic. Hence, I find reason to have a look at both a few principal and practical aspects of how to handle this challenge.

5.2.1 Some Principal Considerations In a situation where the traditional role of religion is challenged principally, the main matter I will focus on here is a few more points related to whether the comprehension within the Armed Forces of what religion is and what it is made to be is apt. The crucial issue is how political decisionmakers and those given the authority to administer religion within the military, the Chaplaincy, deal with it. Neither the national policy of religion, the understanding of religion in the Chaplaincy nor the preparatory teaching/training in religion within the military have been under scrutiny in this project. Thus, I will not go deeply into this. However, these are all factors that are decisive for the comprehension of religion in the Armed Forces. Problems exist relating to both what dimensions of religion that are allowed to be in focus and how the religions/world views may organize. I will mention a few relevant points. As I concluded in ch 5.1.3, the referred policy documents are basically preoccupied with the internal role of religion, stressing freedom of religion for the individual and equal rights of worship and world view practices. These are matters that are to be facilitated by the state. For several reasons, this is problematic. An approach to religion with so strong emphasis on this internal focus easily overlooks the importance of relating to otherness when military forces are deploying. It is hard to see what notion of religion the policy documents guide the military to apply in such situations. Furthermore, the internal freedom of religion is framed strictly within non-discriminating equality ideals. The freedom is to be exercised under certain conditions. These are neither religiously ‘neutral’ nor universal but have come into being under certain cultural and political conditions. Both the NOU 2013:1 (18) and the consultative hearing of the Chaplaincy recognize that religion and world views should have permission to practise in public. Albeit the Chaplaincy finds reason to emphasize this in its hearing (2–3; 8). I interpret this as an underlying awareness that there is a so strong bias towards a privatized/individualized understanding of the principle of freedom of religion in the NOU that one has reason to be 233 concerned that public religious praxis may be repressed. Despite this, it seems that even the Chaplaincy is strongly influenced by a similar comprehension of religion as the NOU. If the new naming of the Chaplaincy, ‘The corps of beliefs and world views in the Norwegian Armed Forces’ (see note 1), is descriptive of what will be the focus of the unit, this seems largely to be in line with the political ideals. This appears to reflect the disputable idea about religion that beliefs have primacy over behaviour. By chiefly emphasizing religion as beliefs, an individual right and freedom, and a stately duty to facilitate, one is easily cementing the value of individuality. One does this at the expense of realizing inescapable collective aspects of religion without necessarily becoming more pluralist. Pluralism of religious services requires that there is a plurality of personnel with affinity to different religions and that these need to be served by religious personnel. Interestingly, to my knowing, apparently no documented request or demand is available from representatives of minority religions or world views for being facilitated by specialist of their beliefs in the Armed Forces. As mentioned in ch 4.2.4, several other issues have been requested such as special diets, dress codes, rooms and times for prayer and allowed leave for pilgrimages/religious holidays – matters the forces have had good routines for handling over decades already. The policy behind the new corps is initiated by the leadership of the Chaplaincy itself. It seems rather to be a politically driven idea than an empirically based religious requirement. Nonetheless, it presupposes a peculiar attitude to and understanding of religion that may appear inclusive to minorities, equal and even close to ‘neutral.’ Yet, I find reason to question whether it really is so. To some extent the potential of individualizing and privatizing religion is to be found within Western Christianity itself, not at least in Protestantism. If salvation is given through faith alone and the only true religion is to endorse the right beliefs, it is easy to see religion as a matter for the individual. In addition to characteristics within the religion itself, there is reason to claim that it has been actively privatized or individualized to some degree in the West. As indicated in the introduction, actors as influential researchers of religion, political and religious leaders have found it convenient to think along such lines. Nevertheless, as stressed above, we must be aware that this tendency blurs other important societal features of religion, dimensions that the sample of this study has found obvious in Afghanistan. These are conspicuous in many other traditions as well. In my opinion the privatized understanding is neither adequate in the West. Even though they may be tacitly present, possibly, the Western culture has as many religiously conditioned collective and societal phenomena as the Afghan has. Among the participants in this study, this has perhaps been most strikingly expressed by 234

Johansen’s reflection that no babies have found it wise to be baptized by themselves (see ch 2.2.3). Religion does normally not emerge just like that in individuals. A one-sided emphasis on the beliefs dimension makes it more difficult to discover the influence of religion in other aspects of Western culture, especially if we do not share the beliefs or even oppose them. It is interesting that the alleged pluralism does not yield the religions and world views freedom to organize as they want in the Armed Forces. Facilitating representatives of other faiths than Christianity are still obliged to be organized with lines of supervision to their civil organisations. They must adjust to the structure that is already there, which clearly is introduced according to the pattern of the traditional Christian episcopal system of supervision. Even the secular humanists are subject to supervision by their organisation. That is, the pluralism is shaped within the power structure of a particular Christian ecclesiological tradition. Furthermore, one can ask to what extent the non-Christian facilitators will be free to form their own religious praxis. The first employed imam in the Armed Forces, Najeeb Naz, had to take part in a course in Islamic spiritual counselling. This reveals something about what kind of religious service he is expected to do. I find a clear indication that the military organizational structure has a certain, built-in understanding of what religion is and what function it is to have. In order to fulfil their ideal of respect, the Armed Forces should exchange that with a deeper and wider comprehension of the role of this important phenomenon in human life. They should be frank in respecting their own tradition and admit that they have a place from where they communicate rather than submitting themselves to invented ideals that they represent equality. Religion is believed, practised and organized differently. Most of its dimensions must be taught and learnt within collective traditions. As international actors, the Armed Forces take part in that teaching/learning process by their choices and priorities of focus and organization whether they are conscious about this or not. Then it is crucial to be aware of both what one is doing and what one chooses not to do. Regarding the mission in Afghanistan, it has struck me that the interlocutors have told less about preparations in handling issues related to religion than I had expected. Several say that they have been recommended to tell the Afghans they are Christians, but they have obviously been left to themselves when it comes to explaining what that means in terms of religious practices. As it has not been an aim in this project to study the preparatory training/teaching per se, I do not intend to assess it any further. Nevertheless, the participants have told about a strong variation in preparedness in the topic. This randomness reveals a lack of adequate and systematic policy of handling religion within the military system. The preparedness at this point seems to 235 have worked best in units with commanders and well-integrated chaplains who have been conscious about the importance of this, not due to guidelines by the central leadership of the Armed Forces. A positive feature is that the sample gives a distinct impression that preparedness has improved in a longitudinal perspective. This reflects an encouraging ability to learning and benefiting from experience within the Armed Forces. Given the decisive role of the Chaplaincy concerning shaping the policy of religion in the military, the Chaplain-General should address the need for competence building in handling religion to the leadership of the Armed Forces with clear proposals for improvements. I will come back to a few concrete suggestions below, which he can consider accepting. As mentioned in ch 2.2.3, both religious institutions/elites and political actors exercise a significant power of defining reality and, accordingly, deciding the role of religion in society. It is a great responsibility not to abuse this power and to administer it wisely. It is hard to see how the Armed Forces can increase their skill in respecting unless they reconsider the tendency to privatizing and subduing the societal role of religion. This tendency appears as a paradox when compared with the militaries’ adherence to collective religious traditions. The forces must learn that nothing is wrong in recognizing and respecting the traditions of the nation. That does neither, in itself, discriminate anybody nor imply that these traditions should be protected against relevant criticism. It basically means increasing the awareness about where we come from, what values we are shaped by and, hence, who we are. Summarizing, even though some good thinking can be behind the late development with the change from a ‘chaplaincy’ to a ‘corps of beliefs and world views,’ it seems to be within the frame of a Protestant understanding of what religion is. The change appears to have come into being not as a response to actual needs among the ‘users’ of alternative religious and world view services but according to needs within the Chaplaincy itself. I wonder whether the reason for the inclusivism rather is a strategic grip for avoiding criticism for having a monopoly on religious services in the military than respecting the distinctive character of different religions/world views on their own terms. Consequently, one is securing the future survival of the organisation in times when it cannot be warranted by the state church system. With a critical perspective we can interpret the comprehension of religion in the institutions of power as narrow and self-centred just as much as multidimensional and open-minded to diversity and otherness. Anyhow, in my opinion the resent changes of organization and content with respect to religion in the Armed Forces display a need not only for further and thorough studies of religion among militaries but also about the notion of religion within the Chaplaincy. As the 236 organisation with the strongest influence on the administration of religion in the Armed Forces, this institution could need a scrutiny of its interpretation of reality and priorities. This goes for other institutions in position of such kind of power as well. However, studies of the understanding of religion should not be seen only through theological glasses. Broader perspectives could obviously prove useful.

5.2.2 Some Suggestions for Adjusted Priorities The Armed Forces have received many proposals about new and presumably prominent issues they should focus on over the years, often from groups with some special interests. Fewer suggestions have been made on what can be omitted. Good soldiers need competence in many fields. The available time for training is filled quickly. Thus, I see no point in recommending just another time-consuming teaching programme. Albeit to contribute to the NATO call for ‘comprehensive approach’ (see ch 1.1.2), it is important to adjust teaching/training programmes to include the most relevant topics. Further, it is necessary to think along the two traditional lines, the general training and what is required for particular missions. There will probably always be a discussion about what belongs where along these two lines. Everybody cannot focus on everything, and to some extent the training should be differentiated according to job requirements. Some see religion as a side issue, prefer spending the time on their speciality and will argue that cultural matters should come on the agenda when we need it, when deploying to other cultures. Nevertheless, soldiers ought to get a general understanding of the societal role of religion during the homebased education and training system both regarding the values of their own community and of otherness. It is too late to wait with all this until the theatre specific preparations before deployment due to the pressure for time then. A future use of the Armed Forces as a security political tool in cultures with other religions will require the inclusion of competence about these issues in the general education system. Although the themes must naturally be more specialized when deploying. Furthermore, religion (including related topics) is a complex field it may be hard to learn about for those who have no interest in it. The objection is obvious; why should we learn about religion if we are not religious and just in the military to do our duty? The objection is relevant since it is real, but the response is that soldiers cannot neglect the military significance of religion. The answer from the Afghanistan experience is that the personnel may encounter a counterpart who challenges about religion directly, or they may have to relate to it indirectly through facing foreign jurisdiction, traditions, the need for adjusting their code of conduct etc. Therefore, it is better to know something about it before 237 making fools of themselves and perhaps increasing risks due to ignorance. We can never be sure when the next assignment is required, so we cannot delay all learning until then but need at least some general thinking about how to relate to religions and cultures. Moreover, there are some minority soldiers among the forces. Mutual respect requires knowledge about the other also internally. Interestingly, it seems that the teaching of ethics has been an easy topic to promote in the Armed Forces. The sample in this study has informed about what they experience as a good emphasis on professional ethic during their training, particularly the use of force and a careful drilling of the ROE. Less room has been available for examining and discussing the normative fundamentals taken from religion in the professional ethic. Despite the obvious link here, with chaplains normally being the teachers of ethics, I think it is fair to claim that the relationship between religion and ethic to a significant extent has been overlooked in the teaching. Some veterans understand their norms and values as common sense or general, universal truths. I believe this has something to do with the mentioned evasiveness about religion, whereas most people grasp intuitively the importance of good and ethical conduct when carrying arms. Not all but some soldiers reveal an embarrassment or discomfort to religion that is strange to Afghans. In this those militaries just seem to be in line with a general tendency within the Norwegian society at large that has come to the fore, for instance, through the politically felt need to change the constitution about religion in 2012. Due to the operative significance, the military leaders should see the need for coming to terms with this embarrassment. The findings in this study show that knowledge of and will to talk about Christian practices often is a good gateway to dialogue with Muslims. Many are curious, interested and several points of contact exist. Nonetheless, good conversations require a minimum of competence in the topic. Simple teaching in Christian practices is an adequate investment in preparing soldiers for building relations to Muslim counterparts. It is a defeat if the discomfort is allowed to rule the relation to religion not only concerning otherness but also when attempting to understand ourselves. I believe a lot is to gain if the Chaplaincy and the Armed Forces have the courage to deal franker both with the origin of the normative values of the professional ethic and Christian practices in their teaching. It does not necessarily require much more time, just an awareness that the values of the Norwegian military are related to a certain tradition and are far from religiously neutral. This is about achieving a better self-understanding, respecting oneself, one’s traditions and comprehension of the place from where we communicate. The history of the Armed Forces in the recent decades has shown that it is possible to do this and 238 still respect the rights and welcome place in the collective of individuals and minorities who do not embrace the religious doctrine or share the same traditions. However, it seems that recognizing and respecting the religious fundamentals that have shaped large parts of the Norwegian community and not subduing their collective significance will become a bigger challenge in the future than discrimination of religious and world view minorities. I must mention that wise chaplains sometimes do a very good job explaining the reasoning behind values and traditions, especially related to rituals and ceremonies. What I miss in particular in the dealing with religion are simple tools for interpreting phenomena and statements that the soldiers experience among their counterparts. It is impossible to prepare soldiers for everything about local conflicting interests, all they ideally ought to know about cultural otherness and how this may influence conflicts. Moreover, everything is not necessarily according to the textbook versions of the local religion. As I concluded in ch 3.1.9.3, the main priority for preparing in this field should be learning how to read the applicable, local code of conduct and interpret what is important for the population in the area. In ch 3.4.1 I concluded by indicating that the soldiers should be equipped with a ‘model’ for this purpose. This model could consist of some auxiliary questions about what kind of image(s) of God, view of human life, world view, ethic and rationality they observe as relevant in the theatre of operations. Here follow some examples of such questions: Is God considered to be mild, compassionate and gracious or perhaps strict, demanding and punishing? Is he distant and elevated or does he intervene directly in all that occur in human life? What effects can be traced of this in local rules for action, codes of conduct, concepts of honour and structures? Are these autocratic or egalitarian? Is the view of human life dominated by individualistic or collective values? What does the view of human life mean for situations at the battlefield or related to civilians? What aspects are at stake with regard to the gender issue? How are the concepts of honour and respect to be understood? How do the locals understand the world? What is important for them? What is holy? Is anything profane? What kind of society is it? Is it a state or tribal/clan community? What does that imply for authority and power structures? Are there several powerbrokers who must be taken into account? For militaries it is not at least important to come to terms with the local concept of time. What kind of ethic and law systems are important for the local population? Are the norms and values different from the Western ones and if so, how? How should the local ethic influence the military code of conduct? What kinds of rationality are dominant in the area? As evident in ch 3.4.2, I find it expedient to talk about religious and ideological rationalities as categories on their own in 239 addition to purposive, relational/communicative and critical rationalities. The point is to help the soldiers in exploring what kind of logic that guides the thinking and action of the other. This is particularly important when facing something they find baffling or disgusting. Asking such questions can at least be a guide for grasping what to look for. Concerning practical training, I have valuable experience with including religious, cultural or ethical challenges in exercise scenarios. My conversations with the interviewees of this study have convinced me that practical cases that are followed up with debriefings are good tools for training the handling of such problems. To some extent, this has been practised in several units already. Nevertheless, I have been astonished to learn from the present sample that a preparatory exercise for the forces to Afghanistan, called ‘FARYAB,’ did not include such aspects. This is remarkable since large efforts were made to resemble an Afghan environment, for instance, by dressing up many players in Afghan costumes. Such events are good occasions not only for operational training but also exercising mindsets and encountering otherness. Thus, exercise staffs for such exercises should include competent personnel for developing this kind of training. In many ways the Afghanistan veterans have done the ‘dirty job’ to fulfil the interests of the Norwegian government. They deserve that their experience is valued and used to improve the preparedness of future soldier generations. This dissertation is intended to be a contribution to that work in a field that easily is ignored despite its significance. Whereas Hiebert recommends surfacing world views as mentioned when concluding ch 3.4.2, I advocate surfacing religion as well. Rather than hiding it in the private sphere, it should be recognized as a resource for improved proficiency.

240

References

Aandnanes, Per M. 2002 [1982]. Livssyn [World views]. 3rd ed. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Act of 14 April 2000 No 31 relating to the processing of personal data (Personal Data Act, section 2 no 8). Accessed 4 May, 2011. http://www.ub.uio.no/cgi- bin/ujur/ulov/sok.cgi?type=LOV.

Aho, James A. 1981. Religious Mythology and the Art of War: Comparative Religious Symbolisms of Military Violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Alvesson, Mats, and Kaj Sköldberg. 2008 [1994]. Tolkning och reflection: Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod [Interpretation and reflection: Philosophy of science and qualitative method]. 2nd ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Anker, Trine. 2011. ‘Respect and Disrespect: Social Practices in a Norwegian Multicultural School.’ PhD diss, MF Norwegian School of Theology.

Beckford, James A. 2003. Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berger, Peter L. 1993 [1974]. Religion, samfund og virkelighed: Elementer til en sociologisk religionsteori. Translated by Erik Lyng. Oslo: Vidarforlaget A/S. Originally published as The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York: Doubleday, 1967).

Beyer, Peter. 2000 [1994]. Religion and Globalization. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Briggs, Charles L. 1997 [1986]. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Bryman, Alan. 2008 [2001]. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

Chaplaincy of the Norwegian Armed Forces. Pacem: Tidsskrift for militær etikk [Pacem: Journal of military ethic; in Norwegian]. Accessible at pacem.no.

______. 2009. ‘Religiøst mangfold og militær enhet: Geistlig betjening og etikkopplæring i et pluralistrisk forsvar’ [Religious diversity and military unity: Clerical service and training in ethics within pluralist armed forces]. In Feltpresttjeneste og livssynsmangfold [Military chaplaincy and world view diversity] 2012, edited by Nils Terje Lunde and Raag Rolfsen. Oslo: Feltprestkorpset

______. 2012. ‘Innstilling fra FPKs strategiutvalg stat/kirke’ [Recommendations by the strategy committee of the Chaplaincy of the Norwegian Armed Forces about state and church; in Norwegian]. In Feltpresttjeneste og livssynsmangfold [Military chaplaincy 241

and world view diversity] 2012, edited by Nils Terje Lunde and Raag Rolfsen. Oslo: Feltprestkorpset.

______. 2013. ‘Feltprostens høringsuttalelse til NOU 2013:1 Det livssynsåpne samfunn’ [The Chaplain-General’s response to the consultative hearing to NOU 2013:1 A spiritually open society]. Compiled by Nils Terje Lunde. 21 August.

Creswell, John W. 2007. ‘Five Qualitative Approaches to Inquiry.’ In Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 53–81. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crews, Robert D, and Amin Tarzi, eds. 2008. The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.

Davie, Grace. 1990. ‘Believing Without Belonging: Is This the Future of Religion in Britain?’ Social Compass: International Review of Sociology of Religion Vol 37, Issue 4: 455– 469.

Day, Abby. 2011. Believing in Belonging: Belief and Social Identity in the Modern World, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

______. 2013. ‘Varieties of Belief over Time: Reflections from a Longitudinal Study of Youth and Belief.’ Journal of Contemporary Religion Vol 28, No 2: 277–293. Accessed 12 September, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13537903.2013.783339. de Vaus, David A. 2005. Research Design in Social Research. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Diesen, Sverre. 2008. ‘Profesjonskultur og identitet i det nye Forsvaret’ [Professional culture and identity in the new Norwegian Armed Forces]. Accessed 9 December, 2010 from the military intranet. http://intranet.mil.no/start/aktuelt/fsj/artikkelarkiv/article.jhtml?articleID=808477.

Edström, Håkan, Nils Terje Lunde, and Janne Haaland Matlary, eds. 2009. Krigerkultur i en fredsnasjon: Norsk militærprofesjon i endring [Warrior culture in a nation of peace: Altering Norwegian military profession]. 3rd ed. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag AS.

Engedal, Leif Gunnar. 2008. ‘A Way to Follow – the Question of Method.’ In Restoring Life in Christ: Dialogues of Care in Christian Communities; An African Perspective, edited by Oyvind M Eide, Leif Gunnar Engedal, Lechion Peter Kimilike, and Emeline Ndossi, 124–131. Usa River, Arusha, Tanzania: Erlanger Verlag für Mission und Ökumene.

Fjellestad, Anders. 2017. ‘Imamen som skriver historie’ [The imam who writes history]. Forsvaret [The Norwegian Armed Forces], 1 March. Accessed 3 January 2018. https://forsvaret.no/aktuelt/forsvarets-foerste-feltimam.

Fletcher, Charles Robert Leslie. 1963. Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years War. New York: Capricorn Books.

Flood, Gavin. 2006 [1999]. Beyond Phenomenology: Rethinking the Study of Religion. London/New York: Continuum. 242

______. 2012. The Importance of Religion: Meaning and Action in Our Strange World. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK/Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2010 [2001]. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Translated by Steven Sampson. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fretheim, Kjetil. 2011. ‘Fortolkningens makt og maktens fortolkning’ [The power of interpretation and the interpretation of power]. In Forståelsens gylne øyeblikk: Festskrift til Øyvind Dahl [The golden moment of understanding: Festschrift to Øyvind Dahl], edited by Tomas Sundnes Drønen, Kjetil Fretheim, and Marianne Skjortnes, 33–46.

Haaland, Torunn Laugen. 2008. ‘Small Forces with a Global Outreach: Role Perceptions in the Norwegian Armed Forces after the Cold War.’ Dr Polit diss, University of Oslo.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1974 [1969]. Vitenskap som ideologi. Translated by Thomas Krogh and Helge Vold. 2nd ed. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag. Originally published as Technik und Wisseschaft als “Ideologie” [Technology and science as ideology] Frankfurt am Main, 1968.

Hagesæther, Alf Petter. 2009. ‘Makt og etikk: Norsk militær profesjonsetisk diskurs 1959– 2009’ [Power and ethics: Norwegian military professional ethical discourse 1959– 2009]. PhD diss, School of Mission and Theology in Stavanger.

Hansen, Kim Philip. 2012. Military Chaplains and Religious Diversity. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

Hein, Kraig Joseph. 2014. ‘Norwegians, the Peaceful Vikings? A Qualitative Study of Norwegian Cultural Identity through the Mediated Picture Created in the “to Valhall” Debate.’ Master’s thesis, MF Norwegian School of Theology.

Helmer, Christine. 2012. ‘Theology and the Study of Religion: A Relationship.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Religious Studies, edited by Robert A Orsi, 230–254. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Herbert, David. 2003. Religion and Civil Society: Rethinking Public Religion in the Contemporary World. Aldershot, UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Hiebert, Paul G. 2009 [2008]. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Hjelde, Sigurd. 2007. ‘Teologi og religionshistorie – slektskap til besvær?’ [Theology and history of religious ideas – a troublesome relationship?]. In Religion – et vestlig fenomen? Om bruk og betydning av religionsbegrepet [Religion – a Western phenomenon? Concerning the use and meaning of the concept of religion], edited by Sigurd Hjelde and Otto Krogseth, 31–50. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.

Holo, Trine, and Morten Dehli Andreassen. 2010. Kultur på ville veier: En gjennomgang av Forsvarets satsing på kulturforståelse [Culture led astray: A review of the efforts of the Norwegian Armed Forces concerning understanding of culture]. NUPI Report, Security in Practice 11. Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt (NUPI) [the Norwegian 243

Institute of International Affairs]. Accessed 12 November, 2010. http://www.nupi.no/Publikasjoner/Boeker-Rapporter/2010/Kultur-paa-ville-veier.

Hødnebø, Finn, ed. 2003 [1899]. Snorre Sturlasons kongesagaer [The sagas of Snorri Sturluson]. Translated by Anne Holtsmark and Didrik Arup Seip. Oslo: J M Stenersens Forlag.

Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN). 2013. ‘Afghanistan’s Dancing Boys.’ 18 September. Accessed 8 December, 2014. http://www.refworld.org/docid/523c318c4.html.

Jeanrond, Werner. 2002 [1994]. Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance. 3rd impression. London: SCM Press.

Johansen, Emil. 2011. Brødre i blodet: I krig for Norge [Brothers in the blood: At war for Norway]. Oslo: Kagge Forlag.

Johnson, Allan G. 2000 [1995]. The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: A User’s Guide to the Sociological Language. 2nd ed. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK/Carlton, Vic: Blackwell Publishing.

Juergensmeyer, Mark, and Mona Kanwal Sheikh. 2016 [2013]. ‘A Sociotheological Approach to Understanding Religious Violence.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence, edited by Mark Juergensmeyer, Margo Kitts, and Michael Jerryson, 620– 643. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, William W. 2012 [2000]. ‘Is Baseball a Global Sport? America’s “National Pastime” as Global Field and International Sport.’ In The Globalization Reader, edited by Frank J. Lechner and John Boli, 136–141. 4th ed. Chichester/UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kristoffersen, Gjert, and Ann-Kristin Molde. N d. ‘Norsk talemålskorpus: Transkripsjonsveiledning’ [Corpus of Norwegian speech: Transcription guide]. Accessed 14 May, 2013. http://www.hf.uib.no/i/nordisk/talekorpus/Transkripsjonsveiledning.htm.

Kristoffersen, Ronny. 2011. ‘Bleeding for the Village: Success or Failure in the Hands of the Local Powerbrokers,’ Combating Terrorism Exchange Vol 1, no 2: 6–20. Last accessed 19 July, 2019. https://globalecco.org/documents/10180/605826/CTXVol1No2.pdf/6aca543b-8c57- 45ea-b07d-5fbdc372f33a.

______. 2012. ‘What is Islam? A Basic Guide for NATO Forces Deploying to Muslim Countries.’ Master’s thesis, the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Krogseth, Otto. 2007. Religionsdefinisjon – et problematisk prosjekt [Defining religion – a problematic project] In Religion – et vestlig fenomen? Om bruk og betydning av religionsbegrepet [Religion – a Western phenomenon? Concerning the use and meaning of the concept of religion], edited by Sigurd Hjelde and Otto Krogseth, 65– 78. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.

Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2010. Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Translated by Tone M Anderssen and Johan Rygge. 2nd ed. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag. 244

Originally published as InterView: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (Sage Publications/Studentlitteratur AB, 2009).

Layder, Derek. 2005 [1998]. Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Leeming, David. 2005. The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. Published online 2006: Oxford University Press. Accessed 24 August, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780195156690.001.0001.

Lindow, John. 2002 [2001]. Norse Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Last accessed 24 August, 2019. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=169169&site=eh ost-live.

Little, Daniel. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Luckmann, Thomas. 2004. Den usynlige religionen. Translated by Gustav Erik Gullikstad Karlsaune. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk Forlag. Originally published as The Invisible Religion (The Macmillian Company, 1963).

Lunde, Nils Terje. 2003. Fra Forsvaret i kirken til kirken i Forsvaret: Kirkelig-militære relasjoner i Norge gjennom 1000 år [From the Norwegian Armed Forces in the Church to the Church in the Norwegian Armed Forces: Ecclesial-military relations in Norway through 1000 years]. Fagernes: Eide Forlag.

______. 2012. ‘Feltprestkorpsets identitet og integritet’ [The identity and integrity of the Chaplaincy of the Norwegian Armed Forces]. Kritisk Forum for praktisk teologi nr 128: 24–39.

Malcolm, Noel. 1998. Kosovo: A Short History. London and Basingstoke: Macmillian Publishers.

Marsden, Peter. 2002. The Taliban: War and Religion in Afghanistan. London/New York: Zed Books.

McAndrew, Siobhan, and David Voas. 2011. ‘Measuring Religiosity Using Surveys: Survey Question Bank Topic Overview 4.’ Report in Survey Resources Network Question Bank. (February. Last modified 1 September, 2014). Guildford: University of Surrey. Last accessed 24 July, 2019. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man- scw:198265&datastreamId=FULL-TEXT.PDF

Milbank, John. 2006 [1990]. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. 2nd ed. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK/Carlton, Vic: Blackwell Publishing.

Miles, Matthew B, and A Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand oaks, CA/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Ministry of Defence [Forsvarsdepartementet]. 2005. Styrke og relevans: Strategisk konsept som angir det sikkerhets- og forsvarspolitiske grunnlaget for Forsvarets operative 245

virksomhet [Strength and relevance: Strategic concept that yields the security and defense political basis for the operational activities of the Norwegian Armed Forces]. Accessed 24 August, 2011. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/styrke-og- relevans/id88189/.

______. 2009. Evne til innsats: Strategisk konsept for Forsvaret [Abilty for effort: Strategic concept for the Norwegian Armed Forces]. Accessed 20 February, 2015. https://www.regjeringen.no.

______. 2013. ‘Forsvardsdepartementets høringssvar til NOU 2013:1 “Det livssynsåpne samfunn”’ [The response of the Ministry of Defence to the consultative hearing to NOU 2013:1 ‘A spiritually open society’]. Compiled by Tore Henrik Meberg-Hansen. 29 August.

Momen, Moojan. 1999. The Phenomenon of Religion: A Thematic Approach. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.

Mæland, Bård. 2004. Skadeskutt idealisme: Norsk offisersmoral i Kosovo [Wounded idealism: Norwegian officers’ morality in Kosovo]. Bergen: Eide Forlag.

Mæland, Bård, and Nils Terje Lunde. 2017. ‘From Confessional to Concessional: The Adaption to Religious Pluralism by the Chaplaincy of the Norwegian Armed Forces.’ In Military Chaplaincy in an Era of Religious Pluralism: Military–Religious Nexus in Asia, Europe, and USA, edited by Torkel Brekke and Vladimir Tikhonov, 162–184. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway. 2006 [1993]. ‘Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law and the Humanities.’ Accessed 16 February, 2011. http://www.etikkom.no/English/NESH/guidelines.

NATO. 2013. Allied Command Operations Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive COPD Interim V2.0 (COPD Interim V2.0 2013). 4 October. Last accessed 7 July, 2019. https://www.cmdrcoe.org/download.cgf.php?id=9.

NATO. 2016. Standardization Agency [STANAG] 2611 – Allied Joint Doctrine for Counterinsurgency [COIN] – AJP-3.4.4. 14 July. Last accessed 7 July, 2019. https://standards.globalspec.com/std/10034206/stanag-2611.

Nelson, Andrew N. 1990. The Modern Reader’s Japanese-English Character Dictionary. 2nd rev ed. Rutland, VT/Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co.

The Norwegian Armed Forces. 2011. Forsvarets verdigrunnlag [The basic values of the Norwegian Armed Forces].

______. 2015. Forsvarets verdigrunnlag [The basic values of the Norwegian Armed Forces]. Referred parts updated 28 June, 2016. Last accessed 31 August, 2019. https://forsvaret.no/fakta/historie-oppdrag-verdier/forsvarets-verdiar/forsvarets- kjerneverdier.

Norwegian Defence Command and Staff College. 2007. ‘Norwegian Armed Forces Joint Operational Doctrine’ (FFOD). Oslo: The Defence Staff. Accessed 13 December, 2010. http://www.mil.no/languages/english/start. 246

Norwegian Defence Staff/Air Staff [Forsvarsstaben/Luftforsvarsstaben]. 2006. Luftmaktvisjon 2025 [The vision for the air power 2025]. Oslo: FST/Luftforsvarsstaben.

Norwegian Defence Staff College. 2014. Forsvarets fellesoperative doctrine [Norwegian Armed Forces joint operational doctrine] (FFOD). Oslo: The Defence Staff.

NOU [Norwegian Public Report]: 2013: 1. Det livssynsåpne samfunn: En helhetlig tros- og livssynspolitikk [A spiritually open society: A comprehensive policy of beliefs and world views]. Oslo: Kulturdepartementet [Ministry of Cultural Affairs]. Accessed 4 February, 2013. www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kud/dok/nouer/2013.

NOU [Norwegian Public Report]: 2016: 8. A Good Ally: Norway in Afghanistan 2001–2014. Oslo: Utenriksdepartementet [Ministry of Foreign Affairs]. Accessed 19 December, 2018. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/nou-2016-8/id2503028/sec1.

Oftestad, Bernt T. 1998. Den norske statsreligionen: Fra øvrighetskirke til demokratisk statskirke [The Norwegian state religion: From a church of the authorities to a democratic state church]. Kristiansand S: Høyskoleforlaget Norwegian Academic Press.

______. 2005 [1991]. ‘Kirken i det nye Norge’ [The Church in the new Norway]. In Norsk kirkehistorie [Norwegian church history], by Bernt T Oftestad, Tarald Rasmussen, and Jan Schumacher, 180–312. 3rd ed. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Orsi, Robert A. 2012. ‘Introduction.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Religious Studies, edited by Robert A Orsi, 1–13. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Otto, Rudolf. 2010 [1923]. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational. Translated by John W Harvey. Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing.

Pals, Daniel. 2006. Eight Theories of Religion. 2nd ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pattison, Stephen. 2004. ‘Understanding Values.’ In Values in Professional Practice: Lessons for Health, Social Care and Other Professionals, edited by Stephen Pattison and Roisin Pill, 1–12. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press.

______. 2007. ‘The Trouble with Values.’ In The Challenge of Practical Theology: Selected Essays, 40–46. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Rafoss, Christian. 2010. ‘Religion og norske soldater i Afghanistan’ [Religon and Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan]. Master’s thesis, University of Agder. Accessed 5 July, 2011. http://brage.bibsys.no/hia/handle/URN:NBN:no- bibsys_brage_17156/1/Christian%20Rafoss2010.pdf

Rashid, Ahmed. 2010 [2000]. Taliban: The Power of Militant Islam in Afghanistan and Beyond. London/New York: I B Tauris and Co Ltd.

Riis, Ole P. 2009. ‘Methodology in the Sociology of Religion.’ In The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, edited by Peter B Clarke, 229–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 247

Robertson, Roland. 1995. ‘Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity.’ In Global Modernities, edited by Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson, 25–44. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

______. 2000 [1992]. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London/Thousand Oaks, CA/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Rothstein, Mikael. 2007. ‘Religionshistorie – en meget kort præsentation’ [History of religious ideas – a very short presentation]. In Religion – et vestlig fenomen? Om bruk og betydning av religionsbegrepet [Religion – a Western phenomenon? Concerning the use and meaning of the concept of religion], edited by Sigurd Hjelde and Otto Krogseth, 18–30. Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.

Røislien, Hanne Eggen. 2011. ‘“Civil religion” i Forsvaret: En religionsvitenskapelig betraktning av Feltprestkorpsets utredning “Religiøst mangfold og militær enhet”’ [‘Civil religion’ in the Norwegian Armed Forces: A religionist consideration of the study ‘Religious plurality and military unity’ by the Chaplaincy of the Norwegian Armed Forces]. Pacem 14, no 1: 49–25. Accessed 9 February 2015. http://www.pacem.no/2011/1/4civilreligion/3roislien/.

Skarsaune, Oskar. 1992. ‘Fra sekt til kirke – fra synagoge til tempel: Noen synspunkter på kirken som menighet og folkekirke’ [From sect to church – from synagogue to temple: Some viewpoints on the church as congregation and national church]. Religion og livssyn: Tidsskrift for religionslærerforeningen i Norge, 4: 12–17.

Smart, Ninian. 1977 [1973]. The Science of Religion and the Sociology of Knowledge: Some Methodological Questions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

______. 1984 [1969]. The Religious Experience of Mankind. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons.

______. 1995. Choosing a Faith. London/New York: Bowerdean Publishing/Marion Boyars Publishers.

______. 2000 [1995]. Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Steinsland, Gro. 2005. Norrøn religion: Myter, riter, samfunn [Norse religion: Myths, rites, society]. Pax Forlag: Oslo.

Stensvold, Anne. 2005. ‘Kristen modernisering – misjon, indremisjon og frikirker’ [Christian modernizing – mission, home mission and free churches]. In Norges religionshistorie [The history of religious ideas in Norway], edited by Arne Bugge Amundsen, 317– 341. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Suhrke, Astri. 2011. When More is Less: The International Project in Afghanistan. London: C Hurst and Co Publishers.

Swinton, John, and Harriet Mowat. 2013 [2006]. Practical Theology and Qualitative Research. 5th impression. London: SCM Press. 248

Todd, Andrew, ed. 2013. Military Chaplaincy in Contention: Chaplains, Churches and the Morality of Conflict. Farnham, UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA/London, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Vikan, Cornelia. 2018. ‘Soldiers and “Respect” in Complex Conflicts: An Afghan Case.’ Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics / Etikk i Praksis 12(1), 3-21. Last accessed 17 September, 2018. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5324/eip.v12i1.2258

Woodhead, Linda. 2011. ‘Five Concepts of Religion.’ International Review of Sociology Vol. 21, no. 1 (Mar): 121–143.

World Values Survey (WVS). 2007. ‘WV5_Results Norway 2007.’ Technical record v 18 April 2015. Last accessed 26 October, 2015. www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVS.jsp.

249

Appendix A Individual interviewees

The following information refers to updated data at the time of interviewing. The places of interviewing are not included due to anonymity requirements.

Larry 9 February 2012. Male. Lower ranked officer. Two tours to Afghanistan. Age group: 25–30 when serving in Afghanistan, 31–35 when interviewed. Education: NCOs’ training school.

Clive 10 February 2012. Male. Officer at the intermediate levels. Two tours to Afghanistan. Age group: 31–35 during first tour to Afghanistan, over 40 during second tour and when interviewed. Education: military academy.

James 29 February 2012. Male. Officer at the intermediate levels. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: 25–30 when serving in Afghanistan, 31–35 when interviewed. Education: civil master’s and bachelor’s degrees in different disciplines. Some military education at military academy and staff college level.

Betty 17 April 2012. Female. Lower ranked officer. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: 25–30 when serving in Afghanistan, 31–35 when interviewed. Education: NCOs’ training school.

Emil Johansen 2 May 2012. Male. Lower ranked officer. Moved up the lower ranks in different jobs during service in Afghanistan. Seven tours to international operations, among these three of longer and three of shorter duration to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25 and 25–30 during tours to Afghanistan, 25–30 when interviewed. Education: NCOs’ training school. Publication: Brødre i blodet (2011). 250

Annie 8 May 2012. Female. Officer at the intermediate levels. Three tours of longer duration to international operations, one of these to Afghanistan. Three–four shorter trips. Age group: over 45. Education: higher civil degree and officers’ training course for academics.

Mike 21 May 2012. Male. Officer at the intermediate levels. Five tours to international operations, among these three to Afghanistan. Age group: 25–30. Education: NCOs’ training school.

Peter 21 May 2012. Male. Lower ranked officer. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: 25–30. Education: civil bachelor’s degree and NCOs’ training school.

The farmer 25 May 2012. Male. Higher ranked officer. One tour to Afghanistan. Two UN operations, a position in NATO and military schools abroad. Age group: over 40. Education: master’s degree and staff college.

David 13 June 2012. Male. Higher ranked staff officer. Three tours to Afghanistan, two of them of shorter duration. Age group: over 40. Education: staff college. Some civil studies at a university college.

John 14 June 2012. Male. Higher ranked staff officer. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: over 40. Education: staff college.

Andrew 19 June 2012. Male. NCO. Officer of lower ranks during service in Afghanistan. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25. Education: NCOs’ training school.

Morgan 19 June 2012. Male. Regular soldier/executive level. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25 when serving in Afghanistan, 25–30 when interviewed.

Bill 20 June 2012. Male. Regular soldier/executive level. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25. 251

Adam 20 June 2012. Male. NCO. Regular soldier/executive level during three tours to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25.

Alex 20 June 2012. Male. Regular soldier/executive level. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25.

Anthony 20 June 2012. Male. Regular soldier/executive level. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25.

Bob 20 June 2012. Male. Regular soldier/executive level. Five tours to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25 during the first tours, 25–30 during the last and when interviewed.

Charlie 21 June 2012. Female. Regular soldier/executive level. Two tours to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25.

Brian 21 June 2012. Male. Regular soldier/executive level. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25 when serving in Afghanistan, 25–30 when interviewed.

Derek 21 June 2012. Male. Regular soldier/executive level. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: under 25.

Steel 28 June 2012. Male. Higher ranked staff officer. Several shorter tours to Afghanistan. Age group: over 40. Education: staff college.

Ronny Kristoffersen 12 September 2012. Male. Officer at the intermediate levels. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: 31–35 when serving in Afghanistan, 36–40 when interviewed. Education: Norwegian military academy, naval postgraduate school and master’s degree from the USA. Publications: ‘Bleeding for the Village: Success or failure in the Hands of Local Powerbrokers’ in Combating Terrorism Exchange, 11 January 2011. 252

‘Learning form History: What is Successful Interrogation,’ in Combating Terrorism Exchange, 3 August 2012.

Hasselhoff 12 September 2012. Male. Lower ranked officer. Moved between the lower ranks in different jobs during his service in Afghanistan. Four tours to the country. Age group: below 25 during his tours to Afghanistan, 25–30 when interviewed. Education: NCOs’ training school.

Thor 12 September 2012. Male. Officer at the intermediate levels. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: 25–30 when serving in Afghanistan, 36–40 when interviewed. Education: military academy and some university studies.

Andy 13 September 2012. Male. Lower ranked officer during service in Afghanistan, intermediate at the time of interviewing. Two tours to Afghanistan. Age group: 25–30 when serving in Afghanistan, 31–35 when interviewed. Education: military academy.

Edward 13 September 2012. Male. NCO. One tour to Afghanistan. Age group: below 25. Education: NCOs’ training school.

Bobby 13 September 2012. Male. Three tours to Afghanistan. Lower ranked officer during his two last tours to Afghanistan. Age group: below 25 when serving in Afghanistan, 25–30 when interviewed. Education: NCOs’ training school.

Kenny 13 September 2012. Male. Officer at the intermediate levels. Two tours to international operations, one of them to Afghanistan. Age group: 36–40. Education: military academy.

Frank 14 September 2012. Male. Higher ranked officer. Three tours of service abroad, one of them to Afghanistan. Age group: over 40. Education: staff college. 253

Appendix B Interview guide Norwegian/English

1. BAKGRUNN: PERSONLIG, UTDANNELSE, MILITÆRTJENESTE 1.1 Personlig bakgrunn: hvor født/oppvokst, familieforhold (inkl tradisjoner), generelle verdier, verdensbilde etc. 1.2 Militær bakgrunn: førstegangstjeneste, befalsskole, krigsskole etc. Andre militære kurs/skoler. 1.3 Sivil bakgrunn: utdannelse, arbeidserfaring. 1.4 Tidligere internasjonal tjeneste.

2. TJENESTE I AFGHANISTAN – GENERELL BESKRIVELSE 2.1 Type tjeneste. 2.2 Beskrivelse av egen posisjon/rolle/stilling (inkl grad). 2.3 Relasjon til over- og underordnede (ledelse/stab, mellomleder, utøvende). 2.4 Kontakt med lokalbefolkningen (sivile, ANA, afghansk politi). 2.5 Kontakt med andre ISAF-nasjoner, NGOer etc.

3. RELIGIONENS SIGNIFIKANS – EGNE PREFERANSER/ SYNSPUNKTER 3.1 Tanker om hva religion er (temaets innhold, privatsak/noe offentlig, handler det om mer enn tro? etc). 3.2 Egen tilhørighet til/medlemskap i tros- eller livssynssamfunn. 3.3 Tanker om hvor viktig religion og religiøse verdier er i eget liv (grad av religiøsitet, deltakelse ved religiøs praksis, egen tro, egen erfaring med religiøse spørsmål etc). 3.4 Tanker om religion i kollektivet og da i første rekke forsvarskonteksten (positivt/negativt/hva med «nøytralitet»?) 3.5 Tanker om hvor viktig temaet religion og religiøse forhold er i forbindelse med militære internasjonale operasjoner/operasjoner i utlandet generelt. 3.6 Egne erfaringer med religionsmøte så langt.

4. TANKER OG HOLDNINGER OM RELIGIONENS SIGNIFIKANS HOS LOKALBEFOLKNINGEN I AFGHANISTAN 4.1 Tanker om afghansk religion og kultur generelt. (Ved ev taushet: Er ord som «fremmed» – «kjent,» «fjernt» – «nært,» «annerledes» – «likt,» «eksotisk» – «trivielt» beskrivende? I tilfelle, på hvilken måte? Annet?) 4.2 Tanker om hvor viktig religion og religiøse forhold er ved operasjoner i Afghanistan spesielt (i forhold til andre operasjonsområder). 254

4.3 Gjeldende prosedyrer for oppførsel i forhold til lokalbefolkningen med hensyn til respekt for lokal religion og kultur. 4.4 Andre aktørers relasjon til lokal religion og kultur. Influerer dette på dine holdninger/praksis? 4.5 Opplevelse av å være en «fremmed» i disse operative og sosiale omgivelsene? 4.6 Refleksjoner om den såkalte Alfa-saken?

5. BETYDNING FOR PROFESJONSETIKKEN 5.1 Hvilke normer gjelder/gjaldt for yrkesetikken i avdelingen(e) din(e)? 5.2 Hvordan blir/ble normene begrunnet? 5.3 Tanker om forventninger fra dem «hjemme» i forhold til møte med lokal religion (politikere, Forsvaret, media, familie/venner etc). Hvilke typer etiske/moralske føringer/verdier ligger til grunn for deres forventninger? 5.4 Tenker du at det er/var gitt etiske/moralske intensjoner i gjeldende standarder og prosedyrer for behandling av lokalbefolkningen? 5.5 I tilfelle – hvilke og hvem sine etiske intensjoner? Norske myndigheters? Militære overordnedes? Fra det internasjonale samfunnet eller krigens folkerett? Dine? Annet? Er/var det stilltiende religiøse normer her? ROE, soldatkortet, Forsvarets verdigrunnlag (RAM). 5.6 Har religion eller religiøse verdier (eks: normer og bud) betydning for den militære yrkes-/profesjonsetikken? I tilfelle, på hvilken måte? 5.7 Norske militæres faktiske opptreden i forhold til standarder og prosedyrer for respekt for lokal religion og kultur. (Er/var det kontrast/paradokser mellom en privatisert tenkning om religion og det som praktiseres/ble praktisert?) 5.8 Ev dilemmaer for eksempel mellom respekten for lokalbefolkningens religion/kultur og det «militært nødvendige»? Hvilke? Hvordan vil du forsøke å løse dem? 5.9 Beskrivelse av en norsk «idealsoldat» for operasjonen i Afghanistan?

6. TILLEGG VED RETROSPEKTIVE OG ANDREGANGSINTERVJUER 6.1 Egne erfaringer med religionsmøte i Afghanistan. Har det skjedd endringer i holdninger, synspunkter, kunnskaper, praksis? 6.2 Erfaringer med dilemmasituasjoner? Refleksjon om hvordan du forholdt deg til dem. 6.3 Endringer i dine følelser/holdninger overfor lokalbefolkningen og eventuelle andre i løpet av erfaringene i ISAF? (Har du blitt hardere, mykere eller mer likegyldig?) 6.4 Bestemte følelser overfor bestemte individer eller grupper? Hvem/hvilke/hvordan? 6.5 Har dette gjort noe med avdelingen din? 6.6 I hvor sterk grad var du/dere forberedt på kultur/religionsmøte? «Ros/ris,» anbefalinger til utdannings-/treningssystemet

255

1. BACKGROUND: PERSONAL, EDUCATION, MILITARY SERVICE 1.1 Personal background: where born/grown up, family relations (incl traditions), general values, world view etc. 1.2 Military background: conscripted military service, NCOs’ training school, military academy etc. Other military schools/courses. 1.3 Civil background: education, professional experience. 1.4 Previous international service.

2. SERVICE IN AFGHANISTAN – GENERAL DESCRIPTION 2.1 What kind of service? 2.2 Description of own position/role/post (incl rank). 2.3 Relation to superiors and subordinates (command group/staff, officer, NCO, performing soldier). 2.4 Contact with the local population (civilians, ANA, Afghan police) 2.5 Contact with other ISAF-nations, NGOs etc.

3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION – OWN PREFERANCES/POINTS OF VIEW 3.1 Thoughts about what religion is (the content of the topic, private matter/something public, is it about more than beliefs? etc) 3.2 Affiliation to/membership in religious denomination or equivalent organization. 3.3 Thoughts about how important religion and religious values are in own life (extent of religiosity, participation at religious practices, own beliefs, own experience with religious questions etc). 3.4 Thoughts about religion in collective life, primarily in the context of the Armed Forces (positive/negative/what about ‘neutrality’?) 3.5 Thoughts about how important religion and religious matters are related to military international operations/operations abroad in general. 3.6 Own experience with encountering religions so far.

4. THOUGHTS ABOUT AND ATTITUDES TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION AMONG THE LOCAL POPULATION IN AFGHANISTAN 4.1 Thoughts about Afghan religion and culture in general. (Are words like ‘strange’ – ‘well known,’ ‘remote’ – ‘close,’ ‘different’ – ‘similar,’ ‘exotic’ – ‘humdrum’ descriptive? If so, in what way? Other things?) 4.2 Thoughts about how important religion and religious matters are during operations in Afghanistan in particular (e g related to other theatres of operation). 4.3 Current procedures for the conduct in relation to the local population with regard to respecting local religion and culture. 4.4 Other actors’ relation to local religion and culture. Does this influence your attitudes/practices? 4.5 Experience of being a ‘stranger’ in this operative and social environment? 256

4.6 Reflections about the so-called Alfa-case?

5. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ETHIC 5.1 What norms or standards apply/were applied for the professional ethic in your unit(s)? 5.2 What reasons/justification are/were given for the norms/standards? 5.3 Thoughts about expectations from those ‘at home’ related to the encounter with local religion (politicians, the Norwegian Armed Forces, media, family/friends etc). What kinds of ethical/moral guidance/values form/formed the basis for their expectations? 5.4 Do you think that there are/were implicit ethical/moral intentions in the standards and procedures in force for the treatment of the local people? 5.5 If that is the case, what and whose ethical/moral intentions? Norwegian authorities’? Military superiors’? From the international society or international law of war? Yours? Something else? Are there tacit religious norms or standards here? ROE, the core values of the Norwegian Armed Forces (respect, responsibility, courage). 5.6 Does religion or religious values have any significance for the military professional ethic? If it does, in what way? 5.7 The actual praxis by the Norwegian military forces when related to the standards and procedures for respecting local religion and culture. (Are there contrast/paradoxes between a privatized thinking about religion and what is practiced?) 5.8 Possible dilemmas between, for instance, respecting local religion/culture and what is considered to be ‘militarily necessary’? What dilemmas? How do you suggest solving them? 5.9 Description of an ‘ideal soldier’ for the operation in Afghanistan?

6. ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR RETROSPECTIVE AND SECOND TIME INTERVIEWS 6.1 Own experience with encountering religion in Afghanistan. Any changes in attitudes, points of view, knowledge, practices? 6.2 Experience with dilemma situations? Reflections about how to deal with them. 6.3 Changed feelings/attitudes towards the local population and possibly other actors knit to the experience in ISAF? (Are you harder, softer, or more indifferent?) 6.4 Particular feelings towards particular individuals or groups? Who/which/how? 6.5 Has this had any influence on your unit? 6.6 To what extent were you prepared for the encountering of diverse cultures/religions? Praise and criticism, suggestions for the education and training systems.

257

Appendix C Group interviews

Group A 11 December 2013. Officers with experience from staff work, planning of operations or leadership in Afghanistan. One female and three males within the Army, Navy and Air Force with some difference in age and rank. They chose/were given the following pseudonyms: Snoopy (the female), Scott, Donald and the farmer. Belonging to different services and units, none of the participants were in a relationship of command to each other.

Group B 18 June 2015. Officers with more experience at the executive level and contact with Afghans than the typical staff officer. Three males, one Navy and two Army officers of the intermediate ranks. They chose the following pseudonyms: Joshua, Duncan and Lawrence. Unfortunately, there were neither NCOs nor females available where I got access to participants.111 They all had two full contingents to ISAF. Two of them had several shorter additional tours. Belonging to different units, none of the participants were in a relationship of command to each other.

Group C 13 August 2015. Executive soldiers/lower ranked officers. One female and five males. They chose/were given the following pseudonyms: Mary Lou, Carl, Daniel, George, Charles and Gary. All were NCOs or lower ranked officers with the Army at the time of interviewing. Four of them had been regular executive soldiers during their service in Afghanistan. One had been a lower ranked officer and one had moved up the lower ranks during several deployments to the country. Their experience varied from one to seven tours to Afghanistan.

111 Norway has had a rather peculiar NCO system compared with other nations. At a reform in 1932, the NCO corps was partly abolished. Consequently, the time of service as a sergeant and equivalent ranks became limited to one year before being promoted to the lowest officer rank. Thus, for a long time this group of personnel has been rather small. In 2015 the NCO corps was reintroduced and called the specialist corps. 258

Appendix D Self-completion Questionnaire Norwegian/English

Noen data om hvem du er og hvilken rolle du har i avdelingen. (Husk at dette av forskningsetiske grunner må gjengis og behandles anonymt.)

1. Hvilken av disse meget generelle personellkategoriene tilhørte du under tjenesten i Afghanistan? Kryss av i den kategorien som ligger nærmest.

Ledelse/stab Offiser for NCO Utøvende soldat øvrig

2. Hvilken aldersgruppe tilhørte du under tjenesten i Afghanistan?

Under 25 år 25 – 30 år 31 – 35 år 36 – 40 år Over 40 år

3. Kjønn:

Kvinne

Mann

4. Hvor mange ganger har du vært ute i internasjonale operasjoner/operasjoner i utlandet? (Ta med opphold over en måned eller mer.)

En gang To ganger Tre ganger Fire ganger Fem ganger Flere ganger

5. a) Har du tjenestegjort i en rolle som hovedsakelig ble utført i egen leir mens du var i Afghanistan eller arbeidet du mye utenfor egen leir?

Stort sett bare i Både i egen leir og Mest utadrettet tjeneste egen leir utadrettet

b) I hvor sterk grad er denne påstanden dekkende for din jobb i avdelingen? «Jeg hadde direkte kontakt med den afghanske lokalbefolkningen.» Kryss av på den graderte 259

skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor. (Poenget her er å få et bilde av grad av kontakt med lokalbefolkningen enten denne skjer i eller utenfor egen leir.)

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ditt eget ståsted i forhold til religion/livssyn

6. Hvor viktig er religion i ditt liv? Vil du si at det er:

Veldig viktig Litt viktig Ikke veldig Ikke viktig i det viktig hele tatt

7. Er du medlem av Den norske kirke (statskirken), Den romersk-katolske kirke, en frikirke, en retning innen islam, Humanetisk forbund eller et annet tros- eller livssynssamfunn? Kryss av ved en av mulighetene i tabellen nedenfor.

Den norske kirke Den romersk-katolske kirke En frikirke Islam Humanetisk forbund Annet tros- eller livssynssamfunn Er ikke medlem i noe tros- eller livssynssamfunn

8. Uavhengig av hvorvidt du er kirkegjenger/tilsvarende eller ikke, vil du beskrive deg selv som:

en religiøs person en ikke-religiøs person en ateist

9. Med unntak av situasjoner hvor du føler deg sosialt forpliktet, for eksempel ved familiebegivenheter som dåp, konfirmasjon, begravelse og brudevielse, hvor ofte er du til stede ved gudstjenester eller andre møter/samlinger med religiøst innhold? (Dette spørsmålet er rettet inn mot din normale livssituasjon hjemme i Norge.) Kryss av ved et av alternativene i tabellen nedenfor.

Oftere enn en gang i uken En gang i uken En gang i måneden Bare ved spesielle høgtider En gang i året Sjeldnere Aldri 260

10. Noen mennesker har en fast og klar oppfatning av om hvorvidt de tror på Gud eller ikke. For andre kan det være mer situasjonsbestemt eller et spørsmål om grad. I hvor sterk grad er tro på Gud viktig for deg? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11. Har du stunder med bønn, meditasjon, kontemplasjon eller liknende?

Nei

12. Tradisjoner er viktige for noen personer og i noen sammenhenger.

a) Hvor viktig er det for deg å følge/opprettholde tradisjoner og skikker overlevert fra din religion eller familie? Kryss av på skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

b) Hvor viktig er det for deg å følge/opprettholde militære tradisjoner og skikker? Kryss av på skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13. Et interessant tema er hvorvidt vi har tillit til mennesker som har en annen bakgrunn enn vår egen. I hvilken grad har du tillit til representanter for disse to gruppene?

Mye tillit Litt tillit Ikke særlig mye Ikke tillit i det tillit hele tatt Mennesker med annen religion

Mennesker med annen nasjonalitet

261

Tanker om religion og militær yrkesetikk i forhold til det afghanske samfunnet og den konteksten dere arbeidet i der

Mange steder vi tjenestegjør i utlandet har både rettstenkning, skikker og en rekke andre kulturelle uttrykk røtter i religiøse verdier som gjerne er fremmede for oss nordmenn. (Noen eksempler er behandling av kvinner, mat- og fasteregler, klesdrakt/utseende, ritualer, seremonier og symboler.) Spørsmålene nedenfor retter oppmerksomheten mer mot religion i den konteksten vi arbeider i ved operasjoner i utlandet. I tillegg er det noen spørsmål knyttet til religion og profesjons- eller yrkesetikk.

14. I hvor sterk grad er du enig i følgende påstand? «Det er viktig å ha en viss forståelse av den Afghanske befolkningens tro og skikker for å kunne samhandle med dem på en respektfull måte.» Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15. I hvor sterk grad er du enig i følgende påstand? «Forståelse av lokal religiøs tro og skikker er viktig for å vurdere den lokale sikkerhetssituasjonen i tjenesteområdet ordentlig.» Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16. I hvor sterk grad er du enig i følgende påstand? «Man må vite noe om det religiøse og kulturelle mangfoldet i Afghanistan for å forstå konflikten der.» Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

17. I hvor sterk grad mener du at dere var forberedt på å takle religiøst betingede utfordringer i Afghanistan? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

262

18. I hvor sterk grad har du fått opplæring/utdanning eller trening i kultur- og religionsproblematikk i forbindelse med operasjoner i utlandet gjennom det militære utdanningssystemet? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

19. Hvor har du ev fått opplæring/utdanning eller trening i kultur- og religionsproblematikk i forbindelse med operasjoner i utlandet gjennom det militære utdanningssystemet? (Her er det naturlig nok mulig å krysse av ved flere muligheter.)

Under den militære grunnutdanningen/førstegangstjenesten Under grunnleggende befalsutdanning På krigsskolen På stabsskolen I forbindelse med opptrening til oppdrag i utlandet Gjennom egne studier Ingen/minimal utdanning/trening

20. I hvilken grad tenker du at den opplæringen du har fått i kultur- og religionsproblematikk har vært treffende og tilfredsstillende? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

21. Tenk deg at en afghaner du kommer i kontakt med under tjeneste i Afghanistan spør deg om hvilken tro du har eller hva slags religion du tilhører. Hva svarer du?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Hva svarer du hvis afghaneren spør på hvilket sted og hvor ofte du ber? …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Hva svarer du hvis han spør om du faster og hvor lenge du faster? …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Det kan være ulike oppfatninger i et samfunn om hvor stor rolle religionen skal spille i det offentlige rom. Noen mener at religion er en privatsak og ikke hører hjemme i det offentlige rom. Andre tenker at religion har en selvfølgelig plass i det offentlige rom på linje med andre meninger. De følgende spørsmålene tar opp noen sider ved dette.

263

22. I hvor sterk grad oppfatter du at religion er en individuell/privat sak for befolkningen i Norge? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

23. I hvor sterk grad oppfatter du at religion er en offentlig/kollektiv sak for befolkningen i Norge? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

24. I hvor sterk grad oppfatter du at religion er en individuell/privat sak for befolkningen i Afghanistan? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

25. I hvor sterk grad oppfatter du at religion er en offentlig/kollektiv sak for befolkningen i Afghanistan? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

26. Tillitsmannsordningen har vedtatt å arbeide for at Forsvaret skal bli «religionsnøytralt». I hvilken grad er du enig i dette vedtaket? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

27. Det kan være forskjell på hvor ofte militært personell deltar ved gudstjenester og andre arrangementer med religiøst innhold (inkl minneseremonier) ved operasjoner i utlandet enn 264

hva de gjør hjemme. Hvor ofte har du vært til stede ved gudstjenester/andre samlinger med religiøst innhold i forbindelse med militære operasjoner i utlandet?

Oftere enn en gang i uken En gang i uken En gang i måneden Bare ved spesielle høgtider En gang i året Sjeldnere Aldri

28. I hvor sterk grad tenker du at afghanernes verdensbilde eller virkelighetsforståelse er preget av religiøse verdier/verdier som har bakgrunn i religion? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

29. I hvor sterk grad tenker du at afghanernes menneskesyn er preget av religiøse verdier/verdier som har bakgrunn i religion? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

30. Etikken bygger gjerne på gitte normer (f eks moralske bud og regler, plikter, dyder, formål og verdier). I hvor stor grad mener du religiøst betingede normer har betydning for den militære yrkesetikken? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

31. I hvor stor grad mener du religiøst betingede normer bør ha betydning for den militære yrkesetikken? Kryss av på den graderte skalaen fra 1 til 10 nedenfor.

I I ingen/svak sterk grad grad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hjertelig takk for ditt verdifulle bidrag! 265

Some data about who you are and your role within the unit. (Remember that the questionnaire for research ethical reasons must be rendered and treated anonymously.)

1. In which of these very general categories personnel did you belong during your service in Afghanistan? Tick the category that is closest.

Command- Officer in NCO Performing group/staff other jobs soldier

2. Which age category did you belong to when serving in Afghanistan?

Under 25 25 – 30 31 – 35 36 – 40 Over 40

3. Gender:

Female

Male

4. How many times have you taken part in international operations/operations abroad? (Please include tours lasting a month or longer.)

Once Twice Three Four Five More times times times times

5. a) Did you work in a role that mainly was performed within your camp, or did you work basically in the Afghan environment outside your camp?

Normally just within Both within own camp Mainly externally the camp and externally oriented service

b) To what extent is this statement a correct description of your job in the unit? ‘I was directly in touch with the local Afghan population.’ Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below. (The point here is to get a picture of the extent of contact with the local population during the service whether this happened within or outside your camp).

266

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Your own point of view in relation to religion and world views

6. How important is religion in your life? Would you say it is:

Very Somewhat Not very Not at all important important important important

7. Do you belong to a religion or religious denomination? If yes, which one? Please tick a choice in the table below.

The Church of Norway The Roman Catholic Church A free church Islam The Humanist Association Other

8. Independently of whether you go to church or take part in equivalent worship or not, would you say you are:

A religious person Not a religious person An atheist

9. Except for situations where you feel an obligation to take part, e g due to family events as christenings, confirmation, funerals or weddings, how often do you attend religious services or other gatherings with a religious content? (This question is meant to map what you do in your ‘normal’ life at home in Norway.) Please tick a choice in the table below.

More than once a week Once a week Once a month Only on special holidays Once a year Less often Never

267

10. Some people have a clear and firm idea of whether they believe in God or not. For others it may be more situational or a question about extent of faith. To what extent is faith in God important in your life? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11. Do you take some moments of prayer, meditation, contemplation, or something like that?

Yes

12. Tradition is important to some people and in some contexts.

a) How important is it for you to keep the traditions and customs handed down by your religion or family? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

b) How important is it for you to keep the traditions and customs handed down by the military? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13. Whether we trust people with another background than our own is an interesting theme. To what extent do you trust representatives of these two groups?

Trust Trust Do not trust Do not trust at completely somewhat very much all People of another religion People of another nationality

268

Thoughts about religion and professional ethic related to the Afghan society and to the context you were working in there

Many places we are serving abroad, legislation, customs and a host of other cultural expressions that are rooted in religious values often appear as strange to Norwegians. (Some examples are the treatment of women, rules for foods and fasting, dress code/appearance, rituals, ceremonies, and symbols.) The questions below direct our attention to religion when working in the context of international operations. Additionally, there are some questions related to religion and professional ethic.

14. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? ‘It is important to have some understanding of the Afghan population’s religious beliefs and customs to interact respectfully with them.’ Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? ‘Understanding of local religious beliefs and customs is important to assess the local security situation properly.’ Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? ‘To understand the conflict in Afghanistan, one must know something about Afghan religious and cultural diversity.’ Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

17. To what extent do you think that you were prepared for dealing with religiously conditioned challenges in Afghanistan? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

269

18. To what extent have you been educated or trained in cultural and religious issues related to missions abroad in the military education system? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

19. Where have you got education or training in cultural and religious issues related to missions abroad in the military education system? (Naturally, here it is possible to tick several of the options.)

During basic military training/conscripted service During NCO training At the military academy At the staff college In connection with training for missions abroad Through self-tuition No/minimal education/training

20. To what extent do you find the education/training you have in cultural and religious issues adequate and satisfactory? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

21. Imagine that an Afghan you get in touch with during service in Afghanistan ask you about your beliefs or which religion you belong to. What do you answer?

……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………

What do you answer if the Afghan asks in what place and how often you pray? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………

What do you answer if he asks whether you fast and for how long time you are fasting? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………..

There may be different perceptions in a society about how significant role religion is to play in public life. Some people feel that religion is a private matter and does not belong to the public sphere. Others think that religion has a natural place in the public in line with other opinions. The following questions will take up some aspects of this. 270

22. To what extent do you consider religion as an individual/private matter for people in Norway? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

23. To what extent do you consider religion as a public/collective matter for people in Norway? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

24. To what extent do you consider religion as an individual/private matter for people in Afghanistan? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

25. To what extent do you consider religion as a public/collective matter for people in Afghanistan? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

26. The representative organization of conscripted personnel has advocated that the Armed Forces should become ‘religiously neutral.’ To what extent do you agree to this point of view? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no To a or a great small extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

27. There may be differences in how often military personnel attend religious services or events with a religious content (incl memorial services) during operations abroad compared to what they do at home. How often have you attended religious services/other gatherings with a religious content during military international operations/operations abroad? 271

More than once a week Once a week Once a month Only on special holidays Once a year Less often Never

28. To what extent do you think that the world view or perception of reality among Afghans is characterized by religious values or values that have background in religion? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no or a To a small great extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

29. To what extent do you think that thoughts about human nature among Afghans are characterized by religious values or values that have background in religion? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no or a To a small great extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

30. Ethic is often based on certain norms (e g commandments and rules, obligations, virtues, purposes, and values). To what extent do you find that religiously conditioned norms are of importance for military professional ethic? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no or a To a small great extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

31. To what extent do you think that religiously conditioned norms ought to be of importance for the military professional ethic? Please tick a choice from 1 to 10 in the graded scale below.

To no or a To a small great extent extent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Thank you very much for your valuable contribution! 272

Appendix E Statistics from Self-completion Questionnaires, n=142

Var A: Personnel categories Respondents Percent 1 Leadership/staff 25 17.60 % 2 Other officers 12 8.45 % 3 NCOs 23 16.19 % 4 Performing soldiers 81 57.04 % 0 Unanswered 1 0.70 % Total 142

Var B: Age Respondents Percent 1 Under 25 years 64 45.07 % 2 25 -30 years 52 36.61 % 3 31-35 years 12 8.45 % 4 36-40 years 4 2.81 % 5 Over 40 years 10 7.04 % 0 Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 1.9

Var C: Gender Respondents Percent 1 Females 7 4.92 % 2 Males 135 95.07 % 0 Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142

Var D: Tours to int ops Respondents Percent 1 Once 62 43.66 % 2 Twice 22 15.49 % 3 Three times 17 11.97 % 4 Four times 17 11.97 % 5 Five times 11 7.74 % 6 More times 13 9.15 % 0 Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 2.52

273

Var E: Place of service Respondents Percent 1 Basically within own camp 11 7.74 % 2 Both in own camp and externally 27 19.01 % 3 Mostly externally 104 73.23 % 0 Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 2.65

Var F: Contact with locals Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 1 0.70 % 2 10 7.04 % 3 10 7.04 % 4 7 4.92 % 5 8 5.63 % 6 15 10.56 % 7 28 19.71 % 8 28 19.71 % 9 13 9.15 % To a great extent 10 22 15.49 % Unanswered 0 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 6.8

Var G: Importance of religion in own life Respondents Percent 1 Very important 4 2.81 % 2 Somewhat important 36 25.35 % 3 Not very important 54 38.02 % 4 Not at all important 47 33.09 % 0 Unanswered 1 0.70 % Total 142

Var H: Affiliation to religion/world view Respondents Percent 1 Church of Norway (Lutheran) 116 81.69 % 2 Roman Catholic Church 1 0.70 % 3 A free church 3 2.11 % 4 Islam 0 0 % 5 The Humanist Association 3 2.11 % 6 Others 0 0 % 7 No affiliation 17 11.97 % 0 Unanswered 2 1.40 % Total 142

274

Var I: Perception of own religiosity Respondents Percent 1 A religious person 34 23.94 % 2 Not a religious person 86 60.56 % 3 An atheist 21 14.78 % 0 Unanswered 1 0.70 % Total 142

Var J: Attendance at gatherings with religious content (at home) Respondents Percent 1 More than once a week 1 0.70 % 2 Once a week 0 0 % 3 Once a month 3 2.11 % 4 Only on special holidays 47 33.09 % 5 Once a year 21 14.78 % 6 Less often 26 18.30 % 7 Never 44 30.98 % 0 Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 5.4

Var K: Importance of faith in God Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 58 40.84 % 2 18 12.67 % 3 26 18.30 % 4 11 7.74 % 5 13 9.15 % 6 3 2.11 % 7 4 2.81 % 8 4 2.81 % 9 1 0.70 % To a great extent 10 4 2.81 % Unanswered 0 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 2.87

Var L: Practicing prayer, meditation etc Respondents Percent Yes 38 26.76 % No 104 73.23 % Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142

275

Var M: Importance of traditions from religion or family Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 13 9.15 % 2 10 7.04 % 3 9 6.34 % 4 12 8.45 % 5 22 15.49 % 6 8 5.63 % 7 22 15.49 % 8 23 16.19 % 9 7 4.92 % To a great extent 10 16 11.26 % Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 5.82

Var N: Importance of military traditions Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 1 0.70 % 2 4 2.81 % 3 3 2.11 % 4 10 7.04 % 5 17 11.97 % 6 15 10.56 % 7 23 16.19 % 8 36 25.35 % 9 15 10.56 % To a great extent 10 18 12.67 % Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 7.02

Var O: Trust in people with other religion Respondents Percent 1 Trust a lot 50 35.21 % 2 Trust somewhat 78 54.92 % 3 Do not trust very much 9 6.33 % 4 Do not trust at all 0 0 % 0 Unanswered 5 3.52 % Total 142 Mean: 1.64

276

Var P: Trust in people of other nationalities Respondents Percent 1 Trust a lot 49 34.50 % 2 Trust somewhat 76 53.52 % 3 Do not trust very much 11 7.74 % 4 Do not trust at all 0 0 % 0 Unanswered 6 4.22 % Total 142 Mean: 1.64

Var Q: Important to understand Afghans’ beliefs and customs Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 0 0 % 2 0 0 % 3 0 0 % 4 0 0 % 5 4 2.81 % 6 0 0 % 7 14 9.85 % 8 29 20.42 % 9 20 14.08 % To a great extent 10 75 52.81 % Unanswered 0 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 9.01

Var R: Understanding religion important for security Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 0 0 % 2 0 0 % 3 0 0 % 4 1 0.70 % 5 3 2.11 % 6 13 9.15 % 7 25 17.60 % 8 29 20.42 % 9 21 14.78 % To a great extent 10 49 34.50 % Unanswered 0 1 0.70 % Total 142 Mean: 8.33

277

Var S: Knowledge of religion/culture important for understanding conflict Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 0 0 % 2 0 0 % 3 2 1.40 % 4 0 0 % 5 0 0 % 6 2 1.40 % 7 16 11.26 % 8 26 18.30 % 9 26 18.30 % To a great extent 10 70 49.29 % Unanswered 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 8.96

Var T: Prepared to deal with religion Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 1 0.70 % 2 2 1.40 % 3 7 4.92 % 4 10 7.04 % 5 21 14.78 % 6 27 19.01 % 7 34 23.94 % 8 24 16.90 % 9 11 7.74 % To a great extent 10 5 3.52 % Unanswered 0 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 6.42

278

Var U: Extent of training in culture and religion Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 3 2.11 % 2 7 4.92 % 3 10 7.04 % 4 19 13.38 % 5 21 14.78 % 6 25 17.60 % 7 30 21.12 % 8 20 14.08 % 9 4 2.81 % To a great extent 10 3 2.11 % Unanswered 0 0 0 % Total 142 Mean: 5.73

Var V: Military education/training Percent of in dealing with culture/religion Responses respondents 1 During basic mil training 38 26.76 % 2 During NCO training 30 21.12 % 3 At the military academy 17 11.97 % 4 At the staff college 4 2.81 % 5 During training for missions abroad 126 88.73 % 6 Through self-tuition 61 42.95 % 7 No/minimal education/training 5 3.52 % 0 Unanswered 1 0.70 % Total number of responses 282

Var W: Satisfaction with training in culture/religion Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 3 2.11 % 2 5 3.52 % 3 10 7.04 % 4 15 10.56 % 5 27 19.01 % 6 32 22.53 % 7 25 17.60 % 8 16 11.26 % 9 6 4.22 % To a great extent 10 1 0.70 % Unanswered 0 2 1.40 % Total 142 Mean: 5.61

279

Var X: Religion is a private matter in Norway Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 2 1.40 % 2 2 1.40 % 3 4 2.81 % 4 1 0.70 % 5 28 19.71 % 6 14 9.85 % 7 22 15.49 % 8 35 24.64 % 9 17 11.97 % To a great extent 10 16 11.26 % Unanswered 0 1 0.70 % Total 142 Mean: 6.99

Var Y: Religion is a public matter in Norway Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 11 7.74 % 2 19 13.38 % 3 22 15.49 % 4 27 19.01 % 5 33 23.23 % 6 9 6.33 % 7 5 3.52 % 8 9 6.33 % 9 3 2.11 % To a great extent 10 3 2.11 % Unanswered 0 1 0.70 % Total 142 Mean: 4.27

280

Var Z: Religion is a private matter in Afghanistan Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 30 21.12 % 2 31 21.83 % 3 15 10.56 % 4 7 4.92 % 5 14 9.85 % 6 6 4.22 % 7 10 7.04 % 8 4 2.81 % 9 6 4.22 % To a great extent 10 15 10.56 % Unanswered 0 4 2.81 % Total 142 Mean: 4.06

Var AA: Religion is a public matter in Afghanistan Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 0 0 % 2 2 1.40 % 3 2 1.40 % 4 1 0.70 % 5 7 4.92 % 6 5 3.52 % 7 6 4.22 % 8 22 15.49 % 9 26 18.30 % To a great extent 10 69 48.59 % Unanswered 0 2 1.40 % Total 142 Mean: 8.6

281

Var AB: Religion neutral Armed Forces preferred Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 16 11.26 % 2 10 7.04 % 3 10 7.04 % 4 8 5.63 % 5 29 20.42 % 6 2 1.40 % 7 8 5.63 % 8 21 14.78 % 9 10 7.04 % To a great extent 10 27 19.01 % Unanswered 0 1 0.70 % Total 142 Mean: 5.91

Var AC: Attendance at gatherings with religious content (Int ops) Respondents Percent 1 More than once a week 3 2.11 % 2 Once a week 16 11.26 % 3 Once a month 16 11.26 % 4 Only on special holidays 59 41.54 % 5 Once a year 9 6.33 % 6 Less often 14 9.85 % 7 Never 23 16.19 % 0 Unanswered 2 1.40 % Total 142 Mean: 4.27

Var AD: Afghans' word view is religious Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 0 0 % 2 0 0 % 3 5 3.52 % 4 2 1.40 % 5 5 3.52 % 6 4 2.81 % 7 18 12.67 % 8 33 23.23 % 9 28 19.71 % To a great extent 10 45 31.69 % Unanswered 0 2 1.40 % Total 142 Mean: 8.2

282

Var AE: Afghans' thoughts on human nature are religious Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 0 0 % 2 0 0 % 3 4 2.81 % 4 1 0.70 % 5 4 2.82 % 6 8 5.63 % 7 14 9.85 % 8 37 26.05 % 9 31 21.83 % To a great extent 10 41 28.87 % Unanswered 0 2 1.40 % Total 142 Mean: 8.22

Var AF: Religious norms are important for military professional ethic Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 9 6.33 % 2 5 3.52 % 3 12 8.45 % 4 12 8.45 % 5 24 16.90 % 6 22 15.49 % 7 31 21.83 % 8 15 10.56 % 9 5 3.52 % To a great extent 10 4 2.81 % Unanswered 0 3 2.11 % Total 142 Mean: 5.47

283

Var AG: Religious norms should be important for military professional ethic Respondents Percent To no or a small extent 1 20 14.08 % 2 16 11.26 % 3 9 6.33 % 4 12 8.45 % 5 34 23.94 % 6 11 7.74 % 7 13 9.15 % 8 17 11.97 % 9 6 4.22 % To a great extent 10 2 1.40 % Unanswered 2 1.40 % Total 142 Mean: 4.68