Religion and the National Security
Strategy
Casey Lucius
This article explores how President Barack Obama views the role of
religion in relation to national security interests. Every president is
obligated by law to publish an unclassified National Security Strategy (NSS).1 President Obama released his fifty-five-page plan in
May 2010.2 The 2010 NSS reflects all instruments of national
power used to achieve national security objectives. This essay
illustrates the intersections between religion and the four main
instruments of national power as they are discussed in the 2010
NSS—information, diplomacy, military, and economics—and
introduces two separate but related topics: (1) strategy and the
purpose that strategy serves and (2) religion and how people understand and use religion. It approaches strategy as a grand, national
strategy that includes a Clausewitzian definition and understands
religion as a factor that shapes and motivates behavior. Both
former President George W. Bush and President Obama integrated
religion within national security policy, with the understanding
that religion can motivate members of a society to act, both on
CASEY LUCIUS (BA, Ashland University; MA, Naval Postgraduate School; PhD,
University of Hawaii) is associate professor of national security decision
making at the Naval War College, Monterey, California. She is author of Vietnam’s
Political Process: How Education Shapes Political Decision Making. Her articles
have been published in Vietnam Social Sciences Journal and Thunderbird International Business Review (forthcoming). Special interests include U.S. national security policy and process, rare Earths (China and U.S. mineral policies), and Vietnam
(decision making, culture, conflict with China). A version of this article was
presented at a conference titled “Religion and Security in World Affairs,” hosted
by the Center for Stabilization and Reconstruction Studies and the Berkley
Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at George Washington University,
in Monterey, California, September 12–14, 2011. The views in this article represent those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Department of
Defense or the Naval War College.
1. The National Security Act of 1947 and The Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986.
2. Barack Obama, “The National Security Strategy,” (May 2010) [hereafter, 2010
NSS], http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_
strategy.pdf.
Journal of Church and State vol. 55 no. 1, pages 50– 70; doi:10.1093/jcs/css050
Advance Access publication May 10, 2012
Published by Oxford University Press 2012.
50
Religion and the National Security Strategy
the side of war and on the side of peace. Therefore, this essay argues
that religious considerations are present and applied across all four
instruments of power that support U.S. foreign policy and achieve
national security. It concludes by suggesting that the promotion
of religious freedom as a universal right is an effort to create an
environment that leads to civil society and greater stability, thus
U.S. efforts to enhance religious understanding and embrace
freedom of religion can advance the nation’s security.
There have been several publications about the links between
national security and religious freedom, particularly about applications of U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy by the State Department.3
However, there continues to be a gap in the literature about the
intersections between religion and other government departments
and in official communications. In these areas, religious considerations can help to facilitate dialogue and healthy pluralism. Although
continued study is needed, this article will begin to fill the gap
in these important areas.
American Grand Strategy
Grand strategy is intimately linked to national policy in that it is
designed to bring to bear all elements of national power in order
to secure the nation’s interests and objectives. Grand strategy can
also refer to the nation’s overarching approach to international
affairs, such as isolationism, collective security, selective engagement, primacy, and so forth. Strategy implies a goal or goals and
establishes priorities. It is the role of policy makers to set goals,
and in some cases, these goals can limit strategic alternatives. In
the 2010 NSS, readers should be able to identify what the president’s goals are, at least those related to security, and how they
are prioritized and resourced.
Mackubin Owens writes that strategy can be said to constitute a
continual dialogue between policy on the one hand and some
“other factors” on the other hand. These other factors include religion, ideology, culture, political and military institutions, and economic and technological factors.4 Different authors include
various strategic elements or “other factors” in their discussions
3. Edmund Morgan, Roger Williams: The Church and The State (New York:
W. W. Norton & Co., 1967); Thomas Farr, World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Freedom Is Vital to American National Security (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2008).
4. Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Strategy and the Strategic Way of Thinking,” n.d.,
Naval War College Papers, Monterey, California; Williamson Murray and
Mark Grimsley, “On Strategy,” in The Making of Strategy: Rulers, States, and
War, ed. Murray et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1; Carl
51
Journal of Church and State
of grand strategy. For example, Clausewitz includes a moral dimension to strategy, whereas Michael Howard includes an ethical dimension to strategy.5 Clausewitz cautions us not to limit our
understanding of strategy to simply a link between means and
ends, but rather he says that strategy includes a cultural component
because the values of society must be reflected in the nation’s grand
strategy.6
Although social values may be a consideration in the development
of strategy, Colin Gray claims that ethics is a formally neglected
dimension of strategy.7 President G. W. Bush included a discussion
of religion, moral imperatives, and specific Christian values in many
of his speeches and in his 2006 NSS, but this same level of attention
is not formally given to religion in the 2010 NSS. President
G. W. Bush included religion various times in his 2006 grand strategy, and he intimately linked the concepts of good governance, economic development, and religious freedom, noting that one cannot
exist without the other.8 For example, President G. W. Bush stated,
“Political, religious, and economic liberty advance together and reinforce each other. Some regimes have opened their economies while
trying to restrict political or religious freedoms. This will not
work.”9 In the 2010 NSS, religion is not highlighted as frequently.
In fact, President Obama only notes the importance of recognizing
common values and shared interests as well as the need to avoid
overreaction in the area of regional and religious differences.10
However, this cursory mention of religion does not imply that religious considerations are not applied during the implementation
of this strategy or that such considerations are not implicitly conferred throughout the document. The following pages examine
each instrument of national power used to achieve national security
objectives to determine how they are addressed in the 2010 NSS and
where and how religion intersects with each tool of statecraft.
Von Clausewitz, On War, trans. and ed. by Michael Howard and Peter Paret
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 134 – 36.
5. Clausewitz, On War, 183; Michael Howard, “The Forgotten Dimensions of
Strategy,” Foreign Affairs 57 (1979): 976 – 86.
6. Mackubin Thomas Owens, “Strategy and the Strategic Way of Thinking,”
citing Clausewitz, On War, 134– 39.
7. Colin S. Gray, “The Dimensions of Strategy,” in his Modern Strategy (Oxford:
Oxford University, 1999), 23– 44.
8. George W. Bush, “The National Security Strategy” (March 16, 2006) [hereafter,
2006 NSS], 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 38; http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.
gov/nsc/nss/2006/.
9. Bush, 2006 NSS, 4.
10. Obama, 2010 NSS, 22.
52
Religion and the National Security Strategy
The Role of Religion
Religion is a complex topic. Not only are there different religions,
different ideologies, different sects within religions, and different
books of worship, but there are also varying interpretations of the
role of religion. Some authors view religion as a unifying factor;
others associate religion and identity, or religion as a freedom and
universal right. Still others understand religion as a precursor to
violence, whereas some see religion as a force for social service
and good. This essay approaches religion with the assumption
that all major faiths have detailed codes of conduct for human
beings to follow. It does not explore or advocate for any particular
religion or ideology but understands religion and its relationship
to human behavior. Having said that, religion is not the only
factor that shapes and motivates human behavior. In an effort to
better understand the 2010 NSS, this article will approach the NSS
by recognizing the ethical and moral dimensions of strategy, and
it will include religion within this framework.
Jean Elshtain contends that in the conventional discourse of international relations, religion is seen in two simplistic ways: either as a
source of sanctimonious aspirations to peace and love that are often
ignored by realpolitik or as the source of all terrorist extremism that
now threatens the developed world’s vital interests.11 The 2010 NSS
provides a third way of thinking about religion and security. In this
document, freedom of religion is spoken of as a universal right that
advances civil society, which presumably consists of stable governments and social and economic institutions that meet the needs of
the people. Therefore, although the NSS does not necessarily focus
on how religion might shape or motivate behavior, it does articulate
what is considered acceptable and expected behavior.
Samuel Huntington advocates for addressing religion in terms of
understanding behavior within national security policy, recognizing
that when it comes to U.S. security, the behavior of our friends and
adversaries matters very much.12 Jonathan Shaw also argues that
“[r]eligion—not as a standard of belief, but as a power which
drives human behavior—must be at the table if national security
policy is to embrace the fullness of the human situation, formulate
effective concepts, and yield enduring results.”13 Shaw acknowledges that both President G. W. Bush and President Obama included
11. Jean Bethke Elshtain, “Military Intervention and Justice as Equal Regard,”
in Religion and Security; The New Nexus in International Relations,
ed. Robert Seiple and Dennis Hoover (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 116.
12. Jonathan Shaw, The Role of Religion in National Security Policy since September 11, 2001 (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2011), 9.
13. Ibid., 2.
53
Journal of Church and State
religious considerations in their NSSs, but he also believes they both
failed to create an optimal framework for understanding the relationship between religion and security, stating that President
G. W. Bush focused on religion as a universal freedom, whereas President Obama sees religion as a unifying factor. The assessment
offered herein suggests that the two presidents are not far apart
in how they view the role of religion in national security. Both President G. W. Bush and President Obama use religion as an enduring
American value of freedom: they both distinguish between those
governments that support religious freedom and those that do
not, they both emphasize a Western conceptualization of religious
freedom, and they both believe that the United States has a moral
imperative to act under certain circumstances.
An Examination of the 2010 NSS
From the first page of the national strategy, President Obama
includes a moral dimension to his grand plan by stating, “This strategy recognizes the fundamental connection between our national
security, our national competitiveness, resilience, and moral
example. And it reaffirms America’s commitment to pursue our
interests through an international system in which all nations
have certain rights and responsibilities.”14 He also concludes the
document by restating the importance of this moral element of
strategy, saying, “Above all, it [the strategy] is about renewing our
leadership by calling upon what is best about America—our innovation and capacity; our openness and moral imagination.”15
Although the ethical element may be formally neglected in this
document, informally, ethics, morality, justice, and what is
deemed to be right are highlighted throughout. It is these concepts
that provide President Obama’s framework for articulating his
vision for how to associate religion and national security. The
following pages will point to main themes in the document
that reflect both religious considerations and the primary tools of
statecraft.
U.S. Actions Are Right and Just
The first theme that appears in the opening letter from President
Obama introducing his national security plan concerns the war in
Afghanistan. On the first page of this letter, he calls the American
14. Obama, 2010 NSS, 1.
15. Ibid., 51.
54
Religion and the National Security Strategy
effort in Afghanistan “right and just.” Before even launching into
the actual strategy, the president introduces the concepts of
justice and what is morally right. Throughout the document he
does not define or explain what he means by morality or justice,
but he uses the terms so often that they become intimately linked
to the activities of the U.S. government.
Although the president did not mention the word “religion” in his
opening remarks, there is a religious connotation because religion
itself serves to provide a meaningful worldview and the rules and
standards of behavior that connect individual actions and goals to
that worldview. Religion also has the ability to legitimize actions
and institutions.16 In other words, people and organizational
bodies often understand what is right and just based on what
they learn through religious teachings and practices. Thus, the president is using the NSS to introduce his worldview—that is, where it
is right, just, and ethical for the United States to formally engage.
Prince Bismarck in the mid-nineteenth century believed that morality could not stand outside of political reality, but instead is
expressed in the statesman’s sense of moral responsibility for his
actions.17 President Obama uses the NSS as a platform to explain
U.S. behavior on moral grounds.
Regarding the president’s comments on the American presence in
Afghanistan, it is not clear if he is referring to the war in Afghanistan as a just war by using Christian justifiable war tradition or if
he is merely justifying the war. All three monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe in some form of just war theory.
All three faiths preach that human beings are created in the divine
image and that the shedding of blood is to be avoided, but they
also believe that certain wars are necessary and justified. As Elshtain points out, just war theory is not only about war but is also
about human rights, which deepens and expands the importance
of the just war perspective.18 Just war theory requires that a war
must be openly and legally pursued; it must be in response to a specific act of unjust aggression; it may be triggered by an obligation to
protect the innocent; and it should be the last resort.19 The Catholic
Church would add to this that the rights and values in the conflict
16. Pauletta Otis, “Religion and War in the Twenty-first Century,” in Religion
and Security; The New Nexus in International Relations, ed. Robert Seiple and
Dennis Hoover (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 17.
17. Kenneth W. Thompson, “Judaeo-Christian Realism: The Cold War and the
Search for Relevant Norms,” in The Puritan Ethic in United States Foreign Policy,
ed. David Larson (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1966), 114–15.
18. Elshtain, “Military Intervention and Justice as Equal Regard,” 119.
19. Ibid., 120.
55
Journal of Church and State
must be so important that they justify killing.20 Just war theory
explains that acts of aggression are cases of injustice that warrant
the use of force. Given the acts of aggression against the United
States on September 11, 2001, President Obama may be referring
to just war theory when calling the war in Afghanistan right and
just. This line of thinking flows from Christian, Jewish, and
Islamic theology.
Moving outside of the formal strategy document to the real world,
it can be difficult to reconcile President Obama’s words in this
grand strategy justifying the war in Afghanistan and his more
recent decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. It is possible, however, that the president is also applying just war theory
when deciding to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Just war
theory insists that a state can respond to aggression, provided it
avoids either deepening present injustices or creating new instances
of injustice. Similarly, the rules of a just war maintain that the
means must be proportional to the ends and the damage must
not be greater than the offenses we aim to stop.21 Although President Obama did not give specifics, he certainly realizes that civilian
deaths in Afghanistan have risen steadily since 2007 and the United
States has failed to completely eliminate the presence of the
Taliban. Therefore, President Obama may be using just war theory
to withdraw troops from Afghanistan on the basis that U.S. troop
presence is doing more harm than good. Alternatively, the president
may simply be declaring victory, noting the successes of Afghan
security forces and the establishment of public schools and
markets. Finally, the change in position from the 2010 NSS to his
June 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal speech may be attributed to
time and progress made during the year between the release of
the NSS and the president’s speech announcing the withdrawal of
troops. In any case, until a new strategy is released and used to
clarify the matter, we can continue to understand this part of the
2010 NSS in the context of religious principles, given the case of
Afghanistan and its classification by the president as a just war.
Although the president maintains that the American presence in
Afghanistan is “right and just,” he writes in the NSS that the
United States will not impose its values through force but instead
will lead by example by living and demonstrating peaceful, democratic values. The NSS promotes the belief that nations that
respect human rights and democratic values are more successful
and stronger partners; however, this statement is qualified by
20. Michael Pennock, Catholic Social Teaching: Learning and Living Justice
(Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2000), 203.
21. Elshtain, “Military Intervention and Justice as Equal Regard,” 121– 22.
56
Religion and the National Security Strategy
insisting that the United States will not enlist in an endless campaign to impose its own values. Instead, Americans see it as fundamental to their own interests to support a just peace around the
world, which includes fundamental rights for all individuals.22
The president takes this message beyond the war in Afghanistan
by noting that the United States has an obligation to try and
create a world with agreed-upon standards, which include helping
countries feed themselves and care for their sick as well as resolving
and preventing conflict. The NSS mandates that American development, diplomacy, and military action must help prevent conflict,
spur economic growth, strengthen weak states, help those living
in poverty, combat disease, and strengthen democratic governance.
This language supports the president’s 2009 Cairo speech in which
he recognized that military power alone will not solve the problems
in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is why the United States invests
over $4 billion each year to build schools, hospitals, roads, and businesses and to help those who have been displaced.
Much of this discourse suggests that the United States has a moral
imperative to create a certain kind of world and it will use soft
power tools to both improve the tone of U.S. foreign policy and to
create peace. The link with religion becomes clear when considering
Samuel P. Huntington’s argument that religion is a central defining
characteristic of civilization.23 Civilization often refers to cities or
nations that have achieved a certain level of advancement, including
a legal system and political institutions; therefore it is assumed that
conflict, disease, poverty, and corruption can be contained or minimized in civilized societies. By linking national security and the
promotion of moral behavior, President Obama hopes to create or
encourage the development of civilized societies. The NSS uses
Indonesia as an example of a populous Muslim country and a
democracy that is becoming an increasingly important partner on
regional and transnational issues: “With tolerance, resilience, and
multiculturalism as core values, and a flourishing civil society, Indonesia is uniquely positioned to help address challenges facing the
developing world.”24 The NSS is explicit in its association between
civil societies and moral behavior, and it consistently promotes
ethical values and tolerance with the hope of creating peace and
preventing various social and political conflicts.
The NSS makes the case that U.S. actions, including those that are
diplomatic or economic and those that use military force, are right
22. Obama, 2010 NSS, 5.
23. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), 47.
24. Obama, 2010 NSS, 44.
57
Journal of Church and State
and just because they promote civil society, which often has institutions to provide for the needs of the people. Such societies prove to
be more stable and peaceful and therefore contribute to the security
of the United States. Civil societies also set rules and standards of
behavior that are often grounded in religious teachings. In Herbert
Butterfield’s words, “Whether we are practicing diplomacy, or conducting a war, or negotiating a peace treaty, our ultimate objective
is the maintenance and the development of an international
order. This is the purpose which transcends national egotism and
puts the boundary to self-interest—the purpose to which all our
immediate aims in foreign policy have reference.”25
Universal Rights Are Linked to Security and Prosperity
The previous national security theme highlighted the use of military
and diplomatic engagement to seek civil society through moral obligations in an effort to achieve peace and justice. The second theme
emphasized throughout the 2010 NSS draws attention to the use of
official communications and information operations by associating
the call for universal rights to global security and prosperity. Religion includes not only a set of beliefs, values, and institutions,
but it also includes modes of communication and leadership. Religion institutionalizes preferred patterns of behavior for people in
relationship to the supernatural and to fellow human beings.26
Although the 2010 NSS does not specifically talk about religion, it
does set an expectation that leaders around the world should
ensure certain rights for their citizens. This is not a suggestion; it
is a moral imperative, and it is directly related to stability and security, not only for the United States but for the world. Specifically, the
NSS states, “[O]ur support for universal rights is both fundamental
to American leadership and a source of our strength in the world.”27
It also claims to reject the notion that lasting security and prosperity can be found by turning away from universal rights. The universal rights that the president speaks of include an individual’s
freedom to speak his or her mind, to assemble without fear, to
worship as one pleases, and to choose political leaders as well as
the right to dignity, tolerance, and equality among all people and
the fair and equitable administration of justice.28 It is clear that
25. Thompson, “Judaea-Christian Realism: The Cold War and the Search for Relevant Norms,” 118, citing Butterfield’s seminar on Theory of International Politics at Columbia University, June 12, 1956.
26. Otis, “Religion and War in the Twenty-first Century,” 17.
27. Obama, 2010 NSS, opening letter.
28. Ibid., 35.
58
Religion and the National Security Strategy
part of the U.S. security plan is to advocate for people to worship
freely because in those nations where people have this right, they
are more stable, successful, and secure. According to the NSS,
these nations are also more just, peaceful, and legitimate, and the
United States can more effectively forge consensus with these
types of governments.29 This is one place in the official document
where it is absolutely clear that the president is talking about religion and how religious freedom is directly tied to U.S. national
security. Other notations in the NSS are implicit about religion,
but in the discussion of universal rights and the U.S. determination
to press other political systems to protect these rights, it is clear
that religious freedom and tolerance can lead to stability for the
globe and for the United States.
The national strategy even includes a plan to monitor different
countries’ human rights progress. This plan includes strengthening
the United Nations Human Rights Council as an enforcement mechanism to ensure that individuals and nations are held accountable
for violations of international human rights norms.30 Relying on
international institutions to promote the universal rights that the
U.S. strategy speaks of sends a strong message to U.S. partners
and adversaries. The president is telling the world that U.S. values
run parallel to United Nations values, so the promotion of universal
rights is not only a part of our own national security strategy but is
also part of a larger international security strategy. Similarly, to
demonstrate how important human rights and religious freedom
are to the Obama administration, the State Department devotes
time and resources investigating and reporting on violations of
religious freedom. Each year, the State Department releases an
International Religious Freedom Report to promote and defend religious freedom around the globe. Suzan Johnson Cook, the
ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, who was
appointed by President Obama, says, “We do this because we
believe that religious freedom is both a fundamental human right
and an essential element to any stable, peaceful, thriving
society.”31 Her remarks continue to place responsibility beyond
the United States: “Governments have a moral responsibility to
speak out and condemn intolerance, and a duty to ensure the
right of all individuals to freely express their faith. Governments
also have an obligation to promote and protect freedom of
29. Ibid., 37.
30. Ibid., 39.
31. Suzan Johnson Cook, “Remarks on the International Religious Freedom
Report” (speech, Washington, D.C., September 13, 2011), http://www.state.
gov/j/drl/rls/rm/2011/172233.htm.
59
Journal of Church and State
expression, which fundamentally undergirds our freedom to
worship and manifest our belief.”32
As the world becomes more interconnected, people everywhere
are becoming more attuned to the concept of universal and
human rights. People around the world have been primed to understand that within the language of civil society and human rights lies
an important message of religious freedom and tolerance. This provides an opportunity for the United States to use official communications, such as the NSS and official speeches, to communicate the
importance of religious tolerance, religious understanding, and religious freedom. Although not part of the NSS itself, a recent example
of the intersection between strategic communication and religious
consideration was the burial at sea of Osama bin Laden. According
to John Brennan, a senior Obama Administration official, “[T]he
burial of bin Laden’s remains was done in strict conformance with
Islamic precepts and practices.”33 This event was an effort to
show respect for Islamic tradition, which demonstrated the administration’s recognition of the importance of shaping information
according to religious sensitivities. This behavior aligns nicely
with the NSS’s intent to engage Muslim communities around the
world. The NSS notes such engagement will center on noncontroversial issues, such as health, education, science, employment, and
innovation.34 This type of outreach will allow the United States to
communicate and demonstrate a commitment to support the aspirations of people of all faiths. There is also a hope that this level of
outreach will eventually provide an opportunity for U.S. leaders to
leverage the knowledge of religious leaders in failed or fragile
states where those leaders have grassroots credibility and a tested
means of communication. Religious leaders have the capacity to
engage on the topic of security and use their authority to accomplish mutual goals.35 Warner and Walker point out, “Organized religions often have interests, which force them to negotiate, pressure
or compete with political authorities to further their organizational
survival and advance their moral project.”36 Some religious leaders
32. Ibid.
33. Chris Lawrence, “No land alternative prompts bin Laden sea burial,” CNN,
May 2, 2011, http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/bin.laden.
burial.at.sea/index.html?iref=allsearch.
34. Obama, 2010 NSS, 22.
35. Pauletta Otis, “Armed with the Power of Religion: Not Just a War of Ideas,”
in Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency, ed. Jeffrey H. Norwitz (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2008), 219.
36. Carolyn M. Warner and Stephen G. Walker, “Thinking About the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy: A Framework for Analysis,” Foreign Policy Analysis 7
(2011): 125.
60
Religion and the National Security Strategy
work closely with the state, but others take an active role in development work or other social and political movements.
Religion also provides for a common means of communication
among members of a group. Religious leaders communicate with
authority, they have access to media and political figures, and
they usually have an in-depth knowledge of the people, places,
and communities within their area. Outreach to religious leaders
can advance U.S. security because these leaders often have access
to areas that are off-limits to others and they know the personal
history of their region.37 Therefore, reaching out to religious
leaders around the world and promoting universal rights fit
squarely into a national and global security plan.
Shared Values Equal Mutual Security
Although it is essential for the United States to engage those countries and leaders who have differing worldviews than our own, the
foundation of American security must stem from a strong network
of allies and friends. The 2010 NSS notes that the United States has
close relationships with countries in Europe, Asia, South America,
and the Middle East and these partnerships are rooted in shared
interests and common values. Nations that share U.S. values are
stronger partners and the United States can rely on them when
faced with regional or international challenges.38 Typically, nations
that share American values are also signatories to international
agreements that recognize and promote the universal rights discussed earlier in this article. Nations with these common commitments are usually friendly to the United States and also have a
stake in its own stability and security.
Although we may not agree on every issue with our allies and partners, the NSS notes that we will be candid regarding human rights
concerns and other areas where we differ. This is where President
Obama sees an important place for America to lead by example to
rebuild our own reputation internationally. Clearly, President
Obama is working to improve the style of American foreign policy
by offering a mix of hard power and soft power solutions and by recognizing the significant contributions of U.S. partners.
The Obama administration also recognizes that religious institutions can play an important role in promoting mutual security
among states. There are problem sets in every society that cannot
always be addressed by government, and in many cases it may be
inappropriate for government to intervene. This is where religious
37. Otis, “Religion and War in the Twenty-first Century,” 21.
38. Obama, 2010 NSS, 11.
61
Journal of Church and State
leaders and religious institutions can solve problems and promote
peace. Toffler’s Third Wave theory sees faith communities as
becoming more vocal and powerful, constituting stakeholders and
minority power bases.39 Certainly religious leaders or the institution itself can be used during the course of constructive dialogue
to address social and economic issues. Religious leaders and institutions are often deeply involved in education, medical care, counseling, and providing food, water, and other needs when governments fail or become otherwise preoccupied. Because of the
unique relationship between religion and society, Harold Saunders
suggests that national security be viewed through a relational paradigm, one that takes advantage of the entire polity, including religious institutions.40 The NSS points out that shared values among
states support mutual security. By the same token, in an effort to
avoid isolating specific states, the country would be well served
by including a statement in the NSS noting that the United States
seeks partnership with people and nations of all religions as long
as there exists mutual interests and mutual respect. For example,
President Obama recently apologized to Afghan President Karzai
for the incident in which copies of the Holy Koran were found
charred on a military base near Kabul. This public display offers
respect and religious sensitivity even while violence toward Americans is ongoing in Afghanistan. The role of religion in the Obama
administration is evident domestically as well. President Obama
has expanded on President G. W. Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative by creating an office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,
which includes eleven agency offices and seeks to work with the
National Security Council to foster interfaith dialogue with leaders
and scholars around the world.41 More recently, he also compromised with the Catholic Church on a proposed mandate requiring
churches to pay for birth control, something that was portrayed
by Catholics as an attack on religious freedom. Thus, not only the
language in the NSS but also some of the president’s own policy
decisions show that he takes the issues of religious tolerance and
religious freedom very seriously.
39. Shaw, “The Role of Religion in National Security Policy since September 11,
2001,” 5, citing Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: William Morrow and
Co., 1980).
40. Harold H. Saunders, “Relational Realism: Toward a New Political Paradigm
for Security,” in Religion and Security; The New Nexus in International Relations,
ed. Robert Seiple and Dennis Hoover (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004),
171– 73.
41. White House, “Obama Announces White House Office of Faith-based and
Neighborhood Partnerships,” press release, February 5, 2009, http://www.
whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaithbasedandNeighborhoodPartnerships/.
62
Religion and the National Security Strategy
Promote U.S. Values through Economic Aid
The fourth and final theme in the NSS that depicts the relationship
between religion and the tools of statecraft focuses on economic
development both at home and abroad. The NSS unequivocally
says that U.S. development efforts, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere, are strategic, economic, and moral.42 Assisting developing
countries and their people to manage security threats, reap the benefits of economic expansion, and establish democratic institutions
that serve basic human needs is an essential focus area for the
United States.43 Often the U.S. government attaches economic aid
to improvements or setbacks in a nation’s human rights record,
but this statement implies that not only should the government withhold aid for moral reasons, but it should also give aid for moral
reasons. Although there is disputed literature on the topic, it has
been argued that there is a positive correlation between development
aid and political progress. Political progress that ensures security for
the United States includes the establishment of political, military,
economic, and social institutions that preserve and promote the
rights of individuals to speak freely, assemble without fear,
worship as they choose, and elect their own leaders. The NSS states
that the United States will press governments, in the Middle East in
particular, to undertake political reforms and loosen restrictions
on speech, assembly, and media. There is also a section in the
2010 NSS dedicated to practicing principled engagement with nondemocratic regimes, noting that through bilateral engagement, the
United States will continue to advance human rights while engaging
civil society and peaceful political opposition. The document goes on
to state, “More substantive government-to-government relations can
create permissive conditions for civil society to operate and for more
extensive people-to-people exchanges.”44
Economic aid is a tool of national power, which is typically
granted to promote economic growth and stabilize fragile states.
Sometimes aid is withheld in response to human rights violations.
For example, the United States provides no direct aid to Burma due
to human rights violations, including severe violations of religious
freedom.45 The mandate to condition financial aid on religion, and
religious freedom in particular, originated in 1961 with the Foreign
42. Obama, 2010 NSS, 15.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., 38.
45. Thomas Lum, “U.S. Foreign Aid to East and South Asia Selected Recipients,”
U.S. government report (Congressional Research Service, October 2008). On
January 13, 2012, the United States announced it would normalize relations
with Burma after the Burmese government released 651 prisoners and
63
Journal of Church and State
Assistance Act. It sought to channel U.S. security assistance to other
governments by either limiting financial aid to those countries that
experienced severe violations of religious freedom or authorizing
aid to those countries that were seen as promoting democracy, tolerance, civil society, and religious freedom.46 More recently, the 1998
International Religious Freedom Act prohibits economic assistance
to governments engaged in particularly severe violations of religious
freedom or when governments fail to take action to combat such violations.47 According to the NSS, economic aid should also be used to
help prevent conflict, spur growth, strengthen weak and failing
states, lift people out of poverty, combat climate change and epidemic disease, and strengthen institutions of democratic governance. The president notes the importance of not relying on the
economic tool of power alone but instead effectively using and integrating all elements of American power to accomplish these goals.48
Further, the president contends that Americans must be consistent
in behaving ethically so other nations will know they can turn to
the United States for assistance based on justice, hope, and security.
According to the NSS, this is one issue that sets the United States
apart from other nations—that is, the values and rights articulated
in our Constitution. The Constitution itself, which is referenced
throughout the NSS, imparts a leadership position for the United
States and requires that such leadership be imbedded in a moral
foundation. The NSS assures its readers that, as long as Americans
stay true to their values, both America’s security and leadership
will be strengthened.49
When President Obama speaks of promoting American values, it
is sometimes unclear if he is promoting Judeo-Christian values or
simply calling for national and religious tolerance. Many of his
views appear to be grounded in cosmopolitan thinking, including
a belief in equality among all humans and the responsibility to help
all people regardless of citizenship. At the same time, however,
the president understands that religion plays an important role in
the life of our nation, and he is likely trying to promote an informed
public philosophy on religion. This was observed in his 2009 Cairo
speech, in which he quoted the Holy Koran in one sentence and
democracy advocates, although trade and aid sanctions are still in place as of
this writing.
46. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, sec. 116, 499D and 502B; The International Security and Development Assistance Authorization Act of 1983, sec.
701.
47. International Religious Freedom Act, subtitle II, sec 421.
48. Obama, 2010 NSS, 11.
49. Ibid., 10.
64
Religion and the National Security Strategy
announced that he is a Christian in the next sentence. In this speech,
he spoke of a Holy Land where three great faiths come together to
create a place of peace that God intended. He spoke of the children
of Abraham peacefully mingling together, and he concluded by
quoting from the Holy Koran, the Talmud, and the Holy Bible.50
He echoed this language at the 2012 National Prayer Breakfast
when speaking about giving financially to others, saying, “[I]t also
coincides with Jesus’s teaching that for unto whom much is given,
much shall be required. It mirrors the Islamic belief that those
who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to
help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration
for others.”51 Through his speeches and the NSS, the president is
asking Americans and others to think of religion beyond their
own borders. In 1789, during his inaugural address, President
George Washington said that the success of our government
depends on divine blessing.52 Today President Obama is quietly
suggesting that perhaps the security of all nations depends on recognizing the role that religion plays for individuals everywhere.
It is often noted that American values are Judeo-Christian values,
but in the United States today, American values vary widely from a
cultural belief in individualism to a strong sense of nationalism
among groups. We do know, however, that American political philosophy was strongly influenced by Calvinism. Calvinism, which
became the basis of the theology and polity of the Presbyterian,
Reformed, and Baptist faiths, influenced American values such as
thrift, industry, sobriety, and honesty. It also contributed to the
belief in the contractual nature of government, fundamental law,
representative government, and the right of resistance.53 However,
Calvinism did not necessarily promote religious freedom early on.
A century before the U.S. Constitution was written, leaders such
as Roger Williams fled from Calvinist-dominated Massachusetts to
Rhode Island, where a charter was ultimately written recognizing
religious liberty.54 Nevertheless, various religions continued to
50. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President on a New Beginning” (speech,
Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/.
51. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast”
(speech, Washington, DC, February 2, 2012), http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/2012/02/02/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast.
52. George Washington, “First Inaugural Address” (speech, New York, April 30,
1789), http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html.
53. Luther Smith, Basic American Ideals (Washington, DC: Supreme Council 33,
1967), 16– 17.
54. Irwin H. Polishook, Roger Williams, John Cotton, and Religious Freedom: A
Controversy in New and Old England (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1967), 1 – 3.
65
Journal of Church and State
influence the making of America; for instance, the Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers, and Unitarians all agreed that it was God who was
the author of our freedom.
Even President Obama often comingles values and faith. He says,
I’m reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us
to solve some of our most urgent problems.. . . We can’t leave our values at
the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral
glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to
become somewhat more perfect a union. Frederick Douglass, Abraham
Lincoln, Jan Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham
Heschel—the majority of great reformers in American history did their
work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis,
or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and
their values dictated it, and called for bold action—sometimes in the
face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.55
In the NSS, President Obama also references American exceptionalism, saying, “Our society is exceptional in its openness, vast diversity, resilience, and engaged citizenry.”56 The concept of American
exceptionalism historically has been tied to religious freedom. It
was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense that declared, “[T]his new
world has been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe.”57 It is important to understand the ideological basis of the connection between religion and
liberty. The idea of the reformers was that the Gospel must be
brought in its integrity into immediate contact with each soul and
that no human doctrine should stand as a barrier between the
means of grace and the believer.58 Throughout the NSS, President
Obama consistently repeats a similar message, insisting that no
government stand in the way of their citizens’ individual liberties,
including the freedom to worship as one pleases.
Liberty is a common theme for President Obama. He often speaks
in code, using phrases such as “American values” or “universal
rights,” but what he is really talking about is liberty. Isaac Wise
says, “Liberty is our place in history, our national destiny, our
ideal, the very soul of our existence.”59 President Obama does not
seem to disagree because his strategy for keeping America safe
55. Obama, “Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast.”
56. Obama, 2010 NSS, 9.
57. Walter A. McDougall, Promised Land, The American Encounter with the
World Since 1776 (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 19.
58. Ernest Lee Tuveson, Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 23.
59. Isaac M. Wise, “National Progress and Wealth,” in God’s New Israel; Religious
Interpretations of American Destiny, ed. Conrad Cherry (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1971), 228.
66
Religion and the National Security Strategy
and appropriately engaged hinges on other nations promoting civil
liberties. The United States, through military, economic, diplomatic,
and informational tools, advocates for liberty. It is in the U.S. Constitution and in official speeches and documents, and it is viewed
as the center of gravity that governs the American way of life.
Wise continues, “Sects may quarrel over particular dogmas,
doctors disagree on the precise nature of the center of the earth.
Liberty neutralizes their disputes, and begets new forms of religion
and science. Nothing can arrest our progress; nothing can drag
down our country from her high place in history, except our own
wickedness working a willful desertion of our destiny, the desertion
from the ideal of liberty.”60
The Necessity of Religion and National Security
This article has illustrated that religion, and the promotion of religious freedom in particular, plays a significant role in the Obama
administration, just as it has traditionally played in American security policy. American presidents have often framed national interests
and national policy in a moral context. This is most often handled
by linking religious freedom and civil society. The NSS itself
points out that civilized societies are more dependable, stable,
and peaceful, and therefore beneficial to U.S. national interests.
The promotion of religious freedom is an effort to create an environment that leads to stability and conflict prevention, thus U.S.
efforts to enhance religious understanding and embrace freedom
of religion, can advance the nation’s security. Religion, because of
its control over resources, interpersonal relationships, communications, and expertise, also has power in relation to war and national
security.61 President Obama’s speeches and writings reflect an
understanding that in many societies—Muslim societies, for
example—politics and religion are not separate spheres. As a
result, the United States should not discount the power of religion
in its engagement strategies. As Pauletta Otis notes, “Religious
leaders are often more believable in failed or fragile states than
political leaders and therefore have power above and beyond the
sheer strength of numbers or observable resources.”62 In a different
writing, Otis recognizes that religious leaders emerge as primary
authority figures under conditions of state failure and that
60. Ibid.
61. Otis, “Religion and War in the Twenty-first Century,” 20.
62. Pauletta Otis, “Armed with the Power of Religion: Not Just a War of Ideas,” in
Armed Groups: Studies in National Security Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency, ed. Jeffrey H. Norwitz (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2008), 219.
67
Journal of Church and State
religious factors are an essential component of effective conflict
management.63
The counterargument to such emphasis on religion in U.S.
national security policy is the obvious desire to keep the government out of the business of churches. This does not, however,
limit the ideologies and values of the church or any particular religion from influencing the institution of government or the process
of policy making. This article has shown that, although there are
important and necessary intersections between religion and all
instruments of national power, religion itself is not being promoted
in the NSS; rather it is tolerance, understanding, knowledge, and
freedom that are being formally embraced as universal rights. President Obama treats religion with great sensitivity, while recognizing
that it plays an essential role in his own national security policy. The
administration takes this approach with an expectation that other
governments around the world should treat religion in a similar
light, not for the purposes of supporting any particular religion or
ideology, but in an effort to ensure national, regional, and global
peace and stability. Such peace and stability are possible because
religious groups, if given the freedom, often have the capacity
to meet social and economic needs that cannot be met by the
government.
There must also be recognition that religion can potentially
threaten state stability because religious institutions garner
support and loyalty, which can threaten weak regimes, and this is
often why religious freedom comes under attack. Authors such as
Francis Fukuyama argue that religion can end up perpetuating
slave and master identities and that religion actually presents an
obstacle to forming liberal democracies. But even Fukuyama recognizes that there is no inherent conflict between religion and liberal
democracy, except where religion ceases to be tolerant and egalitarian.64 The challenge for policy makers is to harness the unifying
potential of faith while containing its capacity to divide. According
to former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, American policy
makers must learn as much as possible about religion and then
incorporate that knowledge into their strategies.65
63. Otis, “Religion and War in the Twenty-first Century,” 16.
64. Shaw, “The Role of Religion in National Security Policy since September 11,
2001,” 5– 6.
65. Madeline Albright, The Mighty & the Almighty: Reflections on America, God,
and World Affairs (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 73– 74.
68
Religion and the National Security Strategy
Concluding Thoughts
In the 2010 NSS, President Obama speaks around religion, probably
in an effort to be sensitive to religious differences. In past speeches,
he has even simplified the concept by saying that religion is the
Golden Rule that binds us all together and that the call to love
one another and treat each other with respect and dignity will
bring peace to the Earth.66 Considering the various audiences for
the NSS, it is likely that he succeeds in satisfying the international
audiences because of his circumspection when addressing religion
and religious differences. President Obama seems to take on a
similar approach to George Kennan and Dean Acheson, who hesitated to link foreign policy and morality because doing so created
more confusion than clarity. However, for domestic audiences, President Obama could take the document one step further by explicitly
acknowledging the relationship between some American values and
Judeo-Christian values. Past presidents have not been timid about
this linkage. In 1950, President Truman said, “The fundamental
basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which
we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t
think we emphasize that enough these days.”67 It is likely that even
members of other Abrahamic faiths would respect this declaration.
Christopher Hall declares, “If Christian, Muslim, and Jew are to live
together in security and freedom in the years to come, we must
learn to speak lovingly our understanding of truth to one another
while yet avoiding the temptation to water things down to a vapid
commonality.”68 He adds that truth telling must be a prerequisite
for true freedom and security.
Although there is an absence of religious specifics in President
Obama’s language, it does not take away from the heavy emphasis
he places on ethics, morals, and justice, some of which are standards grounded in religious teachings, while maintaining an underlying belief in equality for all humanity. The NSS serves to promote
certain values on the basis that they contribute to security, but
further examination shows that religious freedom, in particular,
66. Barack Obama, “Remarks of the Presidents at the National Prayer Breakfast”
(speech, Washington DC, February 5, 2009), www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/
this_is_my_prayer/.
67. Harry S. Truman, “Address before the Attorney Generals’ Conference
on Law Enforcement Problems” (speech, Washington DC, February 15, 1950),
http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/viewpapers.php?pid=657.
68. Christopher A. Hall, “Truth, Pluralism, and Religious Diplomacy: A Christian
Dialogical Perspective,” in Religion and Security: The New Nexus in International
Relations, ed. Robert Seiple and Dennis Hoover (New York: Rowman and
Littlefield, 2004), 87.
69
Journal of Church and State
also contributes to the development and advancement of civil
society and peaceful, stable governments. This article has argued
that President Obama has included an ethical and moral dimension
to his NSS. There is continued evidence of this approach in his
speeches and writings over the past three years. In May 2009, he
said, “We uphold our most cherished values not only because
doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and
keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best
national security asset—in war and peace, in times of ease, and in
eras of upheaval.”69 Overall, the president does not overemphasize
religion in his speeches or formal strategies, but it is considered one
element, among many, that motivates human behavior. President
Obama approaches religion as a freedom and as a unifying factor
that serves to address U.S. national security interests and is in
keeping with the American belief in civil liberties.
69. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President on National Security” (speech,
Washington DC, White House, May 21, 2009), www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_
office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/.
70