stumpy said:
Beltfedwombat,
But seriously, the difference between the past and Afghanistan is that now for the first time Padres are actually being activily targetted.
Hmmm, I'm willing to bet that the Battlefield Chaplains of yore, while crawling around in the blood and snot of Flanders, Normandy, Midway,
et al, lead flying around their ears, might take issue with your targeting distinction Stumpy. If, on the other hand, you're concerned about what might happen to a man of the cloth after capture, that's another matter altogether. Once again though, it's hardly an issue without precedent. The history of modern warfare is littered with men of the cloth catching it up; quite often up against a wall on on the end of a rope! I think it's fair to say that any captured western combatant in Afghanistan is unlikely to face a very rosy future, regardless of whether he's a Padre or a PW.
The bottom line is that there's clearly no point in carrying a weapon of any description, even in self defence, unless you're willing to use it. Man of God or Man O' War? Can you be both and still retain Church Cred with the Troops? Me for one, thinks not.
The natural born cynic in me can't help wondering what's at the root of all this. Could it be that the real pressure is on the Corps Chaplains not to deploy on combat ops. Perhaps this debate is in response to activity further up the chain of command? Oh, and I'm not talking about Stu's ultimate boss, the big fella himself. I'm wondering whether the 'What if?' Brigade (no pun intended) have been flexing their worry muscles over the potential for political fallout if a Padre were to be captured and paraded before the world's press. Now that does have a ring of plausibility about it. Could it be a simple case of
when in doubt, pull em out? I wonder?????