Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
When I interviewed Mikey Weinstein the other day, he mentioned video that they had found that showed Christian missionaries actually embedded with American troops in Afghanistan. The missionaries actually traveled with American troops, handing out Bibles in the local language to Afghanis. This was done for a show on JCTV called Travel the Road. You can see the MRFF page about this here. I'll post the video below the fold. Here's what MRFF writes about this situation:
Season 2 of this series ended with three episodes filmed in Afghanistan -- Journey to the Line: Afghanistan: Part 1, Terrors of the Night: Afghanistan: Part 2, and Fog of War: Afghanistan: Part 3. For these episodes, the missionaries were completely embedded and, thus, actually permitted to stay on U.S. military bases, travel with a public affairs unit, and accompany and film troops on patrols, all for the purpose of evangelizing Afghanis and producing a television show promoting the Christian religion. The number of DoD Public Affairs regulations violated in the military's participation and assistance in producing a religious program alone is staggering, not to mention other violations (including constitutional) documented in the content of the program, which include the outrageous violation of the United States Central Command's General Order 1-A, which absolutely prohibits any proselytization whatsoever in the Middle Eastern theater of operations. In complete disregard of this bedrock standing order, the U.S. Army facilitated these evangelizing Christian missionaries in their distribution of New Testaments in the Arabic native language ("Darri" dialect) to the Afghani people.The clips in this video are all from the program's third Afghanistan episode, with the e xception of the second clip, which is from the first episode. The chaplain in that clip, who expresses his delight about being able to talk to the Afghani people about Christianity and the possibility of a "revival" in their country, is Capt. Brad Hanna of the Oklahoma National Guard. After returning from Afghanistan, Capt. Hanna was made a full-time support chaplain for the Oklahoma National Guard. Also facilitating the numerous constitutional, regulation, and general order violations perpetrated in the making of these episodes was SSgt. Sheldon Hoyt, who was in Afghanistan at the time with Oklahoma National Guard's 45th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Battalion, 179th Infantry Regiment. SSgt. Hoyt, who is frequently mentioned by the evangelizing Christian missionaries throughout the "Travel the Road" episodes, appears to have been more involved with their crusade than just being assigned by the Army to assist them, being a regular participant on the "Travel the Road" internet message board that they hosted for several years.
Here's one of the videos:
This is incredible and a clear violation of military protocol and good policy.
Politics
Comments
And yet, we probably won't hear about any of this from any mainline news outlets, until, and unless a lawsuit is filed.
This goes against so much of what the US should stand for, that it sickens me.
It shows that the wars in the middle east really are a crusade in the eyes of many.
Posted by: FastLane | December 16, 2008 10:02 AM
A lawsuit has already been filed and this is being added to a long list of examples used in the case to establish a pattern.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2008 10:12 AM
Here's a link to a shorter video that MRFF put together that gets right to the violations, and also has the scene showing Chaplain Hanna, which is not in the longer YouTube video that Ed posted from the third Afghanistan episode. The Chaplain Hanna scene was in the first of the three episodes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7ouKdsT6AY
Posted by: Chris Rodda | December 16, 2008 10:35 AM
This probably seems pedantic in light of the importance of the story, but is there a way that I can point out to the author that Dari is not a dialect of Arabic nor even related to that language? Dari is Iranian, and more broadly speaking Indo-European; it's closer to English than to Arabic (not counting lexical and cultural loans).
Posted by: Hrafntýr | December 16, 2008 11:39 AM
Okay, the Chaplain obviously needs to be relieved and court-martialed for his violations, but the SSG is a nobody. I want the name and rank of all the COMMANDERS that approved and facilitated this travesty. Since the Chaplain was involved, that would probably be at least the Battalion Commander (usually a LTC) and might easily have included the Brigade and Division Commanders.
We can slam-dunk the Non-Commissioned Officer in passing - but it is the command climate that makes this sort of thing possible. We (and by "we" I mean you and the MRFF, Chris) need to take down the commanders. That's the only thing that will cause a change.
Posted by: BobApril | December 16, 2008 11:55 AM
Re BobApril
How about the civilian authorities, namely the President, Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and all the other deputy secretaries that acquiesced in this activity. This is typical of the actions of the current administration which is full of scumbags like Monica Goodling who don't believe in the separation of church and state.
However, the most outrageous thing here is that this activity gave fodder to the Islamic extremists who likened the US invasion force to the Crusaders of the 11th century.
Posted by: SLC | December 16, 2008 12:05 PM
Hrafntýr...
I know about the Dari error. I didn't see the MRFF piece that went out to our mailing list, which is what Ed quoted, before the final version went out. I wrote most of it, but we were rushing to get it out that day, and there were additions and changes that I didn't see until it was too late.
Here's a link to the final, final version of the piece as I posted it on HuffPo and elsewhere. You'll see that I made the correction about Dari before this was posted widely.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/us-military-now-in-the-ch_b_150966.html
Posted by: Chris Rodda | December 16, 2008 12:05 PM
Yup, Chaplain and commander need to be relieved for cause. I have never seen this kind of operational proselytizing downrange result in anything but problems. It very overtly feeds suspicions that we are crusaders out to destroy Islam.
Posted by: Brando | December 16, 2008 12:17 PM
CENTCOM now knows about the missionaries being embedded because the AP contacted them about the story. A spokesperson for CENTCOM told the AP that missionaries absolutely cannot be embedded with the troops like journalists. From the AP story that came out yesterday:
The CENTCOM spokesperson wouldn't give the AP a comment on the video itself.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | December 16, 2008 12:22 PM
How many American and allied troops have died thanks to this bit of <expletive>? We'll never know.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 16, 2008 3:14 PM
Even without the ethical considerations, that any sort of Western govt endorsed proselityzing is still going on in the middle east is mind buggeringly stupid.
Posted by: SimonG | December 16, 2008 4:48 PM
"Amir, go see the young American with the backpack. He's handing out pads of toilet paper. And get one for me."
Posted by: Ex-drone | December 16, 2008 5:45 PM
There's some serious spinning going on here and there is nothing in the videos to support any of the allegations made.
In the longer video above, at no time does a non-Afghan troop appear in the same frame with the missionaries. At the "Boneyard" one of them refers to a Soldier on guard, and the cut away look over the should or of a Soldier with a rifle. The rifle is an SA-80, which is British and therefore a British Soldier. The Brits have their own rules. (2:55). At 3:08 a British cargo truck rolls past in the background while the missioanry speaks, reinforcing that.
If they visited the Boneyard, then they would have been at Camp Phoenix, which is where they would have met Ch. (CPT) Hanna. In the shorter video, we only see and hear Ch Hanna being interviewed. He said nothing out of line, nor in support of any allegation made here.
We also hear reference to travelling with a Civil Affairs unit. The British have CA units, just like we do.
One referrence to SSG (which is the proper abbreviation for a Staff Sergeant in the Army) Hoyt and that only to tell us what they've heard from him about conditions on the ground.
With what's been presented, you've got nothing.
SSG Robert White
Task Force Phoenix II (2003-4), Kabul, Afghanistan. I was right there with Ch Hanna and SSG Hoyt.
So the whole thing is very thin on evidence.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 16, 2008 10:03 PM
D.C. Sessions;
I was on that deployment and I can answer your question. We lost no one. The one Purple Heart given was to an NCO injured by a grenade in a training accident with the ANA. No bibles were present.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 16, 2008 10:09 PM
I think this all rather misses the point.
The missionaries offering bibles and the like, looks to the Afghans exactly like crusading. And, since they are clearly associated with our troops, the Afghans naturally think of them as being sanctioned by the Allies. This fuels their anger against the Western forces (Americans, British and Australians indiscriminately, since to them, we all look alike), and is totally counter-productive to winning their hearts and minds (not to mention the cost in Allied lives).
The military forces should tell these missionaries to either concentrate on the mission at hand (humanitarian and medical aid, not proselytising heathens), or bugger off and stop interfering as it is getting soldiers killed. -DJ
PS "Stand fast 44th". Lest we forget.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2008 10:38 PM
SSG White...
I can assure you that we have plenty of video with the missionaries on patrol with American troops, being provided with body armor, inside buildings on the base, etc. There is no question as to who these soldiers were and what base the missionaries were at because a sign with the Oklahoma National Guard "Thunderbirds" insignia on it is shown. The missionaries were embedded with these troops for three weeks, and produced three entire episodes of their reality series. The few short minutes of video posted in this piece just don't show those scenes.
CENTCOM now knows about these missionaries being embedded because the AP contacted them about this story. A spokesperson for CENTCOM told the AP that missionaries absolutely cannot be embedded with the troops like journalists. From the AP story that came out yesterday:
"The military has a standing policy prohibiting U.S. troops from distributing religious materials and proselytizing while in combat, said Maj. Tina Barber-Matthew, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla. Central Command oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Barber-Matthew also said that the military imbeds only 'bona fide' journalists, not missionaries or other individuals, with units.
"'We vet all journalists coming in,' she said, adding they must sign a document covering what is allowed while imbedded."
Posted by: Chris Rodda | December 16, 2008 11:16 PM
RTO: "There is nothing in the videos to support the allegations made..."
I've already made those points both here and elsewhere. That appears to be unimportant to the conversation at hand.
As noted elsewhere, the "shorter" video that Rodda links to is actually carefully edited to support their claims; it leaves out, for example, the scene of the missionaries literally walking away from the military when they did their "evangelizing."
The quote about the Chaplain is phrased in typical MRFF style: as a "shocking" hanging statement. You'll note that even Rodda and Weinstein have yet to accuse that Chaplain of wrongdoing, yet people here are calling for court-martial. If the advocates with all the info aren't even saying it, why should those with very little knowledge of the situation? Seems like its based on emotion rather than legal or judicial analysis.
I wonder how much research was done prior to the MRFF's press release. It was so important to get it out NOW that it was published with errors (the same reason given for the errors in their lawsuit), yet the videos have been available for years. Should your observations of British troops prove true, it would seriously take the wind out of their legal sails.
As you noted, with the publicly available video--on which they are staking their case--there is no case. It appears they're banking on "outrage" rather than evidence.
DJ: "...This fuels their anger against the Western forces..."
You state as fact that which may not be so. Middle Eastern cultures are actually very open to discussions on religion. They are curious about Christianity, and due to the importance of religion in their culture, often want to know about ours. To categorically say that any association of religion with American forces causes hatred or American casualties displays ignorance both of their culture and of the facts on the ground.
CR: The reason the military could so firmly make the statement on "embeds" was simple: the missionaries weren't "embedded." More than likely, their definition of the term is different than yours (since the MRFF is the one that said they were "embedded.")
http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/?p=268
Posted by: JD | December 16, 2008 11:23 PM
If you have the video why not post it?
The only clip you have posted inside a building is not at Camp Phoenix. Given the places and events discussed, the video has been edited out of chronological order.
For example, being at Kandahar is mentioned, which was well outside the 45th's AOR.
As it is you make a number of serious charges and have presented just enough to make yourselves look silly to anyone who has enough knowledge of the time, place and personalities.
I don't know why you've re-posted the CENTCOM statement to me in comments--I saw it above and it's not inconsistent with anything that's been presented. Until you can show some affirmative evidence, you appear to be shoving mightily on a square peg, but the hole is still round.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 16, 2008 11:29 PM
JD;
Very correct and thank you. I felt I had to have a say, as what I see here is slanderous to people I know.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 16, 2008 11:39 PM
JD - Yep, those Taliban guys are such religious liberals.
My point is, it opens up extremists to paint the 'Christian Crusaders' in a bad light, after the Allied troops have moved to another area. Like in other conflicts, "They cheered us as we rode in on tanks, than sniped at us when the tanks were elsewhere."
If Afghans invaded the US in force and started handing out copies of the Koran, you probably smile and take them politely from the mullah with the company of heavily armed troops behind him. Only later would you don your balaclava and hit the invaders with molotov cocktails. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 16, 2008 11:40 PM
DJ;
Interesting formula of moral relativism there, but it still proceeds from the terrorist equals freedom fighter in other eyes, canard. If the US were invaded, a legitimate resistance might attack the invaders.
The Taliban and their associates, (HiG, aQ, and so forth) don't restrict themselves that way.
Instead they blow up women and children, deliberate targets, and hunt down those who don't toe their religious line. Far from military targets, they don't even peripherally serve the purpose of resistance.
There's room to criticize the missionaries' actions and approach, but no one here has even scratched at that argument yet.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 16, 2008 11:55 PM
SSG White...
First of all, we didn't post more video because we just wanted to show the short clips that were relevant to the story. If you want proof that the missionaries were filmed with American troops, there are enough clips on the Travel the Road website to prove that. Go to http://www.traveltheroad.com/flashsites/episode12_Journey.html and click the video link in the image. That's a clip from the first episode. From there, you can select clips from the other two episodes in the menu.
Second, the missionaries were absolutely with the Oklahoma National Guard. There is no question about that. They did travel elsewhere in Afghanistan and probably were with a different unit at least part of the time, so your problem with them being in Kandahar is a non-issue.
Third, I don't know what you're implying about the order of the clips we used, but we stated in the piece that the video clip of the chaplain was from the first episode and the rest from the third episode. We also gave the link for a longer clip that someone posted on YouTube that contains all the third episode clips we used and everything that was in between them.
And, finally, I accidentally repeated the CENTCOM statement because I included it in my response to your identical comment on my HuffPo piece about this, and forgot to delete that part when I copied and pasted my idential response here.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | December 17, 2008 12:01 AM
You misunderstand me.
I just watched the clip you now reference, and still--no indication of any impropriety. If you want to show clips that are relevant, than I'd think you'd want to show some violation of policy or law.
You still haven't managed it.
The missionaries, in that clip were indeed in the company of the National Guard. In what capacity? What restrictions and conditions? What was the discussion and decisions that lead up to that moment or any other like it?
"Kandahar" is not a non-issue--you apparently don't even know the context of the clips you have shown, yet you feel free to draw conclusions from them and speak in brad generalities.
I haven't impled anything about the order of the clips. I understand your inference, however, so let me be clearer. The Travel the Road people did not produce a chronologically consistent product. The order of the presentation was not your doing, it was theirs, so I'm not ascribing any motive to you in this.
That said, it means that to understand the context of the films you'll have to do a lot of work to unravel the timeline, something you obviously have not done.
I have watched the YouTube clip and found nothing to alter my position.
As for the CENTCOM bit, we're even. I copied that over at HuffPo from here even though there, that material hadn't been presented yet.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 17, 2008 12:18 AM
Ah yes! "Moral relativism". What is "moral relativism" anyway?
When 'our side' carpet-bombs Baghdad*, that's 'Shock & Awe' [100,000 to 200,000 dead]; when the 'bad guys' use an IED to target mercenary convoys [1 - 30 dead] that's 'terrorism'. Is that what you mean?
If you were a member of the French resistance, in July 1944, you wouldn't blow up a train carrying German troops heading for Normandy, because you might kill the French train driver? Is that closer to the mark?
Sometimes morality isn't fixed, sometimes it is situational. American Minutemen were revolutionary heroes to some; a damned rebel rabble to others.
Sometimes it is helpful to look at the 'enemy' through their eyes. When this happens we make (slightly) better choices, both morally and militarily.
Just a thought from a 'moral relativist'. -DJ
*You will note I avoided the situation in Afghanistan. You personally aren't responsible for this mess, you're just the poor bastards who have to clean it up.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 17, 2008 12:35 AM
DJ;
You've now proven that you neither know what carpet bombing is, nor how the war has been prosecuted.
There has been no carpet bombing.
"Rebels" are not the same thing as "Terrorists."
It is helpful to look at the enemy through their eyes, but when you start identifying with that view, you loose effectiveness.
Ethics are what are situational. Morals are not, though they can conflict (Right and Evil, or Wrong and Good) and a decision has to be made.
You needn't worry about my sensibilities. I love my job.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 17, 2008 12:49 AM
Yes,that would seem like a worldview a soldier would entertain,that thinking of the "enemy" as human would get in the way of killing them efficiently.
Situational ethics,and all...So who tells you whats good or evil?
Posted by: clinteas | December 17, 2008 1:10 AM
Perhaps you meant to call me a 'Ethical relativist' then.
'Terrorists' are different from 'rebels', how so, in concrete practical terms?
I wasn't trying to make you feel better (or worse), just saying I don't hold you personally responsible for the moral vacuum above you. The evil you do is yours. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 17, 2008 2:15 AM
Bombing in Iraq was the most selective in the history of aeiral bombing in war. Nothing approaching even the lay definition you supply.
The right I do is also mine, which is why I sleep well.
Clinteas, you read answers into questions that haven't been asked, which leads to incorrect conclusions.
Posted by: RTO Trainer | December 17, 2008 8:31 AM
You're not allowed to call them bibles. Now use the phrase Infidel Education Device (IED).
Posted by: eddie | December 17, 2008 9:08 AM
Re RTO Trainer
However, carpet bombing by B52s was done in Afghanistan. However, in fairness, military targets, mainly Taliban fortified positions were the subject of these attacks.
Posted by: SLC | December 18, 2008 6:29 PM