Archive for July 2004

July 31, 2004

Part V: What Price Glory?

3:32 pm | War | Wisdom | Comments: 0

I thought a good way of wrapping up my thoughts on war would be to touch on what some people refer to as “just”, or justifiable, war. When I think of it I also think of justifiable homicide, an issue which for many is probably more clear-cut. So what kind of homicide is justifiable? You may not kill a man if he has something you want, or if his dogs poop on your grass. You can’t even do it if he slashes your tires or he rear-ends you in the Wal-Mart parking lot. In fact, the only real reason you have for taking his life is if you feel he is a threat to yours or that of other innocents. This applies to car-jackers, rapists, house thieves, muggers, and just plain murderous types.

Carrying it over to war, I consider the two situations of personal threat and national threat to be pretty much equivalent. If the safety of the nation is at risk, war is justifiable. I’m not saying it’s the only option; but it needs to have a spot right up there on the list of recourses. If a nation’s allies are threatened, the same rules apply. This is why governments need to make wise choices of allies; ones who will be willing to come to their aid in time of need.

Another possible reason for justifiable war which I’ve been pondering is protecting nations from “evil” nations trying to take them over. Take Korea, for example. Communist North Korea was bullying and threatening to overrun the south. We weren’t allied to South Korea, but we deployed anyway to help out. The result was a conflict which claimed many American lives and has yet to be decided. Were we justified in going into Korea, or Vietnam, just because we didn’t like Communism? Who’s to say that the established goverments of South Korea and Vietnam were any “better” by biblical standards than Communism? Those are the questions that pop up in my mind when I think about those conflicts.

So there you have it; my thoughts on war. There’s more, to be sure. But I think it would be nice to get back to regularly scheduled weblogging. I really appreciate and encourage the discussion these thoughts have generated. It’s a good way for me to sort some of my thinking out. I also think it’s probably a good place to apply a thought-sorting process. Can’t get enough of those.

July 30, 2004

Part IV: Classic Strategery

12:02 am | War | Comments: 0

Most people would find military reading to be more boring than Fly Fishing with Glen Blackwood.  And sometimes, in the midst of Von Clausewitz perhaps, it can be.  But it’s one of my keen points of interest, so I’m going to share a bit of what I’ve learned about the mechanics of waging war.  Read this, and you won’t have to plough through Hart or Tzu or the rest (not to say that it wouldn’t be edificatious).  There’s three things that poop into my head when I think of basic military strategy.  So here we go.

Initiative - the concept of being and staying “one step ahead” of the oppostition.  This is the basis of what I’ve talked about before regarding pre-emptive action.  In war, you want to be calling the shots: acting rather than reacting.  If you knock your enemy hard from the start, he may never recover his balance.  The idea of surprise attacks and unpredictabilty all stem from attempting to recover or maintain the initiative during a campaign. We’ve all heard about the “Blitzkrieg”, made famous by the shocking speed of the German armor during the opening campaigns of the Second World War.  The primary advantage of this style of attack was keeping the enemy off-balance and always reacting; that’s what we call initiative.

Indirect Approach - this is the key to military history.  It involves approaching situations in unconventional and unacticipated ways.  When France built the Maginot Line, it expected that an attacker would have to overcome it.  But what did the Germans do in 1940?  Slammed through the Low Countries via the Ardennes forest and took France from the north (see, the French figured that Germany would respect Belgium’s neutrality - bad call).  That’s a pretty good example.  Another one is Hannibal’s march across the Alps with his elephants to attack the city of Rome; a miracle of logistics which nearly resulted in the capitulation of the Roman capital.  The examples of the success of the indirect versus the failure of the direct in military history are endless.  For a full exposition of the indirect approach, read Strategy by B. H. Liddell Hart.  In fact, read any book by Hart at all.

Intelligence - now we’re going back to the beginning of time.  Knowing your enemy predicates all military strategy.  Basically, military planning is guessing.  The more educated your guessing, the more likely it is your planning will go, well, as you planned.  This is a pretty intuitive concept, but we’re discussing the ABCs here, so that’s ok.

That does not cover all, or even most, of the well-established and ancient rules of military planning.  But this post is already way too long.  For those of you pining to discuss just war, have no fear!  As we say auf Deutsch, “es kommt.”  In the meantime, stick with me and all will be revealed in time.

July 26, 2004

Part III: Going to the Source

11:57 pm | War | Comments: 0

One of my favorite historical military figures is General William T. Sherman, a senior Army officer who fought for the U.S. in the War between the States.  He was a pioneering soldier who knew how war works, and specifically what is the real backbone of a nation’s war effort.  Thus, history tells us of Sherman’s March, a virtually uncontested romp which he lead through the heart of the South destroying a large chunk of its industry, telegraph, and railroad transport capability.  I believe this campaign really took the guts out of the Confederate war machine; in fact, it probably took many months, if not years, off the length of the war.  It was also the first real implementation of what’s come to be known as “total war”.

I am a believer in total war.  When you fight a nation, you’re fighting not only its military but also its production, communication, transportation, and population (to a certain extent).  Long gone are the days of battlefield glory in which opposing armies would line up neatly, fight a few battles, and end the war.  Back then you didn’t have to worry about production because it was much too slow to be a factor.  Transportation was the same, and the telegraph hadn’t even been invented yet.  These days, to realistically expect victory in war, you need to go after the aforementioned national capabilities: and that means hitting cities, and consquently civilians.

Your focus in war must not be, “How can I defeat my enemy’s army?”.  It must be “How can I defeat both his ability and his desire to fight against me?”.  Sun Tzu once said, “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”  As a christian, I believe that the ultimate goal of any war must be to end it as quickly as possible, using only the means that are necessary to accomplish the objectives.  Are there ethics in war?  The answer must be yes; God reigns in all things, and he is the God of war as well as the God of peace.  So what should those ethics be?  That’s another post altogether.

July 24, 2004

Part II: Action vs. Reaction

10:53 pm | War | Comments: 0

I thought I would expand a bit on the concept of national defense which I touched on in the previous post.  The key here is that the threat of harm is just as urgent as the harm itself.  In other words, if a nation considers itself to be threatened, it needs to be equally concerned (if not more so) with the danger as with an actual attack.  This idea has recently entered the limelight with the release of the report of the 9/11 Commission, which lays out many U.S. Government failures at pre-emptive activity that quite possibly could have prevented the attack of September Eleventh.

In a battlefield situation, striking first and striking hard is not only very cut-and-dry, it’s do-or-die.  Heh.  Anyways, what I mean is you bomb the factory before it produces the tanks; you destroy the Scud site before it launches its missile; you demolish the bridge before the enemy can cross it.  This idea of hitting the enemy before he hits you is also essential to national defense.  If you know a nation is planning to attack you, you can’t sit back and wait for it to happen.  You need to do something before the lives of your citizens are at risk.

Does this mean that every threat needs to be dealt with using war?  By no means.  But steps must be taken to neutralize the threat, or the government is not doing its sworn duty.  If the leader of a nation believes that war is the only way to truly bring about safety, then when he acts on that belief by mobilizing the military he is fulfilling the duties of his office.

I also wanted to say something about anti-war types.  I’m not going after anybody who opposes any war at all.  But I am going after the ones that oppose any war under any circumstance.  You know the type.  Personally, I love when I can sit down with a person and discuss specific aspects of a conflict to hash out the real motives, objectives, and repercussions entailed.  But every now and then you run into some people who are just peace nuts who believe all war is evil (which it is, mind you) and that the government should never take such measures.  How they could possibly expect to be protected by their government under such restrictions is beyond me.

July 22, 2004

Thoughts on War: Part I

2:06 am | War | Comments: 0

War, though regrettable, is a necessary fact of human life.  It’s like Police work or working third shift in the Emergency Room.  It breaks the rules of creation.  War is right up there with religion and politics as one of the most contentious topics to discuss.  The truth is that politics and war are inseperable concepts (and, in fact, religion is often quite prevalent as well).  Even if a war is not politically motivated, politics will play a large part in the outcome.  Defending or enlarging borders, eliminating threats or simply irritations, money, women, revenge, and many other factors lurk beneath the moving mass of an armed force going forward into battle. 

In a world of nations, survival means defending yourself, and this is why war is necessary.  Nations must have a standing army with which to protect their citizens.  Having powerful allies is not enough, as Austria and Czechoslovakia witnessed in the 1930’s.  And Hitler was able to take those countries without even starting a war.  The nation that allows its military to deteriorate while it’s leaders and citizens pontificate on the beauty of peace is in grave danger.

That’s what makes me sick about the anti-war crowd.  They have absolutely no historical perspective.  “We don’t like war because it kills people!”  They are spitting on a military which exists for the sole purpose of protecting them.  I believe this is an affront to the thousands of men and women who have died to protect the place these gutless hippies live and their freedom to do it in.  Why, when firefighters are killed in a building collapse, don’t they clamor for all fire departments to be dismantled?  It’s rather obvious from this example that you can’t do that, as if you did everything would burn to the ground.  But I tell you this: soldiers are even more necessary for the survival of a nation than fire fighters, and yet there are so many people in our nation that hate them.

July 19, 2004

Love is like a hand grenade

11:26 pm | Relationships | Comments: 0

I thought it would be fruitful to expand a bit on my anthropo-relational theories.  First, the idea of getting married quick.  The idea there is not to trick somebody into marrying you, and neither does it promote rash decision making.  But rather, once you’ve decided you want to marry somebody, you really ought to get all your hardware on within a year.  Naturally, this is directed toward men, as traditionally women are often stuck waiting for indecisive men to get with the program.  This is also yet another reason why dating before you’re prepared for marriage is foolish.  I also think that big long engagements (i.e., anything longer than a year) are pointless.
 
Second, about knowing the person you are marrying.  The truth is that I recommend that people know as much as possible about the person they are marrying.  But I still say that if you know less about somebody, you will be more likely to take a big step like that.  Unless of course the little that you know is all bad stuff. In which case, if you proceed with the marriage, you might be classified as a masochist.
 
Third, and I am sorry if I’m bursting anybodys’ bubble here, but love is nothing to be counted on.  The Bible tells us not to put our confidence in princes; the reasoning behind that is that men change.  Love fades and can disappear altogether (and in fact often does).  The only thing that will really hold a marriage together is a shared faith in Christ. 

July 18, 2004

Knowing Too Little

11:39 pm | Relationships | Wisdom | Comments: 0

My sister posed a tough question to me this morning.  “If you were a guy, would you marry me?”, she asked.  I mulled it over for a bit and said, “Ah.. no.”.  She seemed somewhat bummed, so I felt a burden to explain why decision.  “The deal is”, I said, “I know too much about you.  I know all the good things about you, but also the bad stuff.  I probably know more about your character and personality than any random husband ever will.”
 
So the main point is, I think getting married has alot to do with disillusionment as to the other person’s nature, personality, essence, whatever you want to call it.  Not to mention quirks, idiosyncrasies, nervous twitches, etc.  The less you know about somebody, the more likely you are to marry them.  Or at least you’ll have an easier decision about it.  And that goes along with my other relational theory, which states that you need to get married within 6 months of dating (a year at the very most).  Any longer than that and you run the risk of someone loosing interest.  So, get married quick and you’ve got them hooked.

July 17, 2004

Time

2:39 am | My Life | News | Comments: 0

That’s what Martha Stewart will be doing… in the clink.  That’s also what I hope Kobe Bryant and Todd Bertuzzi end up doing, among others.  I’m not a big fan of famous people who think they’re above the law.   Our celebrity-minded society lets these people get away with murder (sometimes literally), and it’s good to see that popularity won’t always let you pass go and collect $200.  Martha Stewart is going directly to jail.  She will not pass go, she will not collect $200.
 
I’m signed up to go to a conference held by the Free Reformed church in Selkirk, Ontario (that’s in Canada) on the 30th of July.  It looks to be an interesting time, with a keynote speaker being R.C. Sproul, Jr.  If anybody is interesting in going, email me and I can hook you up with an admission form.  That will about do it for my vacation time this year.  That’s one thing about working through college that I sometimes miss.  We used to go to Vermont for a month or so back in the day.  Just kick it in the Appalachians.  Lots of memories there.  Berlin was awesome but it was quite exhausting; so hopefully I can fit in some relaxation time between now and school.

July 14, 2004

Rapping

11:16 pm | Random | Comments: 0

Rap wasn’t always like it is today. There was a time when rapping was a term for impromptu speaking. I don’t know if people who did this were considered rappers. Neither am I certain why this popped into my head. The only other thing in there tonight was a hypothetical discussion with an arminian about why his concept of “free will” is both unbiblical and irrational based on what we know about God. But rapping was more appealing to talk about because my dad fit the description of a rapper back in the 70s. And if you know my dad, putting him and “rapper” in the same sentence is very entertaining.

July 12, 2004

Purging the Heat Demons

11:33 pm | My Life | Comments: 0

Demons come in many shapes and sizes. You have the classic stink demons that used to live in a pair of Terry Klaver’s shoes. Eventually they were exorcized by Ted. Then there are the demons of stupidity, observed for centuries before being immortalized by Scott Adams. Not to be overlooked are the intrepidatious heat demons (and their cousins the cold demons), who vacation in my room every summer. There are several ways of dealing with them. Naturally, one is my rickety old fan. It performs admirably in the absence of an air conditioning unit, although my dad keeps goofing with it every day while I am at work. More passive means involve not moving around alot and sleeping naked. Other than that, the best bet is to hope the heat demons take the night off.