Archive for War
March 14, 2007
Sinners in the Military
6:14 pm | Culture | News | War | Comments: 2
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace, USMC, recently got himself into trouble by stating his personal belief about homosexuality - specifically, that it’s immoral. The statement was made in connection with the long-time debate about United States’ policy for handling homosexuality in its ranks. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is still widely supported by top military brass, and won’t be going anywhere any time soon. It’s also nice that Gen. Pace didn’t apologize for his remarks, but rather clarified that his own personal belief was not relevant to the debate at hand. I instantly like him more than the Pope and other supposedly principled people that have made true statements then in the face of opposition backed down from them in cowardly fashion.
Here’s what I think about homosexuals in the military. You can’t make the morality argument against them, because there’s also a large amount of fornicators and adulterers in the military and nobody seems to have a problem with that. The more meaningful argument made against them is the impact that open homosexuality has on morale, good order, readiness and unit cohesion. Civvies like you and me have a very difficult time understanding what this impact may or may not be, and I will take the word of military professionals who almost unanimously agree that the impact is negative on all these things.
There are lots of people spouting all kinds of nonsense about this issue. A great example would be Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), who says, “The idea that the sexual orientation of any American has relevance to his or her patriotism or ability to fight in the Armed Forces is wrong-headed and harmful to our nation’s security.” This is a laughable argument, paying no attention to any relevant facts in the case, such as the ones I’ve mentioned above. There are many patriotic people that have no business in the military, and who are by various means excluded from military service. The security of the nation is fine; homosexuals make up a tiny fraction of the service-eligible demographic in this country; there’s no danger of running out of volunteers because gays are disallowed from serving. If these folks truly are patriotic, there are innumerable other ways in which to chip in for the good of the country rather than trying to shoe-horn their way into the armed forces.
July 15, 2006
Not Getting the Message
6:13 pm | War | Comments: 7
There’s one thing I really like about terrorists. The vast majority of terrorists are complete morons. This applies most especially to your average, run-of-the-mill Islamic terrorists. Technically, I consider all moslems to be terrorists based on what the religion itself teaches. However, a certain portion of the Islamic world has more access to jeeps, AK-47s, and rocket-propelled grenades than the others and this is the group that I’m talking about today.
War in the Middle East has never really stopped since the creation of the Israeli state in 1948. There’s either been more or less shooting, but nonetheless a constant state of war over the past 60ish years. Israel has cleaned up her opponents over the years; completely destroyed them. Egypt was a world power before 1967 saw the Arab-Israeli war (also known as the Six Day war, in reference to how long it took Israel to win). Their enemy wasn’t just Egypt; it was Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. Nobody has heard from three of these four countries since then, although Iraq managed to get back into the news. None of this historical data, or any other ominous warning from the past, matters to a bunch of freak wacko maniac terrorists (a.k.a. moslems with guns) who think that kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers and killing a few civilians is going to really accomplish something. It has accomplished something; the letting loose of the wrath of Israel. What a bunch of Einsteins.
April 26, 2006
The Wisdom of George S. Patton, Jr.
12:04 pm | War | Wisdom | Comments: 3
“Anyone in any walk of life who is content with mediocrity is un-true to himself and to American tradition.”
“Discipline must a habit so ingrained that it is stronger than the excitement of battle or the fear of death.”
“Any soldier who surrenders with arms in his hands is not doing his duty to his country and is selling himself short because the living conditions of the Prisoner of War are extremely bad.”
“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.”
“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to so use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum time.”
“A pint of sweat saves a gallon of blood.”
“Catch the enemy by the nose with fire and kick him in the pants with fire emplaced through movement.”
“All human beings have an innate resistance to obedience. Discpline removes this resistance and, by constant repetition, makes obedience habitual and subconscious.”
“Our mortars and our artillery are superb weapons when they are firing. When silent, they are junk–see that they fire!”
“No bastard ever won a war by dieing for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”
July 15, 2005
A Religion of War and Hate
7:39 pm | Politics | Religion | War | Comments: 5
In case anybody was wondering about what we’re actually fighting against over in the Middle East (and in our own Western city streets these days, as well), the Army Times brings you this video of an insurgent sniper attack on a single U.S. soldier - as filmed by the insurgents. Two things to note about this attack: first, it’s at a lethal range and the Insurgents, in true Arab marksmen form, fail to land a killing or crippling hit. Second, the shot is followed by repetition of the Islamic mantra “Allah Ackbar” by one of the imbeciles behind the camera, meaning “God is Greatest”. It’s the Islamic equivalent of the Hail Mary; say it enough times and it justifies anything you do. It also betrays the true nature of these people: motivated by Islam to kill all those who will not conform. The fact that this guy jumped up, located his attackers, hunted them down with this squad, and eventually administered first aid to the man that pulled the trigger is truly amazing.
In other news related to war and apparently insane people is the recent announcement by a crazy Chinese general of his nation’s intent to use nuclear weaponry against the United States in retaliation for any U.S. intervention in a possible China - Taiwan conflict. Here’s a couple great quotes from General Zhu:
“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,”
“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”
If the statement is taken at its face value, the term “apocalypse” comes to mind. Don’t panic, everybody. The article is quick to point out that the People’s Liberation Army (which is independent from the actual Chinese government, for those of you who aren’t aware) would never allow somebody to simply go around spouting its war plans. That being said, the guy needs to realize that international relations are slightly more important than the need for war-mongers like himself to get off on how they’re going to really hand it to us if we try anything funny. One other thing about this which is actually mildly scary: the fact that “all of the cities east of Xian” are apparently expendable to this guy.
Would U.S. intervention in a Chinese-Taiwanese conflict be theoretically possible, not to mention valid? We once had a mutual defense treaty which provided for such an intervention. It was terminated by the U.S. in 1980, allegedly to pave the way for economic relations with China. However, we still have some documents which outline our policy in relation to Taiwan. This is from the Taiwan Relations Act (1979):
It is the policy of the US 1) to declare that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of international concern; 2) to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means; 3) to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means … a threat to the peace and security of the western Pacific area and of grave concern to the US; 4) to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character;
May 30, 2005
Memorial Day
12:35 am | Culture | War | Comments: 3
U.S. troops land at Omaha Beach, 6 June 1944
I began Memorial Day at midnight by watching Saving Private Ryan. Some people might take issue with the fictional story, but the film really brings to mind exactly what we in the United States are memorializing today: the men and women of this nation who have “laid so costly a sacrifice on the altar of freedom”.
April 20, 2005
Another Civil War Myth Debunked
11:13 pm | Culture | Pictures | War | Comments: 3
In her battle with the U.S.S.Cumberland, which was blockading the James River and had anticipated the arrival of the ironclad ship, the Merrimack suffered the loss of two men, two guns, and her deadly battering ram (it was the ram that sealed the fate of the Cumberland). She also sustained heavy damage to her smokestack, which not only impaired the speed of the ship but also the operation of the cannon. The next day, the Monitor made its appearance, and only managed to fight to a draw with her ironclad counterpart. While it is doubtless that this engagement was an historic one, let us not forget the gallantry of the crew of the Cumberland, who, even as their ship was lurching wildly in her final moments above water, continued to fire broadside after broadside into the marauding Merrimack.
April 18, 2005
Thanks but No Thanks
10:41 pm | Politics | War | Comments: 3
A while ago I posted my thoughts about Israel. I’ve always been opposed to the idea that Israel should be constrained to acting multilaterally when dealing with terrorist attacks within its borders. Many times Israel has responded fiercely to threats to herself by herself, and history proves that those actions were necessary for the protection of her people. This is because the mindset of the Israeli people is such that they are fiercely opposed to the idea of being dominated again without putting up a fight, as was the case in the Holocaust of the mid 20th century. I think primarily of the Six Day War, which began when on June 5, 1967 Israel launched a preemptive aerial strike on Egypt and destroyed her entire air force on the ground. Again in June of 1981, perceiving the threat of Iranian nuclear capability, she launched another air attack which eliminated Iran’s Osirak nuclear reactor.
This all happened unilaterally - without consultation with other world powers. This word “unilaterally’ also appears in a recent article in the New York Times talking about the rebuilding process which has been going on at a furious pace for decades, and only more quickly since the death of the great terrorist Yassir Arafat. Israel is doing this herself without any outside meddling; I think it’s just more evidence that large powers like the U.S. should realize that while they may indeed be the hegemonic power in the world, there must still be reasonable respect for the sovereignty of nations to make their own decisions.
February 25, 2005
Bloodless
12:40 am | College | War | Comments: 0
We’ve been talking about war in International Relations class, and that’s really my cup of tea. I’ve elected to do a research paper on technology and how it has effected and will affect war. I’m going to take it beyond the “Revolution in Military Affairs” to the fundamental concepts about war and its implications.
It’s not hard to imagine, some time in the future, whole armies of missiles, drones, and attack robots. How would this change our concept of war? Would it make it easier? Would such wars come to a faster conclusion with less lives lost and less collateral damage done? Alternatively, will such armies ever be actually feasible, or simply the stuff of science fiction forever? Would having the power to kill but not be killed be too much of a responsibility to bear? These questions and more will be answered before it’s all said and done. Stay tuned.
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.
