Common Sense Barrage

The Battle of Britain-another chapter in the 1940 Western Campaign.

2012-01-23T09:24:00.000-05:00

The Battle of Britain-Five Months That Changed History May-October 1940. James Holland. New York, St. Martin's Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-312-67500-4. Illustrations. Maps. Notes & References. Bibliography. Index. Pp. 677. $40.00.

James Holland has a completely fresh take on the Battle of Britain and has written a compelling study of the battle. This book does a marvelous job of combining operational and strategic analysis, technical assessment, and personal narratives.

What sets this book apart from other studies I have read is that Holland actually begins his work in the late 1930s by introducing the genesis of the Royal Air Force's Fighter Command, the beginning of Britain's air defense system, including the invention and weaponization of radar, and the personalities that prophesied the need to defend Britain from the reborn Luftwaffe. The book then traces the Battle of France and how Britain nearly sacrificed its fighter force defending the doomed Allied forces in Belgium and France in a losing attempt to show allied solidarity for the crumbling French military. Holland really broke some new ground with this Grouchy Historian by making the case that the Battle of Britain was in large part won over France before the first German bomb ever fell on England.

The personal battle of Air Marshall Dowding in preserving Britain's fighter force from immolation over France was only one factor that influenced the air campaign in the fall of 1940. The genius of the RAF in integrating radar, radio, centralized command and control, and even pilot training and aircraft production to keep Fighter Command from being overrun by the Luftwaffe seems quite miraculous 70 years later. It was the first integrated air defense system in history and proved just enough to keep the invasion from happening.

The Luftwaffe and Nazi Germany in particular come in for some well deserved scathing criticism from Holland. The lack of a serious strategic bomber like the B-17 or Stirling essentially doomed the German effort from the start. Although the effectiveness of Allied strategic bombing in World War II is still a subject of debate, a large, well equipped strategic bomber force, properly protected by fighters and hurled at the British air defenses in south-west England, may have prevailed in 1940. Of course Holland also does an excellent, although very secondary effort at describing the complete chaos of German planning for invading England, with the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and Kreigsmarine each planning their piece of the effort in isolation. In fact, as Holland lays out, the Luftwaffe high command, led by Goering, could not even coordinate their efforts to fight the battle and never really settled on basic tactical and operational issues of how fighters should escort bombers. Given the chaos and angst that the unified Allied command had in planning the Normandy invasion of 1944, one can only imagine the slaughter had the Germans actually attempted a landing off Folkestone in September 1940.

Finally, this book actually meets my HIGH expectations for maps and illustrations. The maps showing the division of England into air defense sectors and diagrams of the various flying formations are a welcome addition to this book.

Holland is described on the book jacket as a rising young military historian in England and this book clearly shows why. It's a marvelous read for World War II buffs, aviation enthusiasts or anyone wanting to know about that period described a Britain's "Finest Hour."

An Unusual History of World War II

2012-01-15T14:47:00.002-05:00

December 1941: 31 Days That Changed America and Saved the World. Craig Shirley. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2011. ISBN 978-1-59555-457-4. Illustrations. Notes & References. Bibliography. Index. Pp. x, 645. $24.99.

Mr. Shirley's volume is a combination of narrative history and historical chronology that both intrigued and disappointed me. Although the concept was an interesting way of looking at one of the most crucial months in American history, it left me feeling like it was incomplete, partly as a result of the nature of the book, but also because I think the book had some historical possibilities unmet.

First, the book was an excellent account of military, political, social, and economic happenings during the crucial month. What really jumped out at me were the eerie similarities to how America reacted after December 7 with how the nation reacted after September 11. There was mass hysteria, rumors galore, and a general flailing about by the military and government to do something to reassure a scared populace. Of course, there were also many things done in 1941 that would have made MSNBC and the ACLU explode 70 years later. Mass numbers of Japanese, Germans, and Italians were detained without trial or due process in "concentration camps" throughout the US and the FBI routinely conducted mass arrests in those communities in the three weeks after Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the same thing happening in the Islamic or Hispanic Community today? Needless to say, there was nary a peep from anyone then, and in fact, most Americans welcomed the arrests as a necessary part of the war effort.

Shriley also captures the naive belief that Americans had that the global conflagration could somehow pass them by, just as the US buried our heads in the sand about Islamofacism for the decade prior to 9/11. Finally the cultural aspects of the book were pretty interesting, especially the pop culture aspects that described the shopping, entertainment and general life of Americans prior to December 7.

However, Shirley reports the numerous news stories without really balancing out what REALLY happened, which was significantly different from what the public was told. The truth of Pearl Harbor was successfully kept from Americans for some time, and Shirley gives a good sense of how the media and government collaborated in wartime censorship (something else MSNBC, CNN, NYT and most of the modern liberal media would implode about), there were other items that were reported as fact, mostly to keep up morale, that weren't true. Capt. Colin Kelly did not sink a Japanese (or Jap, as it was known before PC) battleship, and the Philippines Campaign was in fact, a much bigger fiasco than most Americans knew until after the war. Shirley is quite correct in his assertion that Douglas MacArthur should have probably been court martialed along with Kimmel and Short and only escaped because the press loved him and turned him into the hero that FDR needed in those long weeks after the war, when everything was going badly for the US. A postscript or some footnotes that told the real facts would have been welcome, as would the usual maps that I hold so dear to history books.

Overall, this is a fine example of popular history, although not as academic and complete as I would have liked, but it's a fine snapshot into how Americans lived, died and changed forever in one of the most crucial months in our history.

The New US Defense Strategy-How Risky Is It?

2012-01-07T15:09:00.001-05:00

The new US defense strategy announced with trumpets and flourishes this week is long on flowery catch phrases and the current lingo of defense planning, but leaves a lot unspoken, unspecified and quite frankly,unknown.

It is tough for this particular Grouchy Historian to takeanything seriously that begins with a paragraph full of dissembling andnonsense- “we have responsibly ended the war in Iraq” {translation toObama-speak- I have at last fulfilled one of my campaign promises and the onlynational security topic I really care about, getting the hell out of Iraq nomatter what.} Just watch the news and anyone with common sense can see how badly things are going in Iraq and foresee the increasingpossibility of intense sectarian violence, a Shia dictatorship aligned with Iran orplain old instability leading to new safe havens for Al Qaeda.

And then there’s this- “allowing us to beingthe transition to Afghan responsibility” {translation to Obamaspeak- I wannaget the hell outta there too, but politics have kept me there, so if I’mreelected, screw them, I want those troops home so I can fire them.} And finally, my personal favorite-“At thesame time, we must put our fiscal house in order here at home…” Words actually fail me on this….I mean we canchop the military by 25% or more, but how about the Department of Housing and Urban Development? OrLabor? Or the EPA? Figure the odds ofthat happening. Like all liberal,pacifist Democrats (to include Bill Clinton), Obama wants to “cut government spending” bycutting the military…period.

So, once you get past the bloviating nonsense of thePresidential cover page, the rest of the document is just fluff. I mean it’s pretty good fluff as far as astrategy document goes, but one has to wonder if the U.S. military will be leftwith the capacity and capability needed to “Counter Terrorism and IrregularWarfare” or “Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges.”

The shift to the Pacific is clearly needed asEurope continues to be on a death spiral of Euro malaise, declining birth rate,overheated socialism, and general neglect. But ships and airplanes cost money, and lots of it, to build, man,operate and maintain. Where’s that goingto come from? And will we be able toassure our allies that we will have the commitment to stand up to anincreasingly belligerent China when (not if) China starts asserting its claimsto the South China Sea with military forces?

There has been a lot of discussion about the coming cuts toground forces and other personnel. Thisis always the first thing that’s cut, as it produces an immediate return andthe cuts don’t come in any one Congressman’s district, but the downstreameffect is devastating on personal morale- one only needs to look at the stateof the military at the end of Clinton’s two terms to see that.

So, what will be the long-term effects? We shall see. Will Iran get the bomb? WillMexico become a narco-terrorist controlled state? Will Venezuela and Iran form a new axis ofevil with Iranian missiles in the Western Hemisphere?

Stay tuned….could an Obama election make 2013 more like1939? Does he really think that just because HE got Osama there will be peace in our time?

Out with 2011----in with 2012

2012-01-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

Well, 2011 is gone and here comes 2012. Clearly, the Grouchy Historian was not too scholarly in 2011. I only plowed through 18 books and 8 of them were fiction...darn good fiction, but fiction nonetheless. Oyy, that is not good..perhaps a fallout from finishing up the MA in January and not having the pressure of academic knowledge to spur me along.

SO, 2012 is here and I am going to try and improve this mark...I figure 24 should be easily doable, and maybe 36 for a stretch goal. Of course, brain candy will be thrown in, but I figure there is plenty on the Grouchy Historian bookshelves to choose from.

And, of course, 2012 is a critical election year, so there will be a lot of material to blog from since my pithy commentary and snarky observations were down significantly from previous years.

Stay tuned....

The first book review of 2012- Max Hastings' Inferno

2012-01-02T16:46:00.000-05:00

Inferno: The World at War 1939-1945. Max Hastings. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. ISBN 978-0-307-27359-8. Maps. Illustrations. Notes & References. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xx, 729. $35.00.

Max Hastings' magnum opus of World War II is an excellent study for the introductory student looking for a single volume history of the conflict. One of several new single volume examinations of the war published in 2011, Hastings' work stands out for his ability to cover not only the military, but the political, economic and even social aspects of this global struggle.

Building on the style of his previous works of World War II history Armageddon, covering the European Theater in 1944-1945, and Retribution, covering the war against Japan during the same timeframe, this book seamlessly takes the reader around the various theaters of the war, and Hastings does an outstanding job of showing the truly global nature of the war and how decisions in each theater interacted with strategy, logistics, and coalition politics.

There are several really unique aspects of this book. First, Hastings dives into some theaters not traditionally covered in single volume histories of the war, particularly the China-Burma-India theater. He also does an outstanding job of discussing the home fronts and how each country mustered its economic and natural resources to supply the massive military machines involved.

However, Hastings continues to be of the "superior German Wehrmacht" school of thought and he is unsparing of his criticism of American and British generalship. Although he rightly condemns the moral ambiguity of much of the German officer corps to Hitler's atrocities, he continues to admire the tactical prowess of German soldiers in small unit combat. Hastings will also make no friends among British partisans as his fiercest criticism is for the British military and leadership, especially the fall of Singapore and the performance of the British army in the early campaigns of 1940-1941. Although this is a continuing debate on the combat 'deficiency' of American and British units versus their German counterparts, new research makes a pretty compelling argument that Germany was not "rolled over" by superior American and British material and troop strength after the Normandy invasion.

His analysis that Soviet Russia contributed the most to the defeat of the Wehrmacht is essentially correct, but it is unlikely that Stalin's troops alone could have won the war. Although it was quite clear that the German army that faced the Allies was at its peak in the early North African campaigns of 1942-1943, but 1944, American and British units were able to perform very effectively on the battlefield. Hastings does an admirable job of explaining the differences in doctrine and tactics of an army of a dictatorship (Germans and Russians) versus a democracy (British and Americans) and quite correctly notes that the casualties that Hitler and Stalin were willing to have their troops endure would have been very problematic to FDR and Churchill.

This is really a minor difference of opinion and doesn't diminish the overall effectiveness of the book in presenting the history of the key conflict of the 20th century in a concise, highly readable manner for both the beginning student as well as the jaded grognard.

SERE school for Republicans

2011-11-26T23:02:00.001-05:00

Being the political junkie that I am, it always amazes me to watch or read about Republican candidates trying to gain the favor of the old-line media. Now when I went to SERE school many years ago as part of my flight training...that's Search, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or as we called it POW school, we were taught that everything we read or saw was a propaganda plot and to believe 1/2 of what we saw and none of what we heard...pretty good advice for the current CLM..that's Criminal Liberal Media. I rarely believe anything I read online in the NYT or WaPo and almost get physically ill trying to read their editorial pages....I mean Paul Krugman gets a Nobel Prize??? Oyyy, clearly no better than a crackerjack prize.

Seriously, do ANY of the Republican candidates think they are going to get a fair shake by the likes of ABCBSNBCNNMSNBC? REALLY?? John McCain is a good guy and a true American hero, but he was utterly WRONG, FOOLISH and NAIVE to believe the entire liberal media machine wasn't going to hammer him in 2008 to protect and advance their anointed Obamassiah. They tried to stick him with some ridiculous scandal about an affair with a lobbyist....and when that didn't stick, they went after his running mate. The hit job the media did on Sarah Palin is epic even by CLM standards...I really wanted to probie slap Charles Gibson for his punctilious condescending interview nee quiz show interview he gave Sarah...but I shouldn't have been surprised. Anyone who considers Sarah Palin less intelligent that Joey "Big F--in Deal" Biden is clearly in their own little propaganda world. He thought they loved him in 2000, and they certainly loved him anytime he crossed swords with George W...but there is no way, no how that the media is going to do anything but lie, cheat, steal, and coverup to protect Barry O in 2012. They literally made him out of nothing and they (the CLM) cannot bear to be proved wrong by their guy losing in a landslide.

So no matter how bad the economy gets or even if Iran gets the bomb, everything will be Bush's fault, the Tea Party will be evil racists and all Republicans will want to kick puppies and eat babies. From Hermann Cain to Rick Perry...any Republican should assume the media is their enemy and treat them accordingly...they certainly should expect every media encounter to be a potential maccaca moment if the likes of Diana Sawyer or Ed Schultz had the chance.

So what should they do? Take a page from Ronald Reagan and go around them...use the internet, talk radio and, of course my favorite news outlet Fox News to ignore and show the utter obsolescence of the CLM. I seriously wonder...who watches network news anymore? The last time I did, it was so vapid I had to change the channel to E! News daily...it was more topical.I have not even wanted to watch the ENDLESS debates this fall because I knew they would be moderated by idiots from CNN, CBS and other CLM outlets...I just catch the highlights, or lowlights as it were the next day.

SO, today's lesson...believe none of what you see on the CLM this political season.

Grouchy Guy Magnum Opus

2011-11-10T10:00:00.000-05:00

If you are a junior officer, intelligence analyst, policy maker, policy wonk, or just a concerned citizen, go buy Ralph Peter's new book Lines of Fire.

I have been reading Mr. Peters' works for nearly five years, and this volume-a compilation of his best columns and articles from the last 15 years- is simply outstanding.

To be clear, Mr. Peters is curmudgeonly, cantankerous, and sooooo not politically correct...which is of course, why I love his work. NOT to say I don't disagree with him, or actually consider him a pipe dreamer on some issues (see his article on "Blood Borders").

But anyone who is intellectually honest can only be duly impressed with his prophetic writings on terrorism, insurgency and the types of enemies and conflicts the US would be fighting in the 21st century...from his writings in the early to mid 1990s! Mr. Peters was clearly a man ahead of his times and his concepts and understanding on the emotional, religious, and tribal nature of terrorism and insurgency are not only profound, but the truth!

The distinction he makes between political and apocalyptic terrorists should be posted on the inside of every government office that deals with terrorism. His ideas will make people on the right and left very uncomfortable-not surprising since I think Mr. Peters pretty much drew fire from both Code Pink and Don Rumsfeld over his columns during the Iraq War-but he calls it like he sees it and makes it clear what needs to be done to win against Islamic terrorists and their supporters.

Two essays really stand out...his 25 Do's and Don'ts of fighting terrorists (see the article "When Devils Walk the Earth")is almost worth the price of the book, just to use as a comparison for how the US is and has dealt with Al Qaeda and Islamism in general. His other essay on the "12 Myths of 21st Century War" is one of many articles that should be required reading of every serving officer in the US military.

What I really enjoy about his reading is his writing style, ability to create intellectual snark, and the way he can gut an idiotic touchy-feely notion with literary flair. The book was not only a joy to read, but a thought-provoking look at the threat we face, where our military and intelligence community have failed to understand how the world is and works and more importantly, how the politicians have ignored the nature of our enemies and what must be done to secure America.

Pick up this book and read it, re-read it, highlight it, and think about it. You will be glad you did.

Another Hit Series

2011-11-05T22:15:00.001-04:00

Brain Candy Break!
Yes, before I begin the end of the year push to try and pump up my reading list-(Oy, I am behind from last year's pace)- I took a brain break with Larry Correia's new book Dead Six, the beginning of another new series that he is co-authoring with Mike Kupari.

This book is another Correia rocket ride, where you just strap in and hang on for over 600 pages of guns, action, violence, fairly chaste romance, and a fairly predictable plot done exceedingly well. This is the real strength of Correia's books. I pretty much figured out where the story was gonna go, at least in the big picture, but I happily went along for the ride anyway. I won't give too much away, but there are a few surprises and enough twists to make the journey most excellent. The most annoying certainty is that it ended with the usual sequel setting cliff hanger...and darn it, I was ready to pick up the next book that won't be out until next summer...rats, rats, rats.

One of Correia's major strengths is his ability to make what could become cardboard characters lovable and endearing. Yes, not words associated with guys, guns, grenades and explosives, but if I don't like the characters in a novel, ehh, what's the point? More important is the author's ability to make the secondary characters equally compelling, something other authors don't do nearly as well, the major exception being Nora Roberts-(Yes I said Nora Roberts)-who probably has the best secondary characters EVER in her novels.

An interesting concept I noticed as a wanna-be writer is the use of the two main characters switching 1st Person POV throughout the book. Now I know James Patterson does an excellent job of switching between 1st and 3rd Person POV in many of his books, but to have two 1st Person POVs in the same book, even in the same scene and have it done well pleasantly surprised me and made the story flow extremely well.

This book is HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommended if you like Brad Thor, Vince Flynn, or bacon. I would rank it NEARLY as high as his AWESOME Monster Hunter series and a must read for guys who like books for guys. I haven't gotten into his other series, the Grimnoir Chronicles, which is about magic and private detectives yet, but maybe soon.

In the meantime, back to those boring history books (as my son calls them) as I sample the new wave of World War II volumes being published this fall.

Midway Revisited

2011-10-31T21:41:00.000-04:00

I was anxiously awaiting Craig Symonds' new book on the Battle of Midway. Having read both Miracle at Midway and Incredible Victory, I wasn't sure what Professor Symonds could offer. I haven't read the newer edition of Shattered Sword, which relates an almost exclusive Japanese viewpoint of the battle. But I was very interested to read this volume since this was the first book on the battle in nearly 25 years and I wondered what Professor Symonds had to say. Yes, that's right Craig Symonds was my academic adviser when I was at USNA and one of my favorite professors. SO, yes, I could be a little biased.

However, I have to say that Professor Symonds not only brought out some details of the battle that I don't remember in the other books, but does an excellent job of putting Midway into the context of the naval campaign fought between the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the first six months of 1942. Specifically, Professor Symonds narrates how Adm Chester Nimitz brought the US Pacific Fleet from the depths of Pearl Harbor to turn back the Japanese at Midway. The early American carrier operations, Doolittle's Raid, and the Battle of Coral Sea are all placed in operational context by Symonds, including the Japanese and American planning for the battle.

Operationally, the crucial day of June 4 is outlined in excellent but not overwhelming detail, and Symonds pulls no punches in his critique of both Japanese and American leadership. I actually understood the story of the Hornet air group and how they became lost during the battle and played no role in the sinking of 3 Japanese carriers that crucial morning. More interesting is what happened after the air group got back and how the Hornet captain and group commander essentially gun-decked the after action report to cover up the navigational error. More fascinating is the detail on the attrition of the American air groups and how even the victors were nearly out of airplanes and pilots by the time the battle was over.

Professor Symonds also busts many of the "miracle myths" of the battle by showing that Nimitz actually had a well thought out plan, based on pretty solid intelligence, and an acute understanding of what his forces were and were not capable of carrying out.

This was indeed a fresh take on this battle and an excellent addition to the growing literature on the naval side of World War II.

Steve Jobs and Apple

2011-10-06T16:17:00.000-04:00

So the internet is filled with retrospectives today on the passing of Steve Jobs, the co-founder and creative genius behind the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. One of the best is from Wired.

BUT, here's my perspective, as a Mac user for 25 years...yup, that's right...25 years. I have owned:

The 2nd generation Mac with 512K memory and the double sided 3.5 inch 800K floppy (astronomical amounts of memory in those days) - 1986
A Performa 630- COLOR..and so cool-about 1991
A Powerbook 100..with attached floppy...the great-grandfather of the MacBook Air...and that little rollerball was so cool-1991- This little gem got me through my first Master's degree
A Powerbook 165C My first color laptop.-1996
The color iMac-cheesy, but oh so functional-1998
The FIRST flatpanel iMac- my transition to OSX-2001
A white iBook- which survived my son's first year of college- more or less-2002
A 17" Macbook Pro- which I still have, love and am loath to replace- 2005- this was for my second Masters
13" Macbook Air- the wife's first laptop JUST for her...she loves it-2010
and.....my iPad (1 week ago) which is probably going to be come my 75% solution for most of my computing needs.
PLUS my iPhone..greatest phone ever.

So, there you have it, I have been with Apple through the good times, the bad times, and the insanely great times. Through it all, Steve Jobs did one thing...he turned technology from a geek toy, to a gadget, to an accessory, making data and information accessible to people in ways they couldn't even fathom.

I am happy to say I have never owned a PC, but since I have used one at work, I can definitely say, the Mac is indeed a better experience. Better technology? Not so much anymore, and in fact, in some aspects PCs are better. More software? No, but the internet is going to make the basic OS a commodity before too long..when you can buy OSX for less than $100, can Bill Gates keep selling Windows for $200-$300 forever? I don't think so.

But the Mac is indeed an experience, and I can positively say that in my 25 years of experience I have had 1, yes exactly 1 bad experience with a software upgrade for my Apple products-- a very bad time with my iPhone 3G and iOS 3.0....which just goes to show, you should never use the x.0 version of ANYTHING. But I have never had a problem installing software, printer drives, attaching new devices...it all just worked...the first time. And I have (knock on wood) NEVER had a computer virus...nope not in 25 years. NOT ONE...can any Windoze user say that? I don't think so....And that's why I kept coming back.

Was I thrilled with everything Apple and Steve Jobs did? Nope, I thought the colored iMacs and iBooks were a little silly, even though I bought one...and when Steve was forced out and Apple tried to make clones, I know that was gonna be a fiasco.

But overall, I smiled with satisfaction when Apple became, for a short time, the most valuable company on the planet this year. I remember in the early 1990s when they were going bust and we were all going to be doomed to Windoze slavery.

So rest well Steve Jobs...you have made technology usable to millions of techno-challenged people (like my spouse) who would NEVER have typed a command line or dealt with MS-DOS. Oh, and she loved buying iPods in red...chick-technology.

That's when you know the product and technology has arrived, when the color of the product is the most important issue, not whether the technology will work.

This is the first Mac model I owned...8Khz Processor, 512K RAM, 800K floppy and...wait for it....you could hook up a 20MB external hard drive....I still have it...in my attic and IT STILL WORKS...kinda cool the old days when a System, Finder, MacWrite and a few files fit on a single 800K floppy.

The iPad2...a combination e-reader, email machine, web browser...who know what.......64G of memory, touch screen which is really impressive...music, email, pictures, videos...25 years of Apple has come a long way

This Week In Military History

2011-09-19T22:00:00.001-04:00

Hmm, I was so busy watching Navy's OOHHHH so close loss to South Carolina, I completely forgot the significance of September 17. Now, for the usual Civil War historian in me, I usually mark Sept 17 as the date of the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest day in the Civil War.

But what I really should have remembered was that date as the beginning of the Battle of Arnhem in 1944.

This battle, the largest airborne drop and paratrooper battle in history, involving 3 Allied Airborne Divisions and 1 Independent Brigade was a fiasco from the start. I can only imagine what the New York Times today would say about it! Or some talking head on CNN......sigh. So many brave men sacrificed for a flawed plan, poor execution, and plain bad luck. In today's world, Monty might have been fired....which might not have been a bad thing...just sayin'

Of course, I wouldn't mention a battle without mentioning some of may favorite books.

The classic, of course is Cornelius Ryan's A Bridge Too Far, written in the early 1970s based on extensive interviews with the participants. Ryan's account has never really been equaled or surpassed, in my opinion, and was made into one of my all time favorite war movies, the last truly well done Hollywood block buster patriotic movie that EVERYONE in Hollywood had a part, before they became all pinko commie tree hugging liberals...I mean seriously, can you picture Robert Redford in a movie about the Battle of Fallujah???? I didn't think so.

Ryan's book was kind of a door stop, and didn't offer a lot of strategic and operational analysis, but did present the soldier's eye view that made his earlier works some of the best military history of all time.

Recently a new book has emerged that attempts to capture more of a sense of the battle as a campaign than Ryan's book, and it succeeds in that sense, but it was generally not as satisfying as Ryan's. Bennett presents a more complete picture and analysis of the battle, presenting what for me was the new information that the other two British Corps from British 2nd Army had a much bigger role in the battle alongside XXX Corps than Ryan captured in his book. And, since it is the first really new book on the battle in almost 30 years, it does deserve some attention.

There are several division histories that cover the battle, particularly new histories of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Division, and plenty of memoirs and "I was there" types of books. Some of them are quite good, but not really about just the Arnhem operation.

But the real prize, as far as recent scholarship for me, was this book. Kershaw looks at the battle entirely from the German perspective, a completely fresh take that really does a marvelous job of describing how the German Army in the West...routed and nearly destroyed during the retreat from France, comes very close to destroying the entire First Allied Airborne Army, and does effectively destroy the elite British 1st Airborne Division. An excellent bookend to Ryan's book, this one is highly recommended.

So we should always remember these gallant soldiers from the sky, particularly those British lads who fought tanks and half-tracks with rifles and machine-guns while valiantly holding the Arnhem bridge for nearly 9 days.

Rant for this week

2011-09-17T16:02:00.001-04:00

So, I love to have intense political discussions with my office mate, who is a self-described
"moderate" and can't understand conservative politics. Of course I tell him I define moderate as a liberal who's too wussy to say so, but I digress.

When we begin discussing the 2012 GOP field, he expresses his dismay that many of them have {gasp} strong opinions on topics, particularly conservative opinions. That got me thinking about how all the "pundits" and talking heads are saying the Bachmann is whacko or Perry is looney and it reminds me of 1980. The chatteratzi tried to portray Ronald Reagan as a whacko or loon or just crazy old coot that would get us in a nuclear war with the Rooosians.

But a strange thing happened...the economy tanked, Reagan turned out to be not so scary and he went on to win two elections in landslides. Could history repeat itself? Well that's a good question, and it really depends on if the GOP wants to have an honest conversation with Americans and not treat them as amiable dunces like the Obamazombies usually do.

Here's what I mean:
1. Does anyone honestly think Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are JUST FINE and don't need major overhaul? Now, I'm not talking about throwing Grandma off the cliff, although that's usually what the Demagugeocrats do, but seriously, does anyone think that Americans, including Grandma, will continue to get those monthly checks in another 10 years? NOT a chance. Rick Perry at least had the guts to call Social Security what it is A PONZI SCHEME. Only the most die hard New Deal Democrat actually believes there is a Social Security Trust Fund...cause brother, the Easter Bunny done made off with it had he and Santa Claus are livin' it up in Tijuana. Major changes need to be made...and they will be wildly unpopular and really piss people off...but the alternative is worse....means testing, tax increases, raises in the eligibility and retirement ages...all will need to happen, and they will likely piss off every constituent group.

2. Someone in the GOP needs to pledge that their first act in office will be to officially call for the repeal of Obamacare. This disaster is going to not only wreck our economy and vastly increase the welfare state, but it was bad legislation that was rammed down our throats. I would bet unemployment would drop 2 points just by removing this weight on businesses and government spending.

3. Secondly, the GOP needs to pledge to roll back everyone of Obama's job killing environmental regulations, especially the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Again, the envirowhackos will scream about dirty air and dirty water, but really, does anyone think that will happen? There are plenty of environmental regulations that do not have the taint of Obama politics and desire to destroy the oil and gas industry. Use the old Reagan tactic...:"Do you like paying $4 a gallon for gas when it was less than $2 when Obama took office? Why do you think gas prices have doubled when consumption hasn't?"

4. Finally, the GOP needs to hammer everyday from now to election day that GOVERNMENT does not create jobs or wealth. Every dollar the government spends is either taxed or created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. ONLY private sector jobs and a lot of them will reduce our deficit, end our housing crisis and restore American confidence, not STIMULUS, QUANTITATIVE EASING or GREEN JOBS (green being the color of taxpayer dollars). The entire edifice of Keynesian economics and the New Deal, along with the Great Society needs to be shown for what it is..a FAILURE who's time has come, as Ronald Reagan says to consign it to the trash heap of history.

So, that's my rant for the day....

More history later....

A Revolutionary Summer

2011-08-07T17:35:00.004-04:00

This seems to be Revolutionary War summer for my reading list. I have been reading two outstanding books, Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer and Independence by John Ferling. As always, I like to read history from a contemporary point of view, that is to consider the events as they unfolded to the participants, with all the attendant miscues, miscommunications and foibles that people continue to have.

Most importantly, I like to consider how great people (like our dead, white, male, slave-holding Founding Fathers) happened to think and how they made decisions based on the information they had and the societal conditions in which they lived, in this case colonial America in 1776.

This of course, always makes me think of what MIGHT have happened. As Ferling points out in his book (which I am still reading), not all of the colonists or signers of the Declaration of Independence initially wanted to break from Great Britain and King George III. In fact, as Ferling points out, if the British government or Parliament had made some different, less militant choices in dealing with the colonists, especially after the Boston Tea Party of 1773, there might have been a reconciliation between the colonies and mother country.

I have only started the Fischer book, but I can already see why he won the Pulitzer Prize in History for this volume. The survival of the Revolution through 1776 is a story that needs to be told to Americans more, especially high school and college students. I know that takes valuable time away from environmental indoctrination and learning about the important cultural contributions of Che Guevara, but nonetheless, I think it's important. There were several moments in 1776 where the British could have trapped and destroyed the Continental Army, especially in the fighting around New York City, and the escape of Washington's army from encirclement in Brooklyn really does seem providential at times.

SOO, should be a great and educational August. Colonial and Revolutionary history are two holes I have always wanted to fill in my resume, so these books will go a long way to helping achieve that goal.

Obama gets his credit card cut...maybe

2011-08-06T18:07:00.001-04:00

The fairly stunning swiftness with which the USA got our credit card smacked did not surprise someone as politically in tune as yours truly. The S&P bubbas said they wanted $4T in budget cuts, but NOOOOO, Obama and his minions didn't want to cut a damn thing...nothing, zip, zilch, nada and were only dragged kicking and screaming like the petulant children they are by those evil Tea Party jihadists and their terrorist leaders, the US taxpayers....yup, that's right you and me.

I know the really, really "SMART" people in Washington, Manhattan, and Los Angeles like to poo poo us stupid hicks in flyover country, but really...who didn't see this coming...besides the Obama Administration, of course.

IN THE REAL WORLD, when you are in the hole, and getting deeper in the hole, you first of all, STOP FREAKIN' DIGGING...then start figuring out how to get out of this mess.

Of course, SURPRISE, SURPRISE, the Dummycrats want to raise taxes.... I mean seriously, aren't the imminent death of those evil, evil "Bush Tax Cuts" in 2013 enough? How about the Billions and Billions of $$ in Obamacare taxes, fees, penalties, and general shakedowns that are coming?

HEY MORONS, get a clue, you could tax the ENTIRE US ECONOMY and not kill the debt. Of course, those evil corporate jets must goooooooo, but us poor oppressed taxpayers can pay for Obama's magical mystery tour.

Sadly, I believe the Armageddon is coming. I have predicted for a while now that you can forget race, gender, ethnicity and the ol' favorite of the Democratic Party- CLASS, (although most of them have no class)...the next big fight, which is gonna be ugly, ugly is the generational war that Obama is quickly sparking between the Social Security gang (ala Baby Boomers) and all their children and grandchildren. When little Joey is told his taxes are gonna double to keep Grandma getting her checks and medicine and he suddenly can't buy a house or send his kids to college...hmmmmm, how's that going to turn out???

Sadly, there are no easy, painless, silver bullets...cuts are coming, big cuts, painful cuts, cuz at some point politicians will fear younger voters instead of Grandma. Look for Death Panels and other means of capping medical costs, just like everyone of those evil Tea Partyers said...especially that ditz Sarah Palin, I mean, who would do such a thing?

Do you know who is the most restrictive nasty medical insurance provider---yup Uncle Sam....wait until Grandma gets told she can only see certain doctors, because guess what....Many of them are already refusing to take on new Medicare patients and it's only gonna get worse.

There are some radical ideas...some way out there, some not, but unless we want to turn into Wiemar Germany (yup, that worked out well for the world) or Zimbabwe, we need to acknowledge that Obama's policies are a failure and it's time to put an end to Keynesian economics.

At that's what this grouch ol' taxpayer thinks....

Read this book

2011-08-01T22:09:00.000-04:00

If you like monster movies, thrillers, shoot 'em ups, or simply pee standing up, BUY THIS BOOK! I have been a fan of the Monster Hunter series since my pastor (yes, that's right, my pastor, sci-fi geek that he is) handed me the first book and said I would enjoy it. I never read monster or fantasy books, but I have been addicted to this series ever since.

Larry Correia has now ascended into the ranks of personal favorites like Vince Flynn, Brad Thor, and yes, JD Robb where I must consume the book like a bag of peanut M&Ms as soon as it is released...and since it's a paperback, I don't have to endure my local library waiting list cuz I'm too cheap to pay $25 for a hardcover novel. (Yup, I said it) However, with Larry's stellar writing and very dedicated fan base--check out his Monster Hunter International website-- I expect his books will graduate to full-blown hard covers soon (darn it).

If you are familiar with the series, this book is ALL about Earl Harbinger, butt-kicker extraordinaire and overall grouchy old guy (hmmm, I knew there was a reason I liked him). It has some twists, many turns and is nearly impossible to put down, even for bacon.

The GOOD NEWS is that Mr. Correia has now become a publishing empire with two other series in print and at least four more Monster Hunter books on the way, at least that's what his website says.

Good news for the Monster Hunter Nation....

Timely and topical book

2011-07-12T21:14:00.044-04:00

I just completed Berlin 1961, a fascinating new book by Frederick Kempe on the crisis of 1961 in East Germany and the building of the Berlin Wall. I wasn't sure what to expect since this is one area of historical knowledge I am lacking. However, Kempe has done excellent research and pulls no punches in his critique of JFK and his first year in office from a foreign policy perspective. From his vacillation and dropping the ball on the Bay of Pigs invasion, when a few Navy planes may have saved America and the Western Hemisphere from 50 years of Cuban mischief, to his shellacking by Khrushchev at the Vienna summit of June 1961, Kempe does an excellent job placing the superpower rivalry over Berlin into the greater context of Cold War American foreign policy in the early 1960's.

The book is also a scathing indictment of Communism and the cynical ploy by the East German communist leadership to imprison their own people. The leaders in East Germany had a real concern that their "worker's paradise" was slipping away as people voted with their feet and fled to West Berlin and freedom in astounding numbers. JFK's weakness in not stopping the wall, when he might have had the active or tacit support of many East Germans in keeping the border crossing open, condemned not only East Germany, but Poland and the rest of the so-called Warsaw Pact countries to another 30 years of misery in the failed socialist experiment. More importantly, Kempe makes a compelling case that JFK's mishandling of the Berlin Crisis of 1961 led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Finally, Kempe paints an exceedingly unflattering portrait of JFK and the whole Camelot mystique peddled by liberals like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, JFKs pet historian . Kempe pretty much calls Kennedy a womanizing light-weight who abused doctor prescribed drugs to treat a number of maladies, in particular a chronic bad back that were never made public, and almost questions JFK's mental and emotional stability at the Vienna Summit. Not to be a revisionist historian (you know how much I hate those), but a more fair and balanced look at the Democratic Party deity of JFK and the "Best and the Brightest" shows a bunch of politicians that were really no better or worse than previous or succeeding Administrations, even before the whole Vietnam thing starts to enter the picture. I agree with Kempe that JFK often gets a pass from historians and the public not only for his "martyrdom" at the hands of an assassin, but his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Notwithstanding the implicit swap for withdrawing American missiles from Turkey that was not told to the general public for years after the crisis, recent scholarship has shown the Cuban Missile Crisis came much closer to disaster than previously understood.

Why is this book timely as well? Another neophyte President with minimal foreign policy experience is in the White House, and the missteps and blunders of this Administration are no less serious than the ones created by the great John F. Kennedy. Dealing with tyrants and dictators is no easy matter, to be sure, but this book certainly shows that trying to reason or negotiate with cynical strong men is not always a sure thing. To be sure, the Soviets were rational in their own way and wanted to avoid a war, having just lost 20 million people in World War II, but sadly, I am not so sure of the current leadership in Iran and other hot spots in the Middle East.

So, if you have a chance, read this book to understand the Cold War mentality and crisis facing the United States and our NATO allies in 1961 and why the Berlin Wall came to be one of the major symbols of Communist repression.

Did the Marines win at Guadalcanal on their own? I don't think so.

2011-06-08T22:38:00.009-04:00

I really, really like it when a book teaches me something I flat out didn't know. Neptune's Inferno, by James D. Hornfischer is such a book. I thought I knew quite a bit about the bloody six month struggle for Guadalcanal, certainly I know the mythology...the last stand of the Marines after the Navy left them on the beach...etc, etc.

This book lays to rest some of that mythology (not to take away the bravery of the Marines, I have too many jarhead friends) by the simple fact that more sailors died fighting over Guadalcanal than Marines..about 5,000 sailors versus about 1,500 Marines.

Hornfischer's book is an excellent amalgamation of Tom Clancy and Samuel Eliot Morrison. He does an excellent job of describing how the U.S. Navy took some serious beatings by the Imperial Japanese Navy, even though the U.S. had radar and the Japanese did not.

What's more interesting is that both navies were fighting with the escort ships, or what I call the little targets so to speak, cruisers and destroyers, because both sides had taken such a beating in the massive naval battles of summer 1942 and literally had no battleships or aircraft carriers they were willing to risk in the nasty knifefights that occurred in 'Ironbottom Sound' or 'the Slot', as the waters around Guadalcanal came to be called.

These nasty little knife fights are described in great detail, as well as the command decisions by both sides and their effect on the overall naval battle. Once the Americans mastered the new technology of radar, the odds evened up a little bit and the Japanese were driven off after huge sacrifices, but the Americans never truly developed a countermeasure to Japan's awesome Long Lance Torpedoes.

If you enjoy naval history or just want to learn something entirely new about America's first real offensive of World War II, then this book is highly recommended.

D-Day as it might have been

2011-06-06T21:44:00.000-04:00

There have been lots of blogs and Facebook pages about the 67th anniversary of D-Day, the monumental invasion of Normandy that led to Allied victory in Europe.
However, as always, I believe it is important to remember that there was NOTHING inevitable about the success of D-Day.

Prior amphibious operations were not overwhelming triumphs for the Allies. The invasion of Salerno, Italy in Sept 1943, had nearly ended with the German Army pushing the invasion force back into the Mediterranean. The invasion of Anzio just six months before had resulted in a stuck beachhead that was surrounded and besieged by the Germans and only relieved by the Allied offensive on Rome.

Peter Tsouras makes a very compelling case in his counter factual history Disaster at D-Day, that just a couple of small changes to schedules, weather, and unit locations could have made all the difference in the world, literally, in how World War II ended. The most compelling argument he makes is that one regiment, or even a panzer or panzergrenadier battalion located in a position to launch an immediate counterattack could have driven the Americans in Omaha Beach back into the Channel. The Allies then would have been left with two separated and isolated beachheads instead of a continuous front, making the German defensive problem much easier.

In fact, the German 21st Panzer Division did counterattack the British beachheads on the evening of the 6th, but the attacks were weak and uncoordinated and were defeated. A full-fledged attack by multiple Panzer Divisions may have been a different story.

A chance intelligence windfall convinces Hitler the Normandy invasion is the real thing and you have a very different campaign when the Wehrmacht rushes reinforcements to the beachheads, in effect winning the crucial 'build-up' after the invasion. The massive Channel storm of June 19th played a crucial role in the real-life Allied build-up and its effect could have been even worse if the Allied beachhead had been split. Combine this with ineffective British generalship by Monty and his subordinates versus a rejuvenated Rommel who does NOT leave the front to visit his wife right before the invasion and you have the 'disaster' that Tsouras so vividly describes.

So, thanks be to those soldiers and sailors that prevailed on Omaha Beach, it was probably more important that they made it up those bluffs than we can possibly imagine today.

This day in 1861

2011-04-11T22:04:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow, April 12, marks the beginning of the American Civil War, the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression, depending on your viewpoint or level of political correctness.

The National Park at Fort Sumter is having a pretty impressive program that, sadly, I will not be able to attend.

What's more interesting is the drama leading up to those first fatal shots. Both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis captured some of the drama of those days in their respective Inaugural Addresses.

Lincoln said:

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.....Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible...
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Jefferson Davis took a slightly different view:

An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued.

What's really interesting is that Fort Sumter was not the most likely place to begin the war. In fact, on April 11, when speaking to representatives of the Provisional Confederate forces surrounding the harbor, Major Robert Anderson, the U.S. Army garrison commander, had communicated that he would likely have to surrender the fort in 2 or 3 days for lack of provisions. But the Confederates, learning that Lincoln was sending a supply ship to the fort, decided that 2 or 3 days was too long to wait and opened fire.

There are, of course, those conspiracy theorists who think that Lincoln provoked the South to fire first, knowing that support for raising the armies that would be needed to subdue the rebellious states would be tough to come by without some provocation.

The evidence does not support this assertion since the the previous Buchanan Administration had also tried to send a supply ship in January 1861 which turned back when fired upon by other South Carolina militia forces.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to ponder what might have happened if the Confederates had again fired on the ship instead of the port, causing the fairly peaceable surrender of the garrison. Would the border states have still seceded? What would the various other state governors done when requested to provide militia troops, especially the Northwest states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio?

More than likely the war would have begun somewhere else, but would the North have been as united?

Interesting thought....

The Study and Use of History

2011-03-27T21:07:00.001-04:00

I came across this study the other day on the current state of teaching history at the secondary level in the U.S.

The State of State U.S. History Standards 2011

It is a fascinating account of how well U.S. history is being taught in high schools.

I don't know enough about the current standards So in Virginia, since we homeschooled, I know darn well my son got taught history from the Bill Bennett vice the Howard Zinn point of view.

Here are some excellent quotes and the Grouchy Historian's commentary:

Nonetheless, at the college level, American history requirements are an endangered species. While history courses are widely available, and in many cases quite popular, basic requirements — mandatory core surveys — are vanishing. Fewer and fewer universities require American history, or any history at all, as part of the undergraduate general-education curriculum.

So of course my question is, what the hell are they learning? I know they are teaching labor agitation and public disorder in Wisconsin, but seriously? What do they learn in college-beer bonging and Facebooking 101? No wonder these idiots voted for Obama......

Unfortunately, history education at the primary-secondary level is itself often on life support for many reasons, including that an alarming number of future history teachers pursue degrees in education, rather than majoring in history itself. Worse, most education schools make minimal efforts to fill the inevitable gaps in their content knowledge, preferring instead to focus on “learning theory” that encourages skills acquisitions — such as critical thinking — rather than knowledge acquisition.

W....T......F?????? How the hell does that work? I mean I've heard a lot about BS education degrees (no that is not short for bachelor of science either) but really? Sounds like my work is cut out for me when I start collecting that hearty retirement check from Northrop Grumman and become the grouchy history teacher.....how the hell can you have critical thinking skills with no knowledge or facts to critically think about....unless you are a professional member of the NEA.

The most pressing and common defect in state standards is the submersion of history in the vacuous, synthetic, and anti-historical “field” of social studies. In fact, “social studies” is more than a method of organizing content: It is an ideology that has steadily evolved and adapted since the early twentieth century. However, its central concept remains immovable: Positing trans-historical (and often ahistorical) interpretive “concepts” over historical facts and context, it splits the past into arbitrary and thematic “strands.” It exemplifies the self-defeating “how-to-think not what-to-learn” mentality, favoring jargon-laden thinking and learning skills over specific content.

Hallelujah Brother...I HATE this whole social studies bullcrap thing that was even pushed on me sooo many years ago. If you wanna study government, study government. If you want to take a geography course, then do so. Don't try to mash them all up. Now I will be the first to tell you that geography and history, especially military history go together like chocolate and peanut butter, beer and pizza..darn I'm hungry...but you can't have one without the other.

But social studies is annoying and useless...brought to you, no doubt by that same evil NEA that wants to teach you about environmentalism, socialism and the evil male patriarchy.

Finally, I did appreciate that the study showed the effects of ideological biases from BOTH the right and the LEFT. I would personally say that most secondary school texts I have seen tend to be more lefty, but perhaps the awareness raised by the recent kerfuffle in Texas (more on that in another blog post) has raised awareness that, gosh darn it, there actually is a lefty slant to teaching out kids about Caeser Chazez, Martin Luther King, and Barrack Obama, while minimizing George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan....gee, ya think?

The Federalist Papers-OH So Topical

2011-03-25T19:55:00.000-04:00

WOW, absolutely magnificent reading in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers this week. Our Founders, old white guys that they were, nonetheless had a keen understanding of the eternal nature of governments, government spending, and the need or desire for a large standing military.

Here is a prescient quote from the Anti-Federalist #8:

The power to borrow money is general and unlimited, and the clause so often before referred to, authorises the passing any laws proper and necessary to carry this into execution. Under this authority, the Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon, and it is probably, in this way, they may borrow of foreign nations, a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. — By this means, they may create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befall this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge.

DANG, who does that sound like? The current Administration and previous Congress loved to denigrate that pesky Constitution, but clearly our Founders knew a little something about the government trough and the dangers of being in debt to Foreign governments.

What's more interesting is the overall knowledge base of our Founders. Even more than politics, literature, and philosophy, they had a pretty darn good understanding of military history and the state of military science at the time. From Federalist Paper #8:

The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader.......The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

And of course, the writer finished off with a pretty good assessment of American Security Strategy for the next 100 years or so:

If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other.

So, what does this all mean? Should we just come home, build our wall and forget the rest of the world and its problems? Unfortunately, that just isn't possible. BUT what is possible is being able to engage the world in a stronger position, by being less dependent on what goes on in unstable and hostile regions of the world. Let's face it, if Saudi Arabia and Libya didn't have oil or if we were energy independent would we give a rat's ass about what's going on there? No, we would not. If we didn't owe China billions, would we be putting up with their counterfeiting American products and their unfair trade practices? NO

So what would our Founding Fathers think of our current financial and foreign policy dilemmas?

Not much, I suspect........

Amatuer Hour in the Middle East

2011-03-23T20:48:00.002-04:00

“Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war.” Karl Von Clausewitz

This pretty much sums up the buffoonery of Obama's Libya War. I mean I'm no neo-con, although I did support the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, but this is just nuts.

Say what you will about the Bush-Cheney Administration, and the lefty loons said plenty, they were FREAKIN' GROWNUPS who approached war and the commitment of the American military to combat as a serious life-or-death matter. I mean really--can you see Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld giving two cents about the freakin NCAA brackets in March 2003? No, me either.

I don't disagree with the need to get rid of Mommar and his nutjob regime, but are we getting a better one? And what does it say about this country and our leadership when we can't even hold our alliance together one week into the fighting? And for goodness sake, who thinks putting the French in charge is a good idea? Granted I like Sarko and he certainly has been more Clemenceau than Clouseau about this than Obama, but really? When was the last war the French won?

So what are we to do? Well, here are my predictions:

Hillary is toast. This is going to be a fiasco no matter how it turns out, and as usual, someone must crawl under the bus, and it ain't gonna be Obama or Biden. I don't think Hillary will last the year. This could prove very dangerous for Obama politically, as I don't think she is done gunning for the White House and could be an "anybody but Obama" alternative for the Dems in 2012.
The lefty loons who supported Obama, hated Bush, and are now snarling at Obama will probably still support him, but he will have to really, really suck up to the unions, enviro-whackos, gays and whoever else is left on the FARRRRR left of the Democratic party to have a hope of winning in 2012. The wishy-washy undecideds will abandon him on the economy unless unemployment goes wayyyy down and the center-right is just itching for the right candidate to replace him.
If the idiots in Gaza and such continue to piss off Israel, Bibi is gonna take this time and blow them away. Maybe the Arab street will rise, up, but with Syria in turmoil, Egypt trying to settle and the Gulf States looking at Iran, Hamas will have no one to help them and even Hezbollah is probably looking over their shoulder.So let's hope that Ghaddafy, Khadaffy or whatever goes quickly, otherwise Obama is gonna make the U.S., NATO, the UN and most of the civilized world look like incompetent nincompoops.

Here's another little quote from my friend Clausewitz:

"The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking."

Brain Candy Books

2011-03-22T20:42:00.000-04:00

Took some time off now that I am done with the M.A. to catch up on some fiction.

I started with one of my favorite authors, JD Robb and the new In Death Book

I have read all of these books and they are all good, but, of course some of them are better than others. THIS is one of the better ones, since I have to say the last couple have been sort of formulaic. Of course the entire series is a massive formula, but it works, even through 25+ books.

Treachery in Death was literally impossible to put down and I really, really wanted Eve Dallas to open up a big can of whupp ass by the end. Not a ton of secondary or primary character development, unlike some of the other books, but plenty of action. Even though you know Eve is gonna win, you still want to follow all the details. If you haven't started this series, you should. If you have been a fan, pick up this book.

Brad Meltzer's new book is the first one of his novels I have read, since I have seen so many good reviews. I was expecting a serious historical mystery, but it definitely was not a traditional historical mystery like, say Da Vinci Code. I have to say that overall, I thought it was okay, but not great. I was a little surprised by the end and the plot definitely kept moving along, but I think jumping into the middle of his books caused me to miss some plot build-up. I will give him another look with some of his earlier works, since it appears his novels do peripherally build upon each other.

The Federalist Papers---picking the torch back up

2011-03-09T08:00:00.000-05:00

In Federalist Paper #7, Alexander Hamilton continues his discussion about the need for a strong Union to avoid potential territorial and/or commercial disputes between the states in they continued to operate under the Articles of Confederation. In fact, the Commerce Clause, before it was abused by liberals and progressives to pass all manners of mischief up to and including ObamaCare was probably one of the singular achievements of the Constitution by unifying commercial activity and preventing potential dangerous interstate tariffs. However, another interesting sentence comes to mind:

“The public debt of the Union would be a further cause of collision between the separate States or confederacies. The apportionment, in the first instance, and the progressive extinguishment afterward, would be alike productive of ill-humor and animosity. How would it be possible to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? There is scarcely any that can be proposed which is entirely free from real objections. These, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse interest of the parties……. Delinquencies, from whatever causes, would be productive of complaints, recriminations, and quarrels. There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquility of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money.”

WOW, does that sorta ring true today, or what? Why should the rest of the taxpayers bail out California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey or any of those other states that have made poor decisions and lived on the supposed never ending gravy train? But, here it comes, expect more bailouts from Obama and Nancy before the election to try and keep public employees and BLUE states afloat….

Interestingly, Anti-Federalist #7 also address the issue of public debt and taxation, although it approaches the problem from a different point of view, arguing for the distribution of taxes between the states and Federal government and the use of an import tax as the primary means of Federal government funding…hmmm, if only that were true now:

“The result of our reasoning in the two preceding numbers is this, that in a confederated government, where the powers are divided between the general and the state government, it is essential to its existence, that the revenues of the country, without which no government can exist, should be divided between them, and so apportioned to each, as to answer their respective exigencies, as far as human wisdom can effect such a division and apportionment….There is one source of revenue, which it is agreed, the general government ought to have the sole control of. This is an impost upon all goods imported from foreign countries. This would, of itself, be very productive, and would be collected with ease and certainty. — It will be a fund too, constantly increasing — for our commerce will grow, with the productions of the country; and these, together with our consumption of foreign goods, will increase with our population.”

Although issues of taxation are certainly dry and seemingly boring, they are, nonetheless, crucial to the economic health of the country, as we certainly know today…if only our current government carefully considered the implications of their tax (and spend) policies on the country….

Great Blogs I Found

2011-03-07T23:25:00.000-05:00

Two really fantastic new blogs I found this weekend.

First, The Long Recall is a blog that traces Civil War history in real time- presented as a blog, with links and everything! Very cool concept and way to bring Civil War history to life.

A companion blog, Via Meadia covers topics ranging from politics to history in a conservative way, of course.

Both will become part of my daily reading.

I came to a fork in the road and nuked the crap out of the intersection

2011-03-05T16:02:00.000-05:00

So, as the Grouchy Historian, I applied for the Doctoral Program in History at George Mason University, my local university. Being a fairly self-confident individual, as my significant other will point out, I assumed that with 2 master's degrees, a B.S. from the Naval Academy and significant life experience, I would be a shoo-in for the old, professional white guy quota. Hmmm, not so much. I received the very lovely, impersonal form letter saying "Thanks for playing" this week.

NOW, I will say this was a huge disappointment, but not a shock. WHY, you ask, given the abundance of self-confidence? Well, here's the story. Now, to be fair, there could be other factors, but all in all, I can't help wonder about a bias toward on-line institutions. I actually went to discuss my situation with a professor, who shall remain nameless, at GMU. After introducing myself, and describing my background, I mentioned that I was finishing up an MA at American Military University, a major online school that is regionally and nationally accredited. WELL, my goodness, you would think I told the man I had syphilis-- he stiffened right up (no pun intended), or should I say sniffened right up and began to look down his nose at me. He hemmed and hawed, as my momma would say, and then generally dismissed my with a "good luck!" without adding the "you old coot from an insignificant university with no tenured professors and nationally recognized basketball team."

Now, I could have been THE Grouchy Historian and informed the little snot that I have been reading and studying military history since before he was born and have read, analyzed and dissected ALL of the books I observed on his bookshelf, most of which I also OWN-(yes I examine these things), but I held my tongue, being the great people person that I am.

However, now that I don't have to worry about diplomacy, not that anyone at GMU will ever read my blog, here is what really frosts my cookies. Here is an email I received, from what is no doubt another young, snot nosed professor at GMU, when I asked about their PhD program and discussed my interests and background:

My research interests are war and American society, particularly the Vietnam War, but from social and cultural perspectives. The other problem I see with your application to our doctoral program is that your Master's Degree is from an online, for-profit institution that does not, in general, provide the academic rigor we would expect of a graduate program. My best guess is that our PhD Admissions Committee would refer you to our Master's program, but that is ultimately their decision to make.

Ok, let me put this as politely as I can- BITE ME LADY. I mean seriously, does this lady study dope smoking hippies and draft dodgers from Vietnam, REALLY??

Whatever, this disdain from this woman is nearly ridiculous. Last time I heard GMU sure as hell wasn't LOSING money, so what does that make them? OH, and don't most major universities now offer some of their classes on-line--what the hell does that mean?

So, being one seriously pissed off dude, I decided to do a little research. Here's what GMU's website has to say about their accreditation:

George Mason University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees.

And here's what AMU's website says:

American Public University System is one of the few higher learning organizations that is both regionally and nationally accredited by federally recognized accrediting agencies. Regional Accreditation: Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association

SO, I put 2 + 2 together and got.

WHAT DOES REGIONAL ACCREDITATION MEAN? [See WAC 180-78A-010] Regionally accredited institution of higher education means a community college, college, or university which is a candidate for accreditation or is accredited by one of the following regional accrediting bodies:
    •    Middle States, Association of Colleges and Schools
    •    New England Association of Schools and Colleges
    •    North Central Association of Colleges and Schools---AMU
    •    Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
    •    Southern Association of Colleges and Schools---GMU
    •    Western Association of Schools and Colleges; Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Therefore, either GMU is the same as AMU or not? SO, how do these little twerps get off looking down their noses at me? Ever stood a mid-watch or watched your friends die for their country? OYYYY, I really wanted to write a little pithy email, but have decided they aren't worth my time.

I will say that I thought AMU had an excellent program in Military Studies, which I felt was directly applicable to my job as an intelligence and military analyst, one of the reasons I applied for the program. In addition, I had some really outstanding instructors who are NATIONALLY known and published authors in the fields of history and military science, including one of my old professors from Canoe U who is a retired Navy Captain, hardly a "diploma mill." I worked my butt off for three years getting this degree while working full time, taking care of a family and generally contributing to society.

To be perfectly snarky, I have not read ONE book by a GMU history professor, and since I don't care about dope smoking hippies, I probably won't, either.

Well, that's my rant. Now I shall go my own way. I like the way one author of a book I am reading describes himself- an "independent scholar". Until I find a PhD program that is -oooh- dare I say "progressive" enough to recognize that the days of the brick and mortar education monopoly are over, well, I guess I will become one too......

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our Freedom"

The eternal nature of war

2011-02-09T10:40:00.000-05:00

Massive battles, biological warfare, ethnic cleansing, barbarism, ill-fated military expeditions......current headlines? The story of the U.S. military in Iraq, NOPE....the story of the Peloponnesian Wars.

Victor Davis Hanson's book, A War Like No Other, offers a different perspective on this great cataclysm of the ancient world. The thirty year war between Athens and Sparta continues to offer lessons to modern civilization and is often quoted or mis-quoted to push a particular agenda or point of view. Hanson breaks the war up into thematic vice chronological discussion topics, although he does provide an excellent overview for the neophyte to follow along. The eternal themes of statecraft, strategy, politics and leadership are well displayed in this war, which was immortalized by Thucydides in his masterwork, which is still studied by strategy classes. (Sadly, I had to encounter this book several times in my studies, not a book for the faint of heart)

Hanson's interpretation is excellent and he does a fairly good job of trying to use contemporary examples to show the timeless themes of this great conflict. Although not perhaps for the casual reader, the book is an excellent introduction or companion to Thucydides or any of the other modern histories of this war.

2011-02-07T11:16:00.000-05:00

Sadly, we lost another member of the Greatest Generation this year, and the remaining World War II vets are dying at a rapid rate. This memoir by Dick Winters, immortalized in Band of Brothers (one of my favorite DVDs EVER) is good, but not great. He does an excellent job of describing the training and formation of Easy Company and how the men bonded together to survive their first commanding officer, Capt. Sobbell. His descriptions of his battle experiences are overwhelmingly modest, but bring to mind the vivid images of the DVD series, especially their actions on D-Day in destroying the German battery at Brecourt, where Winters earned the DSC. Unfortunately, the narrative falls off when Winters leaves Easy Company to a battalion staff position and never really keeps pace with the first part of the book.

None of this, of course, takes away from the bravery and service of these men. I don't read a lot of memoirs, but I'm glad I read this one...it is an easy quick read and I would recommend getting it from your local library.

Founding Fathers were no dummies and no milquetoasts

2011-02-05T11:02:00.000-05:00

This is a surprisingly good little novel about our Founding Fathers and the sausage making process that gave America its Constitution. The author does an excellent job of portraying the near mythical figures of George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and others as mortals that not only had loft goals for their new republic, but the political acumen to make them happen. Too many Americans think that shady deals, political arm twisting and backroom backstabbing are recent inventions of our political system. This book answers that question by showing our Founders were no slouches to these tactics to get done what needed to be done, they were just more subtle and gentlemanly about politics. Their wit, knowledge, learning and charm allowed them to end speeches with a silent "and the horse you rode in on." without erupting into fistfights or duels, although sometimes just barely. The influence of slavery and the genuine anguish it caused the framers are also depicted with gritty realism, but no preachiness.

Although a rudimentary knowledge of the Constitutional Convention will make this book better for the average reader, I still found it fascinating page turner even with my rudimentary knowledge of the Constitutional Convention..

Excellent Biography of Abraham Lincoln

2011-01-17T21:13:00.000-05:00

As the United States moves into the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, I thought I should learn about our 16th President and one of our best commanders-in-chief. Ronald White's recent biography of Abraham Lincoln, one of several volumes published to coincide with the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth is a truly outstanding book. I normally don't read a lot of biographies, but this book made me glad I did. White tells the story of Lincoln in great, but not plodding detail and he really does a marvelous job of letting Lincoln tell his own story through his writings speeches. This is probably the biggest strength of the book, as White steps the reader through the development of some of Lincoln's best known works- his first and second Inaugural Addresses, his second Address to Congress, and of course, the Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation.
White also does an excellent job of showcasing Lincoln's skills as a politician and executive, particularly his management of his occasionally contentious Cabinet members and his prickly generals of the Army of the Potomac.

In short, this is what biography should be, a well put together volume that lets the subject do most of the talking...I highly recommend it.

Asymmetric Warfare-A Timeless Classic

2010-12-22T08:00:00.000-05:00

Asymmetric warfare, although certainly the current rage among strategic thinkers, is not really a new concept in warfare. The basic definition of asymmetry-‘having two sides or halves that are not the same: not symmetrical’ really applies to warfare from antiquity. Generals have always sought an advantage during warfare, whether at the strategic or tactical level, and the current discussion of asymmetric warfare is really only a discussion of means, not ends in warfare. The great philosophers would have quite a bit to say about “asymmetric warfare.” Sun Tzu in particular was a great proponent of using psychological warfare, intelligence, maneuver and deception to bring about military victory. Clausewitz would probably have labeled asymmetric warfare to be ‘warfare by another means’ and would likely to have put a different spin on it, but basically agreed with Sun Tzu on the advantages in waging this type of combat.

Sun Tzu provides a great deal of discussion on asymmetrical warfare, in particular methods by which a weaker army can successfully attack a stronger foe. Because warfare was such a constant condition in his time, Sun Tzu placed a great deal of emphasis in his strategic writing on preparing for war and ensuring as many advantages as possible before combat begins. [1] His overall philosophy, which can be seen in current U.S. strategic thinking and doctrine, is to defeat the opponent with the minimum actual combat necessary, both to ensure a speedy conclusion to the war and to ensure the minimum casualties to your own forces. Sun Tzu had some keen early insights on both the psychological aspects of warfare, in particular a prescient understanding that it was far better to defeat the enemy leadership, both political and military, rather than have to fight a costly battle with the enemy army. [2] In fact, in a hierarchy of Sun Tzu’s strategic targets for a commander to attack, the enemy army is far down the list after attacking his plans and disrupting his alliances. Sun Tzu actually noted that the most successful general has, in fact, won the war before a shot is even fired. [3]

Clausewitz is actually very prophetic in his chapter on insurgencies and revolts to the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and shows an excellent grasp of not only the tactical and operational limits of guerilla forces and how to employ them, but his five conditions of a successful uprising show a profound grasp of the political and social nature of an insurgency and closely mirror the situation currently facing American forces. [4]

One of the reasons asymmetric warfare has become more common and more difficult to deal with is that military technology previously reserved for nation-states is now widely available. In addition, the explosion of the internet, communications technology and global media have allowed groups like Al Qaeda to recruit, move money and perform other logistical operations that previously required large and well established organizations.

Similar to the issues the American military has with ‘unconventional warfare’, the U.S. has not dealt well with asymmetrical warfare, particularly in those areas where American forces are in direct combat, Iraq and Afghanistan. Operationally, American forces have clearly attempted to move from a Clausewitz model of fighting a massive campaign of firepower and attrition to a more Sun Tzu model based on deception, maneuver, subterfuge and co-opting our enemies. In the initial phases of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces were able to quickly achieve their initial goals of toppling both hostile regimes, and in the case of Afghanistan, scattering the Al Qaeda forces in the country. However, American strategy has not completely followed Clausewitz’s first maxim on strategy to understand the nature of the war being fought and comprehending that each war has unique attributes that separate it from other conflicts. Beyond the conventional phase of each campaign, the U.S. and our allies have not been as successful at achieving successful termination of the conflict. The U.S. did not really understand the culture in either country, or the Islamic world in general, and the failure to quickly and effectively initiate post-conflict political efforts helped exacerbate insurgences in both countries. The U.S. has also not clearly understood our opponent and what motivates them and has done a poor job in many cases of differentiating between political and religious enemies, undercutting our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to a considerable degree. The greatest challenge American strategy has faced from 2001-2009 has been the need to successfully tie military prowess with political purpose.

Because of the radically changed global environment and the political nature of terrorism and insurgency, this will continue to be a challenge for American strategy. The U.S. and other Western powers have not learned that to the asymmetric warrior, YouTube and CNN are weapons just as much as an AK-47 or an RPG-7. [5]

As the U.S. begins to shift resources and attention from Iraq to Afghanistan and also begins it next strategic assessment, a return to a more balanced look at potential threats and challenges will likely require another look at ends, ways and means. Although the threat of transnational terrorism and continued combat in Afghanistan will be a primary focus of attention in the near-term, threats of a more conventional nature that have been less emphasized over the last eight years will likely return to prominence. Even conventional adversaries like China have embraced the notion of asymmetric warfare in their doctrine—using cyber, space and types of psychological warfare to paralyze American decision makers and blunt areas of American technological superiority. [6]

The U.S. military is still coming to grips with the issues of “generational” versus “asymmetric” warfare and has only begun to understand the “hybrid” wars that it is likely to face in the 21st century. As information technology and sophisticated weaponry become more ubiquitous, the technology advantage that Western armies have long enjoyed over potential adversaries will continue to dissolve. Once again, issues of training, moral, willpower and even simple numbers will become decisive factors on the battlefield. The issues of generational warfare involving weapons and tactics and conventional versus asymmetrical warfare must merge into developing a doctrine to wage some combination of conventional, information, and psychological hybrid warfare to attack not only an opponent’s military but their entire society and will as the U.S. military seeks some weakness of our opponent, whether that opponent is a Hezbollah fighter or a Chinese tank commander. [7]

[1] Ralph D. Sawyer, trans., The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, trans. Ralph D. Sawyer (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1993), 184-186.
[2] Chester Richards, "A Swift, Elusive Sword: What if Sun Tzu and John Boyd Did A National Defense Review?," Center for Defense Information (Washington, DC, 2003), 17-20.
[3] Michael I Handel, Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought, 3rd (New York, NY: Frank Cass Publishers, 2001), 61.
[4] Carl Von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 479-483.
[5] Daniel Marston, "Lessons in 21st Century Counterinsurgency: Afghanistan 2001-2007," in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, 220-240 (New York, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2008); Carter Malkasian, "Counterinsurgency in Iraq: May 2003-January 2007," in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare, 241-259 (New York, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2008).
[6] Michael Mazarr, "The Folly of 'Asymmetric War'," The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2008: 33-53.
[7] Charles Dunlap, "21st-Century Land Warfare: Four Dangerous Myths," Parameters (U.S. Army War College), Autumn 1997: 27-37.

A Different Kind of War? Part II

2010-12-21T08:00:00.000-05:00

Strategically, hybrid warfare exhibits the ultimate Clausewitzian trait of warfare as an instrument of policy and not merely an end to itself. The very nature of the military mismatch between the opponents in a hybrid style of war means that the weaker side cannot achieve a strictly military victory and will aim for a political victory by attacking either their opponent’s will to resist, or, in this era of multi-national institutions and global information, defeating their opponent in the realm of public and international opinion. This is the biggest challenge for the U.S. and other hi-tech conventional militaries. The U.S. military and security establishment likes to interpret warfare and combat as a series of discreet events, which is no longer possible or realistic. [5]

This will present a very severe challenge to large, mechanized, firepower-centric Western militaries. In most conflicts likely to be faced by the United States, Israel, or other democratic societies, there will be extreme limits at the strategic, operational, and tactical level on the amount of violence and weapons available to military forces. Warfare of annihilation, where one side completely destroys their opponent’s army and occupies their territory essentially ended in 1945. Even the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not see the U.S. completely destroy the Iraqi army and government, one of the major psychological and military reasons the subsequent insurgency was able to take root. Future combat, or at least periods of intense fighting, will be severely shortened in hybrid wars as the weaker side will likely appeal to sympathetic media outlets and international organizations to end the complete destruction of their forces at the hand of their better equipped foes by decrying collateral damage and civilian casualties. These media organizations, international bodies and even non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will practically become co-belligerents on the battlefield, wielding disproportionate influence on the operational and political outcome of the battle. [6]

Operationally, hybrid warfare will present two significant challenges to conventional militaries. First, the weaker side does not need to achieve any major battlefield victories to achieve their political goals. As the 2006 Lebanon War shows, merely being able to fight and survive against the superior military allows the hybrid warrior to claim some measure of ‘victory’ even after suffering significant casualties. [7]

Second, the weaker power is likely to operate in a loose network of fighters that will not present a significant target for conventional firepower. Moreover, the growing urbanization of many Third-world countries, combined with the deliberate decision to wage war in densely populated areas will make the operational and tactical problems more difficult for Western militaries. The USMC is already grappling with this issue in their discussion of a ‘three-block war,’ where Western military forces may be conducting assistance, security, and combat operations in close proximity and nearly simultaneously. Hybrid warriors will not be faced with his problem and will be singularly focused on inflicting casualties on their enemies. [8]

The U.S. experienced a version of hybrid warfare in the Fallujah campaign of 2004. When U.S. Marines conducted a hasty and underprepared attack into the city in April 2004 in response to the killing of American security contractors by Sunni insurgents, they were halted not by military resistance from the insurgents, but by Iraqi political pressure and an international outcry against the alleged overuse of American firepower and the infliction of collateral damage and civilian casualties. Their ability to manipulate the “strategic narrative” kept the entire might of the U.S. military at bay for nearly nine months. When the U.S. finally conducted an all-out assault and capture of the city in November 2004, careful political and information operations preparations were conducted as an integral part of the overall military operation and the Sunni insurgents dug into the city were largely defeated. Control of the city passed to U.S. and Iraqi authorities in time to proceed with the 2005 Iraqi elections. [9]

COIN and CT operations are time consuming, messy and often do not present a clear military victory. They are often waged as small unit actions without any of the major battles at which the U.S. military excels. However, they are likely to be the major mode of combat faced by the U.S. and our allies for the foreseeable future and must be understood as warfare as deadly and earnest whether waged on the battlefield, internet or village markets.

[5] David Johnson, "Military Capabilities for Hybrid War," Rand Corporation, 2010, www.rand.org (accessed May 2010), 1.
[6] Hoffman, 55-59.
[7] Stephen Biddle and Jeffrey Friedman, The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy (Ft. Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, 2008), 1-9.
[8] Maj Philip Boggs, Joint Task Force Commanders and the "Three Block War": Setting the Conditions for Tactical Success, Monograph, School for Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (Ft Leavenworth: U.S. Army War College, 2000).
[9] Bing West, No True Glory (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 2005), 89-94, 119-123, 257-263, 317-32

A Different Kind of War? Part I

2010-12-18T08:00:00.000-05:00

The U.S. military is just another in the long history of conventional militaries struggling to understand and deal with guerrilla or irregular warfare. Traditionally, the U.S. military has fought large scale, conventional conflicts against an enemy in uniform that fought in a manner similar to U.S. forces. With the exception of the Indian Wars of the 19th century, the U.S. military had little experience fighting guerilla wars until Vietnam and avoided them after 1975 until the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, not only has irregular warfare become prevalent again, it is morphing into a new form of warfare that combines conventional and irregular warfare into an even more challenging mode of combat called “hybrid warfare.”

One of the principle reasons the U.S. continues to face a challenge in fighting guerrilla, irregular or terrorist forces is that counter-insurgency (COIN) or counter-terrorism operations are about more than traditional kinetic combat- finding, fixing, and using firepower to destroy enemy forces. COIN operations are also about diplomacy, intelligence, propaganda or information operations and even economics and infrastructure building, all of which usually fall into military purview as the only force able to conduct complex operations while maintaining the ability to wage combat. [1]

Warfare in the 21st century will continue this divergence from traditional conventional combat waged by large mechanized forces of tanks, artillery, and infantry. Recent experiences by the ground forces of Israel and the United States illustrate how new adversaries are developing innovations in tactics and strategy to negate traditional Western conventional military superiority. This has presented a severe challenge to the U.S. and our allies as these traditional notions of conventional, irregular, guerilla, terrorism and criminal activity continue to merge in the primordial soup of failed states in the Third World.

This new type of warfare, labeled “hybrid warfare” by some analysts and defense pundits has created a great deal of uncertainty on the role of conventional military forces and the operational level of war. Since the September 11 attacks, and particularly after the invasion and insurgency in Iraq, the concepts of asymmetric, compound and hybrid warfare have been confused and comingled. The best definition of hybrid warfare combines elements of all of these modes of combat and expands the political use of violence beyond traditional military methods: “Hybrid Wars incorporate a range of different modes of warfare including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts, including indiscriminate violence and coercion and criminal disorder.” [2]

Hybrid warfare is often confused with “Fourth-generation” warfare (4GW) which is primarily an insurgency/terrorism mode of war that evolved from the communist guerilla strategy and tactics of Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh. 4GW fighters have built upon these concepts of guerilla conflict to incorporate new technologies such as the internet and global media. Hybrid warfare incorporates many of these 4GW tools into a larger construct that includes more conventionally trained and equipped forces and even a functioning legitimate political organization to tie all of these elements of political violence into a coherent and simultaneous strategic and operational plan. [3]

Even the attempt to differentiate warfare by technology using the construct of generational warfare is becoming meaningless against well-executed asymmetric warfare. Suicide car bombs can be just as effective as tanks and artillery at destroying a building. More importantly, future insurgent and non-state groups will have no compunction about using non-combatants as defenses against Western militaries reluctant to use massive firepower in the face of unbalanced media coverage. For better or worse, Western militaries are held to tighter rules of engagement, which their opponents either blithely ignore or actively circumvent to attack the will of Western societies. The fact that asymmetric opponents are willing to wage unlimited, no-quarter warfare has not been completely understood by Western militaries and is really incomprehensible to modern Western society. Moreover, asymmetric warfare will also bring asymmetric measures of victory, usually to the advantage of the weaker side. Just as powers that wage counter-insurgencies are considered to be losing if they are not winning, in the future, non-state actors and terrorist groups waging asymmetric warfare can “win” a war by simply not being completely annihilated by their opponent while providing propaganda videos to the internet. [4]

[1] David Kilcullen, Counterinsurgency (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1-13.
[2] Frank Hoffman, Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars (Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 2007), 29.
[3] Thomas Hammes, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century (St Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2004), 207-223.
[4] Robert Cassidy, "Why Great Powers Fight Small Wars Badly," Military Review, Sept-Oct 2000: 41-55.

Time for a new Army Air Force

2010-12-16T08:00:00.000-05:00

Airpower has played a key role in warfare since its development in the 20th Century, evolving into an indispensible component of American military prowess. However, airpower advocates have long been overly enthusiastic about the revolutionary aspect of airpower to affect the course of warfare and the rightful place of aircraft into the overall battlefield construct. The controversy between airpower as a strategic or tactical weapon systems has recently become even more entangled as highly sophisticated and accurate sensors and weapons delivery systems allow airplanes to fulfill capabilities envisioned by advocates like Douhet and Mitchell. Like naval forces, the role of air forces in America’s current conflicts involving primarily ground force intensive counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations have created a continuing debate about what our future Air Force should be in terms of force structure and missions. This debate will likely continue as Iraq and Afghanistan wind down and critical decisions must be made about expensive platforms, the role of manned and unmanned aircraft and how the Air Force fits into America’s overall defense way forward. Recent technological developments as well as changing mores of warfare combine to bring into question the very utility of a separate Air Force.

In the aftermath of World War I, militaries throughout the world sought methods to overcome the power of defensive trenches and machine guns and restore offense maneuver to warfare. Air forces seemed to offer a revolutionary weapon that could replace traditional armies and navies by taking the war directly to a country’s industry and population. Giulio Douhet, in his treatise The Command of the Air advocated a strong, independent air force composed of what today would be termed strategic bombers to quickly reduce the opponent’s cities to rubble “The complete destruction of the objective has moral and material effects, the repercussions of which may be tremendous…we need only envision what would go on among the civilian population of congested cities once the enemy announced that we would bomb such centers relentlessly, making no distinction between military and non-military objectives.” [1] Douhet and other strategic bombing disciples made no distinction between civilian and military targets as most military men understood that industry and economic output was crucial to modern war making. [2]

The majority of air power thinkers between the world wars emphasized strategic bombing and were loath to consider the role of providing close air support (CAS) to ground units or what today would be termed interdiction air strikes-preventing supplies and reinforcements from reaching the battlefield. Most airpower enthusiasts were very static in their thinking about technology and did not consider the inevitable development of aircraft carriers, anti-aircraft guns, radar, and even the proximity fuse as all militaries not only prepared to use their air forces offensively, but to defend against air attack. It would be inevitable that networks of pursuit planes, spotters and centralized command and control tied together by radio would be developed by every country. The fact that Douhet did not consider this shows how parochial his views were on air power. [3]

Ironically, World War II showed the essential enabling role of aircraft on the battlefield supporting ground troops while highlighting the limitations of strategic bombing. Although Douhet was correct in his thesis of the importance of gaining air superiority over an enemy, the technical limitations on payload, ranges and accuracy of even the best bombers of the day made daylight strategic bombing questionable, particularly given the serious losses inflicted on German bomber fleets over Britain in 1940 and the Allied bomber force over Germany in 1943-1944. The only truly indisputable contribution of the U.S. 8th Air Force in World War II was to draw the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition that ground it down prior to the D-Day invasion. [4]

Although the USAF became an independent service after World War II, the role of airpower in warfare has continued to evolve in unexpected directions. The advent of nuclear weapons was the ultimate enabler of Douhet’s theories and the case can be made the atom bomb prevented a costly and terrible invasion of Japan. However, the shear destructiveness of nuclear weapons brought renewed thinking on the morality of bombing civilian populations after World War II. [5]

Today, the continued utility of an independent Air Force is questionable. Although air power continues to be an important component of military power, there will never be another strategic bombing campaign like World War II. Even though aircraft, sensors, and weapons have achieved capabilities only dreamed of by Douhet and his American counterpart Billy Mitchell, general revulsion of indiscriminate area bombing has produced very restrictive rules of engagement and targeting criteria. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Lebanon in 2006 also show the limitations of airpower in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism missions where our enemies deliberately hide among civilian populations to avoid air strikes. In addition, the over reliance of Western militaries on airpower as a substitute, rather than a compliment to ground forces has been interpreted by some adversaries as a weakness. This idea that Western militaries seek to avoid casualties and collateral damage has given our enemies even more reason to hide weapons and fight from mosques, schools, apartment buildings and hospitals. [6]

However, close-air support and interdiction have become even more critical to overall military power as air forces have assumed a de facto role of “flying artillery” long dreaded by the disciples of Douhet. The U.S. military’s development of the AirLand Battle doctrine in the 1980s shows the integration that I believe makes the case for the Air Force to become the Army Air Force once more. As U.S. forces become smaller and more expeditionary, with fewer overseas bases from which to stage massive armadas of aircraft for Desert Storm type prolonged air campaigns, the role of long-range strike missions can be assumed by either naval aviation or even new models of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs). This will leave the Air Force to concentrate on providing CAS in those situations where ground forces are in battle. This CAS role will more than likely be assumed by more sophisticated, longer endurance unmanned aircraft, especially as air defenses become more automated and lethal. The current Joint Strike Fighter could, in fact, be the last manned fighter aircraft produced by the United States as the political liability of shot down and captured aircrew is replaced by the plausible deniability of drone attacks. [7]

Although airpower remains a critical military force, it is no longer a singular war-winning weapons. Integration with ground forces and the ability to fight in a joint environment make the need for an independent Air Force more questionable.

[1] Giulio Douhet, "The Command of the Air," in Roots of Strategy: Book 4, ed. David Jablonsky, 262-407 (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1999), 294.
[2] Douhet, 330-336.
[3] David Jordan, James Kiras, David Lonsdale, Ian Speller, Christopher Tuck and C. Dale Walton, Understanding Modern Warfare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 194-198
[4] Jonathan House, Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2001). 168-178
[5] Jordan, et.al., 73-77
[6] Ralph Peters, Wars of Blood and Faith (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2007), 239-241; Charles Dunlap, "Making Revolutionary Change: Airpower in COIN Today," Parameters (U.S. Army War College), Summer 2008: 52-66.
[7] House, 250-259; Peter Singer, Wired for War: The Future of Military Robots, August 28, 2009, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0828_robots_singer.aspx (accessed November 8, 2010).

Seapower in the 21st Century- NeoMahanian?

2010-12-13T08:00:00.000-05:00

“Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (VUCA) characterize the environment of the 21st Century and thus a strategy for the U.S. can be a difficult concept to develop and implement.” [1] This phrase aptly describes the situation the U.S. Navy faces in the second decade of the 21st century. The primary purpose of seapower, or, to use a more Mahan-like term “maritime power” has remained fairly steady since Mahan and Corbett wrote their tomes on seapower and strategy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Great maritime trading nations have depended on ocean-going commerce for economic prosperity and have required a strong navy to protect their interests and ensure the safe flow of shipping.

Writing in the late 1890s, Alfred Thayer Mahan advocated a strong navy for both peacetime and wartime purposes. In peacetime a strong navy ensured the safety of both national and international commerce on the high seas, and in wartime, a strong navy not only protected American merchant shipping, but could menace an opponent’s sea-borne trade. To build-up and maintain this strong Navy, Mahan outlined six components of naval power, in particular noting the importance of overseas bases and a government supportive to ship-building and other maritime industries. In the spirit of the era of colonization, Mahan espoused the view that America would need to emulate the great maritime empires such as Holland, Spain and Britain and build a large navy supported by overseas colonies if it was to become a world power. [2]

Corbett completed his work shortly after Mahan and took a uniquely British view about sea power by combining prophetic view on expeditionary warfare and the concept of a “fleet in being” that Germany would use effectively in World War I to tie down a large portion of the British fleet in anticipation of a climatic naval battle. Corbett was a student of both Clausewitz and Jomini and attempted to integrate Clausewitz’ theories of limited and unlimited wars, along with the primacy of the defense into his thinking on naval warfare. [3]

As the U.S. begins to retrench from Iraq and Afghanistan, American ground forces will require extensive recapitalization and refurbishment form 10 years of combat operations. Moreover, the American public and international communities are both leery of any further large scale deployments of American troops to the world’s trouble spots.

Enter the U.S. Navy, with a new Operations Concept that is realistic and attuned to the challenges of the 21st century security environment. This new concept embodies the best of both Mahan and Corbett’s thinking, upgraded for today, and has been called neo-Mahanian thinking by some strategic pundits. Replacing the old concept of colonies and bases for coaling and refueling ships, today’s American navy provides key capabilities in maritime presence, expeditionary forces, and the ability to deter or defeat maritime enemies securing the free flow of maritime commerce world-wide. [4]

Globalization and free trade have replaced the old colonial concept of economic power, but the ‘global commons’ of the world’s oceans continue to carry more than 77% of international trade. Naval forces fit a unique niche among the armed services in maintaining a fairly small overseas footprint with minimal presence in foreign countries, mainly from port visits. Naval forces also fulfill a unique diplomatic position among the armed services through the interaction with other countries’ navies to ensure the safety and security of all international shipping. The current counter-piracy operations being conducted off Somalia are the ultimate example of navies from disparate countries such as China, Russia, the U.S., India and even Saudi Arabia working together to protect shipping and ensure the flow of international trade. [5]

Because of their offshore presence and ability to operate at sea nearly indefinitely, naval forces have also expanded into new roles of humanitarian relief and disaster assistance where the capabilities of large, capable platforms such as aircraft carriers and large amphibious ships provided diplomatic success to U.S. efforts to show benevolence and outreach to countries affected by the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean area.[6]

In terms of traditional nation-state conflict, the only significant potential competitor to the U.S. in the near to midterm is likely to be China, where any armed action will primarily involve naval and air power across the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean. The U.S. Navy and their Air Force counterparts are just beginning to grapple with the realities of increasingly capable Chinese naval and air forces able to achieve local dominance in the East and South China Seas as the U.S. Navy operates at the end of a very long logistical tether. Unlike the U.S. Navy panned by Secretary Stimson, the modern U.S. Navy understands that it must act as part of a larger joint and combined team to overcome the Chinese military in its own back yard, if conflict becomes unavoidable. [7]

Several strategic studies have shown that the two most important regions of the 21st century are likely to be the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, where maritime power will be the most important measure of military and diplomatic influence. These facts will challenge the U.S. Navy as it continues to downsize through retirement of older ships and a much smaller shipbuilding program over the next twenty years. Discussions now underway about the size and composition of the future force will have a profound effect on the capabilities and influence of the U.S. Navy in the future. In order to achieve the national security objectives of America and its allies, the Navy will not only have to work with other U.S. services, but foreign militaries as well, when required. The unique capabilities of the Navy-Marine Corps team will remain extremely important, as world populations continue to grow, particularly in unstable and developing countries. Since most of these populations continue to live within 200 miles of the coast in many countries, power projection and expeditionary capabilities provided by modern and capable naval forces will remain an important component of American power and diplomacy. With the decline of the U.S. Navy from a force of nearly 600 ships in the late 1980s to less than 300 ships today, cooperation with allies and regional powers will become a necessity as American warships begin to shift their deployments and forward presence from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean in response to the increasing importance of that region to both regional and global stability. Stability, not hegemony will become the new watchwords of naval power. [8]

[1] CDR Bruce Black, The Legacy of Mahan for the 21st Century, U.S. Army War College (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army, 2006).
[2] Alfred Thayer Mahan, "The Influence of Seapower Upon History, 1660-1783," in Roots of Stratgy, Book 4, ed. David Jablonsky, 43-148 (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1999).
[3] Julian Corbett, "Some Principles of Maritime Strategy," in Roots of Strategy, Book 4, ed. David Jablonsky (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1999).
[4] U.S. Navy, Naval Operations Concept, 2010, U.S. Navy (Washington, DC: U.S. Navy, 2010).
[5] Center for A New American Security, Contested Commons: The Future of American Power in a Multipolar World, (Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security, 2010).
[6]Jane's Intelligence Review, "Making Waves- Naval Power Evolves for the 21st Century," Jane's Intelligence Review, Nov 12, 2009, American Military University Electronic Library (accessed Oct 11, 2010).
[7] Frank Hoffman, From Preponderance to Partnership: American Maritme Power in the 21st Century, (Washington, DC: Center for A New American Security, 2010); Andrew Krepinevich, Why AirSea Battle?, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment (Washington, DC: CSBA, 2010).
[8] Ralph Peters, "Waters of Wealth and War: The Crucial Indian Ocean," in Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century, 293=301 (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2007); CNAS, Contested Commons.

War as an Art or Science, Part 2

2010-10-20T08:00:00.000-04:00

Born several centuries later, Carl Von Clausewitz, and Antoine-Henri Jomini, further developed these concepts of warfare and statecraft but drew very different conclusions on waging war from their experiences serving in the Napoleonic Wars.

Jomini was a clear proponent of war as a science that was governed by timeless and well-developed principles. His work The Art of War, was written in a very precise and scientific manner, proposing concrete actions for a commander to take in given situations-“War is always to be conducted according to the great principles of the art; but great discretion must be exercised in the nature of the operations to be undertaken which should depend upon the circumstances of the case.” [6] Jomini does an admirable job of offering an early delineation of Strategy, Operational Art and Tactics, but still provides a checklist approach to battle that, while useful on a tactical or even operational level, does not take into account the political or diplomatic elements of war at the strategic level. Jomini’s entire thinking on warfare can be summed in his ‘fundamental principle of war’ which states- “To throw by strategic movements the mass of an army successively upon the decisive points of a theater of war and also upon the communications of the enemy as much as possible without compromising one's own.” [7]

Jomini’s thinking on the art or science of war was not as sophisticated or as complete as Sun Tzu’s or Clausewtiz’ on the political and diplomatic relationship to strategy and warfare. Moreover, although Jomini was an enthusiastic proponent of his self-described principles of war, as well as his concept of using ‘interior lines’ to conduct offensive operations, he did not clearly proscribe under what circumstances to apply which principle, in a sense contradicting his own ideas of war waged by fixed scientific principles. [8]

Clausewitz was probably the greatest of the classic strategic thinkers and incorporated a holistic view of war that remains both relevant and confusing today. As a member of the defeated Prussian military in 1806, Clausewitz shared Sun Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s viewpoints on the importance of the study and preparation for warfare to the survival of the state. Clausewitz very much considered war more of an art than science and did not subscribe to any particular set-piece solution for a tactical or strategic problem—“In short, absolute, so-called mathematical, factors never find a firm basis in military calculations…in the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards.” [9]

Clausewitz clearly understood that warfare was a very human interaction since armies and their commanders rarely remain static in their thinking and actions. The constant action and reaction of opponents in combat make a scientific approach to warfare very problematic and required a commander to exercise his ‘genius’ on a battlefield to overcome the friction and uncertainty of the battlefield. Clausewitz famous dictum of the ‘friction’ of combat that prevents a commander from exercising total control over a battlefield remains true today. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu both exhibited keen insights into the psychological aspects of warfare and Clausewitz in particular wrote extensively on topics such as the ‘genius’ or intuition of a commander to handle uncertainty, fear, bad information, and the basic confusion of a battlefield and still prevail. [10]

All of the author’s agree that at the tactical level there are definite ‘principles’ that apply to the successful conduct of battle such as discipline, use of terrain, the role of deception and surprise, simplicity and concentration of force. At the operational and certainly at the strategic level, the authors have some significant differences, which are never really reconciled, particularly the relationship between politics, diplomacy and military action and the interplay between generals and rulers.

History and even current American doctrine would seem to indicate that at the tactical level, there are certain ‘scientific’ principles that apply to combat. The employment of tanks, artillery, air power, and other modern weapons systems, particularly when combined with modern sensors and information systems would seem to make warfare an overwhelmingly technical and scientific activity that would eliminate Clausewitz’s ‘fog of war’. However, at the strategic and even operational level, war remains very much still an art. The U.S. Army’s current Field Manual 3-0 states- “Commanders use operational art to envision how to create conditions that define the national strategic end state. Actions and interactions across the levels of war influence these conditions. These conditions are fundamentally dynamic and linked together by the human dimension, the most unpredictable and uncertain element of conflict. The operational environment is complex, adaptive, and interactive. Through operational art, commanders apply a comprehensive understanding of it to determine the most effective and

efficient methods to influence conditions in various locations across multiple echelons.” [11]

Because warfare is always fought between people that react and adapt, there is likely never going to be a completely scientific approach to war. Technology cannot replace the thinking and reacting that a good battlefield commander brings to a conflict and as long as warfare is conducted between human opponents, war will remain more an art than a science.

[6] Antoine Henri Jomini, "The Art of War," Google Books, 1862, http://books.google.com/books?id=nZ4fAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false (accessed Oct 2009), 15.

[7] Jomini, 70.

[8] John Shy, "Jomini," in Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, 143-185 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).

[9] Carl Von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 86.

[10] Clausewitz, 100-102, 148-150; Peter Paret, "Clausewitz," in Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, 186-216 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); Michael I Handel, Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought, 3rd (New York, NY: Frank Cass Publishers, 2001), 26-27.

[11] Headquarters, Department of the Army, "Field Manual (FM) 3-0: Operations," Joint Electronic Library, Feb 2008, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine.htm (accessed July 2009), 6-4.

War as an Art or Science?

2010-10-18T08:00:00.000-04:00

So, we have been discussing in my MILH511 MA class on whether war is an art or science...here is my view..

The discussion of war as an art or science in nearly as old as warfare itself. Two of the early strategic thinkers, Sun Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli, offer remarkably similar viewpoints on the importance of warfare to a state while presenting different opinions on how best to wage war successfully. While their great treatises reflect the particular issues faced by their states and rulers, they do provide a common frame of reference to begin the strategic issues of war. Born centuries after Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, Clausewtiz and Jomini expanded upon earlier thoughts of warfare and statecraft, but diverged significantly on the lessons learned from their common experiences in the Napoleonic Wars. A careful review of these four great thinkers provides an excellent departure point for arguing whether waging war is an art or science and the importance of waging war to a state.

Sun Tzu, writing in China of the 6^th century BC, and Niccolo Machiavelli, who lived in 16^th century Renaissance Europe, hard remarkably similar views on warfare and statecraft. Both men considered the study and preparation for war to be the most important task of a ruler. In both of their eras, being able to successfully wage war was literally a life or death matter for a ruler or dynasty and was a task never to be undertaken lightly. Both men offered several early insights into the relationship between politics and warfare, particularly the notion that warfare was a common and accepted instrument of diplomacy. “Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life or death, the Way to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed” was Sun Tzu’s view [1], while Machiavelli expressed his thoughts on the topic as “A Prince then out to have no other aim, nor other thought, nor take anything else for his proper art, but war, and the orders and discipline therof: for it is the sole art which belongs to him that commands.” [2] As these quotes show, both writers developed a keen understanding of war’s importance and the need for a ruler to undertake a serious study of strategy and diplomacy. Both of these writers certainly considered warfare to be more of an art than science, and Sun Tzu in particular developed some of the earliest theories of indirect and psychological warfare as a means to avoid battles that, even if won, could destroy a ruler’s army and drain his treasury-“Thus one who excels at employing the military subjugates other people’s armies without engaging in battle…thus his weapons will not become dull, and the gains can be preserved.” [3]

Although Machiavelli was not as detailed in The Prince on how warfare should be conducted, he did introduce two important thoughts into military strategy—the increasing role of nation-states in raising and equipping armies and the need for conscription of soldiers to avoid the chaotic role of mercenary armies in Italy. [4]

However, both authors were also influenced by their particular situations. Sun Tzu actually served as a military commander and advisors to Emperors and his Art of War serves partly as a military manual, offering advice not only on strategy and policy, but deception, logistics and the equipping and organizing of armies. Machiavelli was a product of 15^th and 16^th century Enlightenment thinking, as well as the political struggle of the Italian city-states to maintain their independence against larger and better armed foes. One particular flaw in Machiavelli’s Art of War and The Prince was his complete disregarded or misunderstanding of the on-going changes to warfare at the tactical level caused by the widespread introduction of modern artillery and hand-held gunpowder weapons. [5]

[1] Ralph D. Sawyer, trans., The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, trans. Ralph D. Sawyer (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1993), 157.

[2] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Art of War (Radford, VA: Wilder Publications LLC, 2008), 191.

[3] Sawyer, 161.

[4] Felix Gilbert, "Machiavelli: Renaissance of the Art of War," in Makers of Modern Strategy: Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, ed. Peter Paret, 11-31 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).

[5] Gilbert, 11-31.

More later this week

World and National Histories

2010-09-09T08:00:00.000-04:00

In my opinion, world and national histories serve two basic purposes: to provide an overarching narrative of history and to aid the people of a nation in better understanding their heritage. These purposes present a significant challenge to the historian, but if these histories are done well, they also provide an opportunity to “make sense” of the sweep of history and provide a greater context for the many discrete people and events that make history.

World and national history are the two most challenging types of history to research and write. Because of the vast swaths of time covered, a historian must be selective about which people and events to include, or more significantly, not include in their narrative. This need to cull through material often brings out the intended or unintended biases of the author, which can also be manifested in how the history is constructed and presented. National histories are particularly susceptible to this issue, as they necessarily present history from the perspective of a particular group.

World histories also offer great opportunities for comparative history to show how different civilizations or cultures developed in similar (or perhaps dissimilar) circumstances. This presents a challenge for the author to write objectively, but it is a useful challenge, particularly for authors coming from a Euro-centric or decidedly Western point of view: “Historians confronted the very problem of accounting for the West’s position among other cultures when they wished to explain the centuries of Western dominance and expansion.”[1]

My particular interest in comparative world history would be an examination of Chinese versus Greek and Roman military thought and development. From an earlier reading, Herodotus and Sima Qian: History and the Anthropological Turn in Ancient Greece and Han China by Siep Stuurman, we know that the ancient Greeks and Chinese had many similarities and it was interesting to discover in another class that the Chinese were writing military treatises hundreds of years before Thucydides and Clausewitz. Moreover, Sun Tzu, the best known of these authors, was just one of many great thinkers whose work is in The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, by Ralph D. Sawyer. Clearly the Greeks and Romans were not the only innovative thinkers and a good comparative military history might give us a better perspective into Asian thought and cultural norms about warfare: “However, as interesting as they and a few books from the martial arts have proven to be, the vast Chinese military corpus-despite its historical importance and contemporary significance-remains unknown in the West.” [2]

Western bias, indeed.

[1] Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 411.

[2] Ralph D. Sawyer, trans., The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, trans. Ralph D. Sawyer (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1993), xi.

The Annales School of History

2010-09-08T08:00:00.000-04:00

The development of French historiography, particularly the Annales school of historical thought, continues to affect history in the trans-Atlantic community. The Annales movement-“the attempt by French scholars to adapt economic, linguistic, sociological, geographical, anthropological, psychological, and natural science notions to the study of history to infuse a historical orientation in the social and human sciences” has arguably been the most significant development in historiography in this century. Although often misunderstood and steeped in controversy, the Annales methodology has been criticized for going beyond traditional documentary history, but in fact it does not replace traditional methods but rather, “The point lay not in deriding documentary scholarship but in transcending it by extending the subject’s comparative and disciplinary base.”

In addition to the floodgates of “multi-disciplinary” history the Annales school opened, the other significant post-war development has been the migration of historical talent from Germany and Italy, first to England and then to the United States. Besides bringing their own historical talents to the U.S., these historians, many of them Jewish refugees, helped inculcate Annales thinking within American historical teaching.

The Annales methodology continues to influence American history today. All of the trendy “new” subfields of ethnic, gender and cultural history clearly show their lineage back to France. Overall, this new integration of geography, anthropology, economics, archeology, and other fields has been a positive influence on historical thought and writing. This can particularly be seen in ancient history, where documentary evidence may be lacking or suspect. However, like all trends in historiography, this effort at “multi-disciplinary” studies can be carried to extremes, as Keith Windschuttle described in The Killing of History.
On a personal note, I found it fascinating that integrating history and geography was controversial. Trying to read history, particularly my field of interest in military history, without understanding geography seems almost absurd. The fields of history and geography, either natural or man-made, seem inexorably linked, as it seems history and archeology should be.
The Annales school, in the proper context, really seems to make history more multi-dimensional rather than strictly multi-disciplinary and offers additional perspectives to better understand historical events.

Thucydides-The First Great Military Historian

2010-09-07T08:00:00.000-04:00

The ancient historian I would like to meet and discuss history with is Thucydides. I believe he could be considered the Western world’s first true military historian and strategic thinker. Thucydides expanded some of the techniques of Herodotus to write the first real narrative of war not as the act of gods, but the messy and chaotic result of men and politics. His notion that cities/countries go to war over “fear, honor and interest” has certainly stood the test of time.
I find his History of the Peloponnesian Wars to be a timeless work on the interaction of politics and war, sort of the ancient world’s On War and I find it remarkable that a book written over 2500 years ago is still studied by the U.S. military today.
A couple of questions I would ask him are:
* Why did the book stop before the war was over? Did you see the handwriting on the wall and not want to chronicle the fall of your native Athens?
* Die you think Athens might have prevailed if Pericles had not died so early in the war?
* How did you decide that wars are primarily fought for “fear, honor, and interest”?
I would tell him that history is still trying to teach the same lessons he was-warfare is the chief experience of the state, never to be undertaken lightly. I would also tell him that military historiography owes a great deal to his work and even though warfare has changed remarkably from his time, the nature of war in really no different for a Marine in Afghanistan than it was for a hoplite from Sparta.

The Professionalization of History

2010-09-06T08:00:00.000-04:00

So, I am about to embark on a great adventure...tutoring our best friends' son in Roman History. Now I am no Plutarch or Livy, but it should be fun...after all it is Sophmore level stuff.

So I was thinking about history, the historical process and historians...

The Professionalization of History: Is it a good thing?
A profession is defined as “a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation.” This was certainly true of the historical profession during the late 1800 and early 1900s as the university system began to spread and history acquired its own methodology and set of standards. Instruction in historical research and writing became more academically rigorous, causing not only the decline of amateur writers but affecting how history was written, especially in the United States. As academic history became more widespread, it assumed the basic form that continues today, particularly the emphasis on scholarly research, critical analysis of primary sources, and most importantly, the use of the thesis as a stepping-stone and “rite of passage” to becoming a full-fledged university professor.

However, this trend did not tamp down the continuing controversies within historiography, as different historical models vied to offer a coherent picture of the rapid changes taking place in Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly industrialization and urbanization. The debate between scientific and positivist historians raged throughout this time as historians argued about causality in history and how to handle the continuity of history while looking at the context of specific events.

American historians remained fairly aloof from this debate as American history began to be shaped by our unique experiences of democracy, the Civil War, and the settlement (or conquering) of the North American continent. In addition, American Progressive historians attempted to use history to bring about social and economic change in early 20th century America, building upon the work of economic history began in Europe in the late 19th century.

The continuing disputes about historical objectivity seem a little baffling to me—the whole point of history should be to strive for the truth as best the sources can tell you. When new sources are discovered, then the historical truth should change without invalidating the overall calling of the historian to seek objectivity.

World War II history is a good example of this issue. Almost all military history written about the European Theater had to be rewritten after the disclosure of the Ultra code-breaking program in the 1970s. However, that didn’t necessarily mean that history written before knowledge of Ultra was useless or false, it merely didn’t tell the whole story. The debate about professional versus amateur historians also continues to this day. While amateurs are no doubt looked down upon by some academic historians, the fact is that within their particular topic of interest, many amateurs, particularly correspondents, have written outstanding works, including Rick Atkinson, who won the Pulitzer Prize in History for An Army at Dawn in 2003. The skills of research, collation of sources, critical thinking, and incisive writing take time and practice but are not confined to the historical profession. The primary difference between amateurs and professionals is the intended audience. Although I have read outstanding works by history professors, I have also read just as many sharp works by enthusiastic amateurs, particularly in the fields of military and political history. In my opinion, academics often write truly scholarly, but dreadfully dry and boring articles for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Amateurs want to sell books, so they write for a more general audience and try, sometimes with mixed results, to write outstanding narrative history that gets the “facts” right, but tells a story that Romantic historians would no doubt approve. Although they were not PhDs, I would postulate that few American history professors could write history like Shelby Foote or David McCullough.

Trying to Catch Up

2010-09-02T21:02:00.000-04:00

Okay, I know it's not Wednesday, but I am so far behind. My final class for my Masters in Military Studies starts on Monday and I will be taking a young padwan through Roman History this year as his Jedi Master. Fun, Fun, Fun.

In Federalist Paper #7, Alexander Hamilton continues his discussion about the need for a strong Union to avoid potential territorial and/or commercial disputes between the states as they had experienced under the Articles of Confederation. In fact, the Commerce Clause, before it was abused by liberals and progressives to pass all manners of mischief up to and including ObamaCare, was probably one of the singular achievements of the Constitution by unifying commercial activity and preventing potential dangerous interstate tariffs and trade wars. However, another interesting sentence comes to mind:

“The public debt of the Union would be a further cause of collision between the separate States or confederacies. The apportionment, in the first instance, and the progressive extinguishment afterward, would be alike productive of ill-humor and animosity. How would it be possible to agree upon a rule of apportionment satisfactory to all? There is scarcely any that can be proposed which is entirely free from real objections. These, as usual, would be exaggerated by the adverse interest of the parties……. Delinquencies, from whatever causes, would be productive of complaints, recriminations, and quarrels. There is, perhaps, nothing more likely to disturb the tranquility of nations than their being bound to mutual contributions for any common object that does not yield an equal and coincident benefit. For it is an observation, as true as it is trite, that there is nothing men differ so readily about as the payment of money.”

“The result of our reasoning in the two preceding numbers is this, that in a confederated government, where the powers are divided between the general and the state government, it is essential to its existence, that the revenues of the country, without which no government can exist, should be divided between them, and so apportioned to each, as to answer their respective exigencies, as far as human wisdom can effect such a division and apportionment….There is one source of revenue, which it is agreed, the general government ought to have the sole control of. This is an impost upon all goods imported from foreign countries. This would, of itself, be very productive, and would be collected with ease and certainty. — It will be a fund too, constantly increasing — for our commerce will grow, with the productions of the country; and these, together with our consumption of foreign goods, will increase with our population.”

It's not Clausewitz that's deluded

2010-08-23T08:00:00.000-04:00

In his book The Clausewitz Delusion: How the American Army Screwed Up the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan author Stephen L. Melton, a professor at the Army's Command and General Staff College presents the argument that the U.S. military's fixation with the ideas of Carl Von Clausewitz are the reason for the "failures" in Iraq and Afghanistan and the U.S. Army needs to return to its traditional modes of thinking about warfare- strategically and operationally.

Although Mr. Melton makes a convincing historic case for the prowess of the U.S. military in fighting what he terms "The American Offensive Way of War", his arguments for the reason of U.S. "failures" in Korea and Vietnam are less developed, in my opinion. He also spends a great deal of time explaining why the U.S. should adapt a new 'OCCUPATION' doctrine modeled after what U.S. forces did in Germany and Japan after World War II.

Where I have the most significant disagreement with Mr. Melton is his understanding of Clausewitz and his definition of how it is applied in current U.S. doctrine. Although I don't disagree that some parts of the Joint Pubs and Field Manuals on Operations are pretty darn mushy, they are clearly intended to be GUIDANCE only and not a cookbook for every situation. As many of the lessons learned, books and monographs I have been reading on the Surge in Iraq clearly show, the U.S. Army was pretty darn adaptable to change in their counter-insurgency doctrine when it was instituted in late 2006 and concepts that worked were brought to the forefront.

Here's my bottom line for this book, the most fundamental part of Mr. Melton's argument is a non sequitur--there aren't going to be any more U.S. invasions of foreign countries for another 50 years. No matter how things eventually turn out, the sour experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan mean that no U.S. forces will be occupying any country in my lifetime. The SOLE exception to this would be Mexico, if it goes to hell in a handbasket and threatens to become a narco-terrorist state...even this Administration could not let Mexico become a failed state where Al Qaeda or Hezbollah could find refuge with tens of millions of refugees poring across the border. Although Mr. Melton makes the standard discussion points about more carefully using American troops, training foreign troops, using international organizations and diplomacy, blah, blah, blah, the main thrust of his argument just doesn't stand up for me.

As previously stated in another post, Clausewitz remains extremely relevant-IF studied in the proper context and with a solid historical background. His theories are dense, not for the simplistic pundits who use them too often, and require a great deal of study to be understood. Is Clausewitz some all powerful seer? Of course not, but his fundamental ideas of the relationship between politics, diplomacy and warfare...and of course his timeless trinity of chance, reason and emotion as driving factors in war, will likely be studied at War Colleges long after Mr. Melton (and I) am retired.

Read it for yourself, and decide...is Clausewitz a Delusion?

What did our Founders know about taxation?

2010-08-18T08:00:00.000-04:00

In the Federalist #6 Alexander Hamilton continues the discussion of the need for the states to unite to prevent inter-state conflict and potential European powers exploiting the differences between the new states for their own ambitions. He does this by excellent use of historical examples from Ancient Greece and Rome, cautioning against the rise of militarism and imperialism:

Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well regulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.

This is an interesting point, and one that many folks raise on our current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Hamilton does oversimplify the role of commerce in international affairs, beginning the oft stated, and often misunderstood ideal that commercially "tied" together nations could never go to war with each other, 1914 and 1939 nothwithstanding:

The genius of republics (say they) is pacific; the spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men, and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars. Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.

While Hamilton's ideas certainly proved true for the soon to be UNITED States, they are not true of relations between nations. As the great Thucydides states, nations often go to war out of FEAR, HONOR and INTEREST, commercial ties and trading status be damned.

In the Anti-Federalist #6, Brutus really goes to town on the issue of taxation and correctly points out the inherent conflict in delegating some powers of taxation and revenue to the states while maintaining some to the intended Federal government:

Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected.

WOW, does that sound familiar...can anyone say Federal bailout of the states and cities? Hmmm, think your state tax burden is going down...how about your property taxes? Mine sure as hell haven't, even though my house has lost about 30% of my equity.

Here's an even better quote:

A power that has such latitude, which reaches every person in the community in every conceivable circumstance, and lays hold of every species of property they possess, and which has no bounds set to it, but the discretion of those who exercise it[,] I say, such a power must necessarily, from its very nature, swallow up all the power of the state governments.

And to conclude:

For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defence and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves. [my emphasis]

Think about it-- everything this Congress and Administration have done is "for the public good" or "for the children" or "for the poor and disadvantaged" REALLY?!

Does anyone believe that anymore? Does any member of Congress have the cajones to say "This is madness and a crock, this [fill in the blank] legislation is a pure power grab, plan and simple!" Sadly, not too likely....yet..

Our Founders had a keen understanding of the power of taxation to destroy...not only the economy and industry of the new nation, but the power of the people to keep their liberty. Once Congress gets its snout in the trough, they can invent all kinds of reasons to take your {our} money and spend it as THEY see fit.....

Hmmm....maybe there was something to Shays Rebellion after all....

The first of many "We Won the War!" books on Iraq

2010-08-16T08:00:00.000-04:00

A Chance in Hell: The Men Who Triumphed Over Iraq's Deadliest City and Turned the Tide of War is the first of many books likely to be published in the coming years that explain why our brigade/battalion/company won the war in Iraq.

So, how true is it for this book? Well the 1st Armored Division Brigade that was sent to Ramadi in 2006 probably has as good a claim as anyone. The fighting in Anbar Province in 2005-2006 was a strategically losing proposition for the U.S. The mostly hostile Sunni population was providing an active "sea" for Al Qaeda "fish" to swim in and U.S. forces seemed to be taking endless casualties by IEDs with no sense of victory in sight.

Enter a fairly inconsequential Sunni tribal sheik, weary of Al Qaeda's extremism with an offer to fight for the Americans and PRESTO CHANGO, the rest, they say, is history.

The book moves at a pretty fast pace, while conveying a sense of the high-risk effort undertaken by the soldiers, Marines, SEALs, etc that teamed up with Sunni tribesmen to defeat Al Qaeda and begin to turn Anbar Province into a success by late 2007. The independent thinking of the officers and NCOs of the brigade is fascinating to watch as they thread a fine line between the U.S. military command in Baghdad, the diplomatic and political landmines in Baghdad and Washington and the politics and squabbles of the various tribes seeking favor with the Americans as the Surge begins in 2007 and the tide of battle begins to turn against the extremists.

Anbar was considered a lost cause in 2006. These remarkable troops made a big difference in the effort to turn things around. Did they turn the tide of the war? Maybe. Did they change the narrative, think outside the box and win a classic counter-insurgency struggle? Most definitely, and their story needs to be told.

Back to our previously scheduled program

2010-08-11T08:00:00.001-04:00

A continued divergence of discussion points here in Federalist and Anti-Federalist #5.

In Federalist #5 John Jay continues the argument for a strong United group of States to not only withstand European pressure and interference, but to prevent the "Balkanization" of the colonies into competing armed camps that would not only potential fight amongst themselves, but invite foreign alliances and entanglements:

Instead of their being "joined in affection'' and free from all apprehension of different "interests,'' envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other BORDERING nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.

As usual, the Founding Fathers were way ahead of their time, as Americans we must stand united again today, only this time from an internal tyrant called Big Progressive Government, determined to pass their agenda, regardless of the people's wishes and funded by ???? shadowy foreigners? (can anyone spell Soros?)

The publisher of the Anti-Federalist 5 continues to speak about the dangers of a dictatorial Chief Executive (hmmm, sound familiar) and a legislative branch all too prone to corruption and influence at the expense of the citizens it nominally represents....(wow, prophetic those old, white, powder-wig guys)

and you might as well deposit the important powers of legislation and execution in one or a few and permit them to govern according to their disposition and will; but the world is too full of examples, which prove that to live by one man's will became the cause of all men's misery.....Is it because you do not believe that an American can be a tyrant? If this be the case you rest on a weak basis; Americans are like other men in similar situations, when the manners and opinions of the community are changed by the causes I mentioned before, and your political compact inexplicit, your posterity will find that great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman empire.

Dang....those guys, being very,very steeped in history, as opposed to the mushy social studies crap we feed our kids in school now, understood how quickly and easily Rome moved from a Republic to a Dictatorship to an Empire to.....nothing but bread and circuses....hmmm can anyone say Jersey Shore?

The Great Masters of Strategy and Modern Warfare

2010-08-10T08:00:00.000-04:00

The significant changes that have occurred in warfare at the operational and tactical level in the first decade of the 21st century have created an intense debate about changes to warfare at the strategic level. This debate has been most passionate over the role of the great classical thinkers on war, particularly Karl von Clausewitz and his opus On War. A particular group of defense analysts, strategic thinkers, and professional soldiers question whether warfare has evolved at the strategic level into something so radically different that a new strategic paradigm is in order. Competing analysts and scholars believe that the eternal nature of war at the strategic and grand strategy levels remains fundamentally unchanged, in spite of new actors and means of waging war.

In fact, a careful reading of both arguments reveals that Clausewitz’ two major themes on war—the relationship between war and politics and the interaction of his “strategic trinity” relationship remain just as valid today as they did in 1832, if studied and applied with a careful understanding and context within a proper historical and strategic setting.

The most misunderstood, but relevant, discussion Clausewitz raised in his work was the issue of “friction” and uncertainty in war. For Clausewitz friction in war took two forms, tactical and strategic, both of which remain germane for conflict in the 20th and 21st centuries. At the strategic level, Clausewitz noted that wars often veer in unexpected directions, often driven by the emotion side of his strategic triad, and not always controlled by the rational portion. A primary example is the carnage of the Western Front in World War I, where the cost in treasure and manpower after 1914 quickly and completely overcame any possible negotiated settlement to the war, turning the conflict into a grinding attrition war that eventually killed millions and destroyed three of Europe’s oldest dynasties. According to Clausewitz countries often go to war without a clear understanding of how to balance the ways and means the people, government, and military are willing to expend to achieve military and political ends. This strategic friction of starting a war without clear and achievable goals is described as one of the worst mistakes a country can make, and numerous analysts have invoked Clausewitizian thought to condemn the American invasion of Iraq as a military operation begun without clear end goals or a desired and achievable political end state.

The more important aspect of Clausewitz’ thinking on friction is the understanding that warfare is fought between two thinking, evolving and adapting opponents. In Clausewitz thinking it is the height of folly to assume your opponent will do what you expect them or stand idly while being attacked. The maxim is true at both the strategic and tactical level. The most recent conflict in Lebanon show how Israel underestimated Hezbollah’s willingness and capabilities to engage in prolonged firefights at the tactical level while completely changing the conflict at the strategic level by bombarding Israeli towns with rockets and missiles. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) never did provide an effective counter to their new opponents, expecting Hezbollah to crumple under the weight of Israeli firepower and tactical ability as previous Arab armies had done. The U.S. also encountered this phenomenon during the initial states of Operation Iraqi Freedom when American tank columns did not face Iraqi armored units but groups of irregular fighters in civilian clothes fighting from pickup trucks. Although U.S. combat units decimated these forces, follow-on logistical and maintenance units were much more vulnerable and considerable combat strength had to be diverted to protect supply lines.

Although warfare has changed a great deal through technology, culture and a new media dominated environment, the nature of war is eternal. The attempt by “new war” theorists to discredit the classic strategic thinkers, particularly Clausewitz, falls short of the mark. Although the realm of nation-state warfare is certainly in flux, the lessons on the political relationship of war and diplomacy combined with the strategic triad and the role of friction and uncertainty described in On War remains viable today. Understanding Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Jomini, and even Thucydides in the context of their times and circumstances continues to offer relevant insights to soldiers and politicians attempting to understand the unforgiving complexities of war.

Unusual Book

2010-08-08T20:29:00.000-04:00

Okay, I have spent the weekend consuming World War Z by Max Brooks. Now this is the kind of book that is normally wayyyy out of my lane, but it was actually recommended by one of the usual military strategy websites I read daily and I decided to check it out. I was sucked in immediately and had trouble putting this book down over the weekend.
It is a strange mixture of sci-fi, narrative history and pure schlock. I mean seriously- a book about a zombie war? But, when I heard the author was the son of Mel Brooks, I had to check it out. I must say the writing is really, really outstanding and it was not what I expected at all. I have read many oral histories of World War II, Vietnam, and the Iraq War and this book could easily have been written by Studs Terkel.
The attention to detail, while capturing the spirit of retelling the period when humanity almost became extinct is very well done by Mr. Brooks. What makes the book really work is that Mr. Brooks does not get bogged down in the scientific details and doesn't tell you everything that happened, just weaves together various points of view to convey a sense of the "history" of the time and the "experiences" of the survivors.
Now, I really enjoy alternate or counterfactual historical novels anyway, and this is one of the best I have read, ever.

I've never seen a zombie movie, but I may have to check one out.

Finishing the Post on Hybrid Warfare

2010-08-04T08:00:00.000-04:00

Warfare of annihilation, where one side completely destroys their opponent’s army and occupies their territory essentially ended in 1945. Even the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not see the U.S. completely destroy the Iraqi army and government, one of the major psychological and military reasons the subsequent insurgency was able to take root. Modern sensibilities and aversion to casualties and destruction will also introduce a new element into the strategic and operational equation of warfare—time. Future combat, or at least periods of intense fighting, will be severely shortened in hybrid wars as the weaker side will likely appeal to sympathetic media outlets and international organizations to end the complete destruction of their forces at the hand of their better equipped foes by decrying collateral damage and civilian casualties. These media organizations, international bodies and even non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will practically become co-belligerents on the battlefield, wielding disproportionate influence on the operational and political outcome of the battle.
    Operationally, hybrid warfare will present two significant challenges to conventional militaries. First, the weaker side does not need to achieve any major battlefield victories to achieve their political goals. As the case study on the 2006 Lebanon War will show, merely being able to fight and survive against the superior military allows the hybrid warrior to claim some measure of ‘victory’ even after suffering significant casualties.
    Second, the weaker power is likely to operate in a loose network of fighters that will not present a significant target for conventional firepower. Moreover, the growing urbanization of many Third-world countries, combined with the deliberate decision to wage war in densely populated areas will make the operational and tactical problems more difficult for Western militaries. The USMC is already grappling with this issue in their discussion of a ‘three-block war,’ where Western military forces may be conducting assistance, security, and combat operations in close proximity and nearly simultaneously. Hybrid warriors will not be faced with his problem and will be singularly focused on inflicting casualties on their enemies.
    Given the new nature of hybrid warfare and its close nexus of political, diplomatic and information influences on combat, what lessons should militaries such as Israel and the United States learn at the tactical and operational level?
•    Hybrid warfare is already shaping not only how insurgents and non-state actors fight, but countries as well. Incorporating the lessons of the 2006 Lebanon War, Iran has begun to completely reshape their strategy for dealing with a ground invasion by foreign forces that are assumed to be technologically superior, more mobile, and enjoy air superiority over the Iranian military, presumably the United States.
•    Technology will not be a panacea, and in fact, may hinder the ability to defeat hybrid opponents. As both the U.S. and Israel learned, enemies like Hezbollah that cannot match Western firepower will simply neutralize that firepower politically by fighting from urban areas and concealing weapons and supplies in schools, homes, and mosques. Although there will be a continuing role for technology in warfare, particularly intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance tools, hybrid warfare cannot be waged by airpower at 10,000 feet.
•    Hybrid warfare must be waged beyond merely military considerations. Although tactical and operational capability is necessary, as all three case studies show, military action, diplomatic and political efforts, and information operations must be tightly woven into the “strategic narrative” that not only defeats the enemy militarily, but wins in the arena of public opinion. In hybrid warfare, the internet and television news are weapons no less than tanks and airplanes.
•    The prospect of fighting hybrid warfare will require fundamental operational and tactical decisions for the U.S. military-particularly the Army and Marine Corps. Although the strategic level of war will remain basically unchanged, the balance between the light infantry/special operations forces component and the heavy armor/combined arms will create significant changes to future weapons systems acquisitions as the Army and Marine Corps decide on the types and numbers of tanks, mine-resistant vehicles, and other equipment needed to fight and win against an opponent armed with increasing numbers of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. The future ground forces of the U.S. Army will very much be affected by hybrid warfare. The current debate on light versus heavy brigades, conventional versus COIN warfare, and which type of opponent the U.S. should be prepared to fight will have a significant long-term effect on not only force structure and procurement strategies, but training, doctrine and the overall concept of employing military force.
Hybrid warfare will present immense challenges to high-tech conventional militaries in the 21st century. How well the militaries and their political masters adapt to the new strategic, operational, and tactical levels of warfare will go a long way in determining how useful military power will be in the years to come.

Win one for the Gipper

2010-08-02T08:00:00.000-04:00

Continuing with the second volume, Hayward performs a critical analysis of Reagan's two terms and, unlike the worshipful polemics written about Clinton and no doubt Obama, Hayward again pulls no punches in pointing out the highs and lows of the Reagan years, including Iran-contra, Lebanon and other missteps of his Administration, even covering the 1987 stock market crash.

The book continues the "destiny" theme from the first volume. The 1980 campaign was not a sure thing until the final debate, when Reagan hammered Carter with wit and deft to show voters he was not too old to assume the Presidency. The early fights over tax cuts, the defense buildup and even Reagan's near-assassination show just how much a near-run thing his victories over a constantly back-biting Congress were.

This book does continue Hayward's penchant for detail, detail and moooore detail, particularly over the arcane point of economic and social theory. It does take some work to get through and I will admit, I might have skipped a few pages. The narrative on foreign policy was really excellent, especially Reagan's clear and concise thinking about defeating Communism by any means needed and regardless of the ninny-nannying of the Europeans and the left wing loonys. (yes I wrote ninny-nannying) Our current leader could take some lessons about getting a backbone against the Islamist threat we face today.

These are weighty tomes, but well worth reading if you want to get a sense of Reagan within his times and how he literally saved America, the freedom of Western Europe and created the modern conservative movement. I doubt they will be on Nancy Pelosi's Amazon Wish list, so all the better.

Week in Review- NOT: Book Review-PANZER FORWARD

2010-07-30T22:22:00.000-04:00

Okay, my week kind of got away from me so no snark...but at least I finished up a book I had been reading for a while.

Professor Dennis Showalter's Book- Hitler's Panzers - is...well...okay, it left me kinda flat. First, the nitpicky stuff....HOW can you write a military history book, of any kind, with absolutely NO maps, illustrations, order of battle charts...nothing. Wow, if you are not at least somewhat familiar with World War II and if you don't have a better than average understanding of war on the Eastern Front...hmm, you might find yourself bogged down.

Make no mistake, Professor Showalter writes a first-class narrative, offers some new insights to even a crusty old World War II reader like myself and does a good job to taking the reader through the zenith of Panzertruppen to the nadir of Germany's fall under the crush of Allied might.

Which begs the question - did he really write for a general audience, or for military history buffs (argh, I hate that word) looking for a single-volume history of the Panzertruppen. If the former, I would not recommend this work, it is too in the weeds for the casual reader of military history...for the latter, I almost needed to pull out my WWII atlas to recall the geographic sweep of the great tank battles on the Soviet stepps.

Of course nearly 3/4 of the book is devoted to the clash of armor in the east. Now granted there weren't a lot of tank battles in Western Europe...but as Anthony Beevor points out in his excellent book of D-Day, reviewed by yours truly, the armored fighting around Caen was at least as intense as Kursk and involved nearly as many Panzer divisions.

The final gripe is that Professor Showalter offers absolutely no notes or bibliography....now this may be fine for a mass audience history (although I don't think so personally), but it sure isn't good for grognards such as myself that like to browse bibliographies for new books to buy!!!

Seriously, this was a decent book, but not really for the uninitiated who don't know a Tiger tank from a T-34..and sure don't know the variants of the Panzer Mk IV. Read it with your Panzer recce guide and atlas in hand and it is pretty good....otherwise, well the choice is yours.

One (or Two) for the Gipper

2010-07-26T08:00:00.000-04:00

In his two volume set The Age of Reagan, author Steven Hayward chronicles the rise of Ronald Reagan from his electrifying speech at the 1964 Republican Presidential Convention to the end of his second term as President in 1989. The first volume was a fascinating account of what he calls the "fall of the old liberal order" and this book (not for the faint or heart) offers a detailed account of the rise and fall of LBJ and his "Great Society" after his 1964 landslide victory over Barry Goldwater.

The book is part narrative history, part policy analysis and part political biography of Reagan and his career progression as he serves two terms and California governor. Hayward sometimes goes into nauseating detail on the detrimental effects of LBJ's social policies and his feckless handling of the Vietnam War. There are some REALLY amazing parallels to another wayward socialist, our current President and his lackeys on Capital Hill who believe that more government, more regulation and more social spending will cure our ongoing recession and give everyone universal health care without bankrupting our country.

Hayward pulls no punches and his analysis of the 1976 Presidential Race where Reagan almost grabbed the nomination from Gerald Ford was very eye opening to me. But destiny does indeed wait for the man and it likely took, as the wags say, a Jimmy Carter to bring out a Ronald Reagan. Carter is an even bigger buffoon than LBJ, not that Hayward is kind to Nixon either, and there are definite parallels to Obama here too, particularly the complete disaster that was Carter's foreign policy.

So, the question is...who will be the Reagan to replace the Carterbama? I must say I am not sold on any Republican yet...but there are some true believers out there...I have to think the bullpen is deep and practically anyone would be better than Carterbama....could an outsider Governor from a western frontier state rise again??? Time will tell.....

Continuing the debate...

2010-07-21T08:00:00.000-04:00

WOW, this week the debate continues- The Federalist Papers continuing to examine the need for a strong United States to provide for the Common Defense and the Anti-Federalist Papers to bemoan the power of the Congress.

In the Federalist #4John Jay continues to expound upon his previous note that the colonies were surrounded by enemies who threatened their commercial security as much as their physical. Hmmm, 18th century trade war, anyone? Therefore, the need to present a strong, united group of states was highly recommended to secure the liberty and peace of America.

To wit:

"It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it" and "If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment."

Hmmm, I wonder if anyone in the current Administration or Congress is listening? The fact is, our forefathers remembered the saying "politics ends at the water's edge." Of course all the Democrats are all in favor of this NOW, but remember those ol' pesky years 2001-2009. Don't you think the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Al Qaeda, etc watched as the Dems, libs, lefty moonbats and others constantly snipped at W, the Military and those poor misunderstood terrorists....

ANYWAY,

Anti-Federalist #4 is just as feisty as the author continues to warn about an Imperial Congress of fatcats who govern for themselves and not for the people, even to the point of lying, cheating and tyrannical government...To Wit:

"The object of every free government is the public good, and all lesser interests yield to it. That of every tyrannical government, is the happiness and aggrandisement of one, or a few, and to this the public felicity, and every other interest must submit." AND, here's the money shot--"If then this government should not derive support from the good will of the people, it must be executed by force, or not executed at all; either case would lead to the total destruction of liberty."

WOW, does that familiar? Obamacare--you're gonna get it, no matter what...forget about lying about the costs, lying about abortion, cheating on the "tax increase" you get to pay, forget about keeping your doctor..the libs wanted, Obama demanded it...Pelosi delivered it.

Cap and Tax...comin' next....More stimulus to keep public worker unions afloat, using your tax dollars to pay for union pensions....gonna happen whether you like it or not, cause OBAMA and the Dems said so...sit down, shut up and pay your taxes serfs!

Yup, those ol' 18th century guys sure knew what was commin' huh?

2010-07-19T08:00:00.000-04:00

Grouchy Historian’s Bookshelf.

In his new book on counterinsurgency (COIN), historian Mark Moyar, an instructor at the USMC University looks at counterinsurgency through the prism of leadership. Moyar’s thesis, that leadership is the defining element in a successful COIN effort, not manpower, firepower or longevity.
Using 9 different historical case studies, Moyar develops this theme by examining the detailed effects of leadership at both the strategic and tactical levels. He chooses some typical conflicts, Vietnam, Malaya, Iraq and Afghanistan, but also goes off the beaten path, so to speak, by examining El Salvador in the 1980s and the American South after the Civil War.
The Civil War case study was of particular interest to me, as this is an often forgotten and usually highly partisan period on American history that has, at least to my bookshelf’s knowledge, never been effectively chronicled. Moyar makes an excellent cast that unrepentant Confederates were able to thwart the “Radical” Republicans from imposing their version of political restructuring from 1866-1876 and using classic insurgent techniques were not only able to regain political power for another 80 years, but, more importantly, take control of the history of the conflict.
The chapters on Iraq and Afghanistan are well done and point to the continuing issue American forces face-how to get a country just barely out of the 10 century culturally, socially and politically to act like a Jeffersonian democracy. We took what we could get in Iraq, however imperfect it is, and will likely have to do the same in Afghanistan.
The book did leave me feeling a little empty in one respect. Moyar does not address, in my opinion, the need for POLITICAL leadership at the national level. The incremental approach of LBJ contributed to our ultimate failure in Vietnam, in may analysis. If we had committed 100% to the war in 1965, a reasonably secure South Vietnam might have existed by 1970 if we had truly bombed North Vietnam back to the stone age, blockaded their ports and cut off their bridges to China. In addition the Iraq surge would not have occurred without the very risky decision by George W to commit to the surge in spite of Congressional back-biting, some of it led by none other than Barry O hisself.
Overall, this is a good addition to a COIN bookshelf, and Moyar has clearly done his research, including a survey of current American commanders.

Week in Review

2010-07-16T09:22:00.000-04:00

Busy week personally and news-wise.

So how is it that one of the most racist, divisive organizations in the U.S. today -yes, that's right the NAACP, can label the Tea Party racist? Careful libs, your desperation is showing...the Dems are going to get their ass kicked in November, and calling white people racist for opposing this Administration's policies is going to backfire. This is, without a doubt, the most pathetic charge the left uses when they are losing an argument based on facts or logic. This Congress and Administration's economic policies have done more harm to minorities and ALL Americans than the Klan ever could and the Tea Party and George W. Bush are to blame? Hmmm, doesn't pass the smell test. The Democrats are FIRMLY in charge of DC and are gonna rise or FALLLLLLLL on one simple question a la Ronald Reagan "Are you better off than you were two years ago?" If the answer to that is "NO", or "I don't feel I am.", then Nancy is gonna have to decorate a new office.

More interesting is the movement in Afghanistan, where it appears the U.S. is going to try a similar program to the wildly successful Sons of Iraq militia from the 2007 Surge. How well it will work is anyone's guess, but at least we can get more Afghans into the fight...presumably on our side.

The most interesting news of the day comes from the The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), one of my favorite policy maker sites. They have been developing a new concept called AirSea Battle to provide the 21st Century equivalent to the highly successful AirLand doctrine developed by the Army and Air Force after Vietnam. It is still in the conceptual stage, but appears to be gaining some traction with the Air Force and Navy. Here is their latest report.

History Expounded Upon

2010-07-14T08:00:00.000-04:00

The Third exchange of point and counterpoint don't seem to respond well. It's almost as if our Founders were talking past each other. Gee, never heard of politicians doing that huh?

In the Federalist #3 John Jay is addressing the very real national security issues facing the infant United States. The British still controlled Canada and were stirring up trouble with the Indians in the Northwest Territories, which they weren't real happy about ceding to the former colonies. In the south and along the Mississippi, the Spanish were also potential rivals and foes. Jay argues that not only will a more united government make the people safer from foreign rivals, but ensure that only just reasons are used to wage war. An interesting juxtaposition for war, foreign policy and government, hmmm.

To quote: "As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter."

In the Anti-Federalist #3 the author begins debating the issue of the new Congress- its makeup, how many representatives will be elected and how they will serve the people. Amazingly enough, the same kinds of questions being asked today.

Two good quotes here:
"The well born, and highest orders in life, as they term themselves, will be ignorant of the sentiments of the midling class of citizens, strangers to their ability, wants, and difficulties, and void of sympathy, and fellow feeling. This branch of the legislature will not only be an imperfect representation, but there will be no security in so small a body, against bribery, and corruption..."

and

"...what security therefore can there be for the people, where their liberties and property are at the disposal of so few men? It will literally be a government in the hands of the few to oppress and plunder the many. You may conclude with a great degree of certainty, that it, like all others of a similar nature, will be managed by influence and corruption, and that the period is not far distant.."

So, the writers of the Anti-Federalist papers must have seen Nancy, Steny and the the gang coming huh? They clearly had a healthy disdain for potential Congresscritters back then...what would the think of the pack of thieves and gadflies we have now?

2010-07-12T08:00:00.000-04:00

In their book Counterinsurgency and Modern Warfare, editors Daniel Marston and Carter Malkasian examine the failures and successes of counterinsurgency campaigns in the 20st and 21st centuries. Through their selected case studies, the editors offer a wide range of military experiences, including the usually studied campaigns in Malaya and Vietnam but they also choose some unexpected campaigns off the usual COIN beaten path by examining Northern Ireland, Rhodesia and even German anti-partisan operations on the Easter Front in World War II.

Each essay is a standalone product from an acknowledged expert who not only offers the chronological and event highlights, but offers crucial observations and lessons learned. The essays on Northern Ireland and Rhodesia were particularly eye-opening for me.

In Northern Ireland, the British ran a classic law enforcement type COIN effort where the military played very much a background role, minus the occasional action by the SAS, and they managed to successfully “criminalize” and insurgency and essentially delegitimize the IRA and force them into a political settlement.
In Rhodesia, the white government essentially fought the insurgency to a stand-still through very unconventional light infantry patrols and attacks by a military that literally operated on a shoe-string, but was forced to submit to the now crazed and lunatic Mugabe government by global political pressure.

Overall, this is a really excellent collection of essays for anyone wanting to discover the wide range of COIN operations and how different militaries have won or lost to insurgencies. For the serious student of current military affairs, it is a needed addition to your book shelf.

Week In Review

2010-07-09T08:14:00.000-04:00

Best News I've Heard All Week!

From Blackfive, one of my favorite sites.

Biggest Freakin Idiot of the Week...and his Enablers in Obama's Justice Department. I personally luv being a cracker......

Remember how spit throwin' crazy the criminal liberal media got about Tea Partyer's supposedly spitting on Congresscritters going to screw us with Obamacare...how about this?

History Expounded Upon

2010-07-07T08:00:00.000-04:00

Now it starts getting interesting- Federalist and Anti-Federalist #2

In these papers, the authors begin to really debate the proper role of government and, most importantly for the former British colonies, how much power should the government have?

These slave-owning, misogynist white men were of course, singularly brilliant in their understanding of the hazards of government and how quickly well-meaning republics could become brutal tyrannies. You see, unlike the mindless drivel and claptrap that passes for public education these days, these men were steeped in the classics and understood Latin and Greek, the Romans and Athenians. Knowing history, which I of course always recommend, made them cautious about setting up a government that could take away their hard earned liberty.

If only the masses who are willing to trade their freedoms for a vaporous measure of "economic security and social justice" understand that only through liberty can people have these things.

Here are the quotes for this week:
From the Federalists:

"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government."

And from the Anti-Federalists:

"This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty."

Grouchy Historian's Book Shelf

2010-07-05T08:00:00.000-04:00

Bing West and the War in Iraq.
One of the things I find fascinating to watch is the progression of viewpoints of books on the Iraq War. There is a whole separate blog post here, but I can basically divide them into three categories:
1) We kicked Iraq's ass in less than three weeks (2003-2004)
2) The insurgency is going to bleed us dry (2005-2007)
3) We kicked the insurgents ass (2008-2010)

Retired Marine General Bing West has written three books on the Iraq War and all of them are excellent reads. They basically cover each of the periods, although they cover a wide span of time and topics.

His first, The March Up, highlights the 1st Marine Divisions march up the east side of the Tigris and Euphrates while providing "support" to the main thrust by the Army's 3rd Infantry Division. The book was written almost immediately after the war ended, and although it was good initial history, had a few anecdotes by West about his adventure following the Marines and is not long on the bigger picture of the challenges and issues the Marines faced during their three weeks of combat. Of particular note is West's glossing over the fact that one of the Regimental Commanders, Colonel Joe Dowdy, was actually relieved of command by the 1st Marine Division Commander, MGEN James Matthis during the drive north. West explains this as some sort of lateral move, probably trying to spare the Corps some post-war embarrassment.

The second book, No True Glory, was written right after the 2004 Battles of Fallujah and here West pulls no punches in pointing out the good, bad and ugly decisions up and down the American chain of command in handling the Sunni insurgency in the city. His account of the run-up to final November offensive and the political and military preparations for the battle really place things in context. West also places Fallujah into the wider context of the situation in Anbar Province through 2004, something that has not been well reported. The battle narrative is also excellent and this remains today one of the better books written about Fallujah.

Finally, his third book, The Strongest Tribe, is meant to be a mini-campaign history of the entire Iraq conflict after the initial invasion, and is told from more of an operational and strategic point of view. The time from April 2003 to fall 2006 goes by fairly quickly as West attempts to get into the nuts and bolts of the surge and the 2007 fighting. It is a quick read and an excellent overview of someone just beginning to read about America's conflict in Iraq.

All of these books are good reads, although I would recommend The Strongest Tribe the most as a basic primer of the Iraq War.

This Week in Review

2010-07-02T08:00:00.000-04:00

Well, it's Friday of a lonnnggg 4th of July weekend. Time for the week in review. I could pontificate on the ineptitude of the Obama Administration with the oil spill, the stupidity of Nancy Pelosi and economics, or the criminal coverup of the Justice Department and the New Black Panthers.
But in all cases, I would merely repeat the obvious. November 2 is coming, baby, but not fast enough. I would love to see Eric Holder in front of a Republican-led committee trying to explain why the hell he still has a job.

BUT, on to more interesting and important topics. Over the next two weeks, we shall wander into one of my favorite realms of military analysis and look at hybrid warfare. What is that, you ask? Well, let's see.....

Warfare in the 21st century appears to be diverging significantly from traditional conventional combat waged by large mechanized forces of tanks, artillery, and infantry. Recent experiences by the ground forces of Israel and the United States illustrate how new adversaries are developing innovations in tactics and strategy to negate traditional Western military superiority.
    This new type of warfare, labeled “hybrid warfare” by some analysts and defense pundits has created a great deal of uncertainty on the role of conventional military forces and the operational level of war. Both U.S. and Israeli forces have encountered hybrid warfare and some observations and lessons learned will be made of their experiences and reactions to hybrid warfare opponents.
    In order to determine how or if hybrid war has changed the operational level of war, a reasonable definition and differentiation must be made from other types or generations of warfare. Since the September 11 attacks, and particularly after the invasion and insurgency in Iraq, the concepts of asymmetric, compound and hybrid warfare have been confused and comingled. The best definition of hybrid warfare combines elements of all of these modes of combat and expands the political use of violence beyond traditional military methods: “Hybrid Wars incorporate a range of different modes of warfare including conventional capabilities, irregular tactics and formations, terrorist acts, including indiscriminate violence and coercion and criminal disorder.” Source
    Hybrid warfare is often confused with “Fourth-generation” warfare (4GW) which is primarily an insurgency/terrorism mode of war that evolved from the communist guerilla strategy and tactics of Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh. 4GW fighters have built upon these concepts of guerilla conflict to incorporate new technologies such as the internet and global media. Hybrid warfare incorporates many of these 4GW tools into a larger construct that includes more conventionally trained and equipped forces and even a functioning legitimate political organization to tie all of these elements of political violence into a coherent and simultaneous strategic and operational plan.
Strategically, hybrid warfare exhibits the ultimate Clausewitzian trait of warfare as an instrument of policy and not merely an end to itself. The very nature of the military mismatch between the opponents in a hybrid style of war means that the weaker side cannot achieve a strictly military victory and will aim for a political victory by attacking either their opponent’s will to resist, or, in this era of multi-national institutions and global information, defeating their opponent in the realm of public and international opinion.
As shown in figure 1 below, hybrid warfare is a definite step up from previous modes of insurgencies and terrorism. Although hybrid combat may contain elements of these tactical and operational forms of warfare, the introduction of more sophisticated weapons, tactics and command and control offer additional military capabilities to the political strategy of the hybrid organization. In addition, these hybrid units may be specifically organized, trained and equipped to overcome the traditional disparity in firepower with the opponents to non-traditional means. The diagram below from the Rand Corporation's report Military Capabilities for Hybrid War: Insights from the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon and Gaza shows this progression

More next week.....

History Expounded Upon

2010-06-30T08:00:00.000-04:00

When reading the Federalist Papers, it is instructive to understand why they came about and their purpose. When the newly formed United States convened a Convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, they were in fact, NOT going to draft a Constitution. The actual purpose of the Convention was to modify the Articles of Confederation that had been the basis of government among the colonies from around 1776 when they were first drafted.

However, some visionaries such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton did not think the Articles could be successfully modified and proposed writing a completely brand-new document. This of course, did not sit well with everyone so when it became time to ratify this new Constitution, and an 18th century verbal food-fight erupted. Now the really spiffy thing is that when these guys had a throw-down, they didn't mess around- they went at each other verbally in a way that our sad, sad current politicians could only aspire.

SO, each Federalist Paper has a corresponding Anti-Federalist Paper and if you can plow through the atrocious spelling and occasional grammar gaffes (at least by 20th century standards, although they are really quite wonderful in their prose and purpose.

Federalist #1 and Anti-Federalist #1 are merely the warm-up acts for the numerous papers that follow and offer point & counter-point for each major ideas of the proposed Constitution.
So here are a couple of quotes to lay out where each side of this argument is coming from:

In this corner the Federalists:
"On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."

and in this corner the Anti-Federalists:
"They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power."

Ha, Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh, eat your hearts out....

Grouchy Historian’s Bookshelf

2010-06-28T08:00:00.000-04:00

The Library of America has published a number of books on American Literature, Biography and History. These are some of the nicest books from an actual look and feel perspective that I have in my library. Two of my favorite are volumes of newspaper columns from World War II. This of course, was the era when reporters were actually reporters instead of political hacks and editorial writers out to "change the world." They are very well written and come in fairly bite sized chunks.

Of course, you can't escape the PC influence as the writings of women and African-American reporters are highlighted, but to be fair, the articles do present some lesser known cultural and social aspects of the war not recounted in traditional military histories. The articles do cover a wide range of topics and feature such well known reporters as Willam Shirer, Edward R. Murrow, and the quintessential war reporter, Ernie Pyle.

They cover the entire chronography of the war, from the Munich Crises to the end of war and all theaters as well.

Overall, although these books may seem a little pricey, they are well worth the cost and make an excellent primary source addition to any World War II historian's library.

Week in Review- Changes in Afghanistan- Changes in the White House?

2010-06-25T08:43:00.000-04:00

Well, the big news of the week is the replacement of Gen McChrystal with Gen Petraeus. Of course, as many pundits have pointed out, the issue is not REALLY who the Supreme Commander is but what STRATEGY he is attempting to carry out. As long as this Administration's artificial timetable for withdrawing American troops remains rigidly in place, the Strategy will likely not be successful. As long as there is a dysfunctional diplomatic and training effort for the Afghan military the strategy will likely not be successful.
SO, what kind of briar patch has Petraeus just stepped in? The next few months will tell, but I fear if a significant trend of success is not seen by the Congressional elections, Obama's timetable will stand and the Afghan government will come to some kind of understanding with the Taliban. THIS is extremely dangerous as it could put additional pressure on Pakistan, which is the real prize for those Islamic nut jobs.

BUT the more interesting story, which will quickly fade away if ABCBSNBCNNMSNBC have anything to say (or not say) is the Blago trial. Obama is likely a bigger crook than Nixon and the Clintons combined, after all, he learned about politics from the Chicago Democratic machine. Rahm is gonna go under the bus, no doubt...will that be enough? Should be fun.

History Review Wednesday

2010-06-23T09:43:00.000-04:00

Wednesday History Review

The Constitution and the Federalist Papers

As any good historian will tell you, primary source documents are the lifeblood of good historical narrative. Our journey begins through the 85 Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers- the original Point-Counterpoint or Crossfire as it were, of American history.

The Constitution of the nation was not assured and our journey through history could have been far, far different, but for the efforts of 55 patriots who spent a sweltering summer in 1787 trying to figure out what the States should become-a loose assembly of independent entities or a united country.

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were the documents by which our forefathers debated the role of government, rights and liberties and the entire notion of what the United States was and should become. I will provide some commentary on each set of papers for the next few weeks as we explore how our Constitution was debated and continues to be debated today.

Now, of course, with anything the Grouchy Historian does, there is a book list. All are highly recommended, especially for you homeschoolers out there that want to avoid the liberal, secular, revisionist claptrap history that leads to this actual disclaimer used by Wilder Publications in their edition of the Constitution:

“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

This is the version I am reading...no fluff, just the original documents in their own words...ugh, and grammar and spelling too.

An essential book for reading the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation Guide not only explains the background original intent, but provides relevant case law related to that particular section of the Constitution.

Book Review Monday

2010-06-21T09:38:00.000-04:00

Makers of Modern Strategy and Makers of Ancient Strategy

These two books are an essential part of any library for understanding warfare, strategy, and politics.

They are often standard texts for strategy and policy classes and offer a number of unique and insightful essays on the political use of force through the ages.

The 28 essays in Makers of Modern Strategy cover from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. It would be fortunate to update the book from its 1986 publishing date, but as a set of historical case studies, these essays are really timeless.Of particular note are the essays on Clausewitz and Jomini which really show how these two early military strategic writers were influenced by the Napoleonic Wars.

The set of essays covering World War II are also really outstanding. In particular, the essay on German strategy during both World Wars does an excellent job of showing how the German General Staff never had a good plan in either war for fighting on two fronts.

The 10 essays in Makers of Ancient Strategy offer historical insights into the enduring nature of warfare and offer an ancient perspective on modern strategic insights. Although each essay is really well written, it is clear that Prof Hanson directed these essays to the current issues facing the United States in the current military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. This makes the book seem a bit contrived and not as timeless as the earlier volume, but it is fascinating to see how Alexander dealt with nation building or the counter-insurgency tactics of the Romans.

Although each volume stands alone, they are much better as a set. The timeless issues of ends, ways and means; the political-military relationship in war; and even the strategic issues nuclear weapons and deterrence are just as relevant today as they when our ancestors dealt with them.

Keep in mind these volumes are for the serious student or reader. If you have no clue who Clausewitz or Jomini were or what blitzkrieg is, prepare to do a little extra research. Dare I say, Wikipedia could be your friend if you need some additional background.

But the effort is well worth it. These books are fine additions to any political science or history major seeking to understand warfare, and the interaction of politics, strategy and conflict.

===============================================================
**The FCC now requires book reviewers to disclose the following. Book reviews appear regularly on this website. The books I review on this site I freakin' purchase myself (I get Christmas cards from Jeff Bezos) or get from the library. So all opinions are my stinkin' own and if you don't like them then go read something else like Bill Clinton's memoirs or somesuch tripe.

Naval Warfare and the Operational Art

2010-06-20T22:06:00.000-04:00

Naval warfare exhibits all of the characteristics of operational art no less than warfare on land. Concepts of maneuver, mass, firepower and even flank attacks and the indirect approach can be seen in naval combat. The unique feature of naval warfare is the interaction of land, sea and air units to conduct strategic plans and engage in battle.
Just as land warfare had its strategic thinkers and prophets such as Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Jomini, sea power had its own unique thinkers in Alfred Thayer Mahan and Julian Corbett. Both of these great naval strategists, who published their works at the beginning of the great steel and steam naval era, expanded on traditional writers like Clausewitz to divine the unique characteristics and contributions of naval forces to both strategic success and operational thinking.

The inherent ability of ships to quickly transit great distances, combined with the reach of aircraft carrier strikes and the development of amphibious assault doctrine to assault fortified beaches make naval power even more critical to modern warfare. The U.S. Navy’s recent Naval Operations Concept document shows the clear lineage of both Mahan and Corbett on the role of naval operations in the 21st Century. Mahan and Corbett created their concepts in an era of empires and far-flung coaling stations to support massive battle fleets. The Navy’s modern operational concept has evolved to current geo-political realities, highlighting how naval forces are now the most versatile operational force-able to operate over a vast territory without worrying about global bases or access to overseas ports or infrastructure. Naval forces have also become the first responders to deal with crises and contingencies, remaining away from territorial waters while retaining the capability to project power ashore by either air or missile strike or helicopter and amphibious assault.
Naval power has proven its utility in both peacetime and war, offering unique operational characteristics and capabilities to further a country’s military and diplomatic strategic objectives.

The week in Review

2010-06-18T08:30:00.000-04:00

A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal.

Hmmm, not much of that this week. Obama's speech about the oil spill was SO bad that one blogger noted that the only thing that was missing from Jimmy Carter's "Malaise" speech of 1979 was the sweater and fireplace. Not surprising from a President that not only has NO project management training or experience, but is used to getting his way from a compliant media who cries "RACISM" anytime he is challenged. WELL, an oil slick doesn't care about the color of his skin or who his daddy was or wasn't. It takes solid engineering, project and crisis management and attention to detail. NONE of which is evident from this White House, or BP for that matter.

Then there's the news about more layoffs. Nothing surprising about that. As this article from Art Laffer lays out, things are gonna get much, much worse before they get better. People and businesses are gonna get RUN OVER when the Bush tax cuts expire, and the dreaded double dip recession is likely to happen...and no more stimulus...right before the 2012 campaign season. Hmmmm, think Hillary is keeping her options open?

And of course, the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary continues to crack me up. I mean seriously, the evil, evil Republicans PLANTED the knucklehead guy who won??? I wish the Republicans could be that evil and coordinated. But now, the Dems want to recall the whole thing...what happened to count all the votes???? Hmmmm, and he's....African-American...hmmmm if he was a Republican I wonder what they would be saying??

Israel and the Sunnis Against Iran?

2010-06-15T15:18:00.000-04:00

This story, if true, is exceedingly interesting

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

It's no secret that the Saudis and Iranians are waging a little Islamic Cold War for position in the Middle East, particularly in Yemen, and that the Sunni Arab nations do not want the Shia Persians to get a nuclear capability any more than Israel does.

This is not helped by the feckless diplomacy of the Obama Administration, which is continuing down the worthless sanctions road (although to be fair it is the road paved by the Bush Administration), thinking that Mahmoud manutjob gives a rat's about sanctions with Allah wills them to get nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to guide them.

Throw in the transfer of advanced missiles to Hizbullah through Syria and you have the makings of a real powder keg.

SO, in light of all this, what the hell is going on with the flotilla nonsense; The world (and particularly Iran) is watching to see what the U.S. will do about the investigation of the boarding of the Hamas "relief blockade" and whether we will stand by Israel or, in fine Obama Administration fashion, throw them under the bus.

Well it looks like the bus is gonna win out.

Rice Supports International Probe of Israel Flotilla Incident

I mean seriously, who are we gonna get to do this that's "impartial" toward Israel? Libya? Cuba? Russia? Hey, how about Iran?

Obama is going to cause the next Mideast War. And he will do it by causing Israel and the Saudis to make common cause (even if covertly) against Iran, Syria and their proxies Hamas and Hizbullah.

And somehow, the Jews will be to blame.

Warfare, History and Society

2010-06-13T15:17:00.000-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson's new book The Father of Us All: War and History is a tour de force collection of his essays, most of them previously published in magazines and on websites, on warfare and history.

Although previously published, Hanson both expands and integrates each essay into a seamless narrative of how both historians and the general public have viewed warfare through the ages. Hanson makes three particular points that show up in each essay and are well reinforced and expounded upon:

Warfare is, and will be, a part of the human condition, no matter how much some Utopian (and mostly liberal, secular, and humanist) people wish it otherwise. The use of violence for political ends has always been a part of humanity. Moreover, no matter how much these same Utopian people want to "negotiate" and "better understand" aggressive and occasionally evil rulers and countries, sometimes, to coin a phrase "a varmint just needs killing" and war is the only way to ultimately preserve the piece.
Wars are messy, often uncontrollable, and seldom end the way that the people that start them intend. Modern Western societies are have the collective attention span of a sitcom and expect wars to be quick, cheap and not too deadly. Hanson lays out the rather scathing indictment that no matter how good the means of killing each other has become, ultimately war is about which side has the will, adaptability and stamina to keep killing their enemy.
Finally, and in a topic near and dear to me, the study of war is essential to understanding why it is waged, how to avoid it, if possible and ultimately how to WIN at war. The West has become pretty soft and flabby and practically no one alive in the West knows what its like to REALLY lose a war. Even Vietnam, our national trauma, did not threaten our existence as a nation. But too many historians and other academics think that studying history is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, a primer for making more wars. Hanson draws a very fine analogy to the medical profession. Cancer is an evil menace that kills millions, yet doctors, hospitals, drug companies and national institutions devote vast time and resources to studying cancer in the hope of one day ending it. Should warfare be the same.

All in all, a very fine book that is accessible to both the beginner and devoted student of military history. Hanson makes excellent use of examples, footnotes and transitions between essays to keep the narrative moving and engaging.

Highly recommended.

===============================================================
**The FCC now requires book reviewers to disclose the following. Book reviews appear regularly on this website. The books I review on this site I freakin' purchase myself (I get Christmas cards from Jeff Bezos) or get from the library. So all opinions are my stinkin' own and if you don't like them then go read something else like Bill Clinton's memoirs or somesuch tripe.

Where are all the Medal of Honor winners?

2010-05-29T16:35:00.000-04:00

The question of why there are have not been more Medals of Honor awarded since 2001, particularly for living receipients has bothered me for a long time.

The New York Times magazine has a fascinating article out this weekend that deals with this issue.

Military bureaucracy aside, I agree that many more Medals should have been awarded, even if Iraq has been as controversial as Vietnam.

So, here is my theory. Given the "reality show" and YouTube culture we live in, is it possible that the military is concerned, nay, scared to death that some PFC or Sergeant is gonna do something stupid and embarrass the military and what the MOH stands for?
Or, worse yet, turn into some rabid antiwar protester?

I don't know, but my theory is that the military knows that dead heroes will never be anything but dead heroes.

I think this is a mistake, given the track record of Marines and soldiers awarded Navy or Distinguished Service Crosses, I think any service member awarded a MOH who lives to tell the tale would be aware of the responsibility they now bear.

Questions to ponder on Memorial Day.

Humor For Today

2010-05-13T11:32:00.000-04:00

Some humor for today:

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, "Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?"

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, "Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German."

=0=

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.

"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.

Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.

"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."

The American said, "The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."

"Impossible. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France!"

The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."

What qualitative and quantitative considerations must we take into account in any examination of war?

2010-05-05T15:42:00.000-04:00

An excellent question from my MILS521 - Strategy, Tactics, & the Operational Art
Class:
In order to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the operational art, some aspects clearly standout as lessons for military and political leaders.

The qualitative variables can be basically divided between technology, training & doctrine, and leadership. When comparing the operational capability of two or more opposing armies, the qualitative differences are fairly well discerned. Technology is probably the easiest to describe, for example the differences between the American and Iraqi forces in 2003 clearly gave American forces an operational edge.

Qualitative differences in leadership, training & doctrine can also be easy to tell if there is a clear differential, i.e., the difference between the Israeli and Arab armies in 1967 and 1973 is pretty stark. However, when tactical and operational differences are less obvious or telling, an operational comparison is more difficult. Allied and German forces were much more matched evenly matched at the tactical level in World War II, and many historians, like Max Hastings, give a marked qualitative edge to the Germans. However, other historians such as Rick Atkinson, note that Allied forces quickly adapted to the battlefield and were, by 1944, able to engage German forces much more successfully at the tactical, operational and most important, strategic level.

Quantitative issues would seem to be a more obvious marker of operational and strategic success, however history offers many examples where quantity did not always guarantee successor failure on the battlefield.

“God is on the side with the big battalions” is a common military maxim, but the American Civil War offers some excellent examples where this was not true at the operational or tactical level.

The Seven Days Campaign and battles of June 1862 shows how poor quality of leadership can negate a significant numerical advantage. General McClellan’s cautious approach to Richmond in spite of his overwhelming superiority gave his more audacious opponent Robert E. Lee time to marshal his forces for a counteroffensive to drive the Union army back. When the two generals met later, in September 1862 at Antietam, McClellan squandered his numerical advantage in a tactical setting by committing his army in piecemeal and uncoordinated attacks, allowing the outnumbered Confederates to shift forces along interior lines and fend off his offensive. When the armies met again in May 1863, the outnumbered Confederates were able to overcome their quantitative inferiority through superior battlefield awareness and tactical prowess to defeat a much larger Union army through a daring flank attack.

The interaction between qualitative and quantitative aspects of an army is also a factor to study in the operational art. Armies that know they must always fight outnumbered usually try to maintain a qualitative edge over their potential opponents, i.e. Frederick the Great’s Prussians, the modern Israeli Defense Forces. This qualitative edge will almost always provide a significant advantage over more numerous but poorly trained and equipped foes. However, if this qualitative edge slips, as it did in the first phase of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, it can provide a costly and severe challenge.

Qualitative and quantitative measurements are the beginning of understanding the operational art and provide a good basis for beginning a campaign or battle analysis.

America- Losing the Armored Spear

2010-04-28T17:26:00.000-04:00

This Particular Article on the Small Wars Journal Blog ignited quite the fire storm:

The Death of the Armor Corps by Colonel Gian P. Gentile

Now the debate over the role of COIN in the aftermath of Iraq and what kind of threat the U.S. Army should be getting ready for is nothing new.

Clearly the U.S. military has been concentrating on winning counter-insurgencies and not fighting large-scale combined arms combat. This is clearly not a good thing, as the Israel's learned the hard way.

Back to Basics: A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation CAST LEAD

But this is a subject that is not going to be solved overnight. Rebalancing the U.S. military after the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are over will take a long time, a lot of money, and a great deal of thought.

I have posted a number of blogs on the resurgance of Russia and their newfound appreciation of armored warfare and tanks.

Russian Military on the Rebound?

Another viewpoint on the Russian military

Are Tanks Obsolete?

I believe the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are going to need to get back to basics and relearn how to fight well-armed opponents. Clearly, the days of "nation-building" and "regime change" are over, baring some catastrophic incident like 9/11 again.

This debate between COIN and Combined Arms is gonna drag on for a while.

Stay Tuned

Lots more discussion at

Wings over Iraq

and

Great Satan's Girlfriend (the most unusual national security/military website I have ever seen -:)

Why do we study the classical theorists? Of what use are such concepts as Clausewitz’s “trinity”?

2010-04-26T16:28:00.000-04:00

An excellent question....this is the first question we discussed in my new class:

MILS521 - Strategy, Tactics, & the Operational Art

Clausewitz’ trinity is an excellent example of this principle.The balance and interaction of the state, military and population is probably more important today than it was in the mid-1800s.Clausewitz’ understanding of the intertwining of diplomacy, politics and military force were not only prophetic, but also insightful.

In particular, Clausewitz understood that war often went in unanticipated directions, be it ‘friction’ or ‘chaos’ or unrestrained emotion leading to irrational thinking because people wage war, and people react to violence in unpredictable ways. Policy makers over the last 50 years have too often initiated warfare, or even limited military action without thinking through all of the downstream effects that military action can create.

Because warfare in the days of Thucydides, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu was literally a matter of life or death for a country or dynasty, rulers had a much better appreciation of the risks of going to war.A ruler had to know what they wanted to accomplish by force of arms, and most importantly, how much blood and treasure they were will to expend to achieve those goals.
Current leaders would do well to understand Clausewitz’ trinity and realize that if this balance is not maintained, the use of military force to achieve diplomatic purposes will not be as successful.

Another hit piece from the New York Slimes

2010-04-20T23:35:00.000-04:00

Another typical hit piece from the New York Slimes hiding beneath the thin veneer of "historians" oyyy, stand by for heaving puking.

Tea Party Supporters Doing Fine, but Angry Nonetheless

What I find particularly nauseating is the very snide and well hidden pokes at the Tea Party members as racists and angry white people who hate poor black people and "diversity", whatever the hell that means...how diverse are college faculties these days..hmnmm?

The Tea Party supporters recycle their language from the conservative movements of the early 1960s in response to the Kennedy presidency, the resistance to busing, gay rights and the Carter administration in the mid 1970s, and the opposition to the Clinton health care plan in the early 1990s.

Hmmm, sort of a twofer there, Tea Party folks hate blacks and gays!

The poll reveals a deep conviction among Tea Party supporters that the country is being run by people who do not share their values, for the benefit of people who are not like them.

Well, this is true, Tea Party goers for the most part have jobs and pay taxes, unlike 50% of the American public-Hey, I wonder how many of that demographic voted for Obama?- You know the guy handing out the free "Obama money" to all his Democratic union fat cat supporters.

They are significantly more likely than Republicans or the general public to say that too much attention has been made of the problems facing black people, and that the policies of the Obama administration favor blacks over whites and the poor over the rich or the middle class.

This is my favorite quote. Clearly all those rich white people, you know the ones with jobs that pay taxes, clearly hate the poor and by implication of this article blacks, since according to liberals they are all poor and downtrodden.

Well, people with jobs that are managing a household are not stupid...you can only tax WORKING people so much before there is no more blood in that turnip to pay for ridiculous social programs that we just plain can't afford. NOW Obama and his buddies don't care because their retirement and healthcare is alllll paid for...but what about the rest of us? There is NOT GOING TO BE any Social Security for my son...maybe not even for me...what's going to happen to this country then? Unlike the idiots at the New York Slimes...Tea Partyers DO comprehend what TRILLIONS in debt means, inflation, taxation and devaluation. Not to mention a poor, less free country for their children. It isn't rocket science, except to the liberal elite in Manhattan.

BTW, I Googled the historian quoted in this article...hmmmm, no bias here....

Eric S. "Rick" Perlstein (born 1969) is an American historian and journalist. He graduated from the University of Chicago with a B.A. in History in 1992. He is a former writer for The Village Voice and The New Republic and the author of numerous articles in other publications.

The Village Voice and the New Republic...hmmm don't remember those as peer reviewed journals...

Outstanding Lecture

2010-04-18T21:02:00.000-04:00

I read this over the weekend while enjoying a gorgeous Saturday. I had a small booklet with David McCullough's 2003 Jefferson Lecture on the Humanities. Well worth the read...McCullough is one of the best historians of this generation. I really loved McCullough's 1776 and I think he really captured the sentiment of that tumultuous year when the American Revolution nearly ended. I have not read his John Adams but the HBO series was really, really good.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from his lecture:

There should be no hesitation ever about giving anyone a book to enjoy, at any age. There should be no hesitation about teaching future teachers with books they will enjoy. No harm's done to history by making it something someone would want to read.

Certainly true for how I learned history...from my local librarian.

Hmmph

2010-04-12T23:19:00.000-04:00

Well, the Pulitzer Prizes are out, and, as expected they were primarily awarded to dinosaur media reporting inane stories.

I mean seriously, where was the hard hitting investigative journalism of the ACORN scandal which two twenty-somethings broke? Or how about the backroom bribes and dealing to get Obamacare passed? How about the American victory in Iraq?

NOT...oh well, I do enjoy reading the prizes for history, those at least show some sanity.

History: Awarded to "Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World," by Liaquat Ahamed (The Penguin Press), a compelling account of how four powerful bankers played crucial roles in triggering the Great Depression and ultimately transforming the United States into the world's financial leader. Finalists: "Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City," by Greg Grandin (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Co.), an evocative, heavily researched examination of an industrial giant's grandiose scheme to create a model rubber plantation deep in the Amazon forest, and "Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815," by Gordon S. Wood (Oxford University Press), a lucid exploration of a turbulent era when a profoundly changing America, despite the sin of slavery, came to see itself as a beacon to the world, demonstrating human capacity for self-government.

I have Empire of Liberty, and from the first couple of chapters I have read, it is pretty good.

Another Year, Another Civil War History Kerfuffle

2010-04-07T21:31:00.000-04:00

Bob's Big Oy!

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell completely reverses himself on the issue of slavery.

Very interesting article about the current kerfuffle in Virginia about "Confederate Heritage Month"

Now the mere mention of the Civil War, slavery, Confederates and white Southerners sends some people into tizzy.

But should it? A question I love to ask-- what should we teach our children about the Civil War? Was it about slavery? States Rights? Economics?

My personal opinion was that it was indeed about slavery--but not the evil, we hate black people slavery so often touted by some. For better or worse, to understand the thinking of white, slave holding Southerners, slavery was a matter of economics and a way of life. They did not enslave people merely for fun, but for profit. Does that shock anyone? The entire Southern economy was built on plantation and slave labor. If you really try and understand the thinking and political philosophy of Southerners at the time, it isn't too hard to see why the would be terrified of a President who THEY BELIEVED was trying to economically and socially ruin them.

Correctly or incorrectly, that's what they were thinking...we can't conceive of a time when slavery was, in fact, protected by the Constitution and had a SUPER-DUPER precedent for being protected in EVERY single political Compromise enacted in previous sectional crises. Does this make it right? Not to a 21st century American, 150 YEARS LATER.

Oh, and by the way, most Northerners were just as racist as their Southern counterparts...they may not have wanted slavery, but they sure didn't want freedmen living next door to them either.

Not pretty, and certainly unacceptable in the 21st century, but that's how things were in the 1860s. Unfortunately, we are so blinded by racial politics and political correctness that we don't study the causes of the Civil War in the context of the times, in my opinion.

Civil War history is one of my favorite topics and for a military historian, it's a source of boundless study. Does that mean we should ignore slavery? Certainly not...does that mean that EVERYTHING we study about the Civil War has to revolve around slavery? I don't think that's true either.

One of may favorite Mort Kunstler paintings

If we don't study the causes of the Civil War, secession, the role of slavery, and the perils encountered in Reconstruction, how will we understand our history? Sadly, I think racists on both sides use the Civil War for their own purposes and don't try to really do their history. Unfortunately, I doubt our public schools or universities are helping.

By the way, modern Americans are pretty smug in our sophisticated self-righteousness when we judge our backward, evil ancestors. I wonder what our descendants will think about us in 150 years, if we survive that long.

Totally Awesome

2010-04-05T23:54:00.000-04:00

WARNING-Salty language.

I think the title speaks for itself.

Outstanding Article

2010-04-03T13:22:00.000-04:00

This bio-article by Mark Bowden on General David Petraeus is outstanding.

The Professor of War

I actually heard Gen Petraeus speak at a seminar last year and I have to say he was very impressive. Here's one of my favorite quotes:

From his command at CentCom, Petraeus may not hold the highest rank, but he is without a doubt the most influential military officer in America. His conquest of the U.S. Army is complete. He has a deep and devoted following in the ranks—his “counter-insurgency nation.” His doctrines now shape the way we fight, and because his position allows him to select and promote the institution’s next generation of colonels and generals, his values and ideas are shaping the army’s future.

Thank goodness for this, because, it spite of the drivel spewing from this Administration, we still have many, many enemies out there and we are going to need another generation of combat-hardened officers and soldiers to survive...don't kid yourself that Obama can wish the Iranian, Chinese, Russian, or Venezuelan problems away because of his charm and diplomacy.

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

2010-04-01T20:31:00.000-04:00

Okay, I have had enough of these booger-eatin' morons. I nearly puked reading Frank Rich's moronic tome

and various other idiotic pronouncements from left-wing talking heads (or talking out their a**, same thing) that anyone opposing Obamacare is a racist, sexist, ignorant red neck. So, in a calm rational tone, I will take this moronic poltroon to task.

The Republican crackup (Published in the Washington Post, what a surprise)

By Matt Miller
Tuesday, March 31, 2020;

Has anyone else noticed that seemingly well-adjusted Republicans have been driven insane by the passage of Obamacare? [Unlike the calm rational left-wingers that went bat-sh** crazy about EVERYTHING that George W. Bush said, ate, did, read, etc]You can catch them muttering under their breath, whimpering on editorial pages and howling to the moon that this Democratic victory is the death knell for much that we cherish in American life. When I first saw a Republican friend jump out the window in this fashion, I assumed it was an isolated incident, or even politically motivated play-acting. Now that I've seen countless others follow suit, however, it's a phenomenon that merits deeper psychological inquiry.
As a matter of objective reality, after all, this Republican derangement seems an absurd overreaction. How could taking Mitt Romney's health-care plan national be seen by any balanced person as the beginning of the end? Still, everyone knows that too many big, stressful changes at once -- such as getting divorced, changing jobs and moving homes -- can push even sturdy people over the edge. Three sudden emotional shocks likewise explain the Republican crackup.
Shock 1: Losing big. For starters, Republicans simply have not lost on an issue this big in decades. Media coverage features so many breathless political ups and downs that it's easy to assume each party tastes victory and defeat in equal measure. But as a matter of ideology, these overheated fights take place between the 45-yard lines on a field that conservatives shrewdly tilted to their advantage several decades ago. That President Obama could move the debate to the 40-yard line [On the contrary, the Dems lied, cheated, threatened and bribed their way to pass this bill with NO Republican support] and win is something the modern GOP has never experienced. Republicans mauled President Clinton when he tried to do the same; after 1994, Clinton's "wins" were trumped-up and tiny. Republicans have so successfully framed the debate for so long that they don't know what it feels like to be thoroughly beaten. Who wouldn't feel disoriented and angry?
Shock 2: The quest for security. The next blow is the dawning awareness that the quest for economic security in a global era is reshaping politics. The instant premise of Republican analysis -- that the public will never tolerate Obamacare's repeal once it is implemented -- concedes the point that health reform will bring a measure of security that families crave. The Republican psyche is having so much trouble digesting this reality, though, that the party is resorting to the kind of condescending arguments for which they normally damn liberals. Who's got more contempt for the average American? Liberals who say everyday Kansans vote Republican because they're too dumb to grasp their own economic self-interest? Or conservatives who now say voters are too dimwitted to see that Obamacare will devour their freedom?
Deep down, Republicans know they haven't developed serious policy responses to the economic anxieties of the middle class. [This is my favorite idiotic statement-how about lower taxes, less government eating at the trough, free market health care reform, not taking over car companies, banks, etc. along with new "environmental' regulations]This (rightly) scares them.
Shock 3: The death of the tax issue. The final shock is the cruelest of all: the demise of the tax issue that's defined the Republican brand since Ronald Reagan. There's been no shortage of conservative carping since the health-care vote that we're now doomed to have a value-added tax to fund the runaway welfare state. Well, earth to GOP: Taxes have always been destined to go up as baby boomers retire and we double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare in the years ahead -- and the scale of that retiree commitment is far greater than the tab for Obamacare. [NOPE, I think THIS is my favorite moronic statement- NO SH** Sherlock...we can't pay for the big government programs we have now without taxing ourselves into oblivion and he thinks it's good to add $1T more in taxes to pay for universal health care {and it's comin', make no mistake about that}]Trying to blame health reform for the higher taxes in our future is another species of the denial that has left GOP tax talk almost comically detached from reality. But this is just the GOP acting out its fears. When a party discovers that core aspects of its political identity no longer offer meaningful answers to the nation's problems, the torment is acute. Yet what else can we say of the GOP now that "rugged individualism" won't suffice to save American workers from competition from China and India, and when taxes are sure to rise, no matter how many Republicans we elect?
The signposts in the Republican universe have been abruptly altered. So don't let yourself become desensitized to the sight of conservatives stumbling, lost in the night, the way you avert your eyes when passing poor homeless souls on the sidewalk. Suffering is subjective. There are people on the street who really think they are Jesus. There are Republicans in our midst who really think Obama's version of Romneycare equals socialism. There but for the grace of God -- and maybe a little less sloppy thinking -- go we. [Oh, and just to finish off this idiot, is he even aware of what Romneycare did to Massachusetts? Even their own politicians are scrambling to save it..so Romney is no hero on this matter, but what makes these idiots think Obama can run it any better than Romney?]

Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress <---[OH, that explains everything, he's an Obamabot paid for by George Soros]

Okay, I feel so much better know...these people really, really piss me off...and I mean in a big way. These people have no idea what's going to hit them. When unemployment remains high, the real estate market continues to slide, AND all of the new taxes get piled on top, the voters are gonna be furious. THEN when the Bush tax cuts expire, just in time for the 2012 Presidential elections, look for a voter revolt that has never been seen.

In sort of an ironic way, morons like this guy may finally succeed in getting the American people to consider what many past Republican Presidents have not been able to back to the days of the great Ronald Reagan-HOW do we pay for all of these entitlements with our massive $10T debt (mostly imposed by Obama), huge numbers of retirees coming into the system and the potential to add millions of (il)legal aliens...this may be the greatest unintended consequence of the liberal progressive Democrats obsession with passing universal health care (which this is, a wolf in sheep's clothing)...the American People are gonna wake up and figure out we are going the way of Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany unless HARD, DIFFICULT choices are made..which will not be popular, will be painful, but, in the end, must be made.

Just not be this Congress or this Administration.

Outstanding Article

2010-03-27T22:42:00.000-04:00

I subscribe to the monthly newsletter from Hillsdale College, an outstanding institute of higher learning.
This month's Imprimis has a very timely article on the bungling of the War on Terror by the Obama Administration.

America's War On Islamist Terror...Or Is It?

These protocols are the laws of war, and they are older than the U.S. itself. They include requiring combatants to wear uniforms, to carry their weapons openly, to be part of a regular armed force, and, most importantly, to refrain from intentionally targeting civilians. They also define wartime powers and privileges. Enemy combatants, for example, may be captured and detained until the conclusion of hostilities. Fighters who adhere to the laws of war are entitled to various protections upon capture. By contrast, fighters who flout the laws of war—such as non-uniformed terrorists who target civilians—are unlawful combatants and may be prosecuted by a military commission for war crimes.

Hmmm, sounds like a plan to me.

Another OUTSTANDING Facebook exchange

2010-03-25T23:32:00.000-04:00

Okay, here we go again, another fascinating exchange on Facebook between yours truly and some completely thin-skinned, bitter, angry liberal women. WOW, this was not what I expected.

Angry Liberal Woman #1: Amen! It is your right to agree or disagree with any Administration. But this has become uncivilized hatred and bigotry.

Op-Ed Columnist - An Absence of Class in the G.O.P. - NYTimes.com

www.nytimes.com

It’s long past time to acknowledge that a party that promotes ignorance and provides a safe house for bigotry cannot serve the best interests of our country.

Neutral Bystander Guy: Totally agree it's foolish using hateful rhetoric when expressing opinions. We heard much the same from the political left during the lowness of the Iraq War and national elections since Y2K. Yet personal freedom is at stake with this healthcare bill so I can appreciate the challenge of maintaining self-control.

Angry Liberal Woman #1: Doug, I appreciate the respectful response and we can agree to disagree. I feel the same challenge when the personal rights of women are at stake.

Your Hero, the Grouchy Historian

"For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness."
Really? I suppose the current Administration is full of puppies and unicorns...remember the absolute trash hurled at the previous President? I do, and I have to say Mr. Herbert does not impress me. Where was the NYT for the last 8 years? Isn't dissent the highest form of patriotism?...oh that's right, only if you're a Democrat..otherwise, shut up, cause your betters will tell you what to think.

Really Angry Liberal Woman #2: Don't even get me stad on the GOPPPPPPPPPP Tea Party People.

I'm about to explode the second I see one. I have to have a kid around me 24/7 just to keep my mouth shut.

Your Hero, the Grouchy Historian: Tea Party versus Code Pink? Hmmmm, let me think.....

Really Angry Liberal Woman #2: Angry Liberal Woman #1, I would do some friend deleting on your page :) I had to delete 3-4 last week. Love Ya

Your Hero, the Grouchy Historian: What, no civil discourse?

Really Angry Liberal Woman #2: I'm on Angry Liberal Woman #1's page, I have to behave.

But I will say, I would love to see how you would handle my page if the truth in the Op Ed piece bothers you. It's the truth.

TEA PARTY PEOPLE ARE RUDE, RACIST AND SEXIST. ..

Cant handle people that act like that anymore. I JUST DELETE :)

Your Hero, the Grouchy Historian: Hmmm, well nothing like sweeping generalizations, don't they call those prejudices?

Really Angry Liberal Woman #2: We will stop now. Have a good night :)

Now, normally, I would expect it to end there...after all, I can be a little bit :) snarky, especially with sanctimonious liberals. BUT, the next day, Angry Liberal Woman #1 DE-FRIENDED me on Facebook. SERIOUSLY, you're going to do that over a little spat about a MORON columnist from the NYT? I would say a lot of things, but why bother, that's the liberal mindset...if you don't want to argue about the facts, call the other person names, leading up to the racist, sexist labels, then stop the conversation.

SOOOO, whatever, it was excellent fodder for my Facebook page.....

Would love to see Really Angry Liberal Woman's face after the 2010 elections and when her Hero the Obamassieah becomes a one-term failed President who makes Jimmy Carter looks like a statesman.

The use of oral history

2010-03-25T22:37:00.000-04:00

As research tools for historical projects, oral histories have many of the same issues as traditional documentary sources. They must be verified, can be biased, and often fade with the passage of time. The example of how courtroom testimony can conflict was very enlightening in understanding the challenges historians using oral sources can face if they are trying to reconstruct traumatic or controversial events. However, oral histories can be a tremendous untapped source not only for “forgotten” history not documented or archived by traditional methods, but also a powerful narrative of how ordinary people reacted to historic events.

The power of technology to resurrect this form of historical data gathering. Beyond traditional tape recordings, I believe that video can be a much more powerful means of gathering someone’s story by catching those non-verbal cues that strict audio recordings miss. Not to mention, digital video (or audio) files can be more widely distributed and archived for historian’s use. I believe that integrating oral histories into a historical project can be a powerful tool for bringing the audience into the story, which is after all, what the historian is trying to convey.

An excellent example of this is the integration of veterans’ recollections into the series “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific”. Hearing the veterans’ often choked-up remembrances-combined with the action sequences by actors, really does much more than just showing another war movie.

Probably the best historian I have read that uses oral history is Cornelius Ryan. His volumes on D-Day (The Longest Day), the fall of Berlin (The Last Battle), and Operation Market-Garden (A Bridge Too Far) are classics of World War II history. Mr. Ryan used hundreds of oral histories, combined with traditional documentary sources to write his books, and did an excellent job on overcoming the challenges of integrating many recollections into a seamless story. One of the methods he used was to rigorously cross-reference veteran’s recollections with either other veteran’s accounts or official sources before using them in his books. This is really no different that what historians should do with other sources.

Oral histories, properly scrutinized and utilized, can be a powerful addition to a historical research project. Although they are no more perfect or imperfect than any other source, their impact as personal recollections gives them a unique impact.

South of the Border

2010-03-23T22:32:00.000-04:00

Interesting article in the LA Times -Consular slayings spotlight Mexico's failures in fighting drug gangs....and certainly timely with the current Administration getting ready to set its sights on illegal alien amnesty, ooops I mean immigration reform.

What will the U.S. do if Mexico becomes a quasi-narco state? How about that open border then? Will we have the courage to enforce our sovereignty as a nation and defend our country from an invasion, albeit an unarmed one...for now.

This not a mere academic exercise, who knows what is or could be smuggled across our border? And with the current crop of politicians attempting to suck up to the Hispanic community in order to buy votes (yes I said it, please, what do you think is all about? As they said in Ghostbusters- "Millions of registered voters")

And of course, the line is quickly blurring, even in our country, between law enforcement and national security.

A "New" Dynamic in the Western Hemisphere Security Environment: The Mexican Zetas and Other Private Armies