Grim's Hall

Medieval Warfare & Iraq:

US forces fighting outside the gold-domed Shrine of Ali have not responded to attacks from within the shrine, rather than damage the holy building. I have been reflecting on this over breakfast. There is only one precedent in the history of mankind of which I am aware for this. That is, of course, the Medieval tradition of sanctuary, which puts holy places beyond the reach of war and even justice. I suspect that eventually we'll have to flush these snipers out, but it may be using tear gas and police tactics, rather than the military approach.

This story, taken in context of the war as we've seen it develop, speaks to the new "way of war" being developed by Rumsfeld and others. It looks remarkably like the early Medieval way of war. Professional armies, schooled in a theory of Just War (in fact, the same theory, which has its origins in the Catholic monasteries of the Middle Ages), are clearing border realms of bandit kings. They do so in a way designed to protect the holy places, and in doing so they uplift the folk of the land who had been living under the tyranny of those powers. If there is a living tradition of chivalry in the world, these men are the ones who bear it. I cite again the opening message to the Marines:

"When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.

The great question for this emergent way of war is weapons of mass destruction. They are still out there, and have not yet been used. This action in Iraq, and the resolution of the increasingly dire situation with the DPRK, will determine whether or not this generation lives under the shadow of such weapons, or if we master them. These two scenarios are possible: a return to the conditions of the Cold War, when the destruction of our cities was a daily fact of life; or, a world in which these weapons are controlled by only a few, stable states, and programs to develop them elsewhere are eradicated before these weapons can fall into terrorist or rogue-state hands. If the latter is to be the case, it will be the military forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia that bring it about.

This is, really, the choice on offer. Policies which allow rogue states breathing room to develop weapons of mass destruction encourage the development of the deadly future. The only policy that avoids that future is one predicated on the chivalry and sacrifice of our fighting men.