King Naresuan

Single Combat Between Kings -

Alexander very much saw himself as a Homeric leader, and a front-line fighter, but the Oriental despots he fought were not the type to oblige him with a single combat. William, I read, challenged Harold to single combat for the kingdom (I don't know if he had any epic inspirations - the Song of Roland is of course full of single combats, but I don't know if any early versions reached William). Shakespeare was fond of having the warring kings and princes or usurpers cross swords - the stage directions require Henry V to fight and defeat the Dauphin himself, and Henry Tudor has to do the same to Richard III. There may be some truth in that - as far as we can tell, Richard really did charge a knot of soldiers around Henry in the hopes of ending the battle by killing him. I don't know if he was influenced by Arthurian heroics or not (Caxton's printing of Mallory was the year of Bosworth Field). (Incidentally, Laurence Olivier's film version tracks the climax of the battle reasonably well, given the requirements of the poetry and the smallish cast of extras.)

Well, I'm currently in Thailand as part of a thinly veiled vacation at taxpayer expense vital military exercise with a long-standing ally, and found one example in sober history. King Naresuan of Ayuthaya (a predecessor kingdom to Thailand), who'd been raised as a hostage in the Burmese court (and apparently had led Burmese troops against rebels while he was there), ended a Burmese invasion by single combat against the Burmese crown prince. According to this account from the Thai Ministry of Culture, the Thai troops were in the midst of a feigned retreat, hotly pursued by the Burmese, and

The two Siamese Princes found the whole Burmese army advancing against the Thai troops in haste and disorder. At that time, both Prince Naresuan’s elephant, Phraya Chaiyanuphab, and Prince Ekatotsarot’s elephant, Phraya Prabtraichakra, happened to be in musk. Thus, when the two animals saw their rivals, they gave chase furiously, taking the two Princes, accompanied only by their immediate attendants, into the midst of the Burmese army.

To his surprise, Prince Naresuan saw the Burmese Maha Uparaja whom he had known well during childhood, close by him, also mounted on an elephant. Undeterred by his own disadvantage, Prince Naresuan called out, "Brother Prince, leave the shelter of that tree. Come out and fight with me, for the honour of our names and the wonder of future ages."

In fact, at that time Naresuan, the beloved Prince of Ayutthaya, was in the midst of the enemy. If the Burmese Maha Uparaja had given a word, the two Siamese Princes would have been either killed or captured, and Ayutthaya would have been easily subdued.

Thinking of his royal dignity and his own acquaintance with the Siamese Prince, Maha Uparaja accepted the challenge and drove his elephant by name of Phatthakor toward Naresuan’s elephant. Phraya Chaiyanuphab, in a period of musk, immediately attacked his approaching rival furiously, and thus put his master into a disadvantageous position. The Burmese Prince dealt a fierce blow with his halberd at Naresuan’s head. Fortunately, Naresuan bent in time to avoid the blow, but his leather cap was cut through. When the elephants broke away, Prince Naresuan at once dealt a blow with his halberd at the right shoulder of the Burmese Prince. The ill-fated Prince fell dead on his own elephant’s neck.

At the same time, Prince Ekatotsarot himself had engaged in single combat with the prince of Zaparo, whom he also slew on his elephant’s neck. When the Burmese troops realised that their Princes were dead, they fiercely attacked the Siamese Princes. Prince Naresuan was wounded in the hand from a gun shot. By that time, a large Siamese army had managed to force their way through the Burmese ranks, the two Princes were rescued, and the Burmese had to retire.

The halberd used that day was later named the "Halberd Defeating all Enemies," while the leather cap was named the "Cut through Cap." The victorious elephant was given the name, "Conqueror of Hongsawadi."

In Ayuthaya itself, there's a large pagoda said to have been built by him in commemoration of this victory, and here's a statute of the king himself nearby -



(photo by Mrs. W., who is a picture-taking fiend. The building is surrounded by scores of sculpted roosters, but I do not know the symbolism. We had to take our shoes off, as we did at Buddhist temples, and there were locals praying in front - I can't tell you whether to him, for him, or something else.)

I know very little Asian military history and found the story interesting on several points. I don't know much about the heroic culture of Naresuan's court, but he may have been influenced by the Ramayana (which the Thais accept as a national epic; I saw many painted scenes from it in the old Royal Palace in Bangkok, and "Rama" is apparently a popular throne name). Rama, on the verge of inheriting the throne of his kingdom, defeats the king of the Rakshasas with his own arrow. (The description of the fight - reducing the description to a pair of decisive blows - reminds me also of the Song of Roland, but some readers here may better be able to judge how realistic it is.)

Also, this was the only time I'd read about elephants being used like horses - as a platform for a couple of humans to fight each other. From classical sources, I'd gotten used to thinking of elephants as a form of artillery - launched at the beginning of a battle, to break up enemy formations and disrupt their morale - rather than cavalry. Just clicking through the Wikipedia battles involving war elephants, I didn't see a lot to modify my earlier thinking, so this may have been a one-off.

There's a lot to be said about military leaders risking themselves at the front, but as John Keegan said most of it in The Mask of Command, I can't say I have anything to add. In any case, if the Ministry's version is right, this wasn't deliberate risk-taking by the King, but the display of a core military skill known as making the best of a bad situation.

"We have decided to wait until the Russians send the money."

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan (AP) — Kyrgyzstan's parliament will delay a vote on expelling U.S. troops from an important base there until it receives $450 million in aid and loans promised by Russia, a lawmaker said Monday.

This makes me laugh.

Not Exactly Jörmungandr

"Not quite Jörmungandr" --

Reading a line like that, I couldn't resist linking to this.

Fringe

Fringes:

Cassandra has a post on the Superbowl commercials -- which I will not see until starting 1800 tomorrow, which is 1000 your time, so please recall that in your discussion in case I happen to have time to get to a computer between now and then.

The topic is public v. private behavior, and the importance of maintaining a public space that is acceptable and comfortable to everyone. This is familiar ground for all of you who read her site and mine, as it is a point of commonality (more or less) in our philosophies.

In the comments, though, she says something that strikes me as worth a reply.

I also don't want to have to stop and constantly explain to my kids or grandkids that certain things are not right just because fringe behavior is thrust in my face when I least expect it.

It's the phrase "fringe behavior" that I find interesting here.

Not too long ago I went by the MWR and saw a soldier playing one of the Grand Theft Auto games. It involved carjacking and robbery, murder not just cold-blooded but entirely random (and highly frequent), gang membership, thuggery of every sort, but also just outright reckless driving of an extreme sort that would be certain to get a bunch of people killed.

The soldier playing it was (I surmise from his rank and position) a responsible man who has consistently demonstrated leadership and military virtue over the course of several years. He will by now be on at least his second deployment. Yet the "fringe" behaviors depicted here are are apparently appealing to him -- at least, to his imagination.

More, the game series is (I have been told) one of the highest selling in the history of the video game industry. It has only gotten more violent and extravagant as years have passed. This indicates that the fringe desires here are, frankly, not fringe at all -- they are appealing to a large number of people. We can point to the obvious popularity of a large number of other things (such as Superbowl commercials) as evidence that this may be true more often than that a genuinely "fringe" behavior is at fault.

The danger is that the impulses are not fringe. They are not perversions of human nature. Rather, they are highly common and powerful desires with very bad practical consequences. For some they are a morass, for others a precipice. Not everyone is equally imperiled -- most of us are simply not tempted by at least one if not several of the vices, though suceptible to others.

Some of us become highly skilled at navigation and rock-climbing, and during periods of strength can explore in relative safety. (Although saying that may mark the sin of pride, which is the worst sin of all.) Yet it is discipline that enables such exploration to occur without disaster, discipline gained only through time and experience (and not without a few scars).

That is another reason why places where children may be present ought to be kept clean of certain things. It isn't that the behavior is necessarily fringe. In fact, one of the best reasons to clean it up can be that it isn't a fringe desire at all. Children need time to learn and to develop the inner discipline that will let them navigate these perils. These pleasures and vices are called "adult" not as a euphamism, but because adults are the ones who may (sometimes!) have the proper strength to handle them.

Of course, we have defined down what is meant by the term "adult" as well; so perhaps that too is no fit place to hang our sign. That, though, is another conversation.

Iraq Elections

Congratulations to the People of Iraq:

Today's elections will, I expect, go largely unnoticed back home. In a way that is a mark of the success of the Iraqi nation and our servicemembers.

Speaking only for myself, I was up at 0445 this morning. I spent the day at headquarters, to advise the command staff in case of difficulty across our operating environment. As a show of honor to the Iraqis who stood forth to vote, we began the morning with a playing of the Iraqi national anthem in the TOC. No Iraqis were there to know, but it was for them all the same. All of us know many Iraqis, work with them, eat with them in their homes.

This is their victory, but I cannot help but feel like a small stakeholder in it -- I suppose it is how you would feel if you purchased a few early shares in a company that grew strong. My part in it is negligible, but in small ways it is my fault: I supported the war before it began, and for what I thought and still think were just reasons. I have been here for certain parts of it, and contributed according to my limited powers as well as I can.

In the sense that I supported the war, I must of course accept that a part of the blood shed is my fault. Indeed, in a sense, all of it is at least partially my responsibility: it is the magic of guilt that it can be divided without being lessened.

There is a similar magic at work here, though it is not so powerful as guilt's. Credit must be lessened if divided, and I will claim no part of it. What I do feel a stake in is the pride, and something of the joy, that must attend those people who are voting for the first time not to establish a government but to change one.

Good work, Iraq. Bravo Zulu to the ISF. Thank you, to all who did more than me. It was a pleasure to see it up close.

I'll bet this is a lot funnier to me than to others around here.

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama expressed frustration Wednesday after members of his cabinet failed to recognize his allusion to the 24th issue of the comic series Savage Sword Of Conan during their first major meeting together.

I read "The Savage Sword of Conan" pretty religiously.

Added the president, "For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?"

Heh.

An Article to Discuss:

I wish I had time to engage this article as fully as I would like.

Hutchins’s models of a collegiate education were the medieval Trivium — rhetoric, grammar, and logic — and Quadrivium — arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. Technical knowledge was to be strenuously avoided: “Facts are the core of an anti-intellectual curriculum,” he observed. “Facts do not solve problems. . . . The gadgeteers and the data collectors have threatened to become the supreme chieftains of the scholarly world.” The true stewards of the university, said the career administrator, should be those who deal with the most fundamental problems: metaphysicians.

A worthy concept, with a noble history. What was the problem?

Only St. John’s College maintains a curriculum built exclusively around the Great Books. Every student takes at least two years of ancient Greek, two of French, four of math, and three of laboratory science, the last taught not through textbooks but through primary works like Copernicus’s On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres and Lavoisier’s Elements of Chemistry.

Beam sat in on a St. John’s laboratory seminar and found it “flat, flat, flat.” The same went for a seminar on portions of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica (example: “Whether the proposition ‘God exists’ is self-evident?”). “Everyone had done the reading,” Beam laments, “but few could make heads or tails of it.” The problem, as Beam sees it, is that the students aren’t allowed to bring to the discussion anything outside the text. Beam imagines “a thousand interesting questions” that would have enlivened the proceedings: “Why did Aquinas feel the necessity of proving God’s existence? Who in the Middle Ages disagreed with him?”

This reminds me of some of our discussions on the Laches, in which the problem of physical education is considered. Can practice-fighting in armor yield anything of the virtues required to actually fight in armor? Here is the intellectual companion -- for the education of the full man includes both intellectual and physical education.

How can you learn to fight like Odysseus or Musashi? Not by studying how they fought alone, nor by reading their words or only words about them: you must also actually fight. How can you learn to think like Aquinas? Not by reading only Aquinas -- but by learning to fight like Aquinas, which means learning to understand his foes as well as himself. It is the battles he fought that gave rise to the spirit of the argument.

If you want the spirit of the man, you must preserve more than the man. You must also preserve his foes.

Across the Euphrates:

Some of you may recognize the bridge.



If you don't recognize the bridge, it has an interesting backstory.

The elections are coming up. I know Iraq isn't the story it used to be, but glance this way once in a while. We're not -- not quite -- finished here.

The guy over at the Volokh conspiracy is right; this is just creepy. (catch it at 3:54)

I could make all sorts of rude jokes on this, but I don't feel like polluting the hall like that. But Jeebus. What were they thinking? Do they realize how insane they sound? Not to mention how nobody is going to believe their bullshit?

Fort Apache

Fort Apache:

I was out at what used to be PB Inchon the other day -- not too long ago a real "Fort Apache." It's been turned over to the Iraqi Army now. They cooked up some rice and chicken for the patrol, and then we went on elsewhere.

There are few of the real outposts left, already -- when I was here a year ago we were still laying them in. Now they're already being handed over, or already have been handed over.

Country's getting old on me. Well, likely there will be another frontier somewhere else before it's over.

Sheep by the Water, Qarghuli Tribal Region:

Bill Faith

Bill Faith:

It was with surprise that I read in my email that Bill Faith has died. Bill Faith was the blogger who wrote "Small Town Veteran," one of the early milblogs -- he was a Veteran of the Vietnam conflict. He also founded Old War Dogs, which is where the poetry of Russ Vaughn is first published. That fact shows the quality of the men who chose to associate with him.

I hope his family finds peace in his memory. Though I knew him only online, he seemed to be a noble and kind man.

Dead stick into the Hudson river.

I used to live on the Jersey side of the Hudson. Its pretty big, actually. But I wouldn't want to try to ditch an airliner into it.

This video on CNN shows the actual ditching, as captured by some security cameras.
(there's some audio too, of 911 calls, a couple of people astonished at what they have just seen).

The pilot, it turns out, is a safety expert. The Smoking Gun has managed to come up with his resume.

As the Smoking Gun said in its email: "All hail "Sully" Sullenberger, the hero of Flight 1549."

The Exclusionary Rule and "Heroic Disobedience"

The Exclusionary Rule and Heroic Disobedience:

Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg at NRO published this article on the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court), with some follow-up from readers here and here. I remember similar arguments from NR in the 1980's - that if the evidence is unlawfully obtained, it shouldn't be suppressed, but the officer who obtained it should be disciplined. The heart of his argument is this:

According to the exclusionary rule, a cop who breaks the rules to arrest a serial child rapist should be “punished” by having the rapist released back into the general public. (Or as Benjamin Cordozo put it in 1926 when he was a New York state judge, “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.”) But the officer, while frustrated, isn’t really punished. The people punished are the subsequent victims and their families.

Leaving aside the legal issue of how the rule was derived - in the military confessions context, Congress enacted it in section (d) of this statute - I believe his focus is wrong, and there is a good reason for having the rule that he and his readers didn't touch on. It's a matter of incentives, of heroic disobedience, of Nelson's blind eye to the spyglass.

In setting heroic ideals, we admire the man who is dedicated to the mission, to the right end, and culturally we like the heroic figure who puts himself at risk for those all-important ends. A Few Good Men - an excellent film, but not a truthful one - creates just such a situation for the heroic defense attorney, who risks a court-martial of his own in order to attack the corrupt colonel.[1] If police could obtain useful evidence by ignoring the rules, the dull voice of pensions, paperwork, and disciplinary hearings would be saying "get warrants, read rights, obey rules" - but the heroic crime-fighting voice would be saying, "You know who did what - break in, seize what you need, intimidate the witness, and take the consequences!" And in your heart of hearts, which voice would you want him to hear loudest?

With the exclusionary rule in place, that dilemma is not there. If the officer wants to fight crime, however heroic his heart, he has every incentive to keep the rules. The exclusionary rule isn't designed to punish the police, the public, or anyone else (though a dedicated officer, like a dedicated prosecutor, may feel punished if his work is ruined). It's designed to make it pointless to break the rules, and to make the incentives all point the right way, and for this purpose it is well designed.

[1] This depiction is as false as false can be; in my experience, military defense attorneys attack the command freely, eagerly, and with no fear whatsoever. It only makes sense; blaming the leadership fits well with military notions of responsibility, and when a Soldier steps far over the line, at least a few people are thinking, where did his leaders go wrong? (Whoever angrily declares that the troops "aren't being treated like adults" is likely forgetting that the leaders are given the responsibilities of parents...but that is another story.)

This is Awesome:

No, really.

H/t Cass.

Feral Dogs In The Mada'in:

Ahem

Thank You, Mr. Broccoli:

A bold plan to restore glory to the Colosseum:

Gladiators are to return to Rome's most famous fight arena almost 2,000 years after their bloody sport last entertained Roman crowds, local authorities announced.

According to Umberto Broccoli, the head of archaeology at Rome's city council, 2009 will be a time for the five million people who visit the Colosseum each year to experience "the sights, sounds and smells" of ancient Rome.

"We do not need to enshrine historical sites and monuments, we need to make them more spectacular. Museums and monuments must speak to the public in a new way," Broccoli told the daily La Repubblica.

There's also a "gladiator slide show."

This reminds me of an old post from 2005.

Dennis the Peasant is an accountant by trade.

Its always interesting (to me anyway) to see a SME (Subject Matter Expert) comment on people who themselves, are commenting on subjects in the SME's knowledge domain.

It always makes me consider again the source. And that's a skill that is only going to be more and more important these days.

Proportionality - a reminder

Proportionality - a Reminder

Terms like "proportional" and "disproportionate" are being thrown around in relation to current events in Gaza, and seem to be causing some confusion.. This is just a little reminder that the word really does have a meaning in the law of war. To quote from Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare:

Particularly in the circumstances referred to in the preceding paragraph, loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Those who plan or decide upon an attack, therefore, must take all reasonable steps to ensure not only that the objectives are identified as military objectives or defended places within the meaning of the preceding paragraph but also that these objectives may be attacked without probable losses in lives and damage to property disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated. Moreover, once a fort or defended locality has surrendered, only such further damage is permitted as is demanded by the exigencies of war, such as the removal of fortifications, demolition of military buildings, and destruction of military stores (HR, art. 23, par. (g); GC, art 53).

HR refers to the Annex to Hague Convention IV, and GC to the Geneva Convention Related to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (the relevant quotes are about property damage; see Article 51 of this Additional Protocol, forbidding "indiscriminate attacks," for the application to humans, particularly subsection 5(b)).

Thus, in international law as read and taught by the U.S., an attack is "disproportionate" if the civilian deaths or property damage are out of proportion to the military objective being gained, rather than to, let's say, the damage done by the enemy beforehand or the weapons being used by the enemy. If an enemy is attacking with rifles, it is perfectly acceptable to destroy him with artillery or missiles; and you don't have to wait for the enemy to kill any of your troops or civilians before causing massive casualties among his fighting forces.

There is also a common-sense kind of "proportionality" that applies to self-defense (and not to warfare generally). This is found in the Joint Chiefs of Staff Standing Rules of Engagement (scroll to pages 16-17). It states that the force used must be limited in scope, intensity, and duration to that which is necessary to neutralize the threat. Notice again that this has nothing to do with the amount of damage the enemy has done, or the type of weapons he is using; it relates only to what is necessary to neutralize the threat (i.e., once again, the military objective). If twenty enemy ambush you, and they're lousy shots and haven't hit anyone yet, you can still kill them all. If there's one man sniping at you from a hidden place with a rifle or even a crossbow, most assuredly you can destroy him with explosives - use what you need to neutralize him, not necessarily what he's using.

These concepts and definitions make a lot of sense - I don't think anyone would like to see us modify our laws or treaties to abolish the concept. Keep them in mind in evaluating whether Israel's current response is really "disproportionate" (in a meaningful, legal sense) or not.

Update: I linked to Michael Totten as an example of "confusion" on the issue; but if he was confused at all before, he isn't now.

Happy New Year, everybody.