Here is a review of On War at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Von Clausewitz remains the standard text for military science's beginnings. Though other introductory material now exists -- the Marine Corps' Warfighting, for example -- there is still a great deal of value in the book.
The reason it is so valuable is that the basic concepts remain powerful. Clausewitz was writing in the Age of Napoleon, but even in the age of maneuver warfare -- even in the age of Air/Land Warfare -- even in the age of Hybrid Warfare, the basic concepts he described exist. There is an enemy, with a structure that has to be attacked. There is a population, which is the key to final victory. There is friction in every action.
Vegetius, a Roman writer of the fourth century AD, said, "Let him who desires peace prepare for war." Carl von Clausewitz sharpened the point: "The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." Darfur has made clear that that is not just a metaphor.
Just so, though denying that fact has been the strong hope of many people who wish it was not the case. For one such competing view, see here.
THE nine-year-old son of a spectator king-hit at a children's rugby match punched and hit the alleged attacker to try to get the strongly-built steel worker off his father.
"King-hit" appears to mean a blindside attack, followed up by pummeling the man while he's down. Here's a nine-year-old boy who looked at a giant of a man who had knocked down his father, and was hurting him badly: and decided the right course was to attack. That's a boy to be proud of, as I trust his father must be.
Of course the thug proves to have previous problems with abusing those unable to defend themselves. All of the British lands seem to have this issue: somehow their jurisprudence has gotten to a point where a man can use the strength he was given to assault women, children, and the defenseless, and yet be free to do it again.
Our friend and occasional commenter Lars Walker has apparently been so modest as to fail to mention to us his new book, trusting perhaps that everyone would simply find out on his own. :)
I see that the reader review mentions two things that ought to draw the eye of many who frequent Grim's Hall: Norse mythology, and Robert E. Howard.
I spent part of the night reading (with a glass of porter and a fine Gurkha cigar) from Dr. Elizabeth Hallam's Chronicles of the Crusades. The book is mostly a collection of translated primary source writings from the period, both Western and Arabic. There are some sidebar pieces of analysis by the good doctor.
The Crusades are full of fascinating stories, reaching all levels of humanity. There are visions of saints and rivers of blood, chaste knights and unchaste nuns. The oath taken by the crusaders under Richard the Lionheart and his companion kings spent the greatest bulk of its words on regulations governing gambling by Crusaders while on the pilgrimage.
Here are a few notes that I thought were interesting:
Nicetas Choniates, a historian of the Byzantine empire, chronicles that the armies of the Second Crusade had "women riding astride horses... more masculine than the Amazons." Such women appear again in the chronicles of the Third Crusade at the siege of Acre, where they fought the Turks "with huge knives, bringing back severed heads in triumph." (p. 142)
Eleanor of Aquitaine's presence with the Second Crusade, however, went virtually unnoticed by the historians present for the Crusade itself. The importance of her presence, and that of her ladies, was created later by that sort of writer who -- having taken no part in the war himself -- seeks to excuse defeat by blaming it on those who did fight. A convienent excuse for those who want God to favor the righteous, the women were blamed for everything from excess luggage to excess lust. Not, that is, by anyone actually present: by people writing years later, from the safety of home.
The unchaste nun mentioned above (and mentioned on p. 73 of the text) sought out the highest authorities of the First Crusade to wail about her ravishment by a Turkish lord. She was granted forgiveness for whatever sin had been in such unlawful union, but then soon after, a messenger from that same Turk appeared to offer her a chance to join him for another such adventure. She disappeared, perhaps in the hope of winning her ravisher to marriage and Christianity, and thus making all good. So we believe, though Albert of Aachen adds after noting that potential hope, she might have gone simply "because her own lust was too much to bear."
Women made vows to go on Crusade from the earliest, the book notes, but often redeemed them for cash: this was a useful way for women who were not physically capable of the war of the day to participate in the great calling of their era. Yet even from the beginning many went in person, especially those who could afford to field a small army of followers who would add weight to the venture.
In this way, the women of the Crusades were exactly like the men. The old wisdom was that Crusaders were mostly second-sons and young men without other hopes for advancement. More careful scholarship in recent generations has proven otherwise: the Cross was taken most often by established men with much to lose, who mortgaged their holdings for the chance to clean their souls.
It's a more interesting story than we have allowed ourselves to believe it.
Things in Iraq seem to be going better than I'd expected. The death rate has declined since the handover of the cities to Iraqi control, although that may be temporary. It would be wise of an insurgent group to take a low-level approach until they're familiar with the ISF's new procedures. I still expect to see some high-profile attacks exploiting those weaknesses once the various insurgents feel they understand the new lay of the land. Nevertheless, it's nice to see.
Meanwhile, politics continue. Iraq the Model correctly describes the debate. What I noticed back when I read Iraqi newspapers every day was that both sides of the debate -- what he calls the "Federalists" and "Nationalists" -- are using the term democracy. The Federalists claim the flag of 'consensual democracy,' which is to say, they say that giving the three major ethnic/religious groups quotas maintains everyone's consent to participate in the democracy. The Nationalists state that they want a 'democratic system,' which is to say, a more direct majority rule.
I found that the politics don't work out quite the way you'd expect. We spoke with some sheikhs who were Sunni, and you'd think they'd tend to Federalism and the protection of Sunni interests through quotas. Instead, they were strong Nationalists, because they were looking at the Arab/Kurd division in the north as the key issue for the future. They are almost certainly correct.
Sunni/Shia reconciliation appears to be proceeding, with IFCNR's plan for transitioning the Sons of Iraq being put into practice. It's one of those 'a little at a time' things, but that's how Iraq is.
Overall, having been home for a little more than a month, I'm pleased at what I see looking back. BillT, and others still there: my respects, gentlemen.
At the link, the fellow talks about where his numbers come from, in case anyone wants to take a closer look.
I'd like to see some sense of the movement of the states to "shall-issue" concealed carry permits. Then we can tie that trend line not just to "How Many Guns Do People Own?", but also "How Many People Are Carrying Guns in Public?" I suspect you'd see some correlation with the downward slope.
[UPDATE: Ack! I see that was actually worked in already -- it's in the dim grey bars in the background, rather than a trend line. It looks like there is no obvious correlation, unless there is a 'critical mass' of concealed carry states that served as a tipping point for the trend. In such a case, criminals could easily move efforts at first, but at some point there would be no more places to go except the few hard-control states. There, criminals would be in direct competition with each other, so there would be some sort of ecology at work limiting the total harm done. Alternatively, of course, there could simply be no correlation at all; it could be that concealed carry rates have no appreciable effect on gun deaths, as counterintuitive as that would be for both the gun rights and gun control crowds.]
The founder of a small business wrote a story about his father's last, great gift to him.
The paper tore away easily and revealed a severely plain crate made of fiberboard and masonite, that bore no markings of any kind. It was nailed shut. I had never gotten anything delivered in a crate before. It conjured up images of turn-of-the-century archaeologists digging through excelsior to find some precious object buried within, like mummies in sarcophagi. My Dad just smiled and got up, a few loooooong minutes later returning with a small steel pry bar (Craftsman, of course.)
“Careful, now,” was all he said.
It's a good story, though Eric may mock the Anglophilia on such open display.
It also underlines the concept of the Vision of Beauty, which in this case has informed a man's whole life and work. One thing that I notice from the story is how he never thought to ask just what it had cost his father, while the man was alive to ask: but now, as years pass, he wonders more and more about the sacrifice involved.
There speaks a man who has learned about making sacrifices of his own.
Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety — welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.
Given their performance, they are getting off easy. The police do seem to be taking a hard line in defending public officials, though. Even so, I was surprised at this report, which I saw at Dad29's place.
During the motorcade when the president was arriving, there were several vehicles following the limo that contained the secret service. All of the vehicles had all the windows rolled down, and back hatch open on the SUVs with the men holding their, I assume assault rifes, machine guns, drawn on everyone lining the streets. Needless to say it took my breath away at the sight of them, and made my friends and I dizzy with fear. I have seen the secret service before, but never like this. While they were intimidating, I never felt in danger. The guns were not drawn when the motorcade was leaving the event. But I turned on a local talk radio program as we were leaving and all the calls were about witnessing the guns being pointed at them and nothing else until the end of the program.
I've seen the President's motorcade, but never did I encounter this particular unit with open windows -- the Counter Assault Team, as they are called. Apparently, at some point in the last few years this has become standard practice to judge by these pictures. It's not just M4 carbines, either.
I'm afraid the pitchforks aren't going to do much good. :)
Seriously, though, these guys aren't there for protestors. Their job is to protect the President against a disciplined attack by terrorists or paramilitary forces. It's kind of an oddity, since I don't know that there has ever been such an attack on any Presidential convoy; further, you'd expect a VBIED threat rather than terrorists ginning up a fire team to take on the convoy.
Still, it's never a bad idea to be prepared for contingencies. While the President -- any President -- is the most replacable man in the world, having a full-time understudy and a predetermined chain of successors, we do have actual enemies out there. Some of them are capable of staging an attack on his convoy, if they put enough planning into it.
The Secret Service aren't the President's enforcers. They don't exist to execute his orders. They exist to protect him, and have power to override his orders if they feel it is necessary to his immediate security. They are, therefore, properly viewed as an independent and honorable company, entirely separate from the politics of the day or the occupant of the office.
[W]hen the thin man in a beanie cap, dark clothing and sunglasses pushed a black backpack across the bank counter and demanded money, Nicholson says his instincts took over....
Nicholson threw the bag to the floor, lunged toward the robber and demanded to see a weapon. Surprised, the would-be bank robber backed up and then bolted for the door, with Nicholson on his heels.
Nicholson, 30, chased the man for several blocks before knocking him to the ground with the help of a passer-by. Nicholson then held him until police arrived.
That was Tuesday.
On Thursday, Nicholson was fired.
The dishonor is not his, but the bank's, and the government's.
In a state that consistently ranks in the top 10 nationally in bank robberies, what Nicholson did was not only ill-advised, according to police and the FBI, it was all but unheard of. Bank tellers are trained to get robbers out the door as quickly as possible and are advised against being a hero over money that's federally insured.
The fact that the money is insured doesn't make it right to stand by while it is stolen!
Every man has a duty to defend the common peace and the lawful order. Every citizen is an owner of that peace and order, which is a good we all hold together.
A man who won't fight for it is no man. A government that urges you not to fight for it dices with its sovereignty.
Corporations are free to have immoral rules, as men are free to be immoral. I would do no business with such a firm, no more than I would with a wicked man.
Apocalypse porn.
The Wall Street Journal has an article on a new wave of disaster movies.
"A flood of postapocalyptic stories is now headed toward movie theaters and TV screens: Expect to see characters fending off cannibals, picking up day-to-day survival techniques and struggling to maintain their humanity amid the ruins. Previous waves of pop-culture disaster, from the Atomic Age paranoia of “War of the Worlds” to Watergate-era flicks such as “The Towering Inferno,” have depicted calamity in stunning detail. Many of the new projects, however, actually skip the spectacle of doomsday. Instead, they’re more fixed on what goes down in the aftermath."
This sort of stuff generally annoys me, since it is typically the product of some depressed writer, now trying infect the rest of us with their wretchedness:
“For me, I feel like I live in an apocalyptic world with global warfare, a recession, and resource scarcity,” says Jesse Alexander, writer and executive producer of NBC’s “Day One.”
Manup, Jesse. It's not that bad. The government isn't drafting your spoiled, whitebread, middle class butt and making you storm Iwo Jima. But I also see this sort of thinking from time to time on plenty of blogs, (and comments on blogs), by people who really ought to know better. Whether it's black helicopters, Jihadi Nukes, H1N1, or ACORN activists, there are too many people out there who think that the end of the world is nigh. The end of the world has been predicted before. It did not end then, and it isn't going to end now.
Blanche of Castile:
Following up on the post of a few days ago, I thought of doing a series on similar women.
Blanche of Castile organized two fleets to assist her husband in his invasion of England. Although the invasion failed, the failure was due to a united England's resistance rather than to any failure of effort or intelligence on her part.
Later, following her husband's death, she was regent of France and guardian of their children. During this time she resisted an attack by the English upon her soil, and broke up a cartel of Barons united to claim greater powers from her (as a similar group would wrest the Magna Carta from King John).
She became regent again while her son Louis IX, then king, went on Crusade. He felt quite confident leaving his mother to defend his kingdom, and provide him with support for his wars in the Holy Land.
Has anyone written a book in the last few years about the remarkable women of the Middle Ages, one that doesn't portray them as victims of the Patriarchy, nor as helpless Disney-style "princesses", but allows them to shine in their own glory? One that respects them for who they were and what they did, and shows them as the partners of the men in their lives? Blanche was a very reliable partner to her husband and son, trusted and capable, and therefore possessed of great duties and powers.
Such a book would be a worthy project, if it has not been done. If it has, I would very much enjoy reading it myself.
A much less important topic, but one in the news today, is the "birther" business. Hot Air mentions a poll that shows that Southerners disproportionately disbelieve that Obama was born in the United States.
I've already expressed my sense of the controversy in the comments recently, but to recap: because Obama's mother was an American citizen, the only way in which he could be constitutionally ineligible is if she were incapable of passing on citizenship to her son. It happens that the law actually does say this, in the case of mothers whose husbands were not citizens and whose children were born abroad (so I understand from reading birther manifestos). However, forbidding a mother to pass citizenship to her son is so manifestly unjust that there is no possible way that a court would enforce it, even if you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was born in Kenya. The law, if indeed there was such a law, was repealed for a very good reason. (Even if you did find the court willing to remove him from office -- and it would have to be the Supreme Court, eventually -- you would be hearing for the next twenty years that you had sponsored the last enforcement of Jim Crow.)
Obama's not worth the harm that would cause the American polity. Even if you were right, and could prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, the whole business is foolish and should be tossed aside.
To return to the poll, however: 53% of Southerners stated that Obama was not born in the United States (23%), or that they were unsure (30%). As you know, and as Elise lays out (as part of her theory that there are really triplet Obamas), there is a "Certification of Live Birth," but not a "Certificate of Live Birth." The two documents are different, and the one that Obama has put out is less authoritative than the other in several respects.
What's being asked here is, 'Are you willing to take President Obama's word, in the face of evidence that he is telling the truth, but without absolute proof that he is telling the truth?'
Most Americans appear to be treating this as an empirical claim: given the evidence, what is most likely? Southerners, being an honor culture, are treating it as a question of honor.
Fifty-three percent of Southerners are simply not willing to take his word on it. Twenty-three percent are flatly declaring him a liar, which is a fighting matter. Thirty percent are stating that his word is no good, even if there is evidence to back it: actual proof is required when dealing with him, given their low opinion of his honor.
That's not really shocking. Obama has sacrificed nothing for anyone, and indeed has proven very willing to sacrifice others for himself: the Rev. Wright, Hillary Clinton, every single position he professed during the election, etc. Southerners normally despise men like this.
The other day I was asking a boy if he could define "honor." Most people can't. It's a word we use very loosely; some people think it means something like "honesty" or "integrity." It doesn't mean either, exactly, as the parable of John Randolph shows clearly.
A guest is coming to dinner; Mr. Randolph is not prepared to receive him; he opens the door to the guest and says, "Sir, I am not home"; the guest leaves, without attempting to say in any way that Mr. Randolph is being less than truthful.
If honor meant "honesty," saying something that was obviously untrue would be proof of dishonor. Instead, Randolph's story shows that a man of honor is taken at his word -- even when it is obvious he is telling you something untrue. The visitor's willingness to take his word when he is telling an obvious untruth is proof of his honor, not his dishonor.
Why? When you understand that riddle, you will understand the real nature of honor.
"To honor" is to sacrifice something you value, in favor of something greater. You might honor a man by sacrificing your time to come to his birthday party. You might honor your country by risking your life for it. Some who do lose their lives in sacrifice. You sacrifice of yourself for something greater, something that matters to more than just you.
Honor is the quality of a man who does this.
A man of honor can be relied upon, because he will sacrifice his personal interests for his principles. This is the reason "honor" has become confused with simple honesty: we assume that such a man will only tell the truth. Yet he might -- as Randolph did -- have a reason to do otherwise. Because he has shown himself to be a man of honor, we trust him even when we don't know his reasons.
That willingness of people to place their faith in his hands is the proof of his honor. He would not have it if he had not earned it. Such a man is beloved, and when we love a man it is because of the sacrifices he has made for us. It is because he has loved us, and things we love, and at cost.
I was updating my links today, long past due! If any of you regular readers have blogs that aren't on the new lists, let me know and I will add them.
While reading over Lars Walker's site, I ran across this link. It touches on our recent discussions, from a lady's perspective.
True chivalry is a deeply-held perspective that women are valuable and should not be exploited or taken for granted, but should be admired and protected and enjoyed with care and respect.
Chivalry is much broader than male-female relations, and touches on the whole code of life for 'heroes, warriors, and tamers of horses.' However, because of the chaotic state of male-female relations, that subset of the topic is always of special interest to everyone. I decided today to put together a compilation of what I've written on chivalry as an ethic. I turns out to be a whole lot more than I'd realized.
I've broken out the links into two sections, on the sidebar: "Chivalry," and "Chivalry & Women" for articles that relate to that sub-section of the topic. If you go to read over these things, be sure to read the comments. Often the most of the value comes from readers' thoughts.
InstaPundit takes notice of a piece that criticizes women for being "princesses." He comments that he prefers either "Sarah Connor" over a helpless person who wants to be pampered all the time.
One of the key problems in seeing these issues clearly is the disdain in which our ancestors are sometimes held. We've been told so often that women of old were weak, or oppressed, or helpless, that people have just come to believe it.
The Queen of England, who was very anxious to defend her kingdom and guard it from all disturbers, in order to show that she was earnest about it came herself to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. She took up her residence there, to wait for the forces she expected from different parts of the kingdom. The Scots, who were informed that Newcastle was the place of rendezvous of the English army, advanced thither, and sent their vanguard to skirmish near the town; who, on their return, burnt some hamlets adjoining to it. The smoke and flames came into the town....
On the morrow, the King of Scotland, with full forty thousand men, including all sorts, advanced within three short English miles of Newcastle[.]
The Queen ordered the defense from a shorter range, and greater personal danger, than is normally encountered by our general officers today. No one thought this was shocking at the time; it was her duty.
On the day of the battle, she rode out to the army to ensure it was properly formed for the combat:
The Queen of England came to the place where her army was, and remained until it was drawn out in four battalions.... The queen now advanced among them, and entreated them to do their duty well in defending the honor of their lord and king, and urged them, for the love of God, to fight manfully. They promised her they would acquit themselves loyally, to the utmost of their power, perhaps better than if the king had been there in person.
When all her chivalry hath been in France, And she a mourning widow of her nobles, She hath herself not only well defended, But taken, and impounded as a stray, The king of Scots; whom she did send to France, To fill King Edward’s fame with prisoner kings...
Elise has written a whole series of posts on 1233, several in response to a fellow Georgia-blogger called "MaxedOutMama." MOM believes that the 1233 incentive structure is definitely designed to encourage doctors to refuse care; Elise explains her disagreement in a very detailed way that I won't attempt to summarize.
Elise says, at one point:
Before I begin, let me say I am very much aware I am falling into exactly the trap Grim described so well:
The one thing that could undermine the Right's position would be to admit they were wrong, which would indeed undercut their credibility. The most successful rhetoric will, instead, answer every such defense with a new charge: 'So you claim that mish-mash is a defense? Well, then explain how in section 12, you call for taxpayers to pay for lawyers to write living wills for the elderly.'
I have to admit to a bit of impish glee at this next part:
