Smitten Eagle

Administrative March

2008-06-14T14:58:00.004-04:00

I have changed venues.

I now blog at smitteneagle.wordpress.com. I am also a guest-blogger at ChicagoBoyz.net.

Blogger has been fine for me as a platform in the past, but WordPress has more powerful moderating and editing tools. So I have moved.

Please update your links.

Semper Fidelis,
Smitten Eagle

The Greatest General

2008-05-14T17:26:00.003-04:00

There has been quite a discussion on the nature of scholarship and generalship here, here, here, and here. Much of the discussion related to the utility of having a corpus of military history knowledge, and on the utility of having our military professionals and foriegn policy wonks reading that corpus.

It might be instructive to see who we think is worthy of making our collective list. List in hand, we might be able to deduce a few defining qualities that make for superior generalship, and whether the victor in battle is also the scholar.

Granted, no list can ever be exhaustive, but such lists can be instructive, and fun (I like thinking about these things, anyways).

First, a couple of gudelines:

1) No fictional generals. (I'm a huge fan of Sam Damon and Ender Wiggins, but lets keep it real)

2) Other ranks are fair game: Go ahead and mention the Air Vice Marshalls, Crown Princes, and Dukes of Earl.

My list:

Alexander the Great
Belisarius
Mao & Giap
Napoleon
Rommel, tied with von Mellenthin
Hannibal Barca
Washington, FDR, Truman
Grant, Lincoln
Douglas MacArthur
Matthew Ridgway

Honorable Mentions: Patton, Nimitz, Bradley, Eisenhower, Zukhov, HM Smith, Alexander Vandegrift, Spruance, Mitscher, LeMay, Pershing, Lewis Puller, OP Smith, Geiger, Zinni, Mattis, Petraeus

Crossposted at ChicagoBoyz.

The Nature of the War

2007-11-19T08:02:00.001-05:00

I started this post as a comment to HS's post over at Captain's Journal. I couldn't really pare the comment down, so I expanded on it as a full post here.

Some dead German once wrote that the key to a successful campaign is to understand the nature of the war you are fighting.

It seems to me that the British and Americans both prove this.

It seems to me that HS's contention is that large kinetic operations are generally required as a precursor to a successful counterinsurgency campaign. I'm not convinced of this (in all cases). I think that kinetics are required in cases where the population is violently resisting the government's legitimate authority. And even then, kinetics aren't always required everywhere in a region that is resisting authority. (I was stationed in Hit, Anbar, IZ. Hit, to my knowledge, never really had a large kinetic aspect. However, kinetic operations did take place in other parts of Anbar.)

It seems that kinetics are required not to destroy the enemy, but to demonstrate that the state is willing to exercise its monopoly of force. Since the object of kinetics isn't to kill, but to demonstrate (create a psychological/social effect), such kinetic campaigns aren't required everywhere in that is under insurrection. They are only required in areas where a principal group is undertaking violent insurgency. In Anbar the principal group would be certain Sunni tribes. A demonstration of violence was thus required against those groups, which is what Fallujah II and Operation Steel Curtain were all about. This is known as escalation.

If If the insurgency is not violent, security patrols combined with provision of government services and co-option of local leaders is key. This is known as de-escalation.

If you escalate when you should de-escalate, you will inflame the insurgency. If you de-escalate when you should escalate, you will be beaten politically. In either case, being wrong will sap legitimacy.

Now, on to Basra, and the meat of HS's post.

It seems to me that the British completely misunderstood the nature of the fight they were in. They de-escalated when they should have escalated. When they retreated to their compounds, they showed they do not have the will to enforce the government's position. They should have become very kinetic at that point.

Also, recall the Marines, in the wake of OIF I--the invasion, were assigned an occupation sector that corresponded with the more recent British area of responsibility. The Marines were highly de-escalatory in the wake of the hyper-kinetic invasion.

It ultimately comes down to knowing the nature of the fight you're in. Are you fighting in a situation that requires violent escalation or not? If you're wrong in either case, the result is the same: The loss of legitimacy. If you're right, you can at least get some breathing space to start enforcing the government position.

To My Fellow Marines: Happy Birthday!

2007-11-07T18:39:00.002-05:00

(Smitten Eagle's Note: I offer this post a bit early, as the actual birthday is 10 November. However, my unit celebrated the birthday of my Corps on 3 November, and many units celebrate this hallowed and special time on days they are able and according to their circumstances.)

It's been another year of history for my beloved Corps.

Through this year the Marine Corps has fought through deployment, training, and combat. It has been a year of marked success against the enemies in the Long War. Yet these engagements are merely the first steps in the marathon of this war. This war will tax our reserves of strength and endurance, and therefore we must allow ourselves a rest, once a year, as our situation will allow, to reflect, rededicate, and recommit.

This time of rest will be held in great banquet halls, and in combat outposts. It will be held in restaurants, and in fighting holes. It will be held with those present to our left and right, and in communion with the memory of those who have gone before us.

Our Birthday is a time to relax with our camerades, to reflect on the depth of our commitments, and to rededicate ourselves to the Constitution and to eachother.

Our Birthday is a time of great cheer. But it is also a time embittered with sadness as we remember of the sacrifices of those Marines who have died on the battlefields.

Our Birthday is a time to recommit to our families, be they spouses and children, or members of the same fire time. For on with their strength do we get the resolve to take another 30-inch step to the sound of the guns.

Our Birthday is a time to strengthen ourselves for the fights in the future, because this war will continue. No doubt, there will be Marines in contact with the enemy on night of 10 November, 2008, 2018, and possibly even in 2028. Victory is not located on the other side of the next hill, but many hills away.

And now General Conway's Birthday Message:

Semper Fidelis, My Brothers

May God bless you all!

Nostalgia

2007-11-03T17:49:00.000-04:00

On nostalgia of totalitarian ideas.

Based on this single piece, Horsefeathers seems to be almost as good a Paul Cella. Too bad Cella doesn't write any longer.

I alluded to this in the earlier piece from today: The essence of patriotism, and I submit, conservatism, is appreciation for what is. It's satisfaction with being. It is organic, local, tied to family and friends, home, and is intensely personal.

Utopias are anything but. They are disconnected from reality, artificial, global, and repellant of friends and family. They are disconnected from home, and instead are connected to some sort of future or past vision of glory: the Caliphate, the Thousand-Year Reich, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Jueche Ideal, the Final Solution, the irredentist ideals of Aztlan, the belief that the Free Market is best for all. In each of these ideas, we see a divorce of ideal from reality, and in that space live the fanatics.

And it is those fanatics we should fear. Some strap bombs to their chest or the chests of others, some write propaganda, some organize, and some kill.

Enough for now. I shall now don my Dress Blue Alphas and take my wife to the Marine Corps Birthday Ball, where I will celebrate with my friends and family another year of life of my warrior brotherhood.

Semper Fidelis

Manly Decision

2007-11-03T10:45:00.000-04:00

Another ninny of an "adult" who mourns for her son--her son, who makes a more adult-like decision than her own mother ever made.

My take on this article:

My first beef with this article is the title. "Portrait of a Son at War, Though a Mother's Eyes." The article certainly is not that. Rather, it's self-absorbed sorrow that her son made a manly decision and didn't buy into his mother's narrative of events. We don't hear anything of admiration for her son's decision to support and defend. We instead see narcisistic laments of unfairness--that sons of other parents go to UCLA or Berkely, and her son's lot in life is to merely soldier.

She snides, "This was definately not the way things were supposed to work out."

The Twin Towers weren't supposed to fall. The bombing of Pearl Harbor wasn't supposed to have happened, nor the Bolshevik Revolution, nor the Iron Curtain, nor Hitler's attack on Poland or gobbling of Czechoslovakia. Nor the bombing of the USS Cole, nor the Iranian Islamic Revolution, nor the Beirut Barracks Bombing. Shit happens, and sometimes men have to make decisions to volunteer to right to wrongs. Some men have outs--medical, religous, or even knowing the guy on the local draft board. But at the end of the day, it takes men who sacrifice their freedom or their lives for the sake of others. Freedom will be manifest not because of Berkley or UCLA, or UW Madison, or Harvard. Freedom will be manifest because a 19-year-old man with a rifle stands a post.

She continues...

"When I tell people that Evan has joined the Army, their reactions are almost always the same: their faces freeze, they pause way too long, and then they say, "I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry for you." I hang my head and look mournful, accepting their sympathy for the worry that lives in me. But as it dawns on them that Evan wasn't drafted, as Vietnam still clings to my generation, their expressions become quizzical, then disbelieving. I know what they're thinking: Why in the world would any kid in his right mind choose to enlist when we're in the middle of a war? I begin telling them the story, desperate to assure them it wasn't arrogant patriotism or murderous blood lust that convinced him to join. What finally hooked him was a recruiter's comment that if he thought the country's role in Iraq was so screwed up, he should try to fix it."

What kind of Americans are these, who feel sorry that others volunteer on their behalf?

Arrogant patriotism? I don't know anything of the sort? Patriotism is sublime. It is a connection we have to what is. It's between realization that what we have is worth living with, and consequently, worth dying for. It's not just apple pie--it's apple pie as you remember it, or the pure enjoyment of coffee on a brisk fall morning. It's fellowship at Thanksgiving. Above all, patriotism is intensely personal, and yet communal. How is it boastful? Do tell!

Murderous blood lust? This comment is undeserving of response.

She continues:

"And on a deeper, personal level, he signed up hoping that after, somehow the Army would help him find what young men these days often try to fill with alcohol, drugs and video games: a sense of purpose."

Isn't that the job of parents? Though discipline, ethics, and morals can be learned from the military, I think this statement says more of the state of society and the state of parenting than anything else.

"A teenager when his father and I divorced, he'd never had anyone to teach him what it meant to be a man, he told him when he explained his decision to join the Army. He couldn't concentrate on college courses, he was resisting promotion at his job, and he not only wanted but needed challenge and discipline, he said. The only way to get it, he'd decided, was to pit himself against drill sergeants, armed insurgents and Improvised Explosive Devices. If he could do it, he told me, he'd have the self-assurance he hadn't found in his old life."

There you have it: A boy with no male role models actually looks for them. How sad.

As though drill sergeants, insurgents, and enemy ambushes are the worst things in the world. Trust me--there is worse: A selfish sense that the burdens of freedom and life should be carried by others, and when I mean others, I mean kids, probably Republicans, who don't go to UCLA.

"Evan volunteered for this, I remind myself. He's promised to defend his country at all costs. My son may hesitate before he pulls the trigger, but he's trained to shoot to kill. He's donned the uniform, so whatever happens - ambush, rocket-fire, mortar attack, IED, an insurgent's sword-he must face the consequences. Now I must accept that the son I raised to be a gentle, caring soul is somewhere in the Iraq desert, a loaded M3 in his arms. At this very moment, he could be exalting with his buddies that he killed the enemy, ending the life of another mother's son. If, God forbid, another mother's son kills Evan, will I share the same empathy "he was only doing his job" that I'm willing to extend to my own flesh and blood?"

It's an M-4 or M-16, not an M3.

To the mothers of the world: Why don't you get together and have some nice chai with that Syrian woman whose son is about to die because he picked the wrong convoy to attack. Think about how you're repudiating your son's actions as he allows you the freedom to think such thoughts.

She finishes the article saying that we raise children to leave us. Indeed. Thank God that we do. Were it not for the sons who lived by the sword, and died by the sword, there wouldn't be men today. Some of those men of yore stood posts, carrying a pike, sword, or sling. Some carried a longbow, a musket, a Lee-Enfield, or a 1903 Springfield. Some had a BAR. Others carried an M-16, M-4, or an M-9. One generation passes the torch to the next, and in passing of the torch, they pass responsibility to protect the free.

Even is one of those men who protects, and we are indebted.

Suggested Further Study:
AWOL, by Shaeffer and Roth-Douquet
Carnage and Culture, by Hanson.
The Soldier and the State, by Huntington
Constitution of the United States
Violence Without Context: No True Glory

MCMAP

2007-11-01T18:07:00.000-04:00

I've earned my MCMAP Grey Belt. Good stuff.

I think MCMAP is a pretty good program. It increases the confidence of Marines, knowing that they disarm or kill people, and also tries to imbue values, ethics, morals, and ultimately, judgement to know when to kill, when to disarm, and when to allow life. It also increases assertiveness and aggressiveness.

For it to be successful, it needs to be made a priority for commanders--i.e. making it required for promotion, etc. But wider implemention would be a good thing.

Also, my Marine Corps Birthday post will be posted a bit early this year, as my unit is celebrating my second-favorite holiday on the 3rd of November, vice the 10th.

Unrelated: Frankfurt School.

Unrelated: Jihadist Media Campaign.

The Archetypes of Combat and Faith

2007-08-25T10:32:00.000-04:00

The Loneliness of the Military Historian
by Margaret Atwood

Confess: It's My Profession/
that alarms you./
This is why few people ask me to dinner,/
though lord knows I don't go out of my way/
to be scary.

quoted from Why Study War?, by Victor Davis Hanson.

I am a military historian by coincidence with my profession of military officer. When people of the chattering classes ask me of my trade or profession, the conversation invariably stops, leading to an awkward silence.

I once told my mother of this phenomenon, and she said she understood, saying it was related to the way conversations stop when someone asks a pastor/priest/monk/nun of what they do.

Indeed, I read a book in university called The Warrior and The Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, by John Milton Cooper, Jr. The author made a point of discussing the essential sameness in ethos, but differences in action regarding Wilson and TR, and uses the archetypes of the warrior and the priest to make that point.

Thomas PM Barnett also wrote a short article some time back titled Monks of War, discussing the breed of soldier represented by LtGen Mattis and GEN Petraeus. So, again, the archetypes of warrior and religionist are crossed.

So, I apparently have a kinship with religious leaders.

But why do people find the religious and the warriors to be so unapproachable?

Of Agency and of Chickenhawkism at The DailyKos

2007-07-29T08:40:00.000-04:00

I peruse the DailyKos occasionally to see the decadent left in action. This morning I was struck by this post about the immorality of having American men and women enlisting in our armed forces to fight in a war we are engaged in.

She writes:
“It is difficult for me not to consider the recruitment tactics as brainwashing based on the things my boys told me before they left this last spring.”

I despise when people view the military of our country as victims. They are described as victims of war, of evil recruiters, "brainwashing", of chickenhawks, of the right, etc. This argument is wrong because it denies our volunteers agency. We deny that they, as citizens, decided that it was worth their while to take a few years of their life and do some service for country. They further deny their deeds under fire. In their world, the only songs sung for these soldiers and Marines are the songs of the funeral. These lamentations are true, and are a part of the experience of a society at war. But the other parts of the experience are forgotten: Their songs of bravery, courage, and stoic hardness are left unsung. Unsung, their deeds pass from memory and are ultimately forgotten. I wrote more about this here.

She continues:
"I am not anti-military; my father and husband are veterans, my brother is active duty (and thank god has survived 3 deployments since 9/11). But I am anti-occupation and I know, even if my 18 year old students don't, that they will be sent to the front lines of this heinous hellhole we are continuing to perpetuate. Will they survive until their 19th birthdays? I can barely stand to think of it."

Ok…so she “supports the troops”, just not the mission. Never mind that it’s difficult to support troops when they are in a fighting retreat because the home front lost nerve.

By the way, I’m not anti-gay. I have lots of gay friends. My dog is gay. I just don’t like what gays do late at night in public parks. (Actually, I am not really anti-gay. I just think it’s interesting to make a parallel argument).

She continues:
"Will they survive until their 19th birthdays? I can barely stand to think of it."

Odds are that they will. And their 20th, 30th, and 40th. There is a view in the home front that Iraq is a meat-grinder. And in some ways, I suppose the argument can be made, but certainly not in military terms, which is, after all, what we’re talking about.

The Battle of Tarawa, in 1943, saw the Marines suffer some 1,001 killed in the space of three days. A further 2,296 Marines would be wounded due to enemy action. This was in a country with a population less than half the size of the current United States. But that generation was not soft as most Americans are today, and coming out of the Great Depression, they certainly were not decadent.

Thus far we have seen some 4,000 killed in the space of 6 years of war. This is certainly tragic, but not a reason to quit fighting. Mind you, there is an enemy out there who would like nothing more than to see green flags of Islam flying over the West, and see secularists and Christians, not to mention Jews, destroyed and banished from the living. I suppose it’s easy to forget that when we’re worried about Gaia and whatnot.

She writes:
"I weep for our democracy when the boys with means who want to be leaders in the Republican party eat up and spout back out the propaganda of an illegal and immoral occupation while the poor boys get seduced by the same propaganda - and both groups lose their way."

I weep for our democracy when the men of our country think they owe nothing to their country, to their fellow citizens, and to their fathers and mothers.

Here she makes a variant of the Chickenhawk argument, saying that men of means who grow up to be Republicans have no right to “support the troops” because they themselves do not serve. I grew up as a child of means. I went to an elite university. My parents are conservatives, as am I. My father is a C-level executive for a mid-size multi-national corporation. I chose a commission in the Marines. So, on a personal level, her argument is in shambles.

I don’t buy chickenhawk arguments when they are brought up, because generally the people who complain of chickenhawk policy are people who themselves have not served. They often say that the chickenhawks cannot be truly pro-war because they have not seen the suffering of service. Does the reverse argument hold true? Are only military people allowed to comment on issues of war and peace? No…no peacenik would renounce their capacity to discuss war, yet they generally have not served either.

Really, the chickenhawk argument is just the reverse of the “Support the Troops” folks, but has the same effect: It prevents frank and open discussion, and is anti-democratic, as all citizens are expected to have opinions on war and peace, whether they have escaped service or not.

She finally finishes:
"The only difference is the poor boys are more likely to die before they become men."

Does she then support a draft to relieve our society of chickenhawks, and to spread more equally the burdens of defense. Something tells me the answer is “no.”

Hypocrite.

Violence Without Context: No True Glory

2007-07-05T17:20:00.000-04:00

I was driven to post on this by viewing the Obligatory Fourth of July Post at the decadent Pandagon site.

The author, Amanda Marcotte, wrote placed photos next to the words Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Specifically, she placed the following photo next to the word 'Life', so as to juxtoppose the ideal with the 'reality' she is trying to convey.

She traffics in feelings, emotive, and entirely subjective. Looking at the photo, we see that some sort of tragedy has taken place, and that somebody was probably killed, or at least gravely issued. We have no context. Who died? Was it deserved? An American? An insurgent? A mass-murderer? A killer of chidren? No one knows.

She is not alone. The New York Times, almost daily, prints the Names of the Dead column, listing simply the name and location of the servicemember who died. Though a matter of public record, such simplicity in reporting negates the value of the deeds of the fallen. Furthermore, there are other matters of public record which the Times neglects publishing, like the awards for deeds of valor. We do not hear of the Navy Cross or Silver Star awardees. We do not hear of Bronze Stars or Distinguished Flying Crosses. We scarcely hear of Congressional Medals of Honor. And by the absense of these citations, the Times negates the objective reality in favor of trafficing in subjective tragedy.

...Except, of course, the troops (who, I'm sure, they 'support'), do something evil. That is the only time you will see the Newspapers of Record digging for the truth. Witness Abu Ghraib.

There does not even have to be impropriety, only the appearance of it: During the Battle of Fallujah a Marine shot dead an unarmed enemy prisoner of war, at a time when many such prisoners were booby-trapping themselves with bombs. The Marine made a correct tactical and lawful decision. A reporter caught the act on tape, and caused a small firestorm when the tape reached the news outlets. The Marine was cleared of wrongdoing. But the emotive news media videotaped and released the violence--without context--thereby negating the act of courage of the Marine and placing him, and his fellow Marines, under the judgement of the viewership of the networks.

The lack of witness to the deeds of merit and valor is not found everywhere in our culture. We fawn over Al Gore's Academy Award. We admire atheletes. We dedicate columns to the late terrorist leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat. The West is a culture that cares grately about winning, and about recognition. But not for our warriors.

The lack of context for much of the war reporting ultimately denies the objective reality of the virtues of the servicemembers. Honor, Courage, and Committment are negated, and expressed only as a fallen victim of war in the corner of page A-4. Some postmodernists would have you believe that these servicemembers are victims. Yet they are not. They acted, and by their actions, they prove the existence of heroism. I say this while admitting that there is not much heroism in dying in a mortar attack, or a random IED blast. But the willingness to sacrifice their lives for their brethren is common to all true soldiers: indeed, running from such a fight, risking the lives of fellow troops, would be a supreme act of cowardice, and be the antithesis of the warrior ethos. But through all these actions, one thing is clear: by our actions, and our actions alone, do we show our virtues as people and as warriors. We do not honor warriors in short faux-obituaries.

By not providing witness to these actions, the media negates context, and thus denies the humanity and heroism of the troops. Instead, they become victims of a meat-grinder, with virtue denied, and heroism unsung. They become another victim-group to be pandered to. And this is wrong.

From page 324 of Bing West's superb accout of the Battle of Fallujah:

"In The Iliad, a warrior in the front ranks turned to his companion and said, "Let us win glory for ourselves, or yield it to others." For Greek warriors, there was no true glory if they were not remembered afterward in poem or song. There will be no true glory for our soldiers in Iraq until they are recognized not as victims, but as aggressive warriors. Stories of their bravery deserved to be recorded and read by the next generation. Unsung, the noblest deed will die."

Recommended Reading:

No True Glory, West
Medal of Honor Citations
The Distinguished Flying Cross Society
Marine Corporal Jason Dunham Congressional Medal of Honor Site (USMC)
Dunham: American Son

On the Record

2007-07-04T09:48:00.000-04:00

I am in favor of a mandatory national service for the youth of the nation.

I want a draft.

I am a serving Marine officer. I am in a Corps of elite warriors, drawn from the best and most motivated recruits, trained specially for fighting wars, and bred with an élan of professionalism. My brethren and I take our professional obligations extremely seriously. Some of the single-term Marines (who intend on getting out after a single enlistment) look at professionals like me and my peers as 'lifers' or 'careerists', bringing to mind a slew of negative connotations. Bottom line, I've been called to defend the United States and it's Constitution, and that is why I freely pledged my life to its defense. I'm a member of several associations dealing with the Profession of Arms. The studying of my craft has never ceased since it began ten years ago, and hopefully it will not end for another 30 years. I study my craft on my free time, in formal schools, during exercises, and in actual combat. I have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have sailed on Navy ships, visiting ports and showing the flag to people of a dozen nations. I will continue to do this so long as I am able.

And yet I want a draft. I want a bunch of individualistic, averagely-educated, smart-talking, dirty, rich, poor, and middle-classed people to join my military because the country has deemed it right to force them to.

In World War I, the draft in America was imposed to ensure equal measures of sacrifice were exacted from the population. It was not aimed at whom you would expect: the upper classes. The draft's goal was to ensure that not too great a sacrifice was exacted on the opinion-makers, tycoons, sons of the political classes, etc, as these groups tended to enlist at far greater rates than the poorer classes. (source: AWOL, p. 108) Perhaps it was a sense of noblesse oblige that was remaining from Victorian times that caused this. Perhaps there was a sense of duty that was bred into the young people, and a sense of obligation to maintain (and restore, as necessary) the freedom bestowed by the earlier generations.

Indeed, military service was common to the political class of those years. And once power accrued to those members of the political class, their young continued to serve. FDR's son James served in the Marines--not in a cushy staff job, but as a front line combat Marine in the elite 2d Raider Battalion. Another FDR progeny, Elliott, served with distinction in the Army Air Corps. TR's son served in World War I. Harry Truman and JFK served, though their children did not. GHW Bush served with distinction, and his son GW Bush did as well (although with an extreme lack of distinction, to put it very mildly). Al Gore served.

Clinton did not serve. Nor did Dick Cheney, who managed to escape service by means of 11 draft deferments.

The vast bulk of our representatives and senators have no service under their belts. Rather, they are attorneys. And that is a serious detriment to our national power. What specifically qualifies a person with political connections and a law degree to authoritatively comment on American national power? Sure, after several terms, the Representative/Senator may garner enough experience to muddle his way about the armed forces, but only after several terms of trial and error.

Furthermore, how many Senators and Representatives were bruised at being called 'unpatriotic' in the run up to the Iraq War? Many claim this, and there may be some truth to it. But a large reason they are vulnerable to this charge is that they lack any terms of service as a soldier. Notice that nobody questioned the patriotism of James Webb (Democratic Senator from VA), or the few others with national service.

Widespread service would allow us to escape the paralyzing 'Support the Troops' politics. Having served, we would know what real support is. Having children who are currently serving would ensure we are intimately connected to their needs at all times--not just when it is politically advantageous during the election cycles. Furthermore, it could prevent unnecessary foreign wars, as our sons and daughters would be intimately familiar with the front lines and decisions in Washington would have grave or wondrous effects on the battlefield. And for those wars we are engaged in, a draft army would stiffen the resolve, as those who do serve know that war are not 'Ended,' as Code Pink would have you believe. Rather, they are ‘Won’ or ‘Lost’, in proportion to the resolution, generalship, technical ability, and moral clout of the nations fighting.

A draft is certainly demanding. It is demanding to the corps of military professionals to deal with, frankly, a mass of amateurs. More so, it is straining on the individual Americans who would be obligated to serve. Yet this is not immoral, unjust, or wrong.

The professional military can cope with masses of citizen soldiers. Not overnight, but given time, we will rediscover the institutions necessary to make good soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We have done so in the past, and other militaries continue to do so today. This problem is not insurmountable.

It would seem immoral, unjust, or wrong only to those who have been so pampered by "safe" existence provided by over-protective nanny-parents, and to those who have escaped the burdens of guarantying freedom by wealth and influence. Is it too much to ask that we, as democratic citizens, require, in equal measure, to pay our debt incurred by the freedom we exercise? Are we content to rely only on the professionals (those who have been called) and the bribed (those who receive astronomical bonuses to stay in) to guaranty defense?

There is the economist argument against the draft, too. Milton Friedman, conservative arch-economist, famously argued against the draft, saying that it is not economically efficient for the individual or the state. There may be some truth to that. Nonetheless, I do not subscribe to economism--that all worth is determined by monetary value. Furthermore, capitalists understand the importance of the liberal order they conduct business in. The institutions of private property rights, political freedom, transparency, due process, and fair regulation are all prerequisites for a successful market capitalism. These prerequisites must be guaranteed, such guaranties are not always economically efficient.

Nor does economic efficiency translate into military effectiveness, except at the grand-strategic level, where political, military, economic, cultural, and other forms of national power are indistinguishable. At this level, a nation more-solidly and resolutely under arms only adds to national power.

Now, surely, I would allow those with demonstrated conscientious objection to decline military service. They would not escape service--there is other work to be done as well.

Nor would I take away the volunteer complexion of the Marines or of other special units like the Special Forces, Rangers, or Submarine duty. Volunteerism also counts, especially in elite and special units.

I would also maintain a professional officer corps and a professional corps of senior enlisted troops, as a single term of duty is insufficient to provide the leadership at high levels that is due to the sons and daughters of America.

National service, especially military service, strengthens our democratic society. It ensures the sacrifices are levied in a democratic manner with equal hardship to all. It ensures a more informed polity, more familiar with the good and bad aspects of American power. It would help us to avoid conflicts not vital to our interests, and would stiffen our resolve in the fights we do engage in.

Most of all, a draft would ensure freedom is maintained by all, for all. Not by the few, for the remaining.

Recommended Reading:

The Emergence of a Seperate American Warrior Caste, by Dymphna (at Gates of Vienna)
On Forgetting the Obvious, by Kaplan
AWOL, by Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer
Citizen Soldiers, Ambrose
One Bullet Away, Fick
Carnage and Culture, Hanson

Israeli Situation: Dire

2006-11-14T12:58:00.000-05:00

Increasingly, Israel's "peace" is the "peace" defined in Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary.

Peace, n. In international affairs, the period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

I discussed Israel's situation earlier this month. In a nutshell, Hizbollah continues to illegally import heavy weapons from Syria and Iran, further destabilizing Israel's northern frontier. The UN is doing nothing to stop this rearmament.

Now, from the within the very core of Israel, the Hamas-led government of the Palistinian Authority is also undergoing an aggressive rearmament program. Knesset Member Limor Livnat (Likud) claims Egypt is actively aiding Hamas militants.

Things are certainly not going well for Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert doesn't seem to understand the asymetrical 4GW threat he's facing, as is shown by a recent speech whereby he claims that the American expedition to Iraq has brought stability to the region. Not even President Bush would say such a thing.

The Islamic Courts Union in Somalia seems to have been sending warriors to fight Israel during its war with Hizbollah. This is proof of a convergence between Al Qaeda and Iran against Israel.

Israel's star (of David) has even fallen in the American press. Even without mention of the fauxtography practiced by Reuters stringers in Lebanon, it seems the mainstream press has become further biased against Israel, going so far as to falsly rewrite stories wired by reporters.

What to watch for in the future: A convergence between Al Qaeda In Iraq (AQIZ) warriors, Hizbollah, and Syria against Israel. Remember that these AQIZ fighters are experienced in warfare against technologically-advanced foes, and their numbers are in the thousands. The only thing tying these warriors down is the Coalition in Iraq. When the bloody knife of the Coalition is removed from the wound known as Iraq, the situation will become a lot more messy.

With Olmert essentially paralyzed, and Likud itching for a fight with Iran (which would certainly end in Israeli defeat - again), nobody is discussing the 4GW reforms required for Israel to win. Right now, Israel is counting on Hamas, Hizbollah, and Iran making huge mistakes, rather than preparing for victory. The strategy I outlined in here becomes even more salient.

Who Does the Better Soldiering?

2006-11-13T08:19:00.000-05:00

DefenseTech has an awesome entry explaining how an unorthodox commander is kicking ass in Iraq. We need fellows like this guy. A couple of side notes:

1) This kind of unorthodoxy would never happen under the American chain of command in Iraq. It would be PowerPointed to death from afar by some staff weenie to the Commanding General of whatever Multi-National Division, and an angry satellite phone call would be placed to the commander, either telling him to shape up or ship out.

2) My observation: Austerity breeds warriors and the fighting spirit.

3) Brilliance in the basics wins! (Corollary: Brilliance in the simple wins!) If you need to patrol an area, then send troops to patrol. If the Americans would show up, put in a huge Forward Operating Base, put in an Armord Cav Regiment, and send out patrols--but not too many.

4) If the enemy is attacking you on the roads, then stay off the roads! The irony of adding all of this uparmor to the vehicles is it makes them more roadbound. Right now, American doctrine in Iraq is this: All convoys will be conducted on MSR (major roads), all in uparmored vehicles, and all convoys will be sufficiently large (so they can fight off attacks, and so they are more visible to insurgents. Iraqi cars do not convoy).

I'm not saying that we should only use unarmored vehicles. I advocate a mix. Imagine this: a convoy full of supplies moving along an MSR in uparmored vehicles, and flank security provided by lightly armored and heavily-armed vehicles moving on either side of the MSR. Or imagine this: An infiltration convoy--break the convoy up into tiny 2-3 car teams, send them at different times along different routes across the desert (not on roads).

Instead of focusing only on our predicament and using only the most orthodox solution (add more armor, damn it! And get the media over here so they can see that I don't have enough of it!), we need to think about the enemy!

Back to the DefenseTech article. It's good until the last paragraph:

Imagine a Stryker brigade adopting Labouchere's model. Imagine what we could accomplish combining American resources with Labouchere's no-nonsense methods. Now imagine that American commanders had half his guts and smarts.

The author doesn't understand that resource-rich environments breed intellectual laziness. Because of the Pentagon's resources we will never see tactics like these unless it's a SOF unit that's free to be creative, or maybe from the Marines if we can shed our addiction to big money defense programs. (highly unlikely!)

Israel vs. Hizbollah: Round II

2006-11-12T08:15:00.000-05:00

Wretchard writes about Hizbollah's buildup of rockets, apparently reaching 20k-30k, which is larger than the inventory before the recent Hizbollah War started. Both Israel and Hizbollah confirm these figures. And with the UN Peacekeepers' blind eye watching the situation, these figures are probably correct.

When the next Israeli-Hizbo war starts, hopefully Israel will have learned from their recent experiences:

1) If you are going to invade, do it with light infantry in the lead (instead of airpower and armor).

2) Do everything possible to make your side the morally correct one (don't commit war crimes, do not attack anything 'Lebanese', only attack Hizbollah targets, etc.) Document Hizbollah war crimes (using hospitals, mosques, school, civilian housing areas for military purposes, document Hizbollah's illegal arms, evidence of Hizbollah oppression).

3) Prevent the alignment of Lebanese and Hizbollah, as Israel did so tragically last time. Form alliances to parties within Lebanon against Hizbollah.

4) Where possible, capture instead of kill.

5) It would be cool to see not a single airstrike. The side that uses these tends to lose a counterinsurgency campaign. If you do use airstrikes, use only helicopters in a close air support role. Stay away from the TACAIR for ordnance delivery.

6) Quickly pay for damage to Lebanese property, and redress all genuine grievances.

7) Make the invasion seem to be more about good governance for the Lebanese and less about killing Hizbollah. In a counterinsurgency campaign, the Objective is always the population the insurgency lives in--remember that. Never prosecute the mission to the extent it defeats the objective. That's shooting yourself in the foot.

Col Thomas X. Hammes, USMC (Ret), thinks it possible for Nation States to defeat 4GW opponents. Israel did it at least once (Second Intifada), and hopefully they will do it again.

Good luck, Israel.

al-Masri: "The Victory Day Has Come Faster Than Expected"

2006-11-11T08:39:00.000-05:00

The currentl leader of Al Qaeda In Iraq, an Egyption by the name of al-Masri ("The Traveler"), has put out a victory speech of sorts in light of the Democratic wins in the House.

The Dems claim that the quicker we Redeploy (withdraw), the quicker this nasty insurgency will end. They are mistaken. Al-Masri says his forces will continue to fight to the last man until the White House is "blown up."

And the fight will not be over if we withdraw from Iraq. There may be a false peace after withdrawal as Iraq turns into an inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian bloodbath, and the Islamists fight to ensure the existence of a friendly government there. But, in time, they will attack again.

Happy Birthday my Brothers!

2006-11-10T14:24:00.000-05:00

Today is the 231st birthday of the national treasure known as the United States Marine Corps.

Dymphna has a nice tribute.

In addition, the first Marine to earn the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Long War will receive the medal today, posthumously. Story here.

If you do nothing else today, read the Constitution. That's what we defend.

And think about your family. That's why we fight.

Semper Fidelis!

The Wilderness

2006-11-08T21:29:00.000-05:00

Welcome, conservatives, to the wilderness. This is where we are now, because we have forgotten or forsaken our obligations to the Constitution and to the citizens of the United States. We earned this.

Do not despair about our predicament.

Some things have undoubtedly changed. The Dems control the House and will probably control the Senate. Real border security and immigration reform are not in the cards, unless you think reform = amnesty. Tax increases are more likely in 2009. Nothing significant will be done about entitlements. Watch of OBL's reaction to the Democratic takeover of congress--I'm sure he's delighted. None of these things are good.

But for the people who keep the wolves at bay--the warriors of this civilization, the situation is fundamentally the same. We are still at war with people who want to kill us. There are appeasers and apologists in government, like the former Nation of Islam organizer and recently elected Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, and Cindy Sheehan. The ideas of these people need to be dealt with. Yet this was true before the election, and it is true after it. For the warriors, the situation is certainly more grave, but is fundamentally unchanged.

Now is the time for us to revisit our roots. What makes us conservative?

Is it our government programs? Entitlements? Open borders? Our gun ownership regulation? How about high taxes? That the UN is here?

None of these things.

This country is great because of the people here, because we're Occidental, because this country was born on the frontier, which bred competitive, fit, industries, and energetic individuals and leaders. This country is great because it's free.

Freedom needs protection--protection from people who know and understand the value of it, and consequently are willing to go to all lengths to protect it. We need to challenge our fellow citizens to understand the threat that we're facing, and to implore them to take up arms--whether rhetorical, military, entrepreneurial, charitable, or civic.

American conservatives are unlike European conservatives, who try to conserve social orders and castes. American conservatives conserve freedom. This means keeping government small, taxes low, defense strong, and maintaining high-quality essential government services. This also means fighting terrorism--indeed, one of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms was Freedom from Fear.

So welcome to the wilderness. We will come out of this the stronger.

We have much work ahead. Do no despair--there is too much work to do and not enough time. Two years is all, and that is not much.

The Losers in the Election

2006-11-06T23:20:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure who the winners of the election are yet. The press seems to be leaning in the direction of divided government: The Dems taking the House with a remote possibility of taking the Senate. This is probably fairly likely. However, the Republicans may through some miracle manage to retain their grasp of the reins of power in both houses of the legislature.

In either case, a political party will be the winners of the midterm congressional elections.

The losers in this election will be the American fighting man and woman.

They will be the losers for myriad reasons. A few of which I will enumerate:

1. If the Democrats win, Bush will have to govern with a party that is anti-war in temperament. This Democratic Party is the party:

Of John "Fucking" Kerry, who thinks that just because he's a Vietnam Vet, he has moral authority to pontificate on all war-related causes, to speak with scorn of the Americans in uniform, has the gall to apologize that I was offended because I misinterpreted his remarks. The John Kerry who says American "terrorize" Iraqis. The John Kerry that dishonored fellow Vietnam Veterans in front of the Senate. John Kerry isn't of America. He's in spite of America.
Of the Hollywierd Left, of Rosie O'Donnell, who, refused to answer the question, "Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?." The Rosie O'Donnell who claims that evangelical Christians are just as dangerous as militant islamists. Don't forget Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and the rest of the California moonbats.
Of the treasonous slanderous like Kevin Barrett
Of the useful idiots like Cindy Sheehan, who court disaster with enemies of the United States.
Of the San Francisco loonies like Nancy Pelosi, who support such debauchery as adults-only street parties, cradle-to-grave entitlements, abortion-on-demand by youth girls (don't tell me about a Woman's Right to Choose--we're talking about girls!), open borders to all people, whether their status is illegal or not, punishingly high taxes, etc.
Of the cocktail upper-crust moms and dads whose idea of national service is a combination of "dissent" (because dissent = democracy, right?!), of going to war when it doesn't benefit American national interests ("SAVE DARFUR!"), and at the same time, preach "Just not my kids," when they realize that someone has to man the posts, carry the rifles, work the radios, drive the HMMWVs, and walk patrol. These are the first cousins on the NIMBYs (Not In My BackYard). (Republicans--there are plenty of you like this too!)

I could go on and on. But bottom line, this is a party that is ill-tempered to govern in a time of war. They'd much rather "redeploy" to Afghanistan, Okinawa, or to the United States. They want to capture Osama bin Laden, thinking that if only he were captured, read him Miranda Rights, and thrown in a nice Club Gitmo style resort, that this whole terrorism nonsense would disappear.

This is no longer the party of JFK, of "What can you do for your country?" This is the party of nuanced classism, of subtle condescension, of faux-moral shrill, of those out of touch with the United States, and out of touch with the threats which we are facing.

2. Regardless of who wins, reform of the way the Pentagon fights war is just not in the cards. Proper oversight by congress of the DoD has not happened, and certainly will not happen if the Dems take control. The emphasis will continue to be on feeding the largest centrally-planned economy in the world: the Pentagon budget, with all of its waste and pork. Emphasis will not be placed on how to fight and sustain a fight in the Long War, counterinsurgency, coalition-building, correcting inter-agency mismanagement, of raising the number and types of troops needed for this war.

The Republicans only know how to totally support the President, or, if their neck is on the line, how to distance themselves from him. They do not know who to oversee the fight.

The Democrats only know how to oppose the President, and nothing more. Some want to run from Iraq. Some want to run from Afghanistan. They think this war is as much a military affair as the War on Poverty, or the Great Society programs. The military cannot win the Long War on its own, but sidelining it is a grave mistake.

3. The country seems more interested in the Me-ism that the late Vice Admiral Stockdale spoke of. MTV. Dr. 90210. Reality TV in general. What about my prescription drugs! I want gay marriage! We need to stop global warming! More gun control! Open borders! Send in the lawyers! . Does anybody know there's a war going on?

I deploy, fight, and come back. And I wonder what country I've returned to.

There are 11 embedded reporters in all of Iraq. Most are reporting for foreign nations. 5 are American embeds in American units. America gets their news of what's happening in the the Red Zone (all of Iraq less the Green Zone) from a bunch of desk-jockey Green Zone reporters who do not venture to see what's happening.

Ask the average man on the street what are Phantom Fury, Matador, Spear, Steel Curtain. They don't know. They don't know that for the most part, the IED problem has been defeated to a nuisance that is still occasionally successful.

America doesn't Support the Troops. They only say they do. And then they watch more TV.

That is why the loser in this midterm election is the American fighting man and woman.

A Happy 231st Birthday to Our Beloved Corps!

2006-11-05T08:40:00.000-05:00

Last night my unit celebrated the 231st birthday of the national treasure that is our Marine Corps. The celebration was actually early--the date of birth is actually 10 November, 1775.

It was a splendid affair with much cheer and pomp. Yet for all the external hoopla, internally it refocused me on my mission and the role the Marines have played in history. I'm proud to be in the company of such heroes.

Semper Fidelis, and Success to the Marines!

Military Professionalism and Politics of Wanting It Both Ways

2006-11-03T18:19:00.000-05:00

I will now address the concept of military professionalism.

Professor Cole writes:

The entire Third Infantry Division, some 20,000 soldiers, seems set to return to Iraq for a third tour in 2007.

The comments in this article by Gen. Rick Lynch alleging that the guerrillas in Iraq are trying to influence the US elections strike me as inappropriate for a serving officer, insofar as they are themselves a form of intervention in the election.

I disagree.

The Officer Corps has two obligations: To the Constitution, and to itself. The former is the external obligation of the Officer Corps, and it's reason for existence. The latter is internal, and relates to self-maintenance of the ethical/moral aspects of military leadership, educational development, upkeep of professional standards of excellence, etc. This does not prevent officers from engaging in politics as they relate to warfighting. Indeed, Clausewitz recognized that war is an inherently political act. At the upper levels of command, military and political action become more and more intertwined. Furthermore, insurgency/guerrilla warfare, is perhaps the most political of all forms of warfare. To be removed for politics in such a war is to negate your own objective, which, of course, is antithetical to the political nature of warfare itself. Soldiers are political and military beings at once.

Another incongruency is that Professor Cole denies our military's authority to state the obvious in terms of what the enemy is trying to do within the context of the American political process. Yet he has nothing to say of the insurgent's authority do engage in American politics.

The left wants it both ways. They want to deny the soldier is a professional when he speaks on political matters, yet were they castigating GEN Shinseki when he was giving professional advice on necessary troop strengths in Iraq? Of course not! Shinseki is being a good soldier. But MG Lynch is engaging in politics in wartime! The horror! There are other examples too numerous to mention. Nonethless, the left believes the generals are military professionals so long as their opinions are in alignment with liberal dictums or are at least against the conservative line of reasoning.

When did you last read your constitution?

2006-10-30T19:21:00.000-05:00

There's a good thread at the Belmont Club. Basically they're touching on the issues that confront the state in 21st century/4th Generation Warfare (4GW). Check it out here.

The System is Broken: Awards

2006-10-30T16:45:00.000-05:00

The awards system is broken.

The Marines have a reputation for being relatively stingy on awards, and I think this is still relatively true.

I've been told by field grade officers who I confide in that these practices are all part of the system. It's how the game is played. It's all politics. Sure, it's dirty, but everybody does it.

What these field grades are saying may be true, but it's surely not right.

Here are some what-ifs. On my most recent deployment I had the distinct pleasure of writing an award for one of the most outstanding NCOs in the Marine Corps: Sergeant K. This Marine was stellar in every sense. He demanded and received respect from peers, subordinates, and superiors. His technical MOS skills were better than most Gunnery Sergeants I know of in the same MOS. He displayed outstanding physical fitness and moral rectitude. Superior in just about every catagory. I rated him first out of 17 Sergeants I have reported on. He was a Marine who made it a pleasure to write fitreps and awards. I wrote him up for a Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (or NAM, in the service parlance).

During the same deployment and some weeks later I found out that:

90% of the Quality Assurance Section of the Maintenance Department had been submitted for the NAMs.
Several Lance Corporals were receiving Certificates of Commendation for going to the Base PX in Iraq to pick up submarine sandwiches and pizza for the superbowl party. (note that these Marines were doing NOTHING beyond their normal duties to bring success in combat. Consequently, these Marines are being awarded for doing NOTHING).

Working in an awards system like this, either I'm the bad guy by not writing my Marines up for awards that their peers under different officers are being recommended for. Or I can let the standards degrade and write awards for all of the Marines in my detachment, like the Quality Assurance Marines. There are so many awards that Marines feel entitled to them.

Awards are taking away from the title of Marine. Too often we judge Marines and servicemembers for the ribbons and medals on their chest. We need to get back to the existential value of being a Marine, and get away from the meaningless regalia of nylon ribbons for PowerPoint slide construction.

One Major Peter F. Owen wrote an article called The Institutionalization of Festoonery in the same April, 2000 issue of The Marine Corps Gazette. (The good Major is probably out of the Marines or significantly promoted by now.) In the article the author admits that the bulk of the awards available to Marines are probably here to stay (some awards, for example, are awarded in the name of the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Navy, and action by Headquarters Marine Corps will not get rid of these awards). The author's suggests instead that Marines only wear certain awards that enhance the value of the uniform (Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, Air Medals, etc.), and exclude trite awards such as National Defense Service Medals, Meritorious Service Medals, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, to name a few. Maj Owen would allow Marines to continue to wear unit awards and campaign medals, as these undoubtedly add to the Marine Corps heritage. Maj Owen's recommendation's are worthy.

Marine Colonel Thomas X. Hammes in the same issue of The Marine Corps Gazette advocates removal of all non-combat awards. There is precident for this, when the Medal of Honor was subject to recall in the early 1900s due to awarding criteria becoming too liberal.

The other services have similar problems on their hands. The Army uses the Army Achievement Medal (the service equivalent of the NAM submitted for Sgt K.) as punishment.

What can you do? The current uniform regulations allow for Marines to not wear any medals or ribbons on some service uniforms, or allow for Marines to wear only personal awards and unit awards. Go ahead and wear that lonely NAM and Combat Action Ribbon and omit your National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (two entirely redundant awards, as they are awarded for being on active duty in the period since September 11th). Forego the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. When your fellow Marines ask you why you're not wearing all of your awards, tell them the truth.

You can also think about the good of the Marine Corps when you are writing awards. I have explained to Marines who have approached me on why I'm stingy with awards to research the battle of Tarawa (Utmost Savagry, by Alexander is a good volume). Barely 5% of all Marines involved in that bloody fight were recognized by an award of any type, including Letters of Commendation by the Commanding General (which are paper awards with no companion medal). Be stingy about awards, and tell your Marines that you're upholding the heritage of the Marine Corps by doing so. And tell them about how important an honor it is to just be a Marine. It is an honor indeed.

Let your reputation speak for you rather than the nylon on your chest. And let the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor (or whatever your service emblem), speak to your professionalism.

Letter to the Generals

2006-10-30T15:55:00.000-05:00

An anonymous Marine officer apparently wrote a letter to a relative that was forwarded until it reached some senior pentagon types and Time Magazine. It's worth a read, and captures some of the crud and the joy that goes with combat and being in a Band of Brothers. A copy of the email is here.

I relate to what he writes.

The Fifth Republic....Into the Fourth Generation (of war): Part II

2006-10-22T19:21:00.000-04:00

The erudite Martin van Crevald has some analysis on the near-civil war in France. He seems to think that for the French (whether secular or Christian) to win, they need to get serious about getting serious (i.e. no half measures.)

He also says that immigration needs to be brought under control, and probably even reversed (by deportation of some populations.)

He is correct.

The Fifth Republic....Into the Fourth Generation (of war)

2006-10-22T09:06:00.000-04:00

Dymphna extrapolates on the trend of violence, asking when IEDs will make their appearance in Paris. My guess is when the police get a bit tougher in their tactics we will see the slow burning of Moslem violence turn to an inferno.

It didn't take that to Start the Fire (hat tip: Billy Joel) last time France was burning. Remember the riots last year, all because the government was asking my generation living there to tolerate a couple years without a guaranteed job?

I still think France has some time to turn around. With EU Constitution being given a mortal blow a year or two ago, there is some creedance to the theory that the Frenchman on the street has had enough with the Brussels paperpushers. Maybe they'll wrest control of their borders back from the European Superstate within a generation for just enough time to assimilate their Moslems. I'm not optimistic on this. I just think it's possible.

Defense Tech: High-Tech Uniforms Finally Heading to War

2006-10-22T08:31:00.000-04:00

Looks like the Army is finally getting it's Land Warrior suite to combat, with 4/9 Infantry (the "Manchus."). We'll see how it goes. I'm sure the field grades are going to love it.

One interesting thing comes up near the end of the piece:

"The concerns were so great that the original vision -- giving every soldier a full set of high-tech gear -- has been scrapped. For now, only Manchu team leaders will get the entire Land Warrior ensemble, Col. Hansen tells Defense Tech. Regular riflemen will be equipped with GPS beacons, to let their sergeants and lieutennants know where they are."

This is probably wrong. It's so their captains, majors, lieutenant colonels, colonels, operations officers, chiefs of staff, intelligence officers, commanding generals, and deputy commanding generals know where they are.

I used to deal in tactical aviation C2 systems, and believe me, the more that the battle captains see, the more they are in the weeds controlling things that they probably don't need to be controlling.

Most successful armed forces delegate C2 to the lowest level possible. This has been the trend since at least the Franco-Prussian War with the advent of open-order tactics. The armies that bled themselves white in WWI were the ones insisting on "regimental column, battalion on line" formations, while the Germans actually learned to press their C2 to small detachments. Ernst Juenger, a WWI storm troop officer (wounded 14 times, several decorations for gallantry), said in his WWI memoir "The Storm of Steel," that "all success in battle depends on individual initiative." I'm inclined to agree.

Giving these systems to individual soldiers will stifle initiative precisely because:

1) higher will always be up their a$$ telling them what to do... ("hey you...Pvt Bonottz...move to the right 10 meters. There's a bad pixel on my Blue Force Tracker and I can't see you when you stand there!").
And...

2) The psychological impact of having the all-seeing eye of higher on the individual soldier will be just as bad.

In short...armies don't win because of high-tech gear, and they don't win because generals see everything. They win because individual soldiers, squads, platoons, and companies, with the help of combined arms, locate, close with, and destroy the enemy.

That's not to say this Land Warrior system isn't going to be any good. It just might be. But when we design systems, we need to take into account the kind of C2 system we want our armies to have. Giving every soldier, or every 4th or 5th soldier, a C2 suite is probably going to make him worry a whole lot more of what the OpsO is thinking rather than destroying the enemy and staying focused on the tasks ahead.