dwboyd | books

Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War

2010-05-17T17:47:00.001-07:00

Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War

Very interesting book; I was given this book as a gift from one of my Soldiers. John Boyd had a unique view on the world, and a driving desire to find truth, both of which enabled him to improve US military fighter tactics, fighter aircraft design, and ultimitely, the way the military fights.

Following is a summation of the book from Amazon:

John Boyd (1927-1997) was a brilliant and blazingly eccentric person. He was a crackerjack jet fighter pilot, a visionary scholar and an innovative military strategist. Among other things, Boyd wrote the first manual on jet aerial combat, was primarily responsible for designing the F-15 and the F-16 jet fighters, was a leading voice in the post-Vietnam War military reform movement and shaped the smashingly successful U.S. military strategy in the Persian Gulf War. His writings and theories on military strategy remain influential today, particularly his concept of the "OODA (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) Loop," which all the military services-and many business strategists-use to this day. Boyd also was a brash, combative, iconoclastic man, not above insulting his superiors at the Pentagon (both military and civilian); he made enemies (and fiercely loyal acolytes) everywhere he went. His strange, mercurial personality did not mesh with a military career, making his 24 years in the Air Force (1951-1975) difficult professionally and causing serious emotional problems for Boyd's wife and children. Coram's worthy biography is deeply researched and detailed, down to describing the fine technical points of some of Boyd's theories. A Boyd advocate (he "contributed as much to fighter aviation as any man in the history of the Air Force," Coram notes), Coram does not shy away from Boyd's often self-defeating abrasiveness and the neglect and mistreatment of his long-suffering wife and children, and keeps the story of a unique life moving smoothly and engagingly.

Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

The Yom Kippur War

2010-04-21T09:08:00.000-07:00

The Yom Kippur War, Abraham Rabinovich

(Note: This is a rough draft of this post. /dwb.)

It was very eye opening, and it was very educational as to the personalities that played a major part in the middle east politics for the next 30 years.

The astounding thing is how the Israeli's were so confidant that they could win in tank battles with the odds stacked against them as much as 100:1. The avalanche was hanging over their heads, and no one thought anything about it. Amazing self-deception. I feel we are doing the same thing with Iran right now; willfully decieving ourselves as to what will happen when Iran gets nuclear weapons.

As for the lessons from the battlefield, the same lessons seem to be learned in every war.

1. Defense is stronger than offense. The best offense is to pick a target that your enemy cannot afford to not get back, and then set up a strong defensive position. In this way he crushes himself against your strength, and not the other way around. Find the choke points, and defend them (such as Task Force Z).

2. Combined arms fights matter. Tanks, infantry, and close air support have to practice together to limit the vulnerabilities and benefit from the strengths of the other arms. Developing the skills and training together for experience will allow the seperate elements to work together through shared techniques, tactics, and procedures.

3. Leadership matters. Soldiers will fight, even in a bad situation, but leadership will make their fighting matter in the big picture. Saying "no" when something doesn't make sense matters. Striking at key targets of opportunity matters, but only at the right time. Waiting too long could make a previously good target into a death mill. Visiting the front lines to see the condition of the troops, and the reality of the battle field is essential. (Sherman wrote that too see a battlefield from the rear area's is too see failure and rout, only from the front line does a commander get a true picture of what is going on.)

4. Small unit leadership matters. The Soldiers repeatedly went into difficult, dangerous battles, but only under good leaders. Some leaders have the skill to motivate others to achieve greatness. The showmanship of leadership cannot be taught, but can be developed over years. The showmanship is the result of the character that you develop, not a substitute for character. That is the mistake that many generals, and politicians, make. People understand a fraud when they see it, no matter what you say. The good small unit leaders led from the front, knew their men personally (or got to know them before leading them into battle), and frequently checked on the men in person (going tank to tank to get a look at the condition of the individuals). It could be summed up as a sense of personal responsibility and accountability for ones subordinates.

5. Small unit tactics (or planning) matter. Several times the Israelis were rushed into battle because of a pending timeline or cease-fire. The result was never good. There is a tremendous difference between aggressiveness and foolhardiness. The paratroop commander who was ordered to drive into Suez City without maps or any planning was right to protest. He didn't protest enough. On the modern battlefield it is suicidal to charge into a trap, especially when you don't have the tools required to extract yourself from a bloody situation. Being aggressive is critical to success (Task Force Z saving the day in the Golan, the Navy crippling the Egyptian's boats, the air-lifted artillery unit that shelled Cairo), but aggressiveness alone does not ensure success. Operational speed does not mean tank speed. Taking a moment to scan for the enemy at the top of every rise ensured that some units remained effective defenders in the Golan, while rushing in a wild dash across the desert resulted in a needless Israeli slaughter. In person, slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. Slow down in order to think clearly, see clearly, and avoid unnecessary death.

6. Technology matters. The radios were not encoded during transmission, so Egypt could listen to the Israeli plans. The sagger missiles and RPG's negated the tank advantage the Israeli Army believed it had over the Arabs. The SAM 6 batteries negated the effectiveness of the IDF Air Force in destruction of the enemy forces. In today's world, the internet matters, and it's a weapon's platform that must be trained on, and around which security must be developed and used. Underwater missles are being developed by China, to which we do not yet have an answer. Satellites are being sniped out of commission by China. Nuclear material is being sold to Venezuela by Russia. I don't know what technological threat is out there, but the big threat changes every year as we develop counter-measures, and as the enemies produce newer weapons. We have to spend money on those developments, or we will be very exposed to our enemies.

7. Politics matters. Having a military, and even a trained and experienced military that is able to effectively fight and support a war anywhere in the world does not mean victory. Victory is not won by weapons, but by leaders who direct those weapons effectively. The leaders have to have a realistic view of the world, or the weapons, and the Soldiers trained to use those weapons, will be wasted in efforts that do not matter to the overall outcome of a war. A lack of will, or misunderstanding the enemies intentions, are very real weaknesses in a country, and can be manipulated by a master strategist to create disaster for even the strongest opponent. Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir were "punished" by the people, not because they lost the war, but because they failed to see a war brewing, and therefore failed to warn the people of the impending shock. The people no longer had confidence that Dayan and Meir understood the realities of the world, and were not convinced they had the will to protect all the citizens. The enemies were emboldened when it appeared that the Isreali Army was going to fail in defense of the Sinai and the Golan, and they saw weakness in the reactions of Israels leaders to the new emergency. The people did not get the feeling that the Defense Minister and Prime Minister were able to protect them anymore. That is the danger of over-inflating a nations confidence. Leaders need to provide realistic expectations. The young survivor's in the tanks did so at the personal level, but the government failed to do so at the national level (via televsion).

8. "Master Politician's" don't exist. Kissinger is praised in the book for his masterful manipulation of situations. Golda Meir is shown to be the head of government. Breznev and Nixon are pictured as two grandfatherly patrons who provide for their peoples gentle guidance and support, and prevent them from hurting themselves. These sections of the book really irked me. Government as not the solution to our problem, it is our problem. Government should protect the people, but comparing Egypt and Israel, or comparing the Soviet Union and the United States of America is a false comparison. Kissinger wanted to be "smooth" and liked by everybody, but how much harm did he cause in his life's work? Did Sadat really care about his people? He was looking for more power to take the lead among the Arab countries, not in some mission to free his people. His people are poor, and they don't desire liberty because they have never had freedom to do as they please. Kissinger clouded those differences with detente because he was interested in power, not in the benefits to the largest number of people in the world.

That last point was my only irritation with the book. Abraham believes in government. I do not.

Loved the book, though, very well written, and based on the bibliography of sources, very thoroughly researched.

The Tragedy Of The "Korosko"

2010-04-06T13:36:00.000-07:00

A Desert Drama: Being The Tragedy Of The "Korosko", by Arthur Conan Doyle

A story composed while he was visiting Egypt for the health of his wife. The story was interesting in that his descriptions of the middle east are as applicable and valid now was they were when the book was written a century ago. In fact, I believe Doyle may have a clearer and saner view of the enemy than we do today.

America Alone

2010-04-02T14:20:00.000-07:00

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Steyn

A fascinating read. Steyn takes the reader through the demographics of the current world, and shows how the cultural suicidal tendency of the west (with a birth rate in Europe sinking to 1.1 children per woman) and the unrelenting and unapologetic Muslim invasion (with a birth rate of 7.8 children per woman) are colliding to cause the end of the world as we know it.

As usual, Steyn is hilarious as he walks readers through is reasoning, and tells the enviro-wackos they are way off base about the world ending in a few millenium. "The world is ending within a decade or two!" As he unveils his traumatizing view of current events he keeps up a pep-talk for how America is Alone in the world, but its not too late. The demographics of the world are changing, the populations are shifting (with many dying off because of social welfare states than encourage life-long childhood and end with old age government care), and he presents the possible scenarios that could result from the current chaos.

Its a world view altering read. If read, it will snap you out of the calm and steady progress the media leads us to believe is unalterably laid out before us. In fact, the times from 1945 to the 1990's were an anamoly in history, and the reality of a world in chaos is once again upon us. Its not a question of if, but of when.

The real question posed by Steyn is, will we have the will to do anything about it? Daily we give more power to the government in seemingly insignificant ways. The result is a cutlure paralyzed into inaction and indecision. In one anecdote Steyn repeats a conversation with a friend in France. "Why do American's insist on owning guns?" "Americans own guns because they like to have guns." "Well we would like to own guns too, but we don't" (with the implication that its better for society). "And that is the difference between Americans and the French."

Europe is being invaded by an unrelenting wave of Muslim immigrants, and the children of immigrants. The immigration is not the problem, its the inability of the host countries to assimilate the immigrants. As Steyn illustrates througout the book, the Muslim immigrants are interested in only one thing, Muslim supremacy. They take, but they never give back. The problem is in the will of the host nations. In England some departments of government have already banned the flying of the British flag, including the prison system. The bureaucrats think that the flag is too offensive because elements of the flag are from the period of the crusades. That is sad, sad, sad.

In a great illustration of how to be "multi-cultural" (or as Mark writes, "multi-culti") and still show judgement of moral superiority of one culture over another he describes the British General in India who put an end of "suttee". In the India that the British colonized there was a practice of "suttee" in which the widow was burned alive in the funeral pyre of her husband. General Napier told the Indian's, you go ahead and follow your custom of burning women alive, and I will follow the British custom of hanging men by the neck who burn women alive. So go ahead and build your funeral pyres, and my carpenters will build gallows next to those pyres from which to hang you after you burn your women.

The question is not, "Are the enemies powerful enough to defeat us", as much as, "Are we morally strong enough to defend ourselves from our enemies?" Our enemies are the enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic. Those at home who want to kill the American spirit of independence, self-sufficiency, and innovation with government welfare and socialism are equally as dangerous as any armed enemy. Do we have the will? That is the question.

It will be answered shortly.

Scipio Africanus: A Greater than Napolean by B.H. Liddell-Hart

Reading his book, and seeing anew the situation of the world, I couldn't help but contemplate the Roman Empire. During the time of Carthage and Rome, a time when Rome was unconvinced of its greatness, and harrassed by Hannibal, a leader stepped into the arena when no-one else was willing. The Roman commanders had been betrayed by allies, and killed in a battle for Spain, among them Scipio. When the senators called for a new general to step forward the collective society took one step back and revealed only one youth who was willing to take on the role; Scipio's son, who would soon be called Scipio Africanus.

Scipio rebuilt the legions, reformed the allies, and decisivly defeated the Carthaginian's in all of Spain. He went back to the Senate to discuss the next move, but they despised his youth and his skill as a general, and grudgingly acknowledged his success. They still moaned and complained about their plight, with Hannibal in the hills of Italy, and wanted Scipio to defeat Hannibal. Scipio said that he wanted to defeat Carthage, not Hannibal, and therefore wanted to attack the city in North Africa. The Senate resisted this with all their might, and instead gave Scipio the province of Sicily to govern.

So, Scipio raised his own funds, built his own boats, raised his own legions and sailed to attack Carthage. Hannibal was quickly called back to North Africa, and was handily beaten in a fair contest with Scipio. Carthage surrendered, and Scipio made a fair treaty that forever prevented Carthage ever again being a military threat to Rome, but also gave them economic hope as a trading empire. The Senate finally gave Scipio his triumph in Rome (but tried to undo the good treaty he had made with Carthage, not seeing the strength of his strategy).

The people tried to make Scipio King, but he would have none of it, and went quietly off to enjoy his family and his estate.

A decade later there was once again trouble in the Republic. This time Hannibal had partnered with the Persian's and was causing turmoil in the east. Scipio was chief advisor to his brother, and once again won success and an enduring peace for Rome. Once again he was attacked by the senators who were jealous of his success, and having nothing evil to say of Scipio attempted to frame his brother on stealing government money used in the campaign. Scipio's reaction was to tear the account books into shreds on the senate floor and leave. He was escorted by the crowd, who protected him from the Senators, and lived the rest of his life in self-imposed excile at his home outside of Rome.

I think a modern similarity to our own times would be Reagan. Our nation was convinced that our greatness was over, and were resigned to the fate of becoming a communist country before Reagan boldly led us to strategic victory. His entire presidency the people shuddered and complained, and acted outraged by his manuevers, yet the end results showed how right he had been all along. He defeated the great enemy of America, the Soviet Union, and set the conditions for America to be the worlds sole hyper-power.

Now, as in Scipio's day, we are encountering another threat just a few decades after the great enemy was destroyed. This enemy is once again out of the east, and is similar to Persia. The enemy is weak, but we are weaker due to a lack of unified will, and we are threatened by our own weak-minded senators who demonize the very strategies that have made us great. But where is a Reagan to step up to lead us to victory?

We are at a very interesting time in history, and our greatness has only just begun, if we will only develop the self-confidance to enforce our will. Our system is better than any other system ever devised in the history of man to promote the general welfare, the general defense, and the general good of all peoples. It provides these benefits by limiting government and protecting the individual rights of an individual to fail, to succeed, and to keep what he earns. As Reagan would say, "There are simple answers, but they are not easy answers."

We know how to make our nation great, and we know how to make other nations great. The question is, do we have the will to do it?

We will find out very shortly.

Thank you Mark Steyn for illuminating the current condition of the world! A great read, and good food for though.

Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell

2010-03-05T12:29:00.000-08:00

Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell

This is a book everyone should have to read. He takes a complicated subject, the economy, and breaks it down to its most basic fundamentals. Its so easy, once you understand those fundamentals.

At the beginning of the book Mr. Sowell says that our ignorance costs a great deal of trouble. Because we don't know the basics, we fall victim to myths, very complicated myths that are not true, and do great harm. He equates the common understanding of economic principles in the US today to the myths that simple, scientificly ignorant tribesmen create to explain why trees move in the wind. They attribute spirits and emotions to the tree, not understanding how winds are created. Our economic ignorance is equally embarrassing, and he forges ahead to rid us of common myths and silly notions.

The first point is that the economy is not money. Rather, economics is the study of how resources that have multiple uses are distributed in society. In a free market, prices reflect a resources worth at a given time. By fixing prices, to slacken political pressure, politicians change the value of a resource, and bad things happen. Its simple economics, and Sowell shows with many good examples throughout recent history how these price-fixing actions affect society.

A fascinating read. Everyone should read this book, and all kids should have to read this excellent discourse in high school.

Read well, friends, read well.

A Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi

2010-03-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

(I thought this might be of interest to you lover's-of-the-nine out there.)

A Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi

I'm reading this book by Miyamoto, who was a legendary Japanese swordsman living in the 15th century. Musashi was born in the Samarai class, killed his first man at 13, and was famous by 29, having killed more than 60 men in deuls of "strategy". He dedicated his life to the search of the Way of strategy.

This book is the sum of his life long study. I think you could explain his search for strategy, or the Way, in the same terms and intent that Pirsig described his "truth"; as reality, or excellence, the meeting point of science and art. The book is interesting (even though my description of it is lacking). It flows easily and concisely, and provides insight to this 15th century Renaissance man.

_____________________________________
When I reached thirty I looked back on my past. The previous victories were not due to my having mastered strategy. Perhaps it was natural ability, or the order of heaven, or that the other schools' strategy was inferior. After that I studied morning and evening searching for the principle, and came to realise the Way of strategy when I was fifty.

Since then I have lived without following any particular Way. Thus with the virtue of strategy I practice many arts and abilities--all things with no teacher.
...
If you practice day and night in the above Ichi school strategy, your spirit will naturally broaden. Thus is large scale strategy and the strategy of hand to hand combat propagated in the world. This is recorded for the first time in the five books of Ground, Water, Fire, Wind (Tradition), and Void.

This is the Way for men who want to learn my stratgy:
1. Do no think dishonestly.
2. The Way is in training.
3. Become aquainted with every art.
4. Know the Ways of all professions.
5. Distinguish between gain and loss in worldly matters.
6. Develop intuitive judgement and understanding for everything.
7. Perceive those things which cannot be seen.
8. Pay attention even to trifles.
9. Do nothing which is of no use.

_____________________________________
Excellent. Be well, my friends.

The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant, by J.F.C. Fuller

2010-03-04T10:08:00.000-08:00

The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant, by J.F.C. Fuller

There is no definite answer in this post, only a few questions, and one exerpt from a history book that shook my understanding of what war is.

I am reading The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant, by J.F.C. Fuller. Fuller says that common knowledge of any historical event is usually completely wrong, so he sets about to investigate who Grant really is, and what his generalship was all about. I have agreed with most of his points, and have to agree with his carefully developed argument that Grant is a master of strategy. It is commonly held that Grant is a butcher of men, but compared to other men of the day, he was no worse, and he as this was the first of the modern age, industrial wars, there is some excuse for not completely understanding the impact of the rifle on tactics. Although his tactics were sometimes rudimentary, his tactics were always submissive to his overall strategy for winning the war, and he was always mindful of the political impact of any action. Lee, on the other hand, although a brilliant, if somewhat reckless, tactician, failed completely in the strategic and political spheres of the war.

With these things in mind, Fuller closes with a description of the peace that followed the Civil War, and compares it to the close of the Great War of 1918. (These thoughts appear under chapter titles such as "The Foundations of War", "The Creative Power of War", and "Causes of Discord".) The section that I would like to quote from starts out:

Today, the fashion is to blacken war, carefully avoiding any examination of its causes.

Later on, he talks of how its silly to try and "disarm a nation in order to prevent war", because "armaments are the outward and visible sign of some inward discontent". Just taking away some form of weapons will not change a nations, or peoples, desire to wage war. The weapons are not the reason, or the problem, there will always be weapons. The problem is deeper than the weapons and the fighting, and must be discovered and remedied in order to prevent war.

Now we get to the bold statement that completely shocked my limited sensibilities, but which I can not argue against.

The apotheosis of the value of human life is quite a fictitious one. There are few things cheaper in this world than the lives of men and women; their value is an illusion begotten of the instinct of self-preservation which controls each separate person. The 500,000 men killed and died in 1861-5 were not long missed, nor did their death detrimentally influence the prosperity of their country. In the World War the same applies to the 10,000,000 who perished during it. ... Because 10,000,000 men died in the war, war is anathematixed, but when 10,000,000 men, women, and children died during the winter of 1918-9 of so common a complaint as influenza, what did rational people do? They said: "Isn't it terrible?" and a few sniffed oil of eucalyptus.

Cannot we introduce into this subject of war a little common sense? Cannot we bring ourselves to look at war as we look at influenza or diphtheria? ... Do we not examine the [broken and porous] drains of our peaceful and frequently ill-built houses? Yet when it comes to a question of war, we go off our heads, and behave like medieval magicians.

The destructiveness of war is always apparent, but its creative influences are generally hidden away. ... If the drains in a house are defective [we] repair them. Repair means destruction in one form or another, and if the drains are in a terrible condition it may become necessary to replace them altogether -- that is, to destroy them utterly so that a new condition of life may be established. Destruction is not necessarily evil, and, in my opinion, had the Civil War in America been better understood, the causes of the Civil War in Europe quite possibly might have been eliminated.

(Hope you are still with me, sorry about the long reading.)

Previous to this section, he discussed how Grant felt that the Civil War was a direct result of our bullying of Mexico and the taking of massive quantities of land after that short war. That land created a problem in the US, because north and south fought to establish their own economics in the new areas, which resulted eventually in a physical war. Fuller compares that land grabbing to that of the European powers competing for colonies throughout the world prior to the Great War.

Anyway, I've got to go, but I hope you see a little more about war. We cannot focus on the cruelty of war, but on the causes of war itself. War is cruel, and we should try to avoid it. But its causes are deeper than shooting a rifle or setting off an IED. We must focus on peace following a war and carefully as we do on the act of war itself. Often, much good created by the war is undone by evil committed by the victor upon the defeated, the opportunistic upon the weak. Therefore, the peace must be "waged" as carefully as the war. Unfortunately, in the west, we often fail to plan for the peace, so that our peace sometimes looks like war.

Later friends.

How to Live on 24 Hours a Day, Arnold Bennett

2010-03-04T10:04:00.000-08:00

How to Live on 24 Hours a Day, Arnold Bennett

Just finished a speedy reading of Bennett's How to Live on 24 Hours a Day, and the phrase "LOL" (although petty and annoying) seems to sum up my feelings on the subject. It has awoken my slumbering spirit, and inspired my soul to quit letting my mind waste so much valuable time. (By "LOL" I mean "throw my head back and let out a joyful 'HA!' at such helpful commentary on life being written in such an entertaining and concise manner.")
Below are a few excerpts that I felt needed to be shared... enjoy my friends. Remember, "nothing in life is humdrum".

ps. Hope I'm not a "prig" by sharing these excerpts. Its just that they made me laugh at the simplicity of the truth of time management and living life to the fullest that I couldn't not share them. The book is great. I'm going to read it again, right now.

pps. The next book I'm going to read is "How to Speak and Write Correctly" which will probably mean I'll have to drastically change my rambling style to communicate more effectively. So be it.

___________________________________________
Which of us lives on twenty-four hours a day? And when I say "lives," I do not mean exists, nor "muddles through." Which of us is free from that uneasy feeling that the "great spending departments" of his daily life are not managed as they ought to be? Which of us is quite sure that his fine suit is not surmounted by a shameful hat, or that in attending to the crockery he has forgotten the quality of the food? Which of us is not saying to himself-- which of us has not been saying to himself all his life: "I shall alter that when I have a little more time"?

We never shall have any more time. We have, and we have always had, all the time there is. It is the realisation of this profound and neglected truth (which, by the way, I have not discovered) that has led me to the minute practical examination of daily time- expenditure.

...

"But I hate music!" you say. My dear sir, I respect you.

What applies to music applies to the other arts. I might mention Mr. Clermont Witt's "How to Look at Pictures," or Mr. Russell Sturgis's "How to Judge Architecture," as beginnings (merely beginnings) of systematic vitalising knowledge in other arts, the materials for whose study abound in London.

"I hate all the arts!" you say. My dear sir, I respect you more and more.

I will deal with your case next, before coming to literature.

...

One loses, in the study of cause and effect, that absurd air which so many people have of being always shocked and pained by the curiousness of life. Such people live amid human nature as if human nature were a foreign country full of awful foreign customs. But, having reached maturity, one ought surely to be ashamed of being a stranger in a strange land!

...

I cannot terminate these hints, often, I fear, too didactic and abrupt, upon the full use of one's time to the great end of living (as distinguished from vegetating) without briefly referring to certain dangers which lie in wait for the sincere aspirant towards life. The first is the terrible danger of becoming that most odious and least supportable of persons--a prig. Now a prig is a pert fellow who gives himself airs of superior wisdom. A prig is a pompous fool who has gone out for a ceremonial walk, and without knowing it has lost an important part of his attire, namely, his sense of humour. A prig is a tedious individual who, having made a discovery, is so impressed by his discovery that he is capable of being gravely displeased because the entire world is not also impressed by it. Unconsciously to become a prig is an easy and a fatal thing.

Hence, when one sets forth on the enterprise of using all one's time, it is just as well to remember that one's own time, and not other people's time, is the material with which one has to deal; that the earth rolled on pretty comfortably before one began to balance a budget of the hours, and that it will continue to roll on pretty comfortably whether or not one succeeds in one's new role of chancellor of the exchequer of time. It is as well not to chatter too much about what one is doing, and not to betray a too-pained sadness at the spectacle of a whole world deliberately wasting so many hours out of every day, and therefore never really living. It will be found, ultimately, that in taking care of one's self one has quite all one can do.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Adams

2010-03-04T09:38:00.000-08:00

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Adams

"Don't panic!" is the first thing you need to know about this book. Just relax, and enjoy the ride, because the rest is out of your hands.

I listened to the book on cd, read by the author, and I think that adds a little something extra. The voices he uses for each character are great, and will stick with me for some time. Each character is indeed a "character", and I'm glad to have been introduced to that wacky bunch, especially ex-hippie, ex-Galaxy President, current thief on the run, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Wow, man. Of course, now that I think about it, I liked all the characters; poor confused Arthur Dent, experienced hiker Ford Prefect, depressed robot Marvin, even "know it all" Trillion.

(Come to think of it {did I already use that expression?} I already know quite a few ex-hippies, current thiefs-on-the-run, possibly even ex-Galaxy Presidents in my current pre-occupation at the mine.)

Guess I'll have to read the next book in the series.

But what I know now is really quite enough to live a fuller life.

1. Don't Panic.

2. The most important thing in the universe is a towel.

3a. The answer to life, the universe, and everthing is 42.
3b. We still don't know the question that answers "42".
3c. The mice thought the answer, "How many roads must a man travel?" good enough to fool the talk show circuit back home.

4. You can make a fortune manufacturing specialty planets.

Later, my earth dwelling friends. Keep your towels handy.

1984, George Orwell

2010-03-04T09:34:00.000-08:00

1984, George Orwell

Just finished reading 1984, and am feeling a bit low. A powerful feeling of utter sadness has come upon me. The story is so tragic (if that is the right word). The grey world described in book I captured my attention. The rose tinted world of the glass encased piece of coral (and Shakespeare, and Julia, and the beautiful prole laundry grandma, and the way life should be...except for the hiding) in book II captured my heart. The black world of torture and illogic in book III pretty much made my brain hurt with sorrow.

I don't even blame Winston for giving up, or for Julia and Winston both losing affection (hating themselves for wishing pain on the other, and therefore hating to see the other and hate themselves anew at each meeting). I blame Winston for being too eager, for not being more cautious, for not changing hiding places, ... for trusting O'Brien (even though I really wanted to trust O'Brien from the very first mention of him).

I'm sad that Winston began to have a real life of freedom, and that he had to then live life without that freedom. I'm just sad.

Its the best book I wish I never read.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance in Strength.

Later.

The Fatal Shore, Hughes

2010-03-04T09:07:00.000-08:00

The Fatal Shore, Hughes

In this spellbinding recounting of Australia's birth as a penal colony on the underside of the globe, and the growing pains of the new colony trying to shed its convict past, Hughes masterfully intigrates documentary with the stories of life and death, the emotions and actions that make up our short lives and make history, both our own and others, worth remembering. With a focus on the convicts point of view, the reader feels the pain of the condemned exiles as they prepare themselves to leave the only life they know, the wives, children, parents, for an unknown world full of unknown dangers, and unfortunately, unknown pain and torment for the criminal.

What impressed me was the harsh contradictions of the "prison colony". After the initial years of starvation and struggling to harness and convert the seemingly fertile soil into productive farm land and pastures, there was a harsh difference in the fate of "government men", Britian's unwanted and transported citizens. The government envisioned the colony in Australasia as a hell with which to scare the criminally inclined from their habits of evil. The "emancipists" in the colony, prisoners who completed their 14 years sentence and were now free, or "ticket of leave" men, envisioned a future brighter than anything they could have hoped for in England.

In the new colony, class didn't matter (although though the "new aristocracy" tried hard to make it matter), only hard work and motiviation seperated a man from success. This sense of the convicts lot being better than a pauper in England caused some problems; being convicted to exile no longer held any fear to the lower classes of England (think of the prisoners financial success in Great Expectations). In one case two soldiers, feeling that life as a prisoner in Australia was better than their own, robbed a store and waited around to be arrested and convicted. The governor reacted harshly to this abuse, and had the soldiers so heavily chained and beaten that one soon died from ill treatment.

This is where the good life ends, and the hard life begins. Those prisoners who were "twice", or "colonially", convicted (as serious a second crime as murder, or light a matter as forging a currency note) were sent to the outer settlements, places of torture defined as "a constant purgatory, and a sometimes hell". This was governments attempt to put the fear of crime back into the hearts of the criminally minded. The lash was lavished upon the backs of prisoners, and tyrants ruled ruthlessly, torture was rampant. The stories of survival amidst such brutality were as impressive as the stories of how brutal and animalistic man can be to man.

There was a positive twist to such stories, however. On the worst torture settlement, an island isolated on all side by 700 miles of sea, an idealistic young Englishman named Maconachie decided not to rule through punishment and kangaroo courts, but through compassion and justice. The change in the prisoners was impressive. Its amazing how one act of kindness, how fairness in dealing with others, how authority which is responsive can change the heart of men from excessive disobedience to willing conformaty. Amazing. These prisoners were the toughest of the convict population, unflinching amid sentances of 100 lashes or more (admiringly called "pebbles" or "stone men", as opposed to "sandstones" for those who shrieked or collapsed during punishment), who could accept unjust punishment without complaint, yet they were responsive to a man who would treat them fairly and humanely.

But Maconachie was the exception to the rule. On one settlement, men were forced to where 20lb chains around their ankles, sleep on an unprotected island outcropping in the cold, and break rock under waste deep sea water in the "wet quarry". Some men, out of desperation would bash in the head of the prisoner in front just to get a release from this treatment. "I had no malice against this man, I just want this to end", one prisoner replied to a chaplains inquiries. "Would you have killed me?" "Just as soon as any other man", came the cold reply. These settlements truly were a place to be feared, but that fear seemed not to affect crime rates in England, to which the government insisted more pain be administered to make the fear of more productive effect in quelling the crime spree in England. A nasty cycle of pain and punishment.

Finally, public opinion in England ensured the end of "the system", and criminals were no longer sent to Australia. Hughes argued that Australian's should not forget their convict past, though. Without the free labor supplied by convicts under sentence, the wealth and success of free settlers would have been impossible, or at least severely limited. "Transportation" had ended its usefullness, though, as shown by the backward nature of Van Dieman's Land and Western Australia, the last two places to have convicts imported as free labor.

The Fatal Shore, indeed. For some, a life of punishment for crimes past, and a new lease on life with boundless hope for the future. For others, punishment and injustice on an increasingly painful scale. For the Australian people, a both proud and shameful past, which despite its political embarrassment has shaped and molded the Australian character. For the reader, an insight into the best and worst of human nature, the most that can be asked of a book with a story worth telling.

The Generalship of Alexander the Great, J.F.C. Fuller

2010-03-04T07:58:00.000-08:00

The Generalship of Alexander the Great, J.F.C. Fuller

I'm reading JFC Fuller's The Generalship of Alexander the Great, and its an awesome recounting of the man. To understand Alexander, it is important to understand his father, a stallion in his own right. Here's a quote from Fuller:

Philip was a man of outstanding character; practical, long-sighted and unscrupulous. He was a master diplomatist and an astute opportunist to whom success justfied everything. He was reclessly brave(1), yet unlike so many brave generals he would at once set force aside should he consider that bribery(2) or liberality or feigned frindship was more likely to secure his end. He possessed in marked degree the gift of divining what was in his enemy's mind, and when beaten in the field would accept defeat and prepart for victory. Throughout his life he never lost sight of his aim - to bring the whole of Greece under his dominion.

*(1) After his death Demosthenes said of him that in 'contending for empire and supremacy he had endured the loss of an eye, the fracture of his collar-bone, the mutilations of his hand and his leg, and was ready to sacrifice to the future of war any and every part of his body, if only the life of the shazttered remnants should be a life of honour and renouwn'. (Now that is Devotion to your cause. /dwb.)

*(2) Diodorus writes: 'Indeed he was wont to declare that is was far more by the use of gold than of arms that he had enlarged his kingdom.'

Two things stand out to me from this short description of the character of Philip. First, he could read men's motives like a book, and took full advantage of that in his quest for power. He realized that military force was only one alternative in becoming conqueror, and realizing that used bribery liberally. Second, he had before him at all times what his purpose in life was, to bring the whole of Greece under his dominion. Having his mission before him daily gave him the self-control and committment necessary to overcome difficulties, even allowing him to carry on after military defeats. A man to respect, for sure.

Now, here is Fuller on Alexander.

He was a man entirely wrapped up in his destiny and completely devoted to his task. He cared little for any physical pleasures except hunting. Save the love he bore his mother and nurse, he was never enthralled by any woman, and though twice he took to himself a wife, both his marriages were of a political and not of a romantic nature. He never had a mistress, nor was he impotent or a homosexual as his detractors put about in order to defame him. This subordination of his bodily instincts to his task set him apart from the common ruck of men and placed him in that small company of rare and exalted individuals whose iron will, self-control and devotion to their life's task magnetize all who come into contact with them.

His innate sense of royalty, of kingship based not on power but on nombleness of bearing, on chivalrous conduct and of living as a king should, overshadowed every action of his astonishing career. He thought it more kingly, writes Plutarch, to conquer himself than to conquer others, and while still a youth, when some of his friends who knew that he was fleet of foot urged him to run a race in the Olympic Games, his answer was that he would only do so if he might have kings to run with him. The reason is not in doubt: to place himself on a level with a professional athlete - a type of man he disliked - would be to deman his kingship in the eyes of the people.

Of all his acts of royalty, the most typical is his treatment of Porus, whom he defeated on the banks of the Hydaspes (Jhelum). Struck by his kingly bearing, he asked him what treatment he wished to receive. Arrian relates that Porus replied:

"Treat me, O Alexander, in a kingly way!"

Alexander being pleased at the expression, said:

"For my own sake, O Porus, thou shalt be thus treated; but for thy own sake do thou demand what is pleasing to thee?"

But Porus said that everything was included in that. Alexander, being still more pleased at this remark, not only granted him the rule over his own Indians, but also added another country to that which he had before, of larger extent than the former. Thus he treated the brave man in a kingly way, and from that tiime found him faithful in all things.

The moral quality that distinguished him the most clearly from his fellow-men was his compassion toward others. But it is in his behaviour towars women, who in nearly all ages have been considered the legitimate spoil of the soldier, that his compassion is most clearly mirrored. Not only did he treat the captive wife and daughters of Darius with a royal respect, but he held in abhorrence rape and violence, which in his day were the universal concomitants of war.

Fuller goes on with specific examples, and follows this glowing description of Alexander with a list and discussion of "His Misdeed's". Alexander was by no means perfect, but it is amazing that for such a young man he was self-controlled, able to command the respect of his elders, quick to move in times when other men doubt, and sure of his own destiny. Amazing.

Study the life of such a man, my friends, so uncommon in overcoming his own instincts to become reknowned throughout the world and the ages as "Alexander the Great".

The Question of God, Armand Nicholi

2010-03-04T07:50:00.000-08:00

The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, Armand Nicholi

Freud and C.S. Lewis?

This was an interesting article about "Harvard professor of psychiatry Armand Nicholi"'s book titled The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life.

As he reacquainted himself with Lewis's work, Nicholi was struck by the parallelism in his writing and Freud's. It was as if Lewis was attempting to answer Freud's questions one by one. "I was startled by this," Nicholi says. "I realized that Freud was the father of the new literary criticism that was sweeping the universities of Europe at that time. Freud gave the literary critics new tools for understanding human behavior, as described in the great literature. So Lewis knew Freud's writings well and after he changed his worldview from secular to spiritual, and began to define it and defend it, whose arguments did he answer but those of Freud?" After all, these were the very arguments that Lewis himself had used to defend his atheism prior to his conversion.

Enjoy.

Kaplan's Warrior Politics

2010-03-04T07:07:00.000-08:00

I'm in the middle of Kaplan's Warrior Politics, and thoroughly enjoying it. The subtitle explains a lot; "Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Pathos". I highly recommend it for those of you interested in politics and foriegn policy.

Cyrus the Persian, according to Xenophon the Greek

2010-03-04T06:54:00.000-08:00

Anabasis, Xenophon

I've started reading Xenophon's Anabasis, and, much to my surprise (revealing my absurd bias against the ancients) it is a very exciting read. So far, Xenophon and his fellow Greeks mercenaries have been enlisted by Cyrus, son of Darius, to help snatch the kingdom away from his brother Artaxerxes, marched 15 to 25 miles a day from modern day Turkey to the Euphrates, and then followed the river till they initiated battle with the incumbent monarch. Unfortunately, in the first battle Cyrus is killed. Upon seeing his brother across the line, he leaped forward, wounding Artaxerxes in the chest, but receiving a mortal wound himself when a guard speared his skull through the eye socket.

Xenophon stops the narrative briefly to expound upon the character of Cyrus, and why he, being in the wrong, was so eagerly and faithfully followed by Greek and barbarian alike. I think it is a splendid assessment of an individual, and it would be an honor to be similarly remembered upon my death. Cyrus was an excellent leader of men, enforcing policies that brought out the best of those around him. Cyrus actions expressed his belief that it is better to give than to receive. Even treacherous Orontas, while on trial for his final and last crime, had only good to say of the treatment he had received while in service to Cyrus.

Enjoy.

#----------------------------------------
Excerpt from Anabasis by Xenophon; Bk. 1, Ch. IX

Being himself [Cyrus] at the head of an expedition into those territories, he could observe those who voluntarily encountered risks; these he made rulers of the territory which he subjected, and afterwards honoured them with other gifts. So that, if the good and brave were set on a pinnacle of fortune, cowards were recognised as their natural slaves; and so it befell that Cyrus never had lack of volunteers in any service of danger, whenever it was expected that his eye would be upon them.

So again, wherever he might discover any one ready to distinguish himself in the service of uprightness, his delight was to make this man richer than those who seek for gain by unfair means. On the same principle, his own administration was in all respects uprightly conducted, and, in particular, he secured the services of an army worthy of the name. Generals, and sabulterns alike, came to him from across the seas, not merely to make money, but because they saw that loyalty to Cyrus was a more profitable investment than so many pounds a month. Let any man whatsoever render him willing service, such enthusiasm was sure to win its reward. And so Cyrus could always command the service of the best assistants, it was said, whatever the work might be.

Or if he saw any skilful and just steward who furnished well the country over which he ruled, and created revenues, so far from robbing him at any time, to him who had, he delighted to give more. So that toil was a pleasure, and gains were amassed with confidence, and least of all from Cyrus would a man conceal the amount of his possessions, seeing that he showed no jealousy of wealth openly avowed, but his endeavour was rather to turn to account the riches of those who kept them secret. Towards the friends he had made, whose kindliness he knew, or whose fitness as fellow-workers with himself, in aught which he might wish to carry out, he had tested, he showed himself in turn an adept in the arts of courtesy. Just in proportion as he felt the need of this friend or that to help him, so he tried to help each of them in return in whatever seemed to be their heart's desire.

Many were the gifts bestowed on him, for many and diverse reasons; no one man, perhaps, ever received more; no one, certainly, was ever more ready to bestow them upon others, with an eye ever to the taste of each, so as to gratify what he saw to be the individual requirement. Many of these presents were sent to him to serve as personal adornments of the body or for battle; and as touching these he would say, "How am I to deck myself out in all these? to my mind a man's chief ornament is the adornment of nobly-adorned friends." Indeed, that he should triumph over his friends in the great matters of welldoing is not surprising, seeing that he was much more powerful than they, but that he should go beyond them in minute attentions, and in an eager desire to give pleasure, seems to me, I must confess, more admirable.

Frequently when he had tasted some specially excellent wine, he would send the half remaining flagon to some friend with a message to say: "Cyrus says, this is the best wine he has tasted for a long time, that is his excuse for sending it to you. He hopes you will drink it up to-day with a choice party of friends." Or, perhaps, he would send the remainder of a dish of geese, half loaves of bread, and so forth, the bearer being instructed to say: "This is Cyrus's favourite dish, he hopes you will taste it yourself." Or, perhaps, there was a great dearth of provender, when, through the number of his servants and his own careful forethought, he was enabled to get supplies for himself; at such times he would send to his friends in different parts, bidding them feed their horses on his hay, since it would not do for the horses that carried his friends to go starving. Then, on any long march or expedition, where the crowd of lookers-on would be large, he would call his friends to him and entertain them with serious talk, as much as to say, "These I delight to honour."

So that, for myself, and from all that I can hear, I should be disposed to say that no one, Greek or barbarian, was ever so beloved. In proof of this, I may cite the fact that, though Cyrus was the king's vassal and slave, no one ever forsook him to join his master, if I may except the attempt of Orontas, which was abortive. That man, indeed, had to learn that Cyrus was closer to the heart of him on whose fidelity he relied than he himself was. On the other hand, many a man revolted from the king to Cyrus, after they went to war with one another; nor were these nobodies, but rather persons high in the king's affection; yet for all that, they believed that their virtues would obtain a reward more adequate from Cyrus than from the king. Another great proof at once of his own worth and of his capacity rightly to discern all loyal, loving and firm friendship is afforded by an incident which belongs to the last moment of his life. He was slain, but fighting for his life beside him fell also every one of his faithful bodyguard of friends and table-companions, with the sole exception of Ariaeus, who was in command of the cavalry on the left, and he no sooner perceived the fall of Cyrus than he betook himself to flight, with the whole body of troops under his lead.

There have always been tigers in the world

2010-03-04T06:45:00.000-08:00

I'm reading Fehrenbach's This Kind of War, and he has some very intersting things to say about men, politics, national will, and war in this history of the Korean conflict.

One thing that struck me is how similar the world is today as it was back then. I'd like to list a few quotes, but its hard to pick just a few since they are all wonderful insights on the tendencies of man. (I'm only at page 85, and already most of my pages have numerous of my markings and comments penciled in along the margins.) Enjoy (I hope. ;)

#-------------------------------
In 1950 there was only one power and one people in the world who could prevent chaos and a new, barbarian tyranny (he also calls it imperialist communism, how appropriate. /dwb) from sweeping the earth. The United States had become a vast world power, like it or not. And liking it or not, Americans would find that if a nation desires to remain a great and moral power there is a game it must play (the game of power politics and small wars. /dwb), and some of its people must pay the price.

Truman, sending the divisions into Korea, was trying to emulate the Roman legions and Her Majesty's regiments - for whether the American people have accepted it or not, there have always been tigers in the world, which can be contained only by force.

But Truman and the American Republic had no legions
...
The ancient legions, and the proud old British regiments, had been filled with tavern's scum, starvelings, and poor farm boys seeking change. They had been inducted, knocked about, ruled with a rod of iron, made into men of iron, with iron discipline. They were officered by men wholly professional, to whom dying was only a part of their way of life. To these men the service was home, and war - any war - their profession.

These legions of old, like the sword itself, wre neither moral nor immoral. Morality depended upon the use to which their government put them. But when put to use, they did not question, did not fail. They marched.
...
The young men [sent to Korea] were the new breed of American regular, who, not liking the service, had insisted, with public support, that the Army be made as much like civilian life and home as possible. Discipline had galled them, and their congressmen had seen to it that it did not become too onerous. They had grown fat.

They were probably as contented a group of American soldiery as had ever existed. They were like American youth everywhere. They believed the things their society had tought them to believe. They were cool, and confident, and figured that the world was no sweat.

It was not their fault that no one had told them that the real function of an army is to fight and that a soldier's destiny - which few escape - is to suffer, and if need be, to die.
...
None of them was told why they were in Korea. None of them cared. They only wanted to get back to Japan. ... Instead, if they wanted to live, they would have to fight. They were learning in the hardest school there was (combat itself /dwb), that it is a soldier's lot to suffer and that his destiny may be to die. They were learning something they had not been told: that in this world are tigers.

No American may sneer at them, or at what they did. What happened to them might have happened to any American in the summer of 1950. For they represented exaclty the kind of pampered, undisciplined, egalitarian army their society had long desired and had at last achieved.

They had been raised to believe the world was without tigers, then sent them to face those tigers with a stick. On their society must fall the blame.

Select passage from Ardant du Picq's Battle Studies, P. II, Ch. V

2010-03-03T16:37:00.000-08:00

Battle Studies, Ardant du Picq

I read this cutting criticism of the French government's actions in the Crimea, and thought it surprisingly applicable to the French government of today. Ardant du Picq, killed by a Prussian shell in 1870, was a free thinker who's writings have left their mark on military history that is still felt today. Unfortunately the French have never taken his worthy advice to heart, and their failings too are still felt today. In this selected reading Ardant du Picq complains bitterly of the administrations failure to properly outfit and prepare for the soldiers welfare, and contrasts that to the humanity of the British military towards both English and French wounded, and also points out the diligence that the American citizenry took upon themselves as individuals to care for their own wounded.

Its a great book to read in it's entirety, and a great companion peace to B.H. Liddell-Hart's Strategy.

#---------------------------
How administrative deceits, in politics or elsewhere, falsify the conclusions drawn from a fact!

In the Crimea 100% of the French operated upon succumbed, while only 27% of the English operated upon died. That was attributed to the difference in temperament! The great cause of this discrepancy was the difference in care. Our newspapers followed the self-satisfied and rosy statements given out by our own supply department. They pictured our sick in the Crimea lying in beds and cared for by sisters of charity. The fact is that our soldiers never had sheets, nor mattresses, nor the necessary changes of clothes in the hospitals; that half, three-quarters, lay on mouldy straw, on the ground, under canvass. The fact is, that such were the conditions under which typhus claimed twenty-five to thirty thousand of our sick after the siege; that thousands of pieces of hospital equipment were offered by the English to our Quartermaster General, and that he refused them! Everybody ought to have known that he would! To accept such equipment was to acknowledge that he did not have it. And he ought to have had it. Indeed he did according to the newspapers and the Quartermaster reports. There were twenty-five beds per hospital so that it could be said, "We have beds!" Each hospital had at this time five hundred or more sick.

These people are annoyed if they are called hypocrites. While our soldiers were in hospitals, without anything, so to speak, the English had big, well-ventilated tents, cots, sheets, even night stands with urinals. And our men had not even a cup to drink from! Sick men were cared for in the English hospitals. They might have been in ours, before they died, which they almost always did.

It is true that we had the typhus and the English had not. That was because our men in tents had the same care as in our hospitals, and the English the same care as in their hospitals.

Read the war reports of supply departments and then go unexpectedly to verify them in the hospitals and storehouses. Have them verified by calling up and questioning the heads of departments, but question them conscientiously, without dictating the answers. In the Crimea, in May of the first year, we were no better off than the English who complained so much, Who has dared to say, however, that from the time they entered the hospital to the time that they left it, dead, evacuated, or cured, through fifteen or twenty days of cholera or typhus, our men lay on the same plank, in the same shoes, drawers, shirts and clothing that they brought in with them? They were in a state of living putrefaction that would by itself have killed well men! The newspapers chanted the praises of the admirable French administration. The second winter the English had no sick, a smaller percentage than in London. But to the eternal shame of the French command and administration we lost in peace time, twenty-five to thirty thousand of typhus and more than one thousand frozen to death. Nevertheless, it appeared that we had the most perfect administration in the world, and that our generals, no less than our administration, were full of devoted solicitude to provide all the needs of the soldier. That is an infamous lie, and is known as such, let us hope.

The Americans have given us a good example. The good citizens have gone themselves to see how their soldiers were treated and have provided for them themselves. When, in France, will good citizens lose faith in this best of administrations which is theirs? When will they, confident in themselves, do spontaneously, freely, what their administration cannot and never will be able to do?

Its all Augustus' fault!

2010-03-03T16:31:00.000-08:00

Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier, and Tyrant

I was reading a little on Julius Caesar(us) and found out that he was responsible for getting the world switched over from the lunar calendar to the solar calendar.

After his little fling with cheeky Cleopatra, and his Civil War side show of conquering Alexandria, he brought back some Egyptian astrolger to set up the calendar for him.

The result was a thing of beauty; starting with January, every odd month had 31 days, and every even month had 30, except for February being adjusted on a leap year. Pure simplicity.

Then prideful Augustus has to come along and screw it all up. He stole a month to honor himself, and then changed the length from 30 to 31 days in order to be equal with Julius. Arrogantus then took an extra day away from February to even things out.

What nerve! I was angered about this for a while (perhaps revealing that I really am a "sad and depressed" person after all), until fellow cubicle dwellers informed me that the calender is still simple, even with Arrogantus' interference. Thanks to their anger management intervention, I am now a "knuckle counter", using the knuckles of both hands as months with 31 days, and the intervals between knuckles as months with 30 days (except February, of course).

It was my first introduction to such a method, but knowledge of it was world wide, as kindly explained to me by my multi-national colleagues.

'The March Up' by Bing West and Maj. Gen Smith

2010-03-03T16:16:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading 'The March Up' by Bing West and Maj. Gen Smith. They had an exciting accounting of the drive to Baghdad, and an interesting explanation of an infantryman's view of the world, war, and death, from two experienced and hardened veterans.

(In Vietnam, West worked with CAP squads defending villages from VC infiltration. Smith had the name 'E-Tool' from the Battle of Hue city, when his company of 146 marines went in and came out with only 7 unscathed. The rumor was that he killed enemy soldiers with his entrenching tool, and quipped that 'an e-tool doesn't jam.)

West described fire fights where squads of marines rushed into fields and killed Iraqi soldiers in face-to-face conbat. He also described how the infantrymen were loathe to look too long on a recent kill, scared that the faces of the dead would haunt them for life. He went on to describe the randomness of wartime death; the hurt when a friend is killed, and not just another soldier; the difficulty of not shooting civilians when speeding at checkpoints and not knowing if a car bomb is set to explode; and also described the evil and murder that resides in some men (on both sides of the conflict). It was interesting, personal, and a good overview of the campaign.

The story filled in the details and gaps that I missed from TV coverage. I was extremely impressed with the accounts of the I Marine Division commander, MajGen Mattis who was at the front for every major event, and even went on night raids with patrols. There is a man leading from the front, and in front of a division no less!

The title is a reference to Xenophon's Anabasis, which is often tranlated The March Up Country. Zenophon was with a group of 10,000 greek mercenaries who agreed to assist Cyrus in his quest to overthrow and usurp his brother, the king of Persia. At the final, epic battle that took place just north of modern Baghdad and between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, Cyrus got over zealous, and attacked his brother face-to-face. He took out his brothers eye, but lost his life in the exchange. When he died, so did the courage of his conglomerated army. Everyone fled...except the greeks. They just turned the formation around, and started fighting in the opposite direction as they headed north, or up country.

Early on the return retreat march the greek generals were killed in a trick, ambushed and murdered at a peace meeting. The greeks, calm and practical as always, did not collapse or lose courage as the Persian's expected, but simply elected new generals to command them on the way home. Zenophon, a young man who had been more observer than participant to this point, was elected as one of the new generals. His tale recounts how his quick mind, unique tactics, and discipline allowed the greek mercenaries to fight their way home. They were harrassed along the route by the enemy, by native tribes, and by dissent. After each tragedy was successfully avoided Zenophon would find himself on trial by his own men. He would have to recount for the how his actions, bravery, care for each of them, and iron-handed discipline had saved them over and over throughout the trip. Finally ashamed the men would acquit him of any wrongdoing.

What a fascinating tale of adventure!

Both books are well worth the read.

The Soul of Battle, Hanson

2004-12-19T18:47:00.000-08:00

I've really enjoyed reading The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators VanquishedTyranny, by Victor Davis Hanson.

I've learned of the Pythagorean Epaminondas who disciplined himself first, and then through the Theban phalanx composed of freemen and farmers disciplined Sparta and set the subdued helots free.

I've gained a new appreciation for my favorite Civil War general, William Tecumseh Sherman, who led his mid-westerner's on a righteous crusade through the plantations of Georgia, providing the way for a northern victory.

I've gained respect for George Patton, the career soldier, pilot, olympian, and realist who molded soft American boys into vicious killers who could whip veteran German troops, and who could have ended the war in 1944 if not for the jealousies of Bradley and Eisenhower.

Its been an awesome and inspiring read, and Hanson changed my views on what slavery is, and is not, and how ideas can play an important part in mobilizing democratic society's to fight for the freedoms of others.

Somalia on $5 a Day, Stanton

2004-03-22T18:51:00.000-08:00

Somalia on $5 a Day: A soldier's Story by Martin Stanton.

Stanton, an Army Major, recounts his time in Somalia with Task Force 2-87 of the 10th Mountain Division. The writing isn't smooth or entertaining, but that's not the point. Stanton clearly lays before the reader the frustrations of humanitarian assistance, both the friction of low intensity conflict inherent in such operations and the bureaucratic red tape the Army continued to hog tie the soldiers with. He paints an excellent picture of the confusion, boredom, and irritation that such situations put upon our military.

Especially interesting is how Stanton focused on the practicalities of various operations, from convoy escort to night time patrolling, which most authors fail to detail. He also raises some interesting points about military intervention in situations like Somalia. The lack of an overarching vision of what was to be done to make things in the country better made any intervention pointless. The soldiers were stuck with their fingers in the proverbial dam while not being given the tools to plug the cracks for good.

That is the same point from other authors on nation building. The only time its worth doing is when its worth doing right. There is too much at stake to risk soldiers lives and the reputation of the United States government on half-hearted relief missions that don't fix the actual problems. (This makes me wonder if colonization is not the right action to take, the conventional wisdom and political correctness aside. The government in these countries is not working, and they need someone with the resolve to give government an overhaul. The British did that, and look at the commonwealth countries which are still successful today.)

Good review of the problems in Somalia, and interesting view of a deployed battalion from the S3 slot. The amount of time these soldiers are deployed world wide was an eye-opener to me. For many of the officers, a love of the military and a love for their wives and families was a constant battle.

King Lear, Shakespeare

2004-03-01T18:59:00.000-08:00

King Lear, a tragedy by William Shakespeare.

The story started out a little dull (or maybe it took me that long to get reacquainted with Shakespearean English), but it really finished fast and strong, with a horrific tragedy. It was a revolting ending of madness and maniacal self-will and lust, but like a deadly car accident, I couldn't pull my eyes away from the seen, intransed by the inevitable dead bodies on display. King Lear died of a broken heart after witnessing all three daughters die by evil plots against themselves due to lies and treachery, leaving two faithful servants and a reformed son-in-law the divided kingdom which was the cause of so much misery and death. It was a worthy tragedy, as only Shakespeare could create.

One thing I've noticed about Shakespeare is that all his plays are rather idealistic. Each of the deaths in King Lear is prefaced by the dying character with a confession of sins and lamentation of an evil life. That never happens, nor will ever happen. Even the great "band of brothers" speech in Henry the fifth is idealistic, and far from reality. Those words would, and never will, be spoken in sincerity before an act of mortal combat. Men in combat are there not by choice, but by destiny or horrible luck, like men stuck in a tornado thrown out at the worst possible moment, caught up in the actions of the moment. Men fight then for life and limb, for comrades, and by training. Its not idealistic, but realistic. Kill or be killed.

Thats just one example, but Shakespearean plays are full of this idealistic chatter. Of course, that is what makes the plays exiting and successful throughout the centuries. It is the idealistic chatter that men wish they were man enough to utter upon their deathbeds, but are too mortal to intone. Rather, we are boys that die with "mother" and "water" on our lips, and blood on our bodies. In this sense, this vision of what death and battle should be like can be dangerous, in that it turns the veteran callous to the cause and civilization for which he fights. However, despite the affirmation of no idealism, it is the ideals that promote wars and strife, and that cause the worst bloodshed and damage to mankind. Unfortunately, that is human nature, and the truthfulness of Shakespeares renditions of human nature are what have made him popular for nearly four hundred years.

Unfortunately for King Lear, he fell beneath his own human nature of haughtiness and foolishness. May we be better men from his example.