"War, war, war . . . "

". . . all you gentlemen ever talk of is war!"  Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but the truly beautiful Vivien Leigh in her opening lines as Scarlett O'Hara - and I surely do not need to tell you the name of the film even if next year marks its 75th anniversary!  Anyway, all of that, in my usual rambling way, is by way of telling you about a new book just published on military philosophy.  In a review in the TLS, Michael Howard (and military historian/philosophers do not come much more distinguished than him) places it up there alongside Clauswitz, no less, which is some compliment given that the writer, Emile Simpson, was recently a junior officer serving with the Gurkhas in Afghanistan.

Even an old ex-corporal like me has gradually become aware that the nature of warfare has changed since the days of the 18th/19th century.  There are now aspects to war which were never a consideration for Frederick the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte, although the first inklings were discernible during 'Boney's' adventures when an army's ranks began to be filled by civilians, not just professional soldiers, and the sheer size spelled the end of command and control by a single commander however large his genius.  The young Prussian officers who rebelled ('viz absolute korrectness, natürlich!) against the stultifying control of their king after their defeats by Napoleon, saw the changes that would be needed in an age of 'the nation in arms' and invented what became the German General Staff.

But in the 20th century a new element entered warfare - public opinion.  The 20th century saw the culmination of 'the nations in arms' and the colossal struggles that ensued and it became glaringly apparent that the correct message be relayed to the people to keep them involved - a national narrative was required:

The narrative must not only be persuasive in rational terms. It also needs drama
to appeal to the emotions. Above all, it needs an ethical foundation. Not only
one’s own people, but the wider “strategic audience” must believe that one is
fighting a “good” war. The genius of Winston Churchill in 1940 was to devise a
strategic narrative that not only inspired his own people, but enlisted the
support of the United States: indeed, most of British military operations in the
early years of the war were planned with an eye on that strategic audience. The
great shortcoming of Hitler’s strategy was his failure to create a strategic
narrative that appealed to anyone apart from his own people – and a rapidly
decreasing number of them.

But today, even that is not enough because modern communications means that everyone from those in the the high command bunkers down to the 'Tom' in the foxhole and 'the man in the street/bazaar/jungle/desert/shanty town is bang up to date with the latest news.  What you do and what you say must be crafted with a world-wide audience in mind.

The paradigm (still largely accepted by Clausewitz) of “bipolar” wars fought
between discrete states enjoying the support of their peoples has now been
shattered by globalization. Popular support can no longer be taken for granted.
“The people” are no longer homogeneous and the enemy is no longer a single
entity. Further, “the enemy” is no longer the only actor to be taken into
account. The information revolution means that every aspect, every incident of
the conflict can be instantly broadcast throughout the world in width and in
depth, and received by anyone with access to the internet; including the men in
foxholes fighting it.

Off the top of my head I would suggest that we, meaning 'the West', have lost every war(*) since WWII with the exception of the one that evicted  Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.  In all cases the 'narrative' was confused and stood no chance against the multitude of contrary opinion available round the globe.  It seems ot me that Mr. Simpson's book is required reading - 'SoD', please take note and remember it's my birthday next month!

(*) Of course, the 'officer class' tend to trot out the post-WWII Malaya campaign as an example of how we won but they forget that what won it was our surrender!  In other words, as soon as we acknowledged that Malaya would be granted independence at the conclusion then the insurgency lost its main raison d'être. 

 

WAR FROM THE GROUND UP: Twenty-first-century combat as politics

by Emile Simpson

 

Comments

[Andrew Duffin]

Because tomorrow is another day.

Sorry, just can't help it sometimes.

[rogerh]

I suppose chess is an analogy for old-time warfare - the real struggle between families of top-dogs with pawns chucked in for fun. That style seems to have gone out after WW1 but the fault lines persisted till 1945. Post that time there have been no more 'families' to have family squabbles - if some Duke gets shot - who cares. Nowadays the 'families' are the oligarchs, the press barons, the bankers, folk who see shooting wars as a gross waste of money. On the other hand Pentagon boondoggles are a handy boost to the US economy but the Brits just don't seem to have got the hang of that one.

[dearieme]

You overlook the Falklands War. In fact, added to the First Gulf War, it suggests that the only wars we can win are wars to expel shits who invade other people. When we perform the role of the shits, we get beaten.

[David Duff]

As always, Andrew, my commenters are an education! I had to Google that phrase to find the song which some how, in some way, passed me by - I was probably drunk at the time.

Indeed, Roger, and also one senses the drag-anchor reluctance of people, especially those living in a democracy, to even entertain the idea of war in foreign, faraway places.

DM, yes, mea culpa, I had reached the bottom of the stairs when I suddenly remembered the Falklands but I couldn't be arsed to walk back up again. That war had some terrific advantages: we were far more formidable than the enemy, the 'narrative' might not have gone down globally but it certainly gripped the British, it didn't last very long and finally there was no internal political settlement to be reached with the people of the Falklands. They don't come much easier than that - and nor do they come very often!

[JK]

"'SoD', please take note and remember it's my birthday next month!"

https://www.fpri.org/news/2013/04/presenting-philadelphia-papers

[JK]

Thought to myself, "Reckon David'd be able to figure out how to get the whole kit 'n kaboodle?" Guess what conclusion I came to.

https://www.fpri.org/docs/Simons_21st_Century_Cultures_of_War.pdf

[Lawrence Duff]

And the cold war. Ironic of course, it being a war won by means other than warfare, by and large, and wherever there were campaigns within it that were "hot", the protagonists lost (Vietnam, Afghanistan).

Boney got the first taste of what was coming in the Peninsular.

But I think the pols have finally got the hang of it now. Syria might prove to be the place they put the learning of 200 years into action.

A shithole of a place out of the way. Russia, Europe, America, Saudi Arabia, everywhere in fact, can give their Sunni and Shia islamist nutters tickets to ride on planes, trains and automobiles, with a bonus RPG grenade and clip of AK rounds as a farewell gift, and send them to a furnace to exterminate themselves. While they're doing it they won't be blowing themselves up on the London Underground or flying planes into our tall buildings; all those "sleeper cells" sucked out of us by their own hatred.

We can test out and perfect our weapons by supplying both sides knowing there are none of our boots on the ground - the Russkies can iron out the propellant storage and firing mechanism issues in their tanks, for example - without worrying about young Ivan getting scorched.

No need for one side to be allowed to win too quickly, either. If the Russkies and Iranians backing Assad start getting the upper hand they can ease off a little, likewise the West backing the rebels. Bring to the boil vigorously, and allow to boil dry, but don't let it boil over. Give it a century or two to suck out all the poison from the world.

After a fair few generations, when eventually the Islamic world, like the Christian world in the wars of religion a few centuries ago, realizes it's not much fun indoctrinating your youth and sending them to slaughter foreigners and each other, and the last Rambo-like al-Qaeda super-warrior stands triumphant in the dust bowl that will be Syria, one of our Predator drone snipers can fire the finale missile that brings the curtain down.

And not even a grenadier's bones to pay.

SoD

[David Duff]

Jk, are all these links to documents that make 'War and Peace' look like a paper-back part of your plan to stop me Boring for Britain?

'SoD', you're a cynic before your time. Can't think where you got it from!

[JK]

Say's 64 pages total - however, 23 pages are citations & footnotes. So make it 41. Just the last link is what you get for your ... what izit, your 95th?

[dearieme]

Tell me, Duffers, how did you fox the Times paywall and get that link for us?

[David Duff]

Only 41 pages, JK, what have I done to upset you?! And don't make jokes about my 95th - I might live that long and just think how high the pile of 'Nonsense' will have reached!

DM, via the always excellent good offices of http://www.aldaily.com/

Normally, I am meticulous in linking to my sources so I don't know why I missed it yesterday - probably too busy ploughing through JK's version of 'War and Peace'!

[JK]

"Upset me"?

Here I was thinking your whole aim in life was to be a burden on "SoD" - and now I find I've been (thank you AnnaRaccoon without you ...) I wouldn't have realized how thoroughly me as an Arkie has been abused.

You got an address David for whatever the UK Agency is where I can file my complaint against you?

(Just saying, but I just got handed a letter *hand*delivered from my USPS [which I'm informed is about to go broke] return -in part- addressed: 2 Highcroft Gardens, London NW11 0LX - which is telling me to 'Hop the next plane to Heathrow, Duff'll pick you up and get you to (smudged) 'Downing' ort'er. There's also something mentioning Westminster (whatever the hell that is - bearing a "ZAS001945-54100737") which I don't know what's what.

I've never been anyplace other than sub-bases where good whiskey generally turns up. But this is not Spam rather Air-Mailed.

Got any fix on where 'Highcroft Gardens' is? Apparently I've been "invited" to a funeral.

David? You did mention you've a birthday soon?