Vox Populi vox Dei

As my readers probably know, on June 28^th Manuel Zelaya, former president of Honduras was put into exile by the

Manuel Zelaya

military of Honduras. Mr. Zelaya desired to change the constitution of Honduras so that he could serve another term in office, something specifically forbidden by the constitution. The high court of the country ruled the act illegal, and the congress supported the decision. However, Mr. Zelaya ignored the constitution, the court, and the congress and determined to have a public vote on the matter. Mr. Zelaya was then seized in his home, and sent to Nicaragua by the military.

The act brought down worldwide condemnation upon Honduras. Nearly every influential government has claimed it is impeding to democracy, and a step backwards in every way. These government officials claim that the people must have their say in the matter. The reaction of the world brings one to mind of the ancient Roman proverb: “Vox Populi vox dei”, meaning simply “the voice of the people is the voice of god”. The question then is raised: are the people god?

Under a democracy, whatever the will of the majority of people is, that is law. However, people’s tastes change almost day to day, and can have their minds quickly changed by a pretty face, or eloquent speaker. Honduras (like the United States), wasn’t intended to be a democracy, but a republic. The difference is this: under a republic there is such a thing as absolute law.

The purpose of constitutions is to provide absolute law, so that no one is above the law (including the people). In a government under a constitution, there is such a thing as absolute right, and absolute wrong, determined by the constitution. Under Democracy however, there is no absolute right or wrong. Right or wrong is determined by fad, which may quickly change.

Mr. Zelaya was elected president under the constitution, and did not respect the establishment thereof. In doing this he broke his commitment to the constitution and thus his legal claim to the presidency. This however is ignored by the rest of the world who continue to scream ‘vox populi vox dei!’ The military of Honduras was perfectly justified in what they did, as they had the authority of the Supreme Court, the congress and the constitution.

It is also interesting to note that the actions of the military (authorized by the supreme court) were in the name of the people. As is evident however, the people are divided, but the law, not the vote, is what must prevail. Law is what must rule a land, if law does not rule, tyranny will.

I say kudos to Honduras, and it is my hope that peace and the rule of law shall rein there, not Mr. Zelaya.

AP: Less body armor might be the answer in Afghanistan

By RICHARD LARDNER – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Heavy layers of body armor, a proven lifesaver of U.S. troops, also may be an impediment to winning the fight in Afghanistan. where 17,000 additional American forces are being sent to quell rising violence.

Weighing as much as 34 pounds each, the protective vests hinder American forces hunting down more agile insurgents who use the country’s rugged peaks and valleys to their advantage, according to military officials.

The proper balance between troop safety and mobility will be examined this week during a series of oversight hearings by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Beginning Tuesday, senior Army and Marine Corps leaders are scheduled to testify on a wide range of subjects, including force protection, readiness levels and ergonomic injuries.

When body armor is added to the assault rifles, ammunition, water and other essential gear troops are required to carry, they can be lugging as much as 80 pounds into combat. Besides moving more slowly, overburdened troops tire more quickly and are prone to orthopedic injuries that can take them out of action, the officials say.

But convincing a war-weary public of a less-is-more approach won’t be easy, they acknowledge. If a commander decides the gear shouldn’t be used for a particular mission and a service member is killed, there could be a backlash, said Jean Malone, deputy director of experiment plans at the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Quantico, Va.

“We’ve got to have the internal fortitude to come back and say: ‘We have the data. We made the right decision. We can’t guarantee you that nobody will die in this war,'” he said.

Paring down the amount of armor could actually make troops safer on the battlefield, officials say. Speed and maneuverability give them the best chance of killing or capturing the Taliban and other militants before they can set roadside bombs or get in position for an ambush.

“Being able to maneuver and fight and chase down a fleeing enemy; that’s actually where your protection is (versus) armoring up and being more static,” said Brig. Gen. Tim Hanifen, deputy commanding general of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico.

The loads carried by modern American troops are equivalent to those “the medieval knight wore into and out of battle back in the year 1000 until about the 16th century,” he said.

Bomb-resistant vehicles that are light and nimble enough to handle Afghanistan’s primitive roads are also needed, according to Hanifen. Trucks that worked well in Iraq, which has a comparatively sophisticated transportation network, may be less suitable in harsher terrains.

As troop levels are surging in Afghanistan, so are roadside bomb attacks, according to the Pentagon’s Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

In January and February, 52 IED attacks in Afghanistan killed 32 coalition troops and wounded 96 more, according to preliminary figures from the organization. During the same two months in 2008, 21 IED attacks killed 10 troops and wounded 39.

Body armor has become a focus of Marine Corps efforts to lighten troop loads because it weighs so much more than the other gear. The standard kit consists of hardened composite plates inserted into a ballistic vest. The vest and plates protect the upper body from armor-piercing bullets and shrapnel.

Personal armor made of substantially lighter composite materials that are more effective than current models won’t be available for several years. So the Marine Corps is looking for near-term solutions.

The Marine Corps is buying 65,000 vests called “scalable plate carriers” that weigh under 20 pounds. The carrier, which uses the same plates as the standard vest, doesn’t cover as much of the torso. About 14,000 of the plate carriers have been fielded and the feedback has been positive, according to Marine Corps officials.

Over the next two weeks, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab is conducting an experiment at Camp Pendleton, Calif., to assess the risks of using less armor. The results of the trials will help guide battlefield commanders who make the final call on what gear troops should use.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOaLrFDNvu9EwD6zCikADUdE4f2AD96R13802

LT. CMDR. CHRISTOPHER E. VAN AVERY’S 12 New Principles of War

I know it’s an old article, but I thought it was worth posting.

12 new principles of warfare

BY LT. CMDR. CHRISTOPHER E. VAN AVERY

Now that dramatic improvements in weaponry, communications, sensors and even the utility of individual combatants have been demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is clear that America must revise and expand its principles of war to effectively plan and execute the more expansive and complex warfare of the future battlefield.

Before redefining the principles of war for future conflicts, three questions must be answered. First, how has the revolution in military affairs (RMA) affected military capability, and how will it affect capability in the future? Second, what types of conflicts and enemies should America expect to confront over the next quarter-century? And third, who will be cooperating with America in military operations of the future? Even these seemingly simple questions have complex answers and significant caveats that must be recognized……READ FULL ARTICLE

The Art of War online.

The oldest military treatise in the world is Sun Tzu’s Art of War, written in the 6th century BC. Military commanders through the ages have been inspired by this timeless classic, which is still applicable today. The commander that heeds the council of Sun Tzu wins, and those who do not fail. Below are a few places where you can read this great work for free.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17405/17405-h/17405-h.htm

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

This is the audio version:

http://librivox.org/the-art-of-war-by-sun-tzu/

Enjoy!

The Difference Between Strategy and Tactics

A lot of people get confused about the difference between a strategy and a tactic. Since these are two words that I use often on this blog I shall explain the difference between the two. The difference is simple, easy to understand, but gets confused far too often.

Strategy comes from the Greek word Stratēgos meaning “the art of the general”. Our word strategy is not limited to military affairs, but is also used in business and politics, among other things. Strategy refers to the overall plan of accomplishing a goal. In a military example, the strategy would be the method of waging the war or campaign.

Tactics comes from the Greek word Taktikē meaning “The art of organizing an army”. Tactics are used to win an engagement or battle, not a war. Tactics are the methods of fulfilling the strategy.

Strategy without tactics is nothing more than a thought, an idea trapped within a man’s head. Strategy guides tactics so that men do not die in vain. Tactics without strategy is nothing more than pointless bloodshed. Therefore, the two are in need of each other. They sustain each other. One is useless without the other, and the man who understand this is well on his way to avoiding many grievous errors that have occurred in history.

Think of it this way: Strategy=Big; Tactic=Small.

American trained Iraqi troops about to board a UH-60. Through the use of helicopters, these troops are able catch insurgents off guard and raid their positions.

Why this homeschooler loves military strategy and history.

I first fell in love with military strategy and history two years ago when my mother handed me a book on Alexander the Great’s military campaigns. I wish I could remember the title of the book, but I read it, and from that moment on I was head over heels in love with strategy – especially military strategy. I read about how the famous generals fought, I read about the forces they used, and I learned the essence of strategy, best summed up by Stonewall Jackson: “Mystify Mislead and surprise.”

I’m still learning, and in two years I haven’t gotten tired of it and still want to learn more. It’s something I understand, comprehend, and can implement (I think, although I’ve never actually fought a battle). I love history because it’s God’s story in his dealings with man, it’s the story of how men rose up and built empires, and how they fell, it is the story that repeats itself constantly. It is the story of how freedom was born in the West, and birthed America. All of these things are parts of history – and men had to fight wars for them to occur.

Wars are not won by luck, or by numbers, they are directed by God in His everlasting Providence, and determined by the mind of the general – which is where a strategist comes in. Although God is ultimatly in control of all things, yes even wars, victory is not possible without an intellegent commander. God has given man a wonderful gift: the gift of the mind, the gift of thinking, the gift of strategy and tactics! Everyone has God given talent, I believe God has given me the gift of strategical and tactical thinking. Whether God wishes me to use this to fight and win a war for His glory, or for some other purpose, He has gifted it to me. I must perfect it. That is why I love military strategy. That is why I love military tactics. That is why I love military history.

Battle of Chaeronea: Using ‘Feigned Retreat’ to ‘Strike at enemy weakness’

This battle was fought between Macedon and Thebes.

The Battle of Chaeronea

Note how Phillip feigned retreat on the right flank, and how it caused the enemy to chase after him, causing a weakness in the Theban line, which allowed Alexander, from the left flank, to break through and win the battle.

Book Review: How Wars are Won by Bevin Alexander

As we head into the twenty first century, wars will be fought with new weapons, in new ways, with new tactics, but the same principals that have governed warfare throughout history will still apply. “How Wars are Won: The 13 Rules of War from Ancient Greece to the War on Terror”, by Bevin Alexander is a tremendous book, showing plainly how the same strategies or “rules” used in past wars can still be applied to modern warfare.

Mr. Alexander breaks down war into thirteen clearly defined ‘rules’ that have been, and will continue to be methods for solving specific problems, instead of general rules to be used in all situations. The rules are as follows:

“Striking at Enemy Weakness”

“Defend, Then Attack”

“Holding One Place, Striking Another”

“Feigned Retreat”

“The Central Position”

“Employing a Superior Weapon”

“Driving a Stake in the Enemy’s Heart”

“Blocking an Enemy’s Retreat”

“Landing an Overwhelming Blow”

“Stroke at a Weak Spot”

“Caldron Battles”

“Uproar East, Attack West”

“Maneuvers on the Rear”

Mr. Alexander devotes a chapter to each of these rules, explaining how they work, and giving examples of battles that were either brilliantly won, or terribly lost by either the use of the rule, or the failure to do so. Mr. Alexander does not however, give a short synopsis of the battle, he examines the battle fully, how it was fought, the events leading up to it, the commanders, and some of the aftermath that resulted from the particular battle.

The book is tremendously well researched, and Mr. Alexander explains his point with a level of clarity that no one can misunderstand. “How Wars are Won” brilliantly applies how the methods used by previous commanders are still perfectly valid in modern warfare.

“The purpose of this book is to elucidate these key rules of war, identifying along the way those that are likely to be most relevant in future combat. Although conditions, arms, and the ways soldiers fight have varied greatly over the millennia, the problems commanders face and the solutions they reach are fundamentally identical. The method Alexander the Great employed to defeat the Indian king Porus in 326 B.C. is the same method a company of soldiers can use to win a firefight today.” –from the Introduction, can be found here

From Alexander, to Napoleon, to Macarthur, this book is a must read for all who are interested in strategy, or military history. The only fault I find with it is that there are a few evolutionary references, but these are few, and are not a main point. Click here to see book overview at Bevin Alexander.com