Study War More
Betsy’s teaching moment on military history:
Given that our nation is at war, and the long war against terrorists won’t end anytime soon, there are lessons from past history of wars that would be enlightening for young people. One lesson they could learn is how no war ever was fought without setbacks and mistakes, sometimes massive mistakes. Changes in strategy are quite common. Replacement of generals as we searched for better results is common. And people would remember the importance of morale on the homefront and how that affects the ultimate success or failure of the fighting on the battlefront. People would have more context by which to evaluate the fighting that is going on today. Instead, many seem to judge this war against some ideal that has never existed in the world’s history. Perhaps this idea that there is a perfect, ideal way to fight a war would disappear if people knew more about war’s history.Â
A modern complaint has been that history was taught as a list of dates, with too heavy an emphasis on war. A more relevant complaint would be that military history in its critical complexity has never been properly taught as a matter of general education, for the important lessons it has to offer. Lessons of character, determination, adversity, ingenuity, failure, fighting back from failure, the value of discipline and sacrifice, the importance of intelligence and situational awareness, and the ability to react to shifting, uncertain circumstances. Military history introduces us to some of the most inspiring and complex individuals in our history. Leaders. Their actions and reactions are applicable in daily life, even in peacetime. Because life is a struggle. All the more so in wartime.
War as the continuation of politics by other means. War as a problem in which resources must be allocated and goals achieved. The thoughts, deeds, struggles, failings and triumphs of some of America’s greatest wartime leaders, and some of our worst: Washington. Marion. Madison. Jackson. Lincoln. McClellan. Sherman. Chamberlain. Grant. Lee. Longstreet. Jackson. Custer. Sitting Bull. Geronimo. Chief Joseph. King Phillip. Roosevelt. Wilson. Roosevelt. Eisenhower. Patton. MacArthur. Westmoreland. Abrams. Moore. Johnson. Nixon. Ford. Carter. Reagan. Bush. Schwartzkopf. Clinton. Clark. Bush. Rumsfeld. Perkins. Petraeus.
Others, variously enemies and allies, great and horrible:  Alexander and Darius. Julius Caesar. Vercingetorix. Pompei. Josephus and Vespasian. Attila. Tamerlaine. King Harold and William the Bastard. Genghis Khan. Cromwell. Wolf and Montcalm. Wellington and Napoleon. Nelson and Villeneuve. Cochrane. Elphinstone. Churchill. Hitler. Stalin. Rommel. Castro. Giap. Hussein. Bin Laden.Â
The lists above are quickly thrown together to make the point and most of those names are easily recognizable. All tremendously evocative names. A few are salted in there to make the point that smaller actions, battles and campaigns within wars offer great lessons. Read David Zucchino’s “Thunder Run” for a detailed take on Col. David Perkins’ unorthodox and highly successful gambit in the taking of Baghdad. LTC Harold Moore at the Ia Drang is another smaller case study, of maintaining and prevailing in the face of an unfolding disaster. Francis Marion’s guerrilla war. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine at Gettysburg as an example of a quick, unorthodox, literally pivotal action, a bold decision made under fire. Sherman in all his actions and complexity, not least the highly controversial March to the Sea as both a military and a political action. Cochrane was a Royal Navy officer some consider to be possibly the superior of Nelson in tactics and boldness, if that were possible, foiled by poor higher command and politics. Villeneuve’s example of how superior numbers can be squandered. Elphinstone’s towering example of dithering, inaction and disaster in Afghanistan.
An understanding of military history, as Betsy points out, is critical not only for those who will fight it but for the civilian population for whom they fight it and who are called on to support it. Every bit as critical as a knowledge of civic affairs and the institutions of government. Significantly more useful than excessive focus on the roles of minority groups, when that focus is presented as the overriding context of history, displacing and obscuring the larger events and context of events of importance to society as a whole.
Because, contrary to the nonsense that has been foisted on us since the 1960s, war is and will remain into the foreseeable future a sometimes necessary and moral endeavor, in a world that has not matured sufficiently to allow responsible, powerful nations to behave like flower children.Â
UPDATE: Reader/military genius JeffS, “Understanding the true nature of war would be a major step towards either avoiding war by cutting off a potential adversary, or by shortening the war through conducting the campaign(s) aggressively.”Â
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:56 am on Thursday, May 10, 2007
7 Responses to “Study War More”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Well said.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:50 am
A more relevant complaint would be that military history in its critical complexity has never been properly taught as a matter of general education, for the important lessons it has to offer.
Applause. Not until I became a brigade staff officer did I have a full appreciation of the complexities of war. Taking the Command and General Staff course polished that appreciation.
Understanding the true nature of war would be a major step towards either avoiding war by cutting off a potential adversary, or by shortening the war through conducting the campaign(s) aggressively.
Instead, we have the the hold-at-arms-length approach by the “kinder, gentler” population segment, who “ain’t gonna study war no more”. Of course, these are (generally, not always) the same people who can skim an article in Reader’s Digest, and become an expert on the topic.
Not that we need only consult “experts”, but people to be educated enough to understand the options AND detect bulls**t.
Sadly, that’s not the way we do things anymore. Especially since war, in any form, is going away for the next several generations. In spite of what the anti-war types preach, evil people remain, and not everyone has a compulsion to surrender.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Web Reconnaissance for 05/10/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
JeffS,
Indeed. The problem that many of our own folks seem to forget is that our adversaries are not simply “Americans in funny clothes” and they probably will not sit down to tea and a discussion of how to resolve the “issues”.
The one issue I have always tried to point out, and you know this all too well, is the old adage the “Amateurs study tactics, while professionals study logistics”. It’s all well and good to back-seat the general and his tactics, but those same tactics also depend upon being able to feed, water and rearm his men. The real cost of a war isn’t so much the men up front or the guns and uniforms. It’s the supply chain that sends the, beans, bullets, and badages.
Another point is trying to explain why things take time. Armues are not stood up overnight, at least ones that you want to go to war with. they take time to develop the leadership that will see them through the coming fight. Officers, and especially NCO’s cannot simply be appointed and expected to lead. Ut takes years to develop good battalion and higher NCO’s, ones who understand not only HOW things work, but WHY, and how to be the leader their men need. Iraq’s new army is coming along, but it’s not finished. Some units are doing remarkably well, others, not so much, but these things take time, and that’s why we need to be there for awhile longer.
Respects,
May 10th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
The military functions as a consequence of a nation’s politics. A nation’s politics functions as a consequence of a peoples’ underlying philosophy. This country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment–the principles of Individualism and Reason, which meant respect for the individual mind. Both of those principles are now practically wiped from the mind of this nation’s people. We are seeing the result.
When a people no longer know what to value, and why, no military will save it. The only question left is what form its slavery will take.
May 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
[...] 10th, 2007 by mvdg Jules Crittenden explains why schools should teach more about war. A modern complaint has been that history was taught as a [...]
May 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Betsy returns to this topic periodically. I liked one of her earlier posts, “The Importance of Teaching Military History”:
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2006/06/importance-of-teaching-military.html
I wrote about this as well — responding to the above citation — from a political science perspective, where the discipline has seen reduced attention to military matters and strategic studies, espcially after the end of the Cold War (and during the Clinton years):
http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2006/06/betsy-newmark-on-teaching-military.html
Take care!