The Ancient Art of Modern Warfare

I haven’t posted for a few weeks mostly because the current armed conflict with Iran poses a lot of questions that I don’t have answers for. One thing I might have an answer for is the question about wars of choice. Recently, this term is used in a way that implies that this armed conflict is illegitimate or unethical. Like many terms used by any faction with intended political impact, the term is left undefined. Without defining terms there can be no logical argument. Rather, the intent is an appeal to emotion, rather than reason. In this episode of the Ancient Art of Modern Warfare, I take on the challenge of defining that term and applying it to modern conflicts.

Music:

Traditional, The Army Strings, Garryowen (Public Domain)

Holst, G. The Planets: Mars Bringer of War, downloaded from Internet Archive

Any quick net search for the term “cyber mercenary” will result in dozens, if not hundreds of entries. These concerns largely focus on the effect these persons or entities have on personal freedoms, economic activity, and the ability of hackers and States can work together to undermine human rights. What about cyber mercenaries and warfare? Can – or do – real mercenaries of the cyber domain of warfare actively participate in combat? If so, how can they disrupt armed conflict or undermine whatever humanitarian principles still exist in warfare? It took the international community years to catch up on the use of private military and security companies in armed conflict and we are still struggling with State-run quasi-mercenary organizations. We need to get ahead of cyberwarfare domain mercenaries now, while the genie is still peeking out from the bottle.

 

References:

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907

International Committee of the Red Cross (2008) The Montreux Document On pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict. Geneve: International Committee of the Red Cross / Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Melzer, Nils, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 2009.

Music: Kiilstofte, P. Mercenaries, Machinamasound (Licensed)

As I post this, the cease-fires in Lebanon and Iran are still holding, and much longer than I expected. We usually think of cease fires as a good thing, enabling humanitarian activity and at least pause the death and destruction. That is not, however, the purpose behind any suspension in fighting a war. In this episode I examine the real reasons for most truces or cease fires, explore probable motivations for the current cease fires, and ask whether all cease fires are inherently good.

 

Disclaimer:  These podcasts are not monetized or subsidized in any way, nor do they represent anyone’s opinion but my own.

Reference: Clausewitz, C. On War, Book One, Chapter One

Music: Copland, A. & United States Marine Band. (2000) Fanfare for the Common Man. unpublished, Washington, DC. [Audio] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, (Fair use for educational purposes.)

Every time the United States or Israel use military force, there are immediate claims that those military forces are committing war crimes. I also note that such claims are never made about the opposing side, whether that is Hamas, Hizbollah, Houthis, Iran or any other state or non-state armed group opposing Western armed forces. It also seems that there are voices that insist than any military operation is unjust and constitutes a war crime, at last if the party involved is from the West. Aside from the bias, there is the deliberate use of the term “war crime,” intended to be inflammatory and de-legitimize the accused party, raising images of Nazi and Japanese atrocities of WW2. In this episode I describe what is a war crime under international and U.S. national law. You may be surprised at what is and what isn’t a war crime. I conclude with the claim of Pope Leo IV and the response from the White House.

As usual, the opinions in these podcasts are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of Defense, anyone else in the U.S. Government, or any other organization I am or ever have been associated with. I also want to reiterate that I am not a law of war expert, just a retired cavalry officer for whom the laws and customs of war provided the boundaries of what was allowed and what was unacceptable.

References:

of Defense, DoD Law of War Manual, June 2015, Updated July 2023

The Hague Convention (IV) of the Law of War on Land (1907) available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1907&context=ils

 

Music: Copland, A. & United States Marine Band. (2000) Fanfare for the Common Man. unpublished, Washington, DC. [Audio] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, (Fair use for educational purposes.)

The United States is in yet another war. The usual pundits say that we cannot win while others say we have already won. The same people seem to say nearly the same things about Russia’s war in Ukraine. I doubt that pundits in either camp can coherently describe what winning or losing a war means or looks like. So, in this episode, I will once again lean heavily on Carl von Clausewitz to describe what has always been true about winning a war and how that applies to current wars. For the pro-Sun Tzu crowd, stay with me to the end as he makes a rare appearance in my podcasts.

 

Disclaimer: The information in these podcasts is my own opinion and does not represent that of the Department of Defense or any other organization I am or have been affiliated with.

 

Music: Wagner, R. and the USMC Band, Siegfried’s Funeral (Public Domain)