Principle of War (Essay Sample)

1
PRINCIPLES OF WAR
Student’s Name
Course
Date of Submission
War, from the historical and traditional perspective, was seen as a lay down of mutually approved rules of warfare between disagreeing opponents. It did not occur in case the two enemies were culturally similar and in talking terms. The disputing parties often shared values and voluntarily agreed upon a code of conduct and limits to be reached during the period of warfare. The agreement was either explicit or implicit. The situation was different when the parties professed different faiths, subscribed to different cultures, spoke different languages and were from different races. They regarded each other as lesser beings and any aggression would result in the breakout of war with no set conventions or limits. The difference in the two modes of warfare lies in the aspect of similarity in terms of culture and values. When similar aspects are identified, the two enemies viewed each other as human beings whose relations would result in the eventuality of the war, and as a result, they found the need to layout conventions. In such situations, the parties decided amicably on who would participate in the war and whether or not in the eventuality of war, the two communities would take up any businesses with each other.[Alexander Moseley, "Just War Theory," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed May 4, 2014, /justwar/.]
The current paper is on the experience of an ex-soldier from the American army. His experience reflects the principles of war from military training and the knowledge he attained from being a member of the army. Warfare in present day is evolving, and this calls for improved tactics, but the foundation lies in the ancient practices used during the World War I and World War II. The research was compiled after an interview with 86 year old serviceman by the name of Peterson. He served the country during the Vietnam War. Vietnam War was ground warfare characterized by helicopter-airlifting every once in a while, where troops were deployed from one area to a new one to fight against the enemy. Peterson provides information on the happenings in Vietnam during the war and his point of view on the improvements that should be enforced in the modern ways of warfare so as to counter the new warfare weapons, which are more advanced as compared to those existing in his time.
The description of Vietnam given by Peterson portrayed a country with a humid, very hot and rainy weather. The soldiers were equipped with radios, helmets, flak jackets, ammunition, and automatic rifles. The devices were not as advanced as present day weapons. Front liners were not engaged in this war. Helicopters were used mainly for ferrying soldiers to new areas in Vietnam. They were also used to airlift the injured to hospitals. There was a constant worry over hidden studded nails, booby traps, land mines and crossbows, which were trip-wired by the enemy. Bamboo sticks also worried the soldiers since one wrong move could lead to a pierced boot. Sometimes, the soldiers were forced to use trenches to travel and hide from the enemy. The rain poured in torrents for the better part of the nights, and this posed a challenge. The mud would be too thick for the soldiers to wade through the trenches. The weather was favorable for mosquito breeding, and this caused deaths as a result of the malaria breakout. The conditions for war were not friendly. The soldiers had a hard task of maintaining themselves in good health, avoiding the traps that their enemies had set and dodging any bullets when exchange of fire broke out. Most of the soldiers had little experience in handling the M16 rifles, yet they were expected to handle these guns perfectly during the war.[Eliot A. Cohen and John Gooch, Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War (New York: The Free Press, 1990).]
During the war, the issue of race brought about issues among the American soldiers. Soldiers of African-American decent felt that they received a raw deal. They viewed their tasks as more hazardous than those assigned to the white soldiers. This was the situation in most cases, and it served to divide the army, giving the enemy the upper hand since the feelings of hatred and discrimination de-motivated black soldiers. A big percentage of the soldiers who were injured were black, yet only small percentages were involved in the war. This does not show that they were less qualified, but that indeed they were given riskier tasks that warranted a big number of casualties. The reason they were deployed to areas where there was a high risk that they were recruited having lower education and the risky tasks were what fitted their qualifications. This was a reflection of the situation back home, where blacks were of the lower educational and economic level than whites. They were seen as more productive in the army than when serving as clerks in companies or any other white collar jobs that require little education.
Current war practices are very different from what was during the World War I and World War II. Weapons have evolved over time and so has the tact by soldiers. These days, the training is more intense and covers in detail what the soldiers may face during the war. Improvements in the military architecture, artillery, and in the science of war have warranted a change in military strategy. The Italian wars during Machiavelli's era revolutionized the art of war. Italian engineers originated the use of canons and construction of fortresses. Fortification was a milestone in modern strategies of war. Warfare changed from being just war and became more of a scientific study. The designing, construction and implementation of strategies involved architects, mathematicians and mechanics.[Peter Paret, Gordon A. Craig, and Felix Gilbert, Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (New York: Princeton University Press, 1986).]
Clausewitz is a theorist who holds a different opinion of a war. He views the success of a war as a relation to political influence. According to him, politics is central in the activities of war and the parties. He chose to study war not as an independent subject, but in relation to the country's political state. War only occurs as a result of political differences either between a country and another country or between parties in the same country. Besides political influence, he attributes war to ambiguity, uncertainty, friction and chance. A country or party can only be successful in the war if they are able to perceive the uncertainty of war and understand the complexity that revolves around it. War is complicated. These complications lead to different roads that can provide success in war. One cannot claim that they understand a certain concept that provides success in war well enough to publish about it. Different roads can lead to success in war; therefore there should be no rules or laws that are served as guidelines to the actions that revolve around war. Different ways of meeting the goal of war may be too weird, mistaken or inconsistent. The intention of studying war or any aspect of political interests in a country is to achieve different findings and ways to go about it. People must be ready to embrace different outcomes for them to find strategies that can be effective in achieving successful war practices. Diverse countries will succeed in a war using different methods.[Michael I. Handel, Clausewitz and Modern Strategy (London: Frank Cass, 1986).]
Many people provide different views on how to achieve their intended goal when they engage in war. The answers, however, lie around the nine principles of warfare. These principles are in relation to the theories that are laid down by Sun Tzu, Alfred Mahan, Alfred von Schlieffen, Carl von Clausewitz, Helmuth von Moltke and Antoine-Henri Jomini, the re-known warfare theorist. The nine principles were outlined and published for the first time in the 1921 Training Regulations. They serve as a doctrine for military training. The principles are a unity of command, offensive, economy of force, objective, mass, maneuver, simplicity, security and surprise. Peterson, an American serviceman, stated that the battle of Fredericksburg is the war that posed the worst defeat in history. There were many causes of failure then, and that was when President Lincoln decided to replace Burnside for poor planning with Hooker. The eventuality of the war is remembered up until today. Peterson in his interview mentioned the principles in brief, stating that the most important one was unity in command. This was the unitary principle, which ensured that all the army members took their command from the central point. There must be one commander who directs the actions of the army towards the achievement of a common object. Cases when there may be the absence of a commander are few, but in case they come up, there should be unity in the army's efforts to achieve their set goal. There was a distinction between the unities of command in the Fredericksburg battle and the Chancellorsville battle under hookers. Burnside failed to unite the army under one commander, and this caused the general failure of the troops.
The commander of the unit must ensure security of the army to prevent the enemy from accessing them from any point of weakness. With the changing tactics in the military, these principles still apply. Winning a war is determined by how much more prepared the unit is. It should be prepared more than their enemy. Ensuring security for the troops includes deceiving the enemy where necessary and using military intelligence. Another important principle is objectivity. The commander must direct every military decision and mission towards a defined objective. The set objective must be achievable and spectacular. There must be a precise end to the decided plans and they must flow from the commander. Once...