Chapter 10
Operational plans, once initiated, have the habit of taking on a life of their own, going forward like a spirited charger carrying its rider into the heart of battle. In part, this is due to the warrior ethic. Since the days when men fought in dense phalanxes on the level plains of ancient Greece, the only honorable course of action once the advance was sounded was to press on until victory was achieved or the combatant was struck down. This philosophy was supported by the myth that a death in battle was a noble thing. To halt before locking shields with one's foe was a sign of weakness that could not be tolerated. To turn and run displayed abject cowardice, which could only be scorned.
As with most things, there is more to this than simple pride. In the days of Homer, turning one's back on an enemy was tantamount to suicide. Most casualties in battle were suffered when one side sensed that things were not going their way and opted to flee rather than continue the fight. In order to make good his escape, the fleeing warrior had to drop the heavy shield he carried, as well as the cumbersome pike that measured anywhere from twelve to sixteen feel long. This left him quite vulnerable to his pursuer.
The potential victor, on the other hand, was presented with a wonderful target, the backside of his enemy. Already fired up with the passions that close combat evokes, it was all but impossible to restrain those in the ranks of the triumphant phalanx. With a bloodlust in their hearts, the winners would rush forth, en masse, to slaughter all before them who were not quick enough to make good their escape. It was because of this practice that Spartan mothers sent their sons off to war with the admonishment. "Return with your shield, or upon it." Since only the victor retained his shield. Mom was basically telling junior, "Don't you dare run away."
Warfare in the early twenty-first century bears no resemblance to that waged when Greece was the center of the civilized world. But the core philosophy that drives the men and women charged with defending the Western democracies has changed little from the citizen warrior who marched off to battle wearing a bronze cuirass and carrying a great round shield. A tread of continuity runs through the ages, tying the modern Green Beret to those proud Spartans. The Romans adopted the Greek philosophy of "victory or death," spreading it to the four corners of Europe during five hundred years of conquest. As the western Roman Empire faded from memory, the feudal knights who filled the void left by the disappearance of its legions continued the tradition, creating what came to be known as the "chivalric code." When the warlords of the Dark Ages became the great captains of the age of gunpowder, they discarded the armor of their ancestors but not their ethics and traditions. And when nation states rose to prominence and harnessed the energies of their professional soldiers, the code that those officers lived by was based on one that would have been understood by every citizen soldier of Hellenistic Athens.
The stubbornness with which modern warriors cling to such traditions is more than mere sentimentality or slavish dedication to an outdated code of conduct. Unlike most occupations, soldiers are expected to place themselves in harm's way. Neither pay nor benefits alone can induce a sane man or woman to engage in an activity in which death and destruction are anticipated. While every soldier prefers that the death and destruction resulting from the combat in which he engages is visited upon his foe and not himself, the likelihood that he will fall victim to the law of averages cannot be ignored.
Commanders throughout the ages have understood this. Every society that has had to engage in warfare, and history tends to point out that this pretty much includes all of them, has employed those methods that were both socially acceptable and effective in inducing their citizens to fight. Cave dwellers are believed to have created clans and rituals that challenged and tested the young men of their tribes before the aspiring youths were permitted to assume the rights, privileges, and duties of an adult male.' Ancient Greeks and republican Romans tied the benefits of citizenship to the duty of bearing arms in the defense of the state. Land and privileges were bestowed upon feudal knights in return for military service to more powerful lords and kings. Frederick the Great implemented a system of discipline and punishment that he hoped would make his soldiers fear him and his appointed officers more than they feared the enemy they faced. And the colonial rabble of 1775 stood their ground against the best army in the world because they were fired up by the radicals of their day to believe in the righteousness of their cause.
In an era when there are no overwhelming threats or external dangers, when prosperity is the norm, and the profession of arms is viewed by the intellectual elite of the nation as a necessary evil to be tolerated but not encouraged, it is difficult to motivate young men and women to become soldiers. The best and the brightest who have an opportunity to attend college do so in order to become captains of industry, not infantry captains. Those entering the workforce straight out of high school, seeking freedom from the educational system and their parents, are not drawn to a profession that requires its members to submit to discipline, endure sacrifice, and adhere to a strict code of conduct. So it is surprising that the armed forces of the United States, as well as those of other Western democracies, actually find anyone to fill the ranks of their armies, man their ships, and maintain and care for their warplanes.
Filling the ranks is only the first hurdle that a modem peacetime army must overcome. Motivating those recruits to actually do what they are being paid to do in combat is something entirely different. To achieve this goal, every opportunity to instill the warrior ethic in the recruit is taken. At Fort Benning, Georgia, this conditioning takes the form of what is called "The Spirit of the Bayonet," which is not only the will to go toe-to-toe with the enemy and engage him in close combat, but the desire to do so. At the armor school at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the "Spirit of the Cav" lives on, imploring young soldiers and leaders of the mounted combat arm to close with and destroy their enemies by the use of fire, maneuver, and shock effect. While there are always a number of prospective soldiers who take to these philosophies with ease, others must work hard at overcoming years of social conditioning that tend to denigrate the traditional concepts of manhood. Some young men find they never can.
Those who do, enter into what the writer W. E. B. Griffith calls "The Brotherhood of War." It is an exclusive clique, one populated by people who take pride in themselves, their chosen profession, and their ability to accomplish their assigned missions no matter how difficult the task or adverse the conditions. Given an order, the modern soldier is expected to do as his ancestors had done generation after generation. The helmet and body armor may be different, but the attitude that motivates the modern warrior has changed little. Like his predecessors, he is trained to salute and press on, no matter the cost, until victory has been achieved.
In a democracy, the warrior is subordinate to politicians, who are guided by different ideals, who adhere to a set of standards that is often at odds with those of the professional soldier. Whereas an officer in the armed forces conducts most of his day-to-day business by issuing orders, democratic leaders achieve their goals through consensus. The popularity of the political figure, or of the program he or she is promoting, is critical. Politicians are skilled in making deals, mustering support from allies, and undercutting their opponents through the use of slander, half-truths, and spin. While they desire to win just as much as the soldier does, a political failure does not carry the same stigma that a military defeat does. The proof of this is borne out in the manner in which the media covers modern politics, turning it into a spectator's sport rather than the serious business of national security. None of this means that the politician is a lesser being, just as the pursuit of a military career does not mean that the professional soldier is a baby-killer. Each public servant, the politician and the soldier, operates in an environment that dictates adherence to certain rules and norms that must be followed if they expect to reach their respective goals.