By Chief Sergeant Flight Commander Chiselled McEdifice of the McEdifice & Darkshadow Detective Agency/Psychic SWAT Mercenaries
OK so listen up. I’m going to be serving things to you straight and without any fancy words. I’m a mean bastard. You know it, I know it, my fistful hound Patton knows it. I work hard, fight hard and explain the axioms of war hard. If you’ve read this far then you know how I talk and what will be going down in this essay. If you are reading this then lets get something straight first - this essay won’t make you an expert in warfare. I learned these lessons the hard way, in action, fighting vampires. The best I can give you is the weapons with which a man with some grit in his heart can begin to learn the axioms of war. Note that I say ‘learn’ not ‘teach’ because I know how English works.
The axioms of warfare, of which there are many and over which wars themselves have been fought, come to us through the filter of conflict from two sources. One is Julius Ceaser, the pre-eminent warrior of the Roman world. A man who fought because he had to and left an empire behind to prove it. The other source is my uncle Bob McEdifice, who was like a mentor to me during the mentoring program at my mother’s international stationary firm. “Stationary isn’t going anywhere.” he used to say to me and from that day I knew what my true calling was.
The axioms of warfare do not guarantee victory, they don’t even guarantee a tactical advantage. You never hear of the general who sat in his tent pondering which axiom he needed to utilise. “Do I have enough inertia?’ or ‘Is my axiom of destruction adequate?’ or ‘Do in I need a tad more inexactitude?’. Why do you never hear of a general like that? Well first and fore most our modern schools have become little more than indoctrination centres for the liberal elites. Do schools teach about any generals these days, except to label them as war criminals? They do not. Secondly such a general has necessarily forgotten the all important Axiom of Ditheration.
Note that in the title of this piece the active verb is ‘riding’. Is this the RIGHT choice of verb? Could we have picked a different verb? Is ‘riding’ actually a verb or is it sometimes a noun? What matter is that when we ride a horse or a motorcycle or perhaps a penny-farthing we do two things: first we are transported by the thing we are riding and secondly we guide the thing we are riding. Transportation alone is not riding and guiding alone is not riding. The rider both guides and is transported. That is how the axioms of warfare work as well. We use them to ride. We are transported and we guide.
The guiding aspect is one of the three things the axioms of warfare are about. They serve to guide the student as they learn about war and matters pertaining to war. That isn’t just me saying that but something you will find in the Korea Army textbooks and also the textbooks of the Russian Spetnaz special forces. Don’t believe me? Well that is your problem. I don’t go around spreading lies, unlike the guy I hired to paint the shed.
The second purpose of the axioms of warfare is to clarify. War is like a fog so anything that can provide clarity is a great thing for the common soldier and officer alike. Clarity is key and the only thing more important than clarity is secrecy. Secrecy, clarity and the axioms of warfare. Together these form an unbreakable triad of trust against which the soldier or military strategist can rely.
The third purpose of the axioms of warfare is as armour. No, not body armour (although by all means make use of that!) but intellectual armour to safeguard you from the stupid and the ignorant. People talk a lot of bull about war, warfare and soldiering. If you meet somebody sounding off about war, tactics and military history and you think they are phone then just ask them this question “Can you list all the axioms of warfare?” Trust me, they won’t be able to.
You may be wondering about other things you have learnt. Sometimes, when I’m training the officers of the world’s most fearsome fighting forces they ask me ‘What about the nine principles of the Army Field Manual FM-3? What about Harrington Emerson’s 12 principles of efficiency?” PULL THE WOOL FROM YOUR EARS. Those are PRINCIPLES not AXIOMS. This is not an essay on maxims or principles or tenets or opinions or, god-forbid, advice of feelings about warfare. This is an essay on the axioms of warfare.
Having clarified those issues, there are questions that need to be asked. Have I framed enough questions? Are rhetorical questions an effective textual device? Am I just avoiding the point by framing everything as questions? Is this just a way of padding out another paragraph while I think about what to write? All very important questions that anybody hoping to write about the axioms of warfare needs to ask themselves.
So now, go hence ye bright and illuminated souls! Grab yourself a book on military history. Read it. You will see the ebb and flow of war. Ask yourself what went wrong? Ask yourself what went right? Then think back to the axioms of warfare and see how they apply in each case. Then you have taken the first tentative steps in learning how to ride the red walrus of war.
Mutant in Space!
Introduction by Timothy the Talking Cat. It is no exaggeration to say that Rod Walrus is the New New Heinlein. There are other less new Heinleins but if you are looking for a particularly new Heinlein, then Rod Walrus is your best bet. He really is very new in his Heinleiness, indeed there hasn’t be a Heinlein quite as new as Rod since 1907.
Now some people have alleged that ‘Rod Walrus’ is simply me hiding behind a convenient pseudonym so that I can pump out mediocre space adventures without them being tainted by the ‘toxic reputation’ associated from my firebrand politics and no-nonsense political writing. That is very unfair on Rod who in no way resembles me.