Amor Vincit Omnia

As I was watching a YouTube video of British troops in Afghanistan, a truth dawned on me: armies are strong because of love.

A real Southern Gentleman.

The enemy, in modern warfare, is little more than a distant rumour: just the point from which those shots are coming. But your mates in the trench or beside you are vividly real. The imperative is to stop those theoretical people from shooting at them. Dead simple. Even in ancient forms of war, you know the people to your left and right; you probably know them intimately. The enemy, almost always farther away, you do not know. It seems most likely to me that the average soldier never thinks about that guy behind the helmet or the face paint, at the other end of the field; never enough to hate him, or feel much about him at all; just about protecting himself and his buddies, and maybe the wife and kids back home.

So the unit, and the culture, which is held together by the strongest bonds of love and trust among one another, will be the strongest in war.

The Desert Pussycat.

The Romans, notably, exploited this in their military system. Each centurion lunged to his left, protecting the guy beside him, not himself. Worked pretty well for them for a millennium or so.

It follows, and history proves it, that the most democratic and open societies are the strongest in a fight, and not the military dictatorships who claim strength at war as their raison d'etre. This is especially proven in defeat. Dictatorships and stern governments can do well so long as they are winning; anyone can do well so long as they are winning. But it takes love for one's government, not just fear of it, or a shared egotism over possible spoils, to hold a unit together and keep it fighting in defeat and retreat.

A hero to the Japanese.

It is this that built the British Empire. Hence the British record of, as they often say, "losing every battle but the last": the great strength of the British military has always been in holding rank and order in retreat and in adversity, or in situations where the individual's self-interest clearly tells him to cut and run. Rourke's Drift; Dunkirk; the Charge of the Light Brigade; Agincourt. More dictatorial regimes notoriously snap in retreat, or at a sudden, sharp, shock: Napoleon in Russia; the Germans at Stalingrad; the French on the Plains of Abraham; the Persians at Gaugamela.
It follows in the same way, and seems to be true historically, that the most successful generals are not the tough guys, the taskmasters, the disciplinarians, and the carpet chewers; they are the kindly ones, or at least the ones who project that impression.

Start with Ike. Who gave a better impression of being easygoing than Ike?

Of Robert E. Lee, in his postwar tenure as president of Washington and Lee College, a historian reports, "the students fairly worshipped him, and deeply dreaded his displeasure; yet so kind, affable, and gentle was he toward them that all loved to approach him... No student would have dared to violate General Lee's expressed wish or appeal; if he had done so, the students themselves would have driven him from the college." This seems to have been, equally, his style as a general on the field. It is said that he never gave orders; only suggestions.

Saladin the Chivalrous.

You find similar comments about most truly great generals. Rommel, greatest German general of the Second World War, was even popular with the troops who opposed him. His Afrika Korps was never accused of any war crimes. Soldiers captured during his Africa campaign were reported to have been treated humanely. He ignored orders to kill captured commandos, Jewish soldiers and civilians in all theaters of his command. Rommel himself referred to the fighting in North Africa as Krieg ohne Hass—war without hate. Exactly so--that is the recipe for success at war: war without hate.

It all sounds like the Crusader descriptions of the great Muslim commander Saladin; famous for his magnanimity, and able to defeat anything the Franks could throw at him. Julius Caesar was also famous for his magnanimity; Marc Antony started out as a defeated enemy, as was Brutus. Some say his tolerance of opposition and inclination to let bygones be bygones led to his death. Douglas MacArthur is remembered quite fondly among the Japanese for his magnanimity in administering a defeated nation. For all his reputation as a fire-eater, George Patton, similarly, was criticised at the time for being similarly lenient towards occupied Germany. Hindenberg, as German Chancellor, was a pretty easygoing figure. So was Washington as US President.

Avuncular Uncle Von Hindenberg.

Nice guys, it turns out, finish first. Tough guys finish last.