Military struggle ----------------- It would be arrogant to think we can organize in a better way for combat then the armies of the world are currently doing, because humanity has so much experience with war over the millennia (if a war can be fought in uniform, which is possible if there is mass support and victory that way is likely and more absolute that way). * Current army doctrine would be the result of all these battles: rank discipline, enforced tidiness where possible, the familiar ranks and their roles, separation into land, air and sea forces, basic training, specialists training, strategic learning, secrecy of strategy. Rank more/less number below it Soldiers: Soldier non-ranked (new, testing) 0 (Could be dismissed from army as unfit to fight for whatever reason by Captain or higher.) Soldier 2nd class (new, learning) 0 Soldier 1st class (well trained and/or seen significant battle) 0 Sub-officers / soldiers (command propagation, immediate tactics) Corporal 2nd class (new, learning) 0-5, section Corporal 1st class (proven) 0-5, section Sergeant 2nd class (new, learning) 0-10, (soldier) group Sergeant 1st class (proven) 0-10, (soldier) group Officers, head officers: Lieutenant 2nd class (new, learning) 20-40, platoon Lieutenant 1st class (proven) 20-40, platoon Captain 2nd class (new, learning) 80-150, company Captain 1st class (proven) 80-150, company Independent task units, field officers: Major 2nd class (new, learning) 450-750, battalion Major 1st class (proven) 450-750, battalion Colonel 2nd class (new,learning) 900-2500, regiment Colonel 1st class (proven) 900-2500, regiment Independent fighting units, senior officers: Brigadier, Brigade General (2nd/1st class) 5000-5500, brigade *) ( *) Using a relatively precise number so that a brigade has a more defined fighting strength which might help strategy making and communication.) Staff officers: Sergeant General, Division General (2/1) 15.000-25.000, Division Lieutenant General, Corps General (2/1) 45.000-55.000, Corps GENERAL, Captain General, Army General(2/1) 100.000-250.000, Army In this system the army is independent as a unit, hence captain general would be the highest rank, comprising a hand full of divisions. Ranks symbols could for example be (it may be better if they are the same across all armies in this system for mutual recognition, or at least per nation): S0 = nothing, S2 = 1 stripe, S1 = 2 stripes. For all the sub-officers and officers the 2nd class has a yellowish color (gold, bronze, yellow, brownish), and the 1st class has a silver color (white, silver, metal, tin, grey). C2/1 = two stripes, one dot, SR2/1 = two stripes, two dots, Officers: L2/1 = one star, Cptn2/1 = two stars, Task groups: M2/1 = short leaf-branch one star C2/1 = short leaf-branch two stars, Independent Fighting units (self-sustaining): B2/1 = two crossed swords and one star, SG2/1 = two crossed swords and two stars, LG2/1 = two crossed swords and three stars, CG2/1 = two crossed swords and four stars This should leave some room to maneuver with more/less ranks too (3 dots, etc). * In case armies do want to unite as larger commanded units, spinning the logic a little further: above-army General ranks become a class of multi-army strategists. As such they could be a class of non-rank ranks ;), who issue not orders but strategic plans to army General(s) (captn General) for ratification by these Captain Generals, who retain control over their own army. Say the institution appointing the staff commanders declare their opinion on how strictly their (or that) army will be integrated into that above army structure (whether strategies are taken over more or less blindly {1}, whether the CG has to have good reasons to deviate {2}, or whether the CG can take it as an advice {3}, or a suggestion he/she doesn't even have to look at {4}.) These honorary ranks could be like so: Major General, 2-4 armies (4 armies = 400.000 - 1.000.000) *) army group Colonel General, 5-16 armies (16 armies = 1.600.000 - 4.000.000) *) fields of armies Campaign General, 17-64 armies (64 armies = 6.400.000 - 16.000.000) *) ( *) Depending on the sizes of the constituting armies.) Let's say these ranks are awarded by mutual agreement of the armies so choosing to be integrated. The people populating these ranks are assumed to be more then wise enough to structure their own work however they see fit (I'm not going to make up anything for that here). I doubt the use for higher ranks then for 64 armies: above that it is again the mutual agreements between the independent units (which can have several of these high ranks, somewhere 4 armies may have combined, elsewhere maybe 20, they interface as bilateral sovereigns.) If this becomes a true mass peoples revolution, it is possible to get up to these sizes. What is naturally above the campaign general ? Above that is not merely the objective of the struggle, but living the achieved results. An above Campaign General ("General General") rank would wonder ''is this worth it, should I support this entire war for the goals it says to strive for, and how likely is it that these goals are achieved ?'' If the answer of that (say) 8 star General is ''yes, I will support it,'' he then hits the range in order to become a unranked Soldier. In other words: you are that above-all rank. Rank symbols: MG2/1 = one opened hand seeing the palm side CoG2/1 = two " (same as MG) GG2/1 = three " (same as MG) "The whole war is in their hand, the battle field is like a map on the palm of their hand." They are not traffic cops, so the hand does not denote 'stop' or 'hello.' Each finger can be one group. These ranks are the 'mutual strategic command,' to indicate the final power remains at the army level, the Captain General and its house command (if any). It is important perhaps to remember that, because it is a part of the overall democratic value of the whole set up (so that these armies do not become the problem they are supposed to be fighting, for example.) These ranks do not discipline lower ranks or give direct orders about any operational issues, except if needed to perform their work and/or inspect things. As such they'd have to respect the command of the Captain General of that army, the army is supposed to be his army and the above army ranks are inside it as far as he allows it. This makes these above army ranks like civilian ranks. But all ranks below Captain General should assume these above army ranks have the same authority in that army as the CG of that army, unless the CG has instructed them to the contrary. In that case these above-army ranks may be considered having no rank at all (which would mean that said army has disengaged from that strategic mutual command, which would be its right (because it is a peoples army and this is part of that democratic control)). They'd have to display some kind of symbol of their MSC, or all the symbols/names of all the armies or army groups that they help. If they display all these names/symbols it would make conduct in one army easier. But then again they don't interface with the armies directly, but with the generals of it. An army has the right to strip their symbol/name from one of these ranks, saying they are no longer part of that MSC in any way. Short list of all ranks: Soldier(0/2 `|'/1 `||'),Corporal`||o' (section), Sergeant`||oo' (group), Lieutenant`*' (platoon), Captain`**' (company), Major `#*' (battalion), Colonel `#**' (regiment), Brigadier-General `X*' (brigade), Sergeant General `X**' (Division), Lieutenant General `X***' (Corps), GENERAL, Captain General `X****' (Army); [MSC] Major General `@' (Army Group), Colonel General `@@' (fields of armies), Campaign General `@@@' (life of the campaign). (Four soldier and ten officer ranks, seven details and seven general ranks.) Calculation of percentage officers to soldier ranks: Soldier,Corporal,Sergeant;Lieutenant,Captain,Major,Colonel,Brigad.,2s,3s,4s. x1 ,x5 ,x2 ,x3 ,x4 ,x5 ,x3 ,x3 ,x3,x3,x3 1 private (x 5 = ...) 100% private total: 1 5, 1 section (x 2 = ...) 83% 17% section total: 6 10, 2, 1 group (x 3 = ...) 77% 15% 8% group total: 13 30, 6, 3; 1 platoon (x 4 = ...) 75% 15% 8% 3% platoon total: 40 120, 24, 12; 4, 1 company (x 5 = ...) 75% 15% 7% 2% 1% company total: 161 Soldier,Corporal,Sergeant;Lieutenant,Captain,Major,Colonel,Brigad.,2s,3s,4s. 600, 120, 60; 20, 5, 1 battalion (x 3 = etc) 74% 15% 7% 2% 1% 0% battalion total: 806 1.800, 360, 180; 60, 15, 3, 1 regiment 74% 15% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% regiment total: 2419 5.400, 1.080, 540; 180, 45, 9, 3, 1 brigade 74% 15% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% brigade total: 7.258 16.200, 3.240, 1.620; 540, 135, 27, 9, 3, 1 Div. 74% 15% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Division total: 21.775 48.600, 9.720, 4.860; 1.620, 405, 81, 27, 9, 3, 1 Cor. 74% 15% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Corps total: 65.326 145.800, 29.160, 14.580; 4.860, 1.215, 243, 81, 27, 9, 3, 1 A 74% 15% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Army total: 195.979 Soldier-ranks up to Corporal (incl.) total: 174 960, 89% Soldier-ranks up to Sergeant (incl.) total: 189.540, 97% Officer-ranks Lieutenant--Captain-General total: 6.439, 3% (3,29%) General-ranks Brigadier-General--Captian-General total: 40, 0% (0,020%) Major-General 2 Armies 391.958 -> 4 Armies 783.916 Colonel-General 5 Armies 979.895 -> 16 Armies 3.135.664 Campaign-General 17 Armies 3.331.643 -> 64 Armies 12.542.656 (You'll note that the bigger the units are, the amount of added officers for the whole unit does not weigh up to adding units together: for 90 additional soldiers to make a platoon into a company you only get 1 Captain added. The above layout starts with relatively large platoons, this is to accommodate dying. When the dying starts the soldiers are most likely in harms way, more likely thinning out the platoons. This way after dying is occurring the officer corps is not ending up with too many officers per soldiers. There are also many Sergeants per Corporals, allowing for dying Sergeants to get replaced quicker from 'below,' and a company won't run out of Sergeants too soon. On the whole this set up seems to have fewer officers then other armies might (?), but we probably don't need an overweight officer corps because everyone is likely to be motivated and loyal because it is such a worthwhile goal (which is another reason for a light officer corps.) In general the people fighting in these armies won't like being bossed around a lot: a light officer corps suits them better and gives them more confidence that they will be able to mount a mutiny (insurrection) if needed.) * As an overall strategy for the entire battle field I think we might do well to have independent armies, where each army is roughly up to 200.000 persons (the size of a medium city state, still a conceivable amount for most people.) These armies would become independent units driven by their own command, if they want in communication with other armies. The ultimate decision for each army would be for that army. The interaction and activities between these armies would comprise a form of mass peoples democracy. Their separate commands might make them a little more unpredictable for the enemy, and make infiltration of the highest commands a little harder. If they communicate their strategies well there doesn't need to be a loss of having a proper greater strategy. Each army from this system will choose some kind of symbol that can be traced somehow to this system by people who see it. * Let's say as a simple recruitment method: everyone having walked 40 kilometers with 20 kilograms on their back in 24 hours, able to hit with whatever projectile weapon a rounded target 1 meter high and 50 centimeter wide within the first 10 shots (not automatic) can join the lowest rank (unranked soldier, soldier zero-class). For added fun: target practice every 10 kilometers, the last part being an obstacle course and lethal projectiles firing overhead, passing several pits with rotting animal carcasses (although for this purpose human carcasses would be better, maybe add some fake human remains in the mix for effect.) War is not fun, war is hell, war is death. Peace is sweet. How about a little fog to symbolize the fog of war. We fight to end war, which is something of a contradiction where it not for the fact that we fight in self-defense of our political rights, that we intent to use to establish that peace. Persons can try as many times until they succeed (it is primarily a test of will). Particular attention will need to be given to the willingness to kill, because this is at the same time a moral army, and out to commit mass murder (which is the essential business of war.) For good measure some targets shot and/or stabbed at on the course have a realistic human shape and a real face that looks calm and normal, some kind of violent criminal, positively identifyable as a non-surrendering enemy. I don't like murder at all, but war is murder (until a white flag is raised in earnest at least, so it is essentially an arrest going wrong a lot). One consolation: if soldier feels the war is wrong, he can desert it at any time. Do not feel bad if you don't want to, or don't succeed in becoming an unranked soldier in this system, and feel free to miss the targets on purpose in order to fail. Murdering people is in principle a very very bad thing, if you have a hard time coping with slaughtering people by the thousands, then PLEASE simply don't even try. I'm trying to make this rough here *before* you actually wreck your soul by killing people, rather then later when you may find yourselves in the midst of a war with little option but to kill, get killed, die miserable or kill yourselves. You where warned that war is hell and that killing is bad in principle, you have to be able to justify it at least to yourselves or better just don't even try. In any case you could always join later, provided the enemy hasn't killed or captured you yet I guess. Just quit reading this, do you really know why you are reading this ?! * Deserting is allowed (it is a peoples army after all), but deserters should submit to 30 days at the rear or wherever it can be assumed they will not be able to betray army tactics/strategies they might know, or for as long as major strategies must be kept hidden. * Captured enemies are not maltreated and not killed, according to existing principles. But we might attempt to talk them out of their positions using a mild dose of reasoning (since why not, isn't law, order and democracy in their likely interest as well, and that is all that we want, also for them (which indeed begs the question: why are they even fighting us ?!.) With luck, they will turn to our cause out of their own free will, but if not then that is fine of course, it can't be forced. * Because it is a peoples army and not an repressive army of a tyrant, it makes sense that the army can organize on the principles of the Constitution (http://www.socialism.nl/law.html) they are fighting for. If they do, such a Government would become a house command (HC). The people chosen for such a house command from the bottom up (which is after all exactly the purpose of that system) have no relation to their military rank (say, military command, MC). The house command is not in charge of battle tactics, in any case any rank of a house command has no standing as a single person, there is no rank discipline between these ranks whatsoever. Because this is an army that has to function as an effective unit with a singular command, let's say this house-command has no councils except on the supreme level of the group. This means the entire house command has only one grand council (everyone elected by free formed 50 member voter groups), who divide into 50 sections to form one army house council. This army house council could be put in charge of the staff rank assignments, because what other institution is there to do that ? Staff generals can be all generals above Brigadier-General, or put a higher General in charge of promotions up to Corps/Lieutenant General ? If there is already a true peoples national council set up in their nation of origin, this house command could defer that task to such a national council, and pledge its army to that national Government. In the absence of such a national Government this house command may be the best if not only way to determine the highest ranks. One would hope that the task of top rank is difficult enough that the house command would assign the task to capable, rather then merely popular, figures. The cost of mistake would probably be measured in blood, giving it time for pause. But it ultimately is a peoples army, and it must therefore be ultimately ruled by the people, for better or worse. The house command insignia if any are worn are not worn on the shoulders. House command insignia are for example worn on the chest and are relatively hard to see, so it won't distract from the military chain of command, which is primary. The HC is only relevant after it has convened and decided on something, only that is its power (see proposed Constitution for *extensive* details.) The HC is like an internal council, mostly dealing with the army itself. * Let's say that lower house-command councils can only be formed under conditions of catastrophe and/or near surrender, also partially if the army is already in a state of advanced degeneration. These councils could then come to opinions on surrender or disintegration or whatever the case may be, together with the highest ranking officers. The councils would have an advisory role to the highest ranking officers. In the worst case after all, the soldiers could still choose desertion if they think they are dealing with suicidal missions and want to refuse to perform them. * It may happen both during (initial) mobilization and combat that the total strength of an independent (or isolated) group is (much) below the (extremely high) rank of Captain-General. It may also happen that strategic command proves difficult through the fog of war, but at such times the higher Generals should know when to give their units more freedom (or even complete freedom) to fight as they see fit. It makes sense that the house-command always appoints the highest ranking military commander, and time allowing and the house command willing also those second in command. This is after all the essential self-democratic organizational structure, which comes from the base up, establishes the very top and from there the power flows back down in military hierarchy. A highest ranking officer of any battle formation is always responsible to carry out all the tasks associated with higher ranks that are not actually available, to the best of his / her abilities. In theory therefore, there is always both a Captain General and a Campaign General (but not specialized or designated). Example: people want to mobilize and they already came together on the platoon level. Since the Lieutenant is the commanding military officer and the Sergeants are second, they organize an internal democracy (to the degree necessary at such a small group, a bit of hand raising would suffice, as long as it is understood that such simple schemes won't work on larger scales anymore) and appoint the Lieutenant and Sergeants (2nd class). The Lieutenants and Sergeants then promote Corporals (2nd class) and they all proceed with the business of training. They meet up with some more such platoons and decide to unite on the company level. The house command comes together after having been self-organized officially as a 5:X council (voter group 5, council as many as there are), causing that council to consist of 19 persons. They appoint a new top commander, a captain. Several companies come together, they all re-organize their house commands to a platoon:X council system, causing that council to consist of 25 persons (say). The council appoints one major for the battalion. They start to organize one truth-platoon (see below), who is to use the weapon of truth. This truth-platoon studies what deserves to be studied. They meet up with some more battalions, and now having a truth-platoon this platoon already has a scheme on the table for how to organize the house-command on the several battalions, regiment size (so I don't have to, great!). The house command assigns a Colonel for the regiment. They are now starting to be a serious (potential) force in the immediate area. They could continue to grow all the way up to the Army level and then seek to build an MSC (in a sense the Corps Generals are already part of an MSC with the Army General, because it is so big ?). But maybe they decide they have mobilized sufficiently, and they proceed to make contact with an established one and a half Division strong mobilizing force under two Division Generals (Sergeant Generals in this system) and join a Brigade there. If they do, I suppose, that army might re-arrange the assigned ranks, because the ranks are the responsibility of the highest command. The idea is that mass will travels only to the top, and then from there downward as hierarchy command (speed during war). If that battalion doesn't like it, maybe they will demobilize from that army and continue on their own, or find another army that won't do that, or ask that said army respects their previous choices. I suppose it isn't necessary to make a special symbol for the top command of some group that lacks higher officers, because that fact is no doubt known to that highest officer, and the lower ranks would have to do what the higher officer says one way or the other (and they too would almost certainly know what was going on, they appointed that commander themselves, after all). * As a special weapon for this war for us is the truth (economics, what a Constitution can be, etc), every army probably needs at least one specialist information/revolution/reform company. This is both a way to soften a target area its domestic population in their conduct toward us and the only way to ultimately secure a lasting victory for our objectives (peace and justice). I don't think you should attack your own army with it, as a propaganda story, which might be disrespectful to the soldiers, but when the army is in a state of relaxation it may be an idea to just train in the ways of a DAVID-239+ system. If soldiers don't want that at all, one may want to wonder what they are fighting for, because that is the whole purpose of the campaign. Under these conditions one would probably want to form all manner of councils. They could be involved in managing army business under loitering conditions (what better training conditions then reality?). * By the way, the Constitution calls for a different army discipline for non-war tasks. Though it may still be a war in General this would go some way of honoring that principle. You can fixate a peace with it. In case an army wants to dedicate itself to rebuilding or resque work as a non-war task, Generals should probably not demobilize too soon, I guess, until the war seems over, to be able to mount a quick and strategically sound reaction back to fighting. On an entire 100.000 army you'd only have some 30 Generals. If the Brigade Generals demobilized that dwindles to only about 5 or 10. I suppose one would demobilize the army from the lower ranks to the higher ranks, so the army could spring back into war quickly (one could even put a time table on that). These ways allow for a smooth adaptation into peaceful operations. Fully peaceful operations would then end up governed by the DAVID-239++ system of democracy (++ for any ammendments/changes made). * These armies can communicate with areas in which this constitutional Government is already working from the people at large, or some other form of Government they choose to recognize, to find out what the people in an area want (it is an army in service to the people.) It would be nice if it didn't have to come to this (armed warfare). But if it has to, LET'S REVEL IN THE OPPORTUNITY ! Let's lust after thorough training and suffering for the cause of justice, who will stand against us, except them that love Tyranny ? Who will dare stand between us and Justice ? Let them perish, but let the Earth remember the blood of our comrades who gave their lives for eternal happiness on Earth for all who survived, may they live forever in honor. Don't forget to train thoroughly: shooting, moving, recuperating, eating & drinking and getting it, supplies, equipment, repairing, explosives, artillery, group tactics, brigade tactics, army strategies. Don't let them trick you, we are 5 steps ahead of the enemy. If they are 5 steps ahead of us we are 10 steps ahead. Information is always critical: reconnaissance, disseminating false information without shooting your own foot with it, spying, knowing and understanding the enemy, knowing the weaknesses and chances the enemy has without falling for traps or pretences it throws up to catch us in ambush. We fight for a cause worth dying for, our enemies fight for nothing. How long can they last ? How long can their ranks remain deluded that we are the bad forces and they are good ones ? We may be able to penetrate the lie the enemy soldiers may be fighting for, win parts of the war by winning with the word rather then the sword. Don't the families of our enemy soldiers want peace and prosperity ? At the end if we win, we will all be brothers, all nations will be rebuild and become themselves and be sovereign with themselves. We will also need to produce all kinds of equipment, especially bullets, rifles and machine guns, depending on how it goes - what kind of war it would be - we also need heavy artillery, tanks, airplanes and so on; much of this will probably come from existing armies that will choose to fight for justice and prosperity, rather then die dishonored for the lost cause of Tyranny and war. Good luck, we will win because we are right, the people will understand that, support us more, and that is the essence of victory, which would ultimately be their victory. * Objective of the war: that they leave us alone. That we can do in our own nation what we want to do, without the fear of being run down by military might from elsewhere. This objective has been reached once we have won for the cause of democracy, peace and justice, in particular a D.A.V.I.D. system in whatever shape or form, a majority of the world and a majority of power in the world. It is not necessary to subjugate every town and every field and sea on Earth. But it will be good if the majority is absolute (70%), so that we do not have to dedicate so much to keeping the criminal enemies from attacking us. The objective is therefore: 70% of all nations, 70% of the highly industrialized and nuclear nations, to win them for a D.A.V.I.D. system, so that we can have some certainty they will not attack us. If they do not want a D.A.V.I.D. system, then we must defeat their military threat for the moment, retreat completely to our own nation and show these other nations why a D.A.V.I.D. system works. Perhaps they will reconsidder their position. If other nations are left in a state of chaos, we could help them install a DAVID-239+ system. It does not matter if they don't want it, because they can use its power distribution to immediately change it to what they do want. Nothing can stop that without breaking those laws, including our armies. May future generations smile on our efforts, and fault us for our mistakes. * As a matter of principle, if this becomes a war, we should leave between 10% and 15% of the world unconquered. To prove to others and ourselves and the future, that we are not tyrants hellbent on dominating everything. All we want is to do what is right in our own nation. * Capturing the enemy: if they surrender to us, we will take care (try to take care) of their vital needs such as food, wounded, shelter. They are not tortured, not beaten, they retain their rank structure as long as they agree to surrender peacefully. If they do try to escape they obviously would become non-surrendered enemy troops again. These things are part of the psychological attempt to gain their sympathy, have them, their nation, those they know and those that hear about our honorable conduct, to join our ranks and win the war quickly. If enemy soldiers want to join our front, they would obviously have to be watched closely, probably be part of more known loyal forces, and be put to work on unrelated parts of the war of possible to prevent mixing up on the battle field with the armies they previously where a part of. Persons captured torturing or abusing captured enemy troops are dismissed from the army and stripped of all rank and entered on a log that they will not fight with us ever again (it is not merely a matter of who is really guilty, it is also a matter of spreading fear for such a dishonor among the ranks and to sent a message across the battle lines to all nations.) After having been dismissed a proper civil investigation and trial will follow, punishment once proven guilty. Once we have won the war the enemy troops are released. At that point especially our conduct toward them starts to count for our political goals. If we treated them properly more of them will support our goals, resistance to it will be less, and there is less cause for future war. * Chapter 4 of proposed Constitution would apply, meaning our armies do not have anyone below the age of 25 in them, or even trained, that these armies can not even deploy without mass public support, etc. By these things the people will know us, know that we are the better ones, and by that we will win as well. The under-aged people will remain in the nation and become wiser, eventually we may get more out of them for everything then burning them up with little use at 22. In any case, between 16 to 25 remaining in the nation they could still be a potential reserve force of some kind that would scare an enemy into thinking again before invading. That people aren't in a State sanctioned Army doesn't have to mean they would welcome hostile invading forces with flowers. They are also a reserve force for a second resurgence after we have been overrun, maybe years later. Come to think of it: children up to 25 are well aged to make healthy babies, who in a decades long war are the future armies. What do these small children know about the world. Most of them won't know what they are fighting and dying for, how can that be good. Sat May 1 08:30:48 UTC 2010 Jos Boersema, Groningen. Hard Soldiers, not weak amateurs: -------------------------------- I like hardened soldiers who will fight long lasting horrific battles, seeing lifelong friends die around them, manning strongholds to the last possible moment and beyond, and that call their mobilization a great success if they die taking down two of the enemy, because at a rate of one life against two we are the superior fighting force that should win. For this purpose training will have to be tough, not tough by unfriendly treatment, but by long marches, dirt and extending physical endurance capability. Proficiency with a range of weapons, particularly projective weapons, and extensive special training in all disciplines required (signals, information, medical, explosives, engineers, food and supplies, manufacturing even, heavy artillery and improvised weapons.) I don't think a death culture, with skulls and the like, is a good idea. We fight for life, not for death. Things can be made harsh without having to become socially abusive, it should be possible to do all this in a good social atmosphere. I like this kind of soldiers because I like to win the war, who doesn't ? We win a lot quicker this way, and with fewer death, and our forces will be more of a deterrence and strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, making their knees tremble on the march, and their fingers tremble in their guns. Let's cut them down. Every soldier killing two of the enemy before being killed has been a great fighter for justice and made it worth to have him or her on our side. May our dead heroes rest in peace, knowing for what worthwhile cause they fought and died, smiling on the Earth they have left behind for future generations. Hardened soldiers, ruthless almost suicidal killing machines when they need to (as long as the cause is worth it at least). It makes a lot of difference whether soldiers are weak or whether they are hard, brave and willing to risk their life and health. We don't win a war with weakness, and neither with endless debates. Orders will have to be orders at some point, no matter the risk, or we may all die defeated in the end anyway. A weak army is almost as good as none at all. Better 3 strong and hard Divisions then 3 weak armies, I guess. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Choosing your rank ;) : S0: The person thinking about joining the army, thinks about the possible hardships ahead, tests himself whether he really wants that, and thinks about whether he or she really could kill someone else and for what. Is it worth it ? Even if the enemy soldier is fighting with a gun to his back from the enemy officer corps ? A friend really, but trapped in a bad place, not having had the guts to rise up as a people to their tyrants ? Other enemy soldiers may be worse then that, but if these thoughts are followed into non-fighting at the battle front, then that's not very good for winning a bloody war is it. Then better stay at home, no doubt there are uses for anyone there. S2/1: The soldier carries out the dirty business of war, killing, getting starved by enemy tactics trying to survive through mud and blood. The soldier ultimately wins the war, the rest is support staff helping him achieve that. C: The corporal is really another soldier, fighting along. They should be the better soldiers. The have an understanding of the immediate fire, weapons threats, coming their way at that moment, and help call and wave their immediate fellow soldiers to cover and advantageous positions, and then storms the enemy himself in the front line. S: The sergeant is like the master soldier, he is the best of the soldiers, does everything the corporal does, but even better. He also keeps an eye out for his group of 10 that they don't get encircled from behind, that there are lines of retreat back to the friendly lines and supplies, however to accomplish such a retreat immediately, carrying the wounded. L: The Lieutenant is a head soldier over on average 3 groups with 3 sergeants. This officer is the first rank to really deal with enemy positions and how the enemy might move around to new fighting-strategic positions or exploit vulnerabilities of that 3 groups x 10 soldiers 'platoon'. He is capable of moving these several sergeant groups around, calls off a strike to immediately run for 15 minutes to a completely different position and attack an enemy group from the sides or rear, or whatever an objective may be. The Lieutenant needs for this to look further then the immediate enemy fire, while also taking that into account, to how it develops or can develop in the next several minutes. He or she needs to understand enemy tactics and thinking. His adversary is in a real sense not the enemy bullet coming his way, but the enemy lieutenant outflanking his position. The lieutenant is therefore needing to be more calm and collected, and for that reason tends to be at the rear of his platoon to try to assess the situation, only firing where that is necessary or beneficial. It would not be too good for a platoon to loose a capable lieutenant, unless things are simple enough. When shooting and fighting like hell, who can keep an eye on the flank an the rear ? Then what if the enemy sneaks up from behind ? The lieutenant is there to foil such enemy tactics by his command. You could say that while the eyes to see enemy fire is the primary sense of the lower ranks, the ears to hear information about enemy movements (and an understanding of the immediate terrain) is the primary sense of a Lieutenant. Therefore he/she is an officer, I guess, but we need that. Cptn: The Captain oversees several Lieutenants and their about 3 x 10 sergeant groups, 80-250 persons in this system, typically a little above 100 probably (depending on what the higher ranks want for the situation). The Captain does what the lieutenant does for his 30 soldiers, but for the platoons under his command. The Captain is also involved a lot in organizing non-combat tasks, like setting up camps and making sure it happens the right way. Not necessarily directing how to set up each tent, but that the whole camp is in a good spot. The Captain makes sure that his platoons, his company that is, remain integrated in the army when fighting. The captain must know all the time what is happening with his company, during battle how it is integrated with the rest of the forces. The captain gives more strategic orders to his company about where to deploy the force, when to retreat, many things that would be thoroughly beyond the direct situational knowledge of whomever is warring at the front, or keeping an eye on not being outflanked by a few enemy soldiers. The Lieutenant doesn't necessarily know how many enemy soldiers are behind those he is fighting, but the captain should (if at all possible). The larger marches and movements, but also the need to eat and rest and keep morale high, things that are part of the greater strategy that make no sense without knowing the overall purposes of deployment of army units, that is what the captain is doing. The captain pulls out a company, then brings it tens of kilometers or hundreds to somewhere else, and then engage there in similar combat. Makes no sense from a dirt & gravel perspective, but on the whole it should (the higher ranks). One day a bridge is saved, another the same bridge destroyed, and the third rebuild. The captain oversees such objectives on the company level. Colonel: The colonel achieves a specific task in whole for a brigade, for that reason oversees several companies with their captains to form one batallion. While the brigade may need an encampment and to rest along side a stretch of river including a bridge, the colonel watches the maps and determines how best to lay the encampment in a strategic overall location, for example defensive on hills, or perhaps on the side of retreat or rather offense side of the bridge in case it is taken out. After ordering the captains to this end, the Colonel might attempt to ascertain larger enemy movements, and report to the brigade General for what to do and achieve over the next few weeks, telling the General what overall state the batallion is in for example. Brigadier: The brigade general is overseeing a 5000 persons, a hand full of batallions and maybe special support groups. The brigade general wants to know the objective of the deployment of that force, and attempts to secure it. The Brigade General must constantly be knowledgeable about the state of his brigade, equipment, what it can and what it can't do. He is responsible for his brigade. He must be man enough to be able to decide when to surrender, how to capture and detain enemy soldiers, how to soften up the enemy for a great assault and how long that would roughly take. How many men probably would die in a certain strategy/tactic. How to deploy specialist forces to greatly help the main force. The brigade general is therefore ideally a man of experience, he can ideally lead a group all the way to the wilderness. The brigade general carries on fighting without a twitch, even when the men left and right of him are killed. The brigade general does not constantly need to lean on advice for how to fight with his brigade (unless there are no better BG to be found.) While the sergeant says 'we will win without a doubt,' the BG thinks 'we can win so and so, if this and that, but if such and so we could lose because of this and that.' If the BG can do that he is a great BG. I guess these things can be learned. Division General, Sergeant General. This is a rank of great strategies. The LG must have a close understanding of the power of the brigades, their equipment, and how to best employ that for a certain purpose. The time frame for the LG strategies could be weeks, month, even years ahead of time. This means the LG is looking at strategic spots on the map that are important forever, like mountain passes. The LG bussies himself not only with getting supplies, but how they are manufactured and how that entire line can be protected to his division (although that is also a great concern for the higher ranks). Corps General, Lieutenant General. The Corps General, Lieutenant General, guides divisions to achieve the aims of the entire army, they guard the edges of the Divisions like the Division General guards the edges of the brigades (in the strategic sense). GENERAL, Army General, Captain General (the 'real' General). The captain general is overseeing a significant battle force, of a size large enough that it could enter the history books one day. These forces in a very large battle field perform entire key parts of greater strategies, like attacking a very large enemy stronghold in a multi million person city from one side, while another comes around from the rear. They man an entire stretch of a grand defensive line, behind which is unprotected controlled territory. If an army fails, a war may be set back years, it would be a setback with the potential to impact the entire war. The Army general is also aware of the strength of his army, of course, but the small details of which are for the lower ranks. If the strength weakens too much, perhaps battles are lost, the Army General could decide to call out to other armies. Loss of life under the Army General his command is an ongoing reality, every day in battle people could die, the group is very large. The CG at times may need to put entire brigades at great risk, in order to prevent annihilation of yet more brigades in the future. In this system the Captain General is the senior commander of an army, and may have a loyalty to the house command of that army, or another Government, potentially one pointed to by the house command. In many ways this makes the CG the ultimate military master of the army and armed forces, at the behest and ultimate control of who appointed that position. Above army ranks: These are individuals who is much of the time, if not always, thinking about the military strategies, to outflank entire nations, to pull the rug from under entire industrial systems of Continents, or at least nations. Ideally these top generals knows quite a bit about military history, including non-uniformed combat such as guerilla, city war and civil war, and is capable of envisioning what new strategic weapons systems could do to an entire war. It should not be assumed the battle ahead would neatly fall into the category of conventional or WW1 and WW2 type war. Anything is possible. We might want to keep in mind that never in history has a war been fought where a single what effectively is a large 'arrow' could wipe out an entire assembled army, and make its former position a death trap (nuclear bombs). There arguibly hasn't been a real war since the end of WW2. There are many possibilities what this is going to do. But even if this war will get fought by strategic weapons causing so much devastation that no soul still wants to fight, we may still do well to organize as an army for the sake of dedicated effort in disaster relief and quick rebuilding. One thing that these massive weapons are likely to cause is organizational chaos, markets and Governments are probably going to be impacted greatly if the hit is bad enough. These ranks find such a thought almost enjoying for the challenge it poses. The MG, CG and GG, in this system is capable of arguing his position to others objectively (most notably the Captain Generals), to be good at grand military strategy, not to be too optimistic but know the general limitations of armies. This is true for all these above army ranks. Because these above army ranks talk to the Captain Generals, they will need to be able to have the respect of these Captain Generals, or they would lose their command there. These ranks are also appointed by the armies, which is probably going to lead to the best Army Generals to be promoted to these positions, ensuring a qualified strategic command that is aware of reality, the risks and vulnerabilities. Major General. Since the MG is the lowest of these MSC ranks, he also has a familiarity with the makeup of the armies, their particular peculiarities. Colonel General. This is a rank so high that battle strategies become like a science. Being a science, perhaps scientists or military strategists with enough common sense might actually qualify or have an advisory role here. I guess that since the armies can appoint these ranks, they can also appoint further advisors to these ranks if they think that is useful. Some things can get quite technical, it might be useful to have non-rank scientific specialists advising the high strategic command (which they of course could ask for by themselves also, and probably should/would). Some more risk here of penetration of secrecy though, obviously. Thus it's probably better all done very official and so on, well vetted. General General, Campaign General This is a level that loops all the way around the entire war, to land back at the non-rank level with the question: what do the people want ? How will history perceive our actions ? How much human death can this Continent sustain, what have we achieved and is it enough, are our energies not better spend on rebuilding the captured territory instead ? Do we want to strangle half a country with a decades long military chokehold, march in blazing, or cut the enemy territory in half and isolate them as two pockets for the next 5, until they give up. How can the people of these nations be reached, can we win them for the cause of their own democracy ? Wouldn't that win the battle the easy way, does that require dessiminating propaganda into areas, and so on. How long does it take for a people to understand (about 2 month?), and to decide (8 month?). These three ranks are all on these subjects, even the Captain Generals are (the Sergeant Generals perhaps not so much, since as a Division they have a certain Division role to complete for the greater Army.) The difference between these ranks would more like being a recognition of achievement and honor, where perhaps the Campaign General is simply one of the best in this class. This is also reflected in that the MSC is like a house, a house of strategic command. More rank discipline might occur between these above army ranks when for example it has a near full complement of armies (64 (!)), meaning that there are 16 Major Generals. However it should still be quite easily possible to discuss major strategies with the entire MSC purely on objective argument, whatever the ranks. In case of doubt then, the appointment of someone to higher above army ranks is a vote by the constituting armies to follow that lead above another, and to leave the ultimate decision to the highest ranking officer. It is, after all, good military practice to be able to make a quick decision, which requires there being one commanding officer at all times. ("Campaign General" where 'the campaign' is the entire cycle from mobilization to de-mobilization after securing and solidifying the overall victory, because "general general" sounds a little weird and might cause misunderstandings.) When an army or MSC doesn't have certain ranks, other ranks would have to take over necessary tasks. If an army doesn't recognize any MSC, that Captain General would on occasion have to take stock of the entire campaign if possible. This means that by definition every army has a Major General, Colonel General and Campaign General. If they are not actual people (an MSC) they are all in theory united in the Captain General. Given the above one should probably say that the ranks 'above' Lieutenant General are not really personally held ranks, but appointments to a task that have that rank associated with them mostly due to the size nature of what they are responsible for together with the CGs. The Captain General is like an appointment by the house command or some Government to that task for a certain set of reasons which may or may not have to do with the overall competence of the figure. Perhaps for differences of opinion another CG is chosen, then the former CG would presumably have to step away from that CG rank, but it isn't a demotion. [Section removed for fear of the 'elaborate uniforms will lose the war' rule :-)) I can definitely see that happening, the top brass being pre-occupied with how many medals everyone has, instead of winning trust and honor where it counts: by winning the war - maybe that goes for all ranks (?).] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-combat ranks, special ranks, honorary ranks, administrative ranks ... Such special and non-combatant ranks, if an army want/needs them, could follow the same rank structure, but in a darker reddish color. This makes the rank symbol probably harder to see, signifying the meek nature and the fact that extreme speed & clarity as in battle are not required. I don't know if a need for such positions would develop, and when one would consider something a non-combat role. However I suppose it might serve certain roles to have all other ranks have rank discipline toward a certain official, without that person necessarily having any skill whatsoever to lead a similar sized unit in combat. This system allows an escape route so such 'promoted' ranks do not have to be promoted to a real combat rank. I suppose one could call these ranks to be 3rd class, and they are more appointments to a task requiring that rank then a true rank of that person. This makes it easy to appoint someone to a high 3rd class rank, have them perform a task with a high authority and access, and then take that rank away again. (This leads to the spurious possibility of having a one stripe and two striped 3rd class soldier, one red or two red stripes: use undefined. There is no 'new/learning' ("4th class") defined for non-combat tasks, so if you want that you have to make it (simply a tag "4th class" on the chest, so as not to waste colors, it is not combat anyway ?).) Maybe an example can be a militarized production factory, where floor managers are having 3rd class ranks of sergeant (??), or perhaps an administrative function for a medical battalion, a medical specialist / surgeon, having a 3rd class rank of major (??). Such a major or sergeant one would not likely put at the front commanding a group or battalion. But it might be convenient if they can order lower ranks around for some task, surgery unit here, supply soldiers moving stuff there, and so on. This would make it clearer on the real combat ranks what is expected, maintains clarity therefore organization/speed. (This may lead to the situation of dual 1st or 2nd class and some higher 3rd class task-rank. I suppose in that case the secondary rank could be worn on the chest in its class color. Military police ? These could easily have soldier combat ranks, but be given sergeant 3rd class ranks for the MP task (??), or some other rank that works.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rank to rank level of detail in given orders and taking responsibilities: Every rank should have the freedom of movement that belongs to its class of activities, so that it can learn from experience and become better. The higher rank should not steer every single move of the one below him/her, but leave a room of play at least to the degree that if done better or worse it won't dramatically impact its own class of responsibilities. On the other extreme of how tightly rank controls rank would be the idea that a lower rank can do whatever they please and only ask the higher ranks for advice when they want it. If competence of the lower rank is sufficient then I suppose that is not a problem, but if too many thing would go wrong that it would impact wider goals under the higher rank their supervision then that would require a more direct command. One would obviously have to judge each situation on its merits, but by commanding every single issue the risk is high that the lower ranks will not learn much or anything, that could greatly impact fighting ability later on. By doing this the right way the army will probably grow in experience and confidence on all ranks. Each rank has their own special class of things to learn and to get good at. If a camp has to be made, it may be better if it is near a river, but say it will only cause a bit more walking to and fro if the camp is a little further away, as long as that isn't an hour walking. Then say the major thinks the camp best be put on the river bank, but so can the captains notice this. Then for example the major leaves the issue to the captains, and if it is not perfect the captain could learn. The mistake buys a more competent captain, which later on may prove essential. If need be the major could confront the captain on the issue later if the captain doesn't even notice the suboptimal camp placement (or maybe the major overlooked an issue or judged it differently). If nothing is learned from what someone might think is a mistake (which can also go from the lower to the higher rank in theory), that would be a loss in gaining proficiency, hence it would pay to discuss things that happened after the fact in order to attempt to learn as much from them as possible. Mistakes are valuable investments in proficiency for the future, but not if it is all ignored and forgotten. In that sense someone who has made a mistake has become more valuable then someone who hasn't, if they learned not to make that mistake again. When someone makes the same mistakes several times then maybe that person needs to be demoted, though. Giving people a chance to make mistakes and learn increases their belief in themselves, good for army morale (up to a point). Not writing people off forever, even after a demotion, is also good for morale. The path of promotion should always be open to all, on merit (not cronyism, cronyism is bad for army morale). It is not good for someone who has been demoted to believe they are stuck, they might get unhappy. If a demotion was for a mistake, maybe they can correct that problem while being demoted, that gives them hope and therefore fighting will. A demotion is also the mistake of the officers or institution who promoted the candidate prematurely. When someone is demoted they should be told what they should learn to become proficient in the rank they are demoted from. This makes a demotion into an objective challenge and admirance for the coveted rank (rather then the piss in the face that it might otherwise feel like). Every rank has their unique role & responsibility, a good soldier isn't necessarily a good general and vice versa, so in that sense it is not higher/lower but also /different/. Isn't ducking for cover and then placing a shot and throwing a couple of hand grenades a somewhat different sector of activities then peering over maps with enemy positions ? The understanding of a soldier task is needed for the General, but saying something like "a good soldier can do this and that" and envisioning them doing it is not the same thing as doing it yourself. Someone may be a great soldier, finest in the army, backbone of the ultimate victory, and still a bad lieutenant, while an excellent Colonel might make a disastrous corporal, and a brilliant sea forces brigadier-general could make a bad land-forces brigadier-general too. So let's not fall into the trap of thinking that a higher rank is a superior human being, because it's not so, not attribute all glory to the highest rank. Soldiers shouldn't feel bad they have what some call the lowest rank, since soldier is also a task description. On the other hand it is good for the understanding of the generals to have seen training and action on as many other ranks as possible, good for understanding these tasks, and it is good for army morale. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary rank tasks: The soldier sits behind a wall watching the bullets rain around him, waiting for a moment to kill or wound enemy soldiers by firing at them. The corporal sits along side several soldiers behind that wall and keeps an eye on that they don't all have to reload at the same moment. The sergeant has looked at the ruined city road ahead and sees how they could use a series of buildings as cover to advance, taps the corporal on the shoulder pointing to the route. The lieutenant has heard how far they should advance in that direction, and says to the other way left back to the sergeant who is pointing the way forward, ordering one group to retreat first so they can lay cover fire for the other group to retreat. The captain is told to secure a road that leads into this town, noting an enemy attack through the back-streets from the north he calls down that lieutenant its platoon to enforce their hold on it while troops and equipment drive into the city on that road. The major is told to establish a beachhead in that city fighting house to house, knowing there is probably one enemy brigade in the city. The Colonel knows that the surrounding area around the city is being taken at speed, encircling the city, proceeding to cut the city off from enemy supplies, and knowing they are marching forward in strength probably with overwhelming forces, saying to the major to enter the city and organizing more units to back that up and fight in. The Brigade General knows the territory in question is along side a river, where a string of medium to small cities and villages should be taken because the enemy is coming up to that river in great numbers. He is supposed to take and hold a part of that stretch as quickly as possible. The Division General oversees the offensive with a defensive objective to hold that stretch, employing informants along a series of valleys to the south from where an enemy brigade or division could mount a strike on their direction of movement from the flank, encircling the committed forces, cutting off further supplies, with a prospect of having them crushed between the enemy armies coming toward said river and slaughtered to surrender. The Division General commits one brigade to lay a defensive position in that valley, pulling that from the northern most stretch, in the hope that the brigade could slow a march through those valleys by the enemy enough for re-enforcements to bolt it shut. He points out what he did to the Corps general, who agrees and keeps an eye on all greater enemy movements in the area, seeing how he could still manage to commit forces to the most northern part now under-manned, how many men to put here or there, keeping tabs on how the battle is going exactly. The Army general believes he could either hold the territory that he is now attempting to take with 3 Divisions, or retreat in whole to the north/west where other friendly armies are located. The Army general who was holding one Division in reserve to take lightly defended country about 40-30 km behind the string of cities, deployed as an line in-depth and to rest that Division, tells that Division General keep one brigade ready to strengthen the northern most objective of the southern most Division taking part in the assault, where a possible weakness might occur due to underemployement of forces relative to earlier made estimates. He tells the Corps General of the assaulting Corps he could temporarily call upon one additional brigade rapidly from that other Division, for the assault itself, more if needed but it would take some more time. The Corps General thinks the reserve Division should come in regardless after 7 more days and the Army General agrees and orders it. Two more Cores or still trailing behind further and have to arrive in the area, which their Corps Generals are working on already. This would be roughly the roles, I guess, during a WW2 type conventional war. Since technology has changed the Generals have to take into account what kind of strategic weapons the enemy has, whether the enemy has nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, what would happen if these where committed, what weather conditions are (chemical, biological), how to protect their soldiers and other equipment from these extreme weapons. The MSC could have created a comprehensive battle plan for the area, the Major General believes they can hold the wider area, thinks about moving another army north that is located much further south, to threaten the enemy army with another cut-off in case they broke the line that the Division General also worried about and committed a brigade to. He notifies the Army General that one of the more northern armies could come south to prevent the troops committed to take the line of cities to get cut off if the enemy passes with a division through mentioned valley, linking up with it and providing it a means of safe retreat if need be. That a more southern army has already been ordered to leave a relatively non-strategic area to move north rapidly. If Captain General agrees they could lay a trap, and crush an enemy Division if has moved through said valley. The army captain agrees, ordering the brigade general in the valley to only engage in a light defense while retreating, to give the enemy the idea they are conquering territory, pulling them into the ambush. The Colonel General takes note of the wide spaces on all sides, employing informants along shores to attempt to ascertain whether the enemy wants to land entire armies at his rear, taking out entire armies of the fight to rest. The General General takes note of the total amount of supplies and will to fight of the entire enemy forces, estimates that if the war goes on long enough they will easily win it, and argues with the other Generals of the MSC that all that we need to do is hold on and hold out laying moderate pressure on the enemy, as long as they can prevent the enemy to recuperate too much and to dig in too much over very large territories that might allow them to recuperate and rebuild over a period of a year or several years. He orders the production of masses upon masses of submachine guns, light mortars, helmets and body armor vests, to be handed out to militia fighters from the people who do not want to form a proper army but fight for the cause wherever they can, trying to mobilize more complete armies from wherever in the world people can be found. Victory will be ours. Then the enemy attacked with biological weapons, the enemy media telling their people that we had some accident trying to attack their people with weapons we don't even have, several tactical nuclear bombs explode along the river in two cities we had finally captured. The information companies of all armies work overtime to win the war of words. Slowly the opinion of the world turns (more) to our favor, riots break out against the military repression that our enemies lay down on their own territory. Through truth we will win this war. Eventually, having sustained massive trauma, our enemies are confronted with a sudden and unexpected peoples revolution ... the people want a D.A.V.I.D. system ! A whole nation falls into our hands, their conventional army is purged of hostile officers (who are retired but not killed), in another nation gut-wrenching civil war between the people and repressive groups goes on; can that area already be taken, should an Army group march through hostile nations to get to it ? The MSC, talking to other nearby MSC's, decides they don't have the resources for it, signalling the revolutionaries that they can not assist yet. But the nation that did have a successful revolution feels they want to contribute to the war on the good side now, almost to the man the people rise up to help the revolution in their neighboring nation. The enemy repressive groups retreat from the sudden assault and melt into the enemy army front ... all out war has broken out between the revolutionary nation being located in wider enemy held territories. ... War isn't very pretty, but war is better then slavery. If you can stomach all that, maybe you could be part of these armies. Mistakes in war are likely to occur on our side, as they are likely to occur on the side of the enemy. Diseases and nuclear force are weapons we can probably not deploy, because we are a peoples army and our objective is to establish justice and peace for all peoples in their own nations, fully sovereign. That doesn't work anymore if you've decimated a population using diseases which can spread in ways that are hard to predict, or caused a nuclear trauma that they would remember for millenia to come. Our force will have to be directed more precisely at a fighting enemy. Because this is ultimately a political war, a war about what set of laws will rule nations, it is not unlikely that in this war the sides of good and bad will combine with each other in ways not seen in all wars before. The old wars often where between nations, both of whom where comprised of good and bad men. It may be true that one nation at a time was ruled by evil men, while another by better men, but the strength of both armies typically came from the people in entire nations. It may be that this happens again, especially in nations that have few civil liberties allowing a ruling class to force the better men to fight a war they do not want to fight. However it is possible that throughout the better people will join the campaign for Justice and Peace for all nations, and bad and very bad people will combine to fight these obviously honorable aims. They will fear the laws of justice and peace, knowing that they will work and leave them few criminal proceeds, that these laws will crush them. It is not unlikely that the enemy armies will comprise the most evil people in the world, and that therefore they will not shrink back from using any weapons, and they may not take prisoners of war, they would attempt to use our goodness against us, to lay traps using innocent people and they might simply nuke entire cities to retaliate a battle victory from our side. They may not bother about mass public opinion to turn against them at some point, eventually that would be a lost cause for them anyway (probably). At the beginning they will attempt to appear the moral force (that would be typical). We may need to attack nations and crush their military force if they are severely deluded by their ruling classes without being really against us. The first offensive against such a nation would always be a prolonged truth campaign. But if such a nation does not want to listen to the truth, and they do take part in a wider front that is already fighting us, at some point we might be forced per our ultimate objective to crush that army as well. But it would be nice if they first cross their own border to attack us, to first substantially contribute to our enemy. If they don't do that it is better to leave them alone and not make them more enemies then they already are, which in the end could threaten our campaign objective more. If an enemy army isn't really 'evil,' we have to take accurate note of their aims and composition to determine whether these are really enemies or friends, even if they say they do not want a DAVID system. We could compare their aims with our ultimate aim in this compaign (which is: that they leave us alone military, so that we can do right in our own nation.) As long as they will be peaceful on our national border, there are a million ways to still win them for a true set of laws later, for example by proving it works by living it later. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit composition: I would like to have said: I think no pestering in the armies. If people want to pester, let them pick on someone like their own, 1 against 1 or 5 against 5, not 50 against 1, that is weak and disgusting. I do not believe in mixing people who are different together, not for something like a tense project like this anyway. Put people who are similar in the same section, same group, platoon, they will feel better and work better together. Platoon should probably be high enough for this, platoons of different kinds may complement each other in the war, making companies mixed units again. It would be very nice if lieutenants prevented pestering and social exclusion in the ranks. We are an army of brothers and sisters. This is not a religious war, where we are going to cull the oposing viewpoint. Religious differences of all kinds are for a fair debate behind a cup of tea, the right to have that cup of tea is what we are fighting for, for all people. The Captain General structures his army as he sees fit, including changing things mentioned here, making new ranks or removing ranks where needed, or keeping to another system of organization, and so on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other uses of the Army ---------------------- It seems rather obvious that this organization could be brought out when society is in a state of chaos, to march the neighborhoods, cities and streets by and on behalf of the general population, so as to repress in particular gangs (organized street criminals, who are effectively small hostile armies). For such a goal it could be adapted to a police role with more of a police training (serve, assist, arrest without killing, gathering evidence and testimony, and so on), or one part could be police training and another could be military training, depending on the mix of threats. The Constitution mentions both a police and army force, the army is only not supposed to police (repress) the majority (that is, against majority will). The police is also policing the whole population in a sense, hence it is not meant that the army couldn't lay down order only that this could not be done against (or without explicit) majority agreement. Hence the army could engage in police roles, keep order in the street, walk around the block as an organized militia. When there is chaos in society it seems like a really good idea to organize this militia, to bring back general order in society because an army is ordered, to suppress chaos and crime on the streets, and to use it as one of the means to bring out an organized state democracy (DAVID-239+ system) if that is generally desired. By having both an about equally strength police and army force, both with the same organization as for this army but with different training and /separate/ organizations, both systems can keep each other in balance, both reporting to the people (to the people their DAVID-239 councils in this system, ideally.) A local people's army build around this system is most likely to be welcomed by ordinary working people when there is chaos, because it has the potential to bring back ordered society with the People at the helm, the chance that this army will become the problem seems small, and the hierarchical order of the army means it is likely to integrate itself easily up to a national scale. A local village major is likely and naturally integrated into the Sergeant General forces of a nearby city. Even if not integrated as a subordinate unit, it could be in a case of emergency, and it would provide an obvious communication channel between nearby villages and places through their (ranking or equivalent) officers. In case of chaos the 10% mobilization could be used, organizing 5% as police and 5% as Army, then adapting these numbers depending on the needs of the situation, or even everyone who is willing because when there is chaos there is fear and panic and therefore many people may want to join into these organizations for lack of having something better to do, but also to be part of what is likely to become strongholds of power. It is in the interest of the people that these power strongholds are populated by the people in general, the easiest way to achieve that is to have many people in them rather then few. Hence nobody would be turned away from joining these organizations, particularly not the army. Better too much too soon, then too little too late, the excess training/capability can be called out in case of emergencies. These things will greatly scare the enemies of the people on all levels, they will not even dare. I'm afraid that lacking fire arms the obvious next choice is bow and arrow, improvised swords and clubs, shields and speers. Don't underestimate the bow and arrow, it is a fearsome weapon, arrows are heavier then bullets and will therefore penetrate at slower speeds. If we don't have fire arms, our enemy may have the same problems. If they have fire arms, we too should be able to get them. If they don't have fire arms we should still get them, even try to manufacture them in the area. If the system works, maybe one day the Earth will forget crime even existed, until then it would be foolish not to defend ourselves. Weapons confiscated from criminals can be put to good use in the army and police. Chaos can also result in an absolute democracy from the (working) people themselves. If that does occur it is most likely due to petty squabbles about really nothing, posturing, job hunting, someone has called someone else an idiot behind their back and so on and so forth. Because the DAVID-239+ system is an absolute democracy, it will bring out the will of the people one way or the other: calm and collected debate, or mayhem and tantrum alike. If the people are generally in a state of mayhem, gossip and slander, then I guess that is what the State Government will be as well. The army and police (per the above) are however a strictly ordered force, battalions and platoons and their officers. They can be another back-up which can maintain general order if the DAVID-239 council system effectively breaks down (again) from mass mayhem and backstabbing from the regular people. These Armies and Police organizations simply maintain the street level order, while the people regret the results of their chaotic and disunited activities, because with the State Sovereignty in chaos it is unlikely that society in general would do well. Having so regretted, or whatever happens, either a DAVID-239 system is tried again, with adaptations, or another system must be had that involves the people at large less (sacrificing as little democracy as possible). In case society truly fractions into large opposing sides, the best way forward may again be a fractions party democracy, because it is a non-violent way to resolve deep conflicts between large sectors of society (multi-party democracy, like is common in the west now.) (Note that people who want to destroy the council system may attempt to disrupt it, and actively try to vote the worst assholes to power.) The army and police in this system also have a centralized council system. That model is also an interesting and adaptable choice to have a more centralized and therefore less general population dominated Government. The way to use it for the State is simply to cut out all the 1st order councils, only working with the 2nd order councils. This will insulate the state process greatly from the People, without the people losing the possibility to influence it. The more centralized form without 1st order councils causes the media to have more power, projecting the more central debate out and influencing it, which doesn't have to go wrong (because private capital doesn't control the media in this system, or less so then in the current system.) To be honest this may be the simplest first choice after a full DAVID-239+ system is failing from people' general mayhem and incompetence. The benefit is that it quickly can be made into a full DAVID-239 system, only thing needed is to have the 1st order councils. An intermediate form is that the 1st order councils become advisory organs (a trick to cut down strife between delegates: vote people who don't want to be delegates (and who are not lying about that) into power, pressure them a little to accept the job for the sake of the greater good.) See further: http://www.socialism.nl/post/003/2010-05-06_DA---_--_en (Centralized Democracy) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Links: See also: http://www.socialism.nl/sheet5.txt (main points) http://www.socialism.nl/post/003/2010-04-27_D----_R-_en (Pre-existing officers enrolling.) http://www.socialism.nl/post/003/2010-04-30_D----_--_en (Some blabla on the art of secrecy.) http://www.socialism.nl/post/002/107-rank-example.jpg http://www.socialism.nl/post/003/2010-05-04_D----_Rw_en2 (Distributed weapons manufacture, ...) http://www.socialism.nl/post/003/2010-05-04_Da---_Rw_en (Example mobilization story.) http://www.socialism.nl/post/003/2010-05-04_David_Rw_en (Why it will work after a war.) http://www.socialism.nl/post/003/2010-05-12_Da---_Rw_en (Line in the sand.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On this labor day, the first of may, a white tent appeared yesterday. It stands besides my home, if I reached out from my balcony I could touch it. Believe me or believe me not, but it is true, I'm no liar. It is a tent for 50 persons. The people right now - i hear them playing music - are roasting on a fire, something to eat, I saw it myself. They did not fight with each other all day long, and their children laughed, although their clothes where rough. What more does it take ? Intelligence and an interest in the public good ? Mistakes can teach you that, if you are allowed to make them. (This is not fictional, nothing here is meant to be fictional or fictional anyway. This white tent has 5 plastic windows each divided into 9 squares with sligthly rounded top sides on each long side. Research it and you should be able to prove it is happening, drive by to confirm it right now if you like.) THIS IS VIRTUALLY ALL THAT IT TAKES !!! Do you get that ? It is all that it takes, and it is all that it is (more or less). If you can do that, and who can't do that ? - you probably can do a DAVID-239+ system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Corrections:]] Soldier 3rd class combat -->> unranked, 0 class. Soldier 3rd class for new/testing became unranked soldier / zero-class, to avoid conflict with red non-combat '3rd class' (with 'purple brigades' soldiers non-combat 3rd class.)