Chapter 10: Principles as Natural Law

Et bellum suas leges — even war has its laws.^10.1

Geffrey Whitney recorded those words in 1586 on one of his emblems. They are the hinge of the entire book. Because if Whitney is right — if war, that most chaotic of human activities, is governed by laws — then those laws demand an explanation. And if those laws are not conventions drafted by committees and enforced by treaties, but natural, immutable principles woven into the fabric of creation itself, then they demand a Lawgiver.

I take Whitney not to mean conventions, as we refer to the "rules of war" today — Geneva, Hague, the law of armed conflict. Those are human agreements, valuable and breakable. I mean something different. I mean natural and immutable laws which, having been established by our Creator, cannot be contravened, no matter how much we may wish to do so. These I call principles.^10.30

Discovered, Not Invented

Principles are the unchanging laws that dictate the metaphysical and physical universe. They exist as created and controlled by God. We do not invent these. We discover these.

This is the theological anchor of the entire book. Just as gravity does not require belief to operate, the principles of combat do not require acknowledgment to govern conflict. They function whether the combatant understands them or not. The man who ignores the principle of initiative does not thereby escape its consequences. He merely suffers them in ignorance.

The heavens declare this order:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.^10.2

And Paul drives the point to its conclusion:

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.^10.3

The order of combat is among "the things that have been made." Its laws are part of general revelation — the voice that goes out through all the earth, declaring the character and design of the Creator.

A critical distinction must be made here. God did not create conflict. Conflict is the product of rebellion — a creature's will set against the Creator's, as we established in Chapter 3. But God did create the ordered universe in which conflict, once it arose, operates according to discoverable laws. The principles of combat are not the principles of evil. They are features of the created order — the same order that governs gravity, leverage, and the propagation of light. A physician does not study the laws of biology because God created disease. He studies them because God created biology, and disease operates within that biology according to laws the physician can discover and exploit for healing. In the same way, the student of conflict does not study these principles because God willed war. He studies them because God created an ordered reality, and conflict — uninvited, rebellious, parasitic — operates within that reality according to laws the combatant can discover and apply in God's service.

When Sun Tzu observed that all warfare is based on deception, he was not inventing a principle. He was discovering one. When Clausewitz observed that friction makes the simple extraordinarily difficult, he was not creating a condition. He was describing a feature of reality that existed before he was born and will exist after his name is forgotten.

J.F.C. Fuller, the closest any modern military theorist has come to treating warfare as a discoverable science, recognized this: "Truth always exists either openly or hidden."^10.4 And: "They discovered truths, not necessarily absolute, but sufficiently general to enable thousands of artists — artificers of truth — to make use of them and apply them in a million ways."^10.5 Fuller is describing the work of every great strategist in history: not the creation of principles but their extraction from the raw material of experience. The principles were always there. The strategist merely learned to see them.

Bruce Lee arrived at the same conclusion from the domain of individual combat: "The way of combat is not based on personal choice and fancies."^10.6 Combat has laws that do not care what you prefer. Your style, your tradition, your teacher's opinions — these are irrelevant to the laws that govern force, leverage, timing, and initiative. "If there is any secret," Lee wrote, "it is missed by seeking."^10.7 The secrets are the basics. They are overlooked precisely because they are basic. The fighter who masters the simple things discovers that nothing else is needed.

The American pragmatist tradition — William James, John Dewey — denies that any of this is possible.^10.8 For the pragmatist, "truth" is what works in a given situation. Principles are merely generalizations from past experience — useful heuristics, not natural laws. What works in one war may not work in another, and the search for immutable principles is a category error.

The pragmatist observation that principles must be applied contextually is correct and uncontroversial. That is what tactics and strategies are for. But the pragmatist leap — from "application is contextual" to "the underlying law is contextual" — collapses under the weight of historical evidence. Liddell Hart's inductive method specifically addressed this: "If similar effects follow fundamentally similar moves, in conditions which vary widely in nature, scale, and date, there is clearly an underlying connection from which we can logically deduce a common cause."^10.9

When the same effects follow the same moves across the Bronze Age and the Information Age, across Greek phalanxes and Marine fire teams, across Sun Tzu and Schwarzkopf, the cause is not contextual. It is structural. It is built into reality. And it was put there by someone.^10.31

Alan Stephens and Nicola Baker, writing from within secular strategic studies, confirm the convergence without intending to. Their Making Sense of War treats strategy as the alignment of ends, ways, and means — the bridge between political objectives and military action.^10.32 They arrive at many of the same structural insights this book identifies: conflict is about wills, appearances deceive, victory is deeper than tactical success, principles matter more than technology, and the battle begins before violence appears. They arrive at these conclusions from politics and history. This book arrives from theology and ontology. The two frameworks meet at the same structural points because they are describing the same created order from different angles. That is exactly what natural law predicts.

The Clausewitzian Objection

The strongest challenge to this claim does not come from the pragmatists or the postmodernists. It comes from Clausewitz himself.

Clausewitz resisted codifying principles into lists. His unfinished masterwork, On War, describes the nature of war — friction, fog, the remarkable trinity of violence, chance, and rational calculation — and insists that the gap between principle and execution is so vast that principles become practically irrelevant in the chaos of battle. "Everything is very simple in War," he wrote, "but the simplest thing is difficult."^10.10

Clausewitz is not saying principles do not exist. He is saying they are insufficient. The principle tells you what to do. The friction tells you that you cannot do it. The fog tells you that you do not know whether you should. And the enemy — that thinking, adapting, willful adversary — is trying to prevent you from doing it even if you could and knew you should.

This is a serious objection, and it is largely correct about the environment. But it does not disprove the principles. It describes the conditions under which they must be applied. Gravity does not stop being a law because you cannot predict exactly where a leaf will land in a windstorm. The windstorm makes prediction harder. It does not make the law less real. Friction and fog explain why applying principles is hard. They do not explain why the same principles keep producing the same results across millennia when applied correctly.

Fuller answered Clausewitz directly: "But this does not abrogate science, which, as I shall explain later on, is nothing more and nothing less than common sense."^10.11 The existence of friction is itself evidence that principles operate as constraints. You feel friction precisely because you are pressing against an ordered system. If there were no order, there would be nothing to resist.

Alan Beyerchen extends the Clausewitzian objection into complexity theory: war is a nonlinear, complex adaptive system where small changes in initial conditions produce wildly different outcomes.^10.12 In such systems, deterministic "principles" create an illusion of predictability in a domain that is fundamentally unpredictable.

Complexity science does not disprove natural law. It describes the behavior of systems operating under natural law. The three-body problem does not disprove gravity — it reveals that gravitational interactions in complex systems produce emergent, unpredictable behavior. Similarly, the nonlinearity of war does not disprove the principles of war. It reveals that their interaction in complex environments produces emergent outcomes that no single principle can predict. This is precisely why the hierarchy matters: principles are unchanging, but their application — tactics — and their sequencing — strategy — must adapt to the nonlinear environment. Complexity theory actually strengthens the case for principles. Without underlying order, there would be nothing to produce the emergent patterns that complexity science studies.

Martin van Creveld pushes this further, arguing in The Transformation of War that the Clausewitzian state-centric model itself is obsolete.^10.13 War in the postmodern era is non-trinitarian — fought by non-state actors, driven by identity and culture, resistant to systematization. If the framework is obsolete, are the principles?

The principles are not tied to the framework. Non-state actors still use surprise, initiative, economy of force, and deception. The Taliban applied the indirect approach as effectively as any state army. The insurgent who plants an IED at a chokepoint is exploiting the same principle of controlling distance that a medieval knight exploited by choosing ground favorable to heavy cavalry. The principles are substrate-independent — they operate whether the combatant wears a uniform or carries a flag. What van Creveld actually demonstrates is that tactics and strategies are context-dependent. The principles endure.

Colin Gray dared to use the word truths in connection with war: "I have written many books on strategy, but never before have I striven to explain tersely the core realities — dare I say truths?"^10.14 Oh dare you, Mr. Gray? Yes — how could something like war have any kind of truth associated with it? That would be admission of a level of design to this universe that most would rather shy from.

But the admission is unavoidable. "In its fundamentals," Gray writes, "war changes far less frequently and significantly than most people appreciate."^10.15 The fundamentals are the principles. Technology changes the tactics. The principles endure because the Author who established them does not change.

The Hierarchy

The three-tier hierarchy is the structural framework for everything that follows:

Principles — the unchanging laws. Discovered, not invented. Context-independent. These are the subject of Chapters 11 through 14.

Tactics — discrete applications of principles to gain advantage in specific circumstances. Context-dependent. The same principle — say, attacking where the enemy is most vulnerable — produces vastly different tactics depending on whether you are fighting hand-to-hand, arguing in a courtroom, or resisting spiritual temptation.

Strategy — the sequencing and weaving of tactics toward a final objective. Strategy is the art of combining multiple tactical moves into a coherent campaign. It requires judgment, creativity, and adaptation — the very qualities that Clausewitz rightly insisted cannot be reduced to formula.

Sun Tzu provides the perfect illustration of this hierarchy in action:

There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.^10.16

Five notes. Infinite music. A finite set of principles. Infinite tactical and strategic combinations. Search for the basic — that which provides the base of everything else — not the derivative. To understand the few basic principles of combat gives you infinite tactics and strategies to employ.

Marshal Saxe, quoted by Fuller, warned of the danger of confusing the levels: "'The blind adoption of maxims.' In these words of Marshal Saxe may be summed up nine-tenths of the art of war."^10.17 The error is not in having principles. The error is in treating a tactic as though it were a principle — in adopting someone else's application without understanding the law beneath it. A principle applied mechanically, without understanding, is no longer a principle in practice. It is a superstition.

Lee warned of the same danger from the martial arts domain: "Do not reduce reality to a static thing and then invent methods to reach it."^10.18 And: "Stylists, instead of looking directly into the fact, cling to forms, theories, and go on entangling themselves further and further, finally putting themselves into an inextricable snare."^10.19 The principle is discovered by looking at reality. The error is substituting a model of reality for reality itself. A model is useful. But the map is not the territory, and the fighter who confuses his style with the truth will be destroyed by the fighter who sees the truth beneath all styles.

Decision Frameworks: Tools, Not Principles

Principles do not apply themselves. They require a decision-making apparatus — a tool for translating principle-awareness into action under pressure. Three frameworks deserve mention, not because they are principles, but because they are the best tools we have for applying principles in real time.

The OODA Loop — Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. John Boyd's contribution was not a new principle but a framework for applying principles at speed.^10.20 The loop is about compressing the time between observation and action — getting inside the enemy's decision cycle. The side that cycles through OODA faster imposes its will on the slower side. Boyd's insight maps directly onto the principle of seeking action rather than reaction, which we will examine in Chapter 13.

The Kill Chain — Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess. The military's systematic reduction of the engagement process to discrete, repeatable steps. The Kill Chain is a valid framework, but it can become dangerous when mistaken for a principle. The implicit bias is that seeing is equivalent to understanding. It is not. You can see the enemy and still misread his intent. The Kill Chain is a tool for the physical mode; it is blind in the mental/spiritual mode.

PDA — Profiling, Decision-Making, Action. The Marine Corps Combat Hunter program's simplified decision framework: establish the baseline, identify anomalies, and decide when three anomalies converge.^10.21 It is a reframing of OODA — collapsing Orient and Decide into a threshold-based heuristic. Related: Recognition-Primed Decision Making (RPD), where "people with expertise intuitively identify a pattern in a situation and quickly determine a course of responses, without any analysis or comparing different courses of action."^10.22 A decisive good choice is better than a slow perfect choice. My father — a NASA research test pilot — put it more bluntly: "You don't fly a plane by optimization."^10.23

These frameworks are not principles. They are decision architectures — tools for applying principles under pressure. The OODA loop does not tell you what to do. It tells you how to decide faster. The principles tell you what to do. The distinction matters, because a man with a fast OODA loop and bad principles will make bad decisions very quickly.

Why So Few Books

One question remains before we move to the principles themselves. If these laws exist and have existed since creation, why are there so few books that attempt to systematize them?

Michael Howard, in his introduction to Clausewitz, observed that "military analysts are usually concerned rather to advise their own generations and their own societies than to distil lasting wisdom for posterity."^10.24 Most military writers are practitioners, not philosophers. They write for their moment — for the war they are fighting or the war they expect to fight. Fuller, Clausewitz, Liddell Hart, and Boyd are exceptions, and even they were driven by practical necessity as much as by intellectual ambition.

The theological claim of this book is that the reason principles can be systematized is that they were designed. A universe without a Designer could produce regularities — patterns in chaos — but it could not produce laws in the full sense of the word. Laws imply a Lawgiver. And a Lawgiver implies that the laws are discoverable by the minds He created — minds designed, as Cornelius Van Til put it, to "think God's thoughts after Him."^10.25

The American military understands this instinctively, even if it does not state it theologically. The Army's ADP 1-01: Doctrine Primer defines doctrine as "fundamental principles, with supporting tactics, techniques, procedures, and terms and symbols, used for the conduct of operations."^10.26 The word fundamental carries the weight. FM 3-0 organizes operations around nine principles of war inherited from the Clausewitz-Jomini-Fuller lineage.^10.27 JP 3-0 extends them to joint operations.^10.28 MCDP 1 — the most philosophically literate service doctrine — holds the tension between the messiness of war and the necessity of principled thinking: "Without theory, experience is wasted."^10.29

The principles exist. They are discoverable. They have been discovered, rediscovered, and applied across every century, every culture, and every scale of human conflict. What remains is to examine them.

Sources and notes

10.1
Geffrey Whitney, A Choice of Emblemes, and Other Devises (Leiden: Christopher Plantyn, 1586), Emblem 178, "Etiam bellum suos leges habet." The phrase translates: "Even war has its laws." Available in digital facsimile at Penn State University Libraries. See also John Manning, ed., The Emblems of Geffrey Whitney (New York: AMS Press, 1989). ISBN 0-404-62277-8. Full Latin from Jon R. Stone, ed., The Routledge Dictionary of Latin Quotations (London: Routledge, 2005): "habet et bellum suas leges."

↩
10.2
Psalm 19:1-4 (ESV).

↩
10.3
Romans 1:20 (ESV).

↩
10.4
J.F.C. Fuller, The Foundations of the Science of War (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1926; repr. Eastbourne: Antony Rowe, 2012), 26. ISBN 978-1-78155-064-0.

↩
10.5
Fuller, Foundations, 26.

↩
10.6
Bruce Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do (Burbank, CA: Ohara Publications, 1975), loc. 27. ISBN 0-89750-048-2.

↩
10.7
Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do, loc. 28.

↩
10.8
William James, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907). Available at Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5116. John Dewey, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (New York: Henry Holt, 1938). The pragmatist denial of fixed, context-independent truths.

↩
10.9
B.H. Liddell Hart, Strategy, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Meridian, 1991), 30. ISBN 978-0-452-01071-1.

↩
10.10
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Col. J.J. Graham (London: N. Trübner, 1873), Book I, Chapter 7. Available at Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1946

↩
10.11
Fuller, Foundations, 23. Fuller is responding to the Clausewitzian objection that war cannot be reduced to science.

↩
10.12
Alan Beyerchen, "Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War," International Security 17, no. 3 (Winter 1992): 59-90. Available at: https://www.clausewitzstudies.org/item/Beyerchen-ClausewitzNonlinearityAndTheUnpredictabilityOfWar.htm

↩
10.13
Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War (New York: Free Press, 1991). ISBN 978-0-02-933155-0.

↩
10.14
Colin S. Gray, Fighting Talk: Forty Maxims on War, Peace, and Strategy (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007), Preface. ISBN 978-0-275-99131-2.

↩
10.15
Gray, Fighting Talk, 24.

↩
10.16
Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter V ("Energy"), trans. Lionel Giles. Available at Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/132

↩
10.17
Fuller, Foundations, 29, quoting Marshal Saxe.

↩
10.18
Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do, loc. 22.

↩
10.19
Lee, Tao of Jeet Kune Do, loc. 19.

↩
10.20
John Boyd, "Patterns of Conflict" (briefing, December 1986). Available at: https://www.colonelboyd.com/s/Patterns-of-Conflict_Dec-1986-2n7k.pdf. Boyd never published a conventional book; his ideas were disseminated through briefing slides. See also Robert Coram, Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War (New York: Little, Brown, 2002). ISBN 978-0-316-88146-3. Frans Osinga, Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd (London: Routledge, 2007). ISBN 978-0-415-37103-5.

↩
10.21
Patrick Van Horne and Jason A. Riley, Left of Bang: How the Marine Corps' Combat Hunter Program Can Save Your Life (New York: Black Irish Entertainment, 2014), loc. 103. ISBN 978-1-936891-30-2. "The process for making decisions is simple: Establish the baseline, identify anomalies, decide, and act."

↩
10.22
Van Horne and Riley, Left of Bang, loc. 27. Describing Gary Klein's Recognition-Primed Decision model. See also Gary Klein, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998). ISBN 978-0-262-61146-6.

↩
10.23
Frank Batteas, personal communication. NASA research test pilot. The principle: in complex systems under time pressure, satisficing (a good-enough decision made quickly) outperforms optimizing (the perfect decision made too late).

↩
10.24
Michael Howard, Clausewitz: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 6. ISBN 978-0-19-280240-2.

↩
10.25
Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1971), 104. Van Til's epistemological principle: if man is a creature of God, his thoughts must be patterned after God's thoughts. The student of war is "thinking God's thoughts after Him" when he discovers the principles woven into creation.

↩
10.26
U.S. Department of the Army, ADP 1-01: Doctrine Primer (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, July 2019). Available at: https://armypubs.army.mil

↩
10.27
U.S. Department of the Army, FM 3-0: Operations (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, October 2022). The nine principles of war: objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise, simplicity.

↩
10.28
Joint Chiefs of Staff, JP 3-0: Joint Campaigns and Operations (Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, June 2022). Adds restraint, perseverance, and legitimacy to the nine principles.

↩
10.29
U.S. Marine Corps, MCDP 1: Warfighting (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, 1997), Chapter 2. Available at: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf

↩
10.30
The rarity of systematic treatments of war's principles is itself telling. Michael Howard observes that "military analysts are usually concerned rather to advise their own generations and their own societies than to distil lasting wisdom for posterity." See Michael Howard, Clausewitz: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 6. ISBN 978-0-19-280240-2. This pragmatic orientation explains why a book that treats the principles of conflict as natural law is unusual — the field's practitioners have been too busy fighting to philosophize, and its philosophers have been too busy theorizing to fight. See also Jonathan Batteas, personal journal, "Why There are Few Books on the Systematic Study of War" (2024-01-30).

↩
10.32
Alan Stephens and Nicola Baker, Making Sense of War: Strategy for the 21st Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). ISBN 978-0-521-67785-6. Their framework — ends, ways, means, centre of gravity, compellence vs. coercion — is a horizontal theory of strategy (grounded in statecraft) that converges with this book's vertical theory (grounded in theology) at every structural point. The convergence is unintentional, which makes it evidence.

↩
10.31
Lawrence Freedman's magisterial survey traces the same strategic principles recurring across cultures and centuries — from David's sling to Bismarck's diplomacy to Cold War deterrence — arguing that strategy is a universal human activity, not merely a military one. See Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). ISBN 978-0-19-932515-3. Martin van Creveld reaches a parallel conclusion: "The history of strategy is a record of the same ideas being reinvented by successive generations." See Martin van Creveld, A History of Strategy: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind (Kouvola, Finland: Castalia House, 2015) [paraphrased]. See also B.H. Liddell Hart, who observed that "the history of strategy is, fundamentally, a record of the application and evolution of the indirect approach" — a pattern so persistent that once total war's self-defeating nature forced reversion to indirect tactics, the recurrence confirmed the natural-law character of the principle. Liddell Hart, Strategy, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Meridian, 1991), 21.

↩