Why the losses? August 28, 2006
Posted by Brendan in History, Politics.add a comment
I think Andrew J. Bacevich (professor of history and international relations at Boston University) hits the nail on the head in The Islamic Way of War.
Bacevich writes: Muslims have stopped fighting on Western terms—and have started winning:
What are we to make of this? How is it that the seemingly weak and primitive are able to frustrate modern armies only recently viewed as all but invincible? What do the parallel tribulations—and embarrassments—of the United States and Israel have to tell us about war and politics in the 21st century? In short, what’s going on here?
The answer to that question is dismayingly simple: the sun has set on the age of unquestioned Western military dominance. Bluntly, the East has solved the riddle of the Western Way of War. In Baghdad and in Anbar Province as at various points on Israel’s troubled perimeter, the message is clear: methods that once could be counted on to deliver swift decision no longer work.
Defeatist? Well, maybe Hannity would say so but it’s a point-of-view rarely discussed in the media. Is it possible that we’ll be fighting endless wars of attrition against an enemy who cannot (and will not) be beat?
It’s likely if we don’t get at those “root causes” that we’re never allowed to mention.
"Tamely resigned" July 25, 2006
Posted by Brendan in History, Life in America, Politics.1 comment so far
After reading a synopsis of the latest attempt by the GOP Congress to fortify the unchecked power of the executive branch (via Independent Country), I was reminded of a quote I once read on the subject of liberty.
It took some doing, but I finally found the quote in an old American History textbook:
We have always looked upon men as a set of beings naturally free: – And it is a truth, which the history of the ages and the common experience of mankind have fully confirmed, that a people can never be divested of those individual rights and liberties which are necessary to their happiness, to the well-being of communities or to a well regulated state, but by their own negligence, imprudence, timidity or rashness. They are seldom lost, but when foolishly forfeited or tamely resigned.
Jonas Clarke
Pastor of Lexington Church
On the Eve of the American Revolution
Two things in this quote stand out: (1) Our ancestors understood the danger of liberty denied (or resigned) and (2) Men of the 18th Century knew how to write!
They were about to bring arms against the mightiest empire on earth in defense of their liberties and we tremble in the presence of a traffic cop…
Sadly, the men and women of Rev. Clarke’s generation probably would have preferred life under General Gage to life under Generalissimo Bush. (Gage, at least, ordered the British Regulars to respect private property rights. The Magna Carta not being a “living document” at that particular time.)
If you have plans to visit Imperial Washington for vacation this summer, cancel them. (It’s a dump) Instead, fly your family to Boston and drive the 16 miles, or so, to the hallowed ground of Lexington Common.
If, after that experience, you still believe that one man can be trusted with your rights and that liberty should be surrendered for “security” then, I dunno, move to Canada or something…
The Battle of Concord March 21, 2003
Posted by Brendan in History, Life in America, Politics.add a comment
It may not be necessary to go all the way back to the American Revolution to find an example of an occupied peoples’ willingness to take on an empire. But let’s do just that because the Revolutionary War makes for fascinating study. And, besides, I’m a New Englander and we started the whole thing.
We all know the story of “the shot heard round the world” – that fateful day in 1775 when American rebels crossed the Rubicon and opened fire on British army regulars. It was the point of no return. From the moment the shots were fired the American Revolution was underway. There could be no turning back.
On the evening of April 18, 1775 the Commander of the Boston Garrison, General Thomas Gage, sent 700 British regulars to destroy rebel arms caches in the quiet New England villages of Lexington and Concord. The rebels were forewarned and moved most of their stocks, but on the morning of the 19th the British found and burned a small number of supplies at Lexington and then moved on to Concord.
The battle itself was not very remarkable until, mission accomplished, the British began their retreat to Boston. It should be remembered that two and a quarter centuries ago the road to Boston was actually a narrow country lane surrounded, in most part, by forest land.
American Minutemen followed the retreating Red Coats and ambushed them from behind walls and trees and barns and whatever other cover they could find. Leapfrogging through the woods on either side of the lane, the Americans executed ambush after ambush for the duration of the fifteen mile march to Boston. The British were, in effect, forced to run a gauntlet; unable to retreat they had to march forward through unfamiliar territory knowing that death could lie just ahead and that they wouldn’t be safe until they reached Charlestown. The British lost nearly 300 men that afternoon. Almost one half of the original deployment. The Americans, it’s believed, suffered only a third of that number.
In his famous “Midnight Ride of Paul Revere”, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow described the scene:
You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
Needless to say, today we recognize such tactics as legitimate guerrilla warfare, but in the 18th Century they caused outrage. In an era when soldiers faced off on a battlefield like gentlemen engaged in a duel, guerilla ambushes were considered dishonorable and uncivilized. But the Americans had made their point.
The men laying in ambush weren’t French, African, or American Indian – they were cousins. The farmers behind the stone walls and the soldiers in the red coats were linked by blood, language, history, and religion. Until a very short time before the battle they paid allegiance to the same sovereign and both sides were honored to claim a common cultural and political legacy. If countrymen don’t shy away from ferocity in defense of their land and their rights, imagine how difficult it is to occupy a foreign people.
History is replete with examples of natives doing everything in their power to throw off a foreign yoke. This was done regardless of the strength, benevolence, or reputation of the occupier. The Romans had the Jewish rebellion of the First Century. The British experienced it from their own kinsmen in America. They’ve faced it for centuries in Ireland. The Ottoman Turks likewise had to deal with their subjected Arabs. That’s just to cite the more famous examples; the complete list would fill volumes.
Washington tells us that we’ll only occupy Iraq for, at most, two years. I tend not to believe it. Not that I doubt the president’s word, but history has shown us that once we go in, we very rarely get out. Mr. Clinton sent American troops to Bosnia in 1993 with the promise to be out in six months. Nine years have passed and those soldiers are still there.
Occupied Arabs will resist us sooner or later no matter how generous or benevolent we may be. They won’t develop battlefield weapons to take on our tanks and cruise missiles, they’ll employ “less conventional tactics.”
Regardless of the swiftness of victory, if the American military remains in Iraq for any significant amount of time – or if ordinary daily concerns like poverty relief, lack of food or medical supplies, poor roads, etc start to be viewed as the fault of the Americans – be prepared for losses long after the initial battle has concluded.
The White Man’s burden is a messy business. Just ask the British.
