WORLDLYMIND: exploring on the roads less taken

What will we see... when the "fog of war" clears?

2009-11-11T10:06:00.001-08:00

The "fog of war" is a term used to describe the level of ambiguity in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations.

The term is ascribed to the Prussian military analyst Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote:

"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently -- like the effect of a fog or moonshine -- gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."

The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding one's own capability, adversary capability and adversary intent during an engagement, operation or campaign.

With imperfect information, decisions must sometimes be made in ignorance or on hunch or speculation.

Deadlines and the press of events make it impossible to wait for certainty.

And so the fog of war makes decisions even more of a gamble...

Seeking guidance from von Clausewitz

*******

An entire nation can be in a fog when at war...

....if there is confusion over objectives, the intentions of the enemy, the strategy to adopt in relation to the enemy, how many resources to commit -- indeed over who is the enemy.

Such is America today -- full of debate, full of uncertainty, awaiting a President's decision, a President's evaluation of the terrain, the enemy, the strategy.

A nation full of rhetoric, a nation debating the intentions of Islam, the nature of terror.....

A nation of politicians and broadcasters grandstanding to steal votes and ratings, power and profits.

The louder the language, the denser the fog.

A nation buffeted by fear, by uncertainty, by hope, and paranoia.

Yet among many people an indescribable calm.

Vast parts of the country untouched by war -- with military age "children" who never pick up a gun.

*******

The fog of war can cloud a President or a general's view.

Or the view of any American.

It can obscure hidden opportunities or hidden perils.

Looking out over the battlefield of America's overseas military campaigns, it is tempting to see what one wishes to see or what one fears to be the case.

To justify one's view of the battlefield, one's view of the world...with imagined shadows on the wall.

What will we see when the fog of war clears?

From "Fog of War," the Life
of Robert S. McNamara

McNamara's eleven lessons of war

Empathize with your enemy
Rationality will not save us
There's something beyond one's self
Maximize efficiency
Proportionality should be a guideline in war
Get the data
Belief and seeing are often both wrong
Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning
In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
Never say never
You can't change human nature

*******

Let's go back to the last
Confederate attack on the Union:

Bentonville, NC, March 19-22, 1864;
A Confederate commander struggles with
the "fog of war"

That day — as four Rebel commands gathered in North Carolina — General Joseph Johnston traveled to Smithfield to form the hodgepodge Army of the South.

After evacuating Wilmington in February and resisting Schofield at Kinston on March 8-10, Gen. Braxton Bragg finally had arrived at Smithfield with Maj. Gen. Robert Hoke's Division (Army of Northern Virginia)...

Hampton's cavalry was split to monitor both wings of Sherman's army. The proud remnants of the Army of Tennessee were slowly trickling into Smithfield from the west, having departed Tupelo, Mississippi, by rail in mid-January...

Others were still on the way.

As his motley units converged, Johnston waited anxiously for news.

Was the enemy moving on Raleigh or Goldsboro?

From his position at Smithfield, Johnston could swing west or southeast to block the way to either destination.

Lacking sufficient numbers for a decisive engagement, however, Johnston needed favorable ground from which to tackle one wing of the Union army while the other was beyond supporting distance. The clock was ticking...

Desperate for news, Johnston fired off inquiries to his subordinates:

"Something must be done tomorrow morning," he pushed Hardee on March 17, "and yet I have no satisfactory information."

He then queried Hampton for specifics on the enemy's position, strength, and relative distance. "[G]ive me your opinion," urged Johnston, "whether it is practicable to reach them from Smithfield on the south side of the [Neuse] river before they reach Goldsborough."

Kris Kristofferson: let him speak for himself...

2009-11-05T18:38:00.001-08:00

"Sadness Has Nothing To Do With Sanity"
"There's humans entrusted with guarding our gold and
humans in charge of saving our souls."

From "Sister Sinead"

Listen to his latest "Closer to the Bone"

******

"God bless Obama. God bless the United States of America; And God bless the others outside of our borders." - Kris Kristofferson

******

"To Pass It On"

Obama's "Sophie's Choice:" when media cannot see

2009-11-04T02:07:00.000-08:00

"Ample Make this Bed," by Emily Dickinson,
from the 1982 movie, "Sophie's Choice," --
Where no choice is clean -- though one must be made

********
"Ample make this bed.
Make this bed with awe;
In it wait till judgment break
Excellent and fair.

"Be its mattress straight,
Be its pillow round;
Let no sunrise' yellow noise
Interrupt this ground."

********

"Obama's Choice:" Play Agressively

With a Weak Hand

After two months of researching and writing about President Obama's Afghan policy choices, I am convinced I have witnessed a "mass media" disaster.

A globally important issue has been dominated by polemicists, ideologues, and party campaigners who spin, proclaim, and argue, who scream the loudest -- with very little emphasis on illuminating the challenges of choice.

It is fair to conclude that the more one has followed the national "debate" in mass media, the less one understands.

We have witnessed a form of national media pollution.

In a strategic and political and moral trap where there may be no good or easy choices.

Indeed Afghan policy may be a kind of "Sophie's Choice."

Whomever President Obama seeks to save, many others will die.

********

Very rarely have there been mass media explorations of the nuances of choice as they would be dealt with in political and military planning.

Very rarely does the mass media provide historical or cultural context -- beyond slogans and reported polemic.

Such issues are reasonably obvious to anyone who seriously researches these subjects -- but systematically obscured by mass media.

There have been exceptions in the pages of serious newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, and The Wall Street Journal.

PBS and National Public Radio have often tried to get below the surface -- although each is limited by the nature of its news judgement.

Sometimes this involves political slant.

Even in these relatively sophisticated outlets there has rarely been concrete indepth examination of the President's options.

American media tend not to be interested in the nuances, the dilemmas of choice.

The focus is on conflict, polemic, who are the "good guys," who are the "bad guys."

The worse offenders have been talk shows and cable news, especially FOX, MSNBC, and CNN.

Where commentators and "political strategists" repeat liberal and conservative "talking points."

Where the emphasis is on argument, on debate.

One redeeming feature in this dismal media scene is the rich variety of source material available on the internet.

True, the internet is chock full of the same opinion, hyperbole as other forms of mass media. But it also contains rich background and primary sources of the kind which are screened out of the mass media.

********

As of this writing, a "hybrid policy" seems to be emerging.

U.S. troops will be increased, but a wholesale national counter-insurgency policy will be avoided. Certain key population centers will be held with mobile strikes elsewhere.

A key aim will be to avoid over-extension of limited forces -- the kind of over-extension which made American forces so vulnerable to being overrun at Wanat.

The Battle for Wanat: Has it helped shape

Obama's Decision?

The New York Times reported the basic emerging Obama strategy on October 27.

Time now to drop back -- and let the issues unfold not through the "pens" of journalists -- but through actions and events in the real world.

"Time and Tides" march to their own drummers...but it can be interesting to watch.

Here is a listing of this writer's Afghanistan blogs:

********

For Afghanistan, What Lessons from "The Crater?"

Obama's New Policy: Play Agressively
With a Weak Hand

Obama's Great Grim Gamble: He Holds a Weak Hand

A Digital View of Afghanistan: Obama Looks to a Hybrid Strategy

Rudyard Kipling Warns President Obama

Will Obama Follow Lord Roberts Advice: Get in Fast, Withdraw,
Rule Indirectly, with Limited Occupation?

Pick off an Occupying Army: Updating an Old Story

Following Alexander the Great to Afghanistan

Should Prez Obama Take Advice From a Russian

Left, Right, Join In: Ring the Bell on "Obama's War"

US in Afghanistan: Bearing Gifts to Other Nations

America and China: Circling the Afghan Carcass with a Bamboo Curtain Dead

"The Kiterunner" as a Guide to Afghanistan

True Love trumps politics: let that be the lead story

2009-11-03T13:43:00.001-08:00

As I recovered from a mild senior citizen bout of George Orwell 1984 pig flu, I could not help but sip the healing wines of Celtic music -- from YouTube.

A fresh new prayer came to mind:

"God protect us from the Tribes which guide us."

Cara Dillon

Streets of Derry

After the morning there comes an evening
And after the evening another day
And after a false love there comes a true love
I'd have you listen now to what I say

I swear my love is the finest young man
As fair as any the sun shines on
But how to save him, I do not know it
For he has got a sentence to be hung

As he was marching the streets of Derry
I own he marched up right manfully
Being much more like a commanding officer
Than a man to die upon the gallows tree

"What keeps my love so long in coming
Oh what detains her so long from me
Or does she think it a shame or scandal
To see me die upon the gallows tree"

He looked around and he saw her coming
And she was dressed all in woollen fine
The weary steed that my love was riding
It flew more swiftly than the wind

Come down, come down from that cruel gallows
I've got your pardon from the king
And I'll let them see that they dare not hang you
And I'll crown my love with a bunch of green

*****

A Gallows Tree

*****

When Tribes Do Prevail

"There Were Roses"

*****

Now it's time to dance

*****

Obama's "new policy:" play agressively a weak hand

2009-10-27T10:39:00.000-07:00

Rolling the dice again

******

President Obama will lean forward to play hard with a very weak hand.

Obama will escalate US intervention in the area, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While the nominal sovereignty of each nation would be maintained, we will see renewed U.S. efforts to turn them in one degree or another into "client states."

That is the conclusion to be drawn from an October 26 speech before Council of Foreign Relations by John Kerry, D Mass., Chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

While Sen. Kerry does not officially speak for President Obama, he is intimately involved with the evolution of Afghanistan policy.

Below, from his speech, is the bottom line:

******

The U.S. will push to shake up the central Afghan government, push to change some top officials, attempt to diffuse power more to the local level -- where American advisors both military and civilian will play a growing part.

There will be a hybrid policy of clear and hold in some areas -- but a looser presence of military strikes elsewhere.

The goal of clearing and holding all of Afghanistan is rejected.

The Administration will trim down the call of General Stanley McChrystal for up to 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan.

For Administration plans to focus on limited parts of the country, see The New York Times, October 27:

"At the moment, the administration is looking at protecting Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Herat, Jalalabad and a few other village clusters, officials said. The first of any new troops sent to Afghanistan would be assigned to Kandahar, the Taliban’s spiritual capital, seen as a center of gravity in pushing back insurgent advances.

"But military planners are also pressing for enough troops to safeguard major agricultural areas, like the hotly contested Helmand River valley, as well as regional highways essential to the economy — tasks that would require significantly more reinforcements beyond the 21,000 deployed by Mr. Obama this year...

"Military officers said that they would maintain pressure on insurgents in remote regions by using surveillance drones and reports from people in the field to find pockets of Taliban fighters and to guide attacks, in particular by Special Operations forces."

******

Major pressure on Afghan government will combine with continuing full court press on Pakistan to step up its offensive against Taliban in Waziristan.

Although Washington denies it, American aid to Pakistan will be directly or indirectly conditioned on its willingness to co-operate with the U.S. -- and break with fundamentalists in its social programs.

******

In short the move is for more aggressive involvement in the affairs of both countries. The aim is to stabilize both around a pro American orientation -- and squeeze the Taliban by military pressure from both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is clear there is already a growing anti-American backlash in both Afghanistan and Pakistan -- where the appearance of being American puppets is hardly desired.

******

See this writer's analysis of the range of options open to Obama -- and the pitfalls of all of them.

******

"I just Got Punked in Afghanistan"

Obama's great grim gamble: he holds a weak hand

2009-10-26T03:15:00.001-07:00

War, it has often been said, is the greatest gamble of all.

It is time, once again, to roll the Afghan dice.

The gamble is a grim one.....

This time President Obama holds a very weak hand.

Jack of Diamonds: "I bet you I beat you next game"
Check the cost of the gamble at iCasualties.org

**********

One of my old time favorites.

This classic musical allegory is "The Cuckoo"

An Appalachian Montains analysis of the complex process of going to war.

"War is the greatest grim gamble of all."

In Afghanistan the United States, like Britain and the Soviet Union before it, once again prepares to roll the dice.

**********

**********

Meet the "Enemy"

BBC interview, Helmand Province, 2006

The BBC interview above is a classic illustration of how the Pashtun Taliban operate, recruit, and thrive off of resentment against foreign occupiers. See David Rohde, "Held by the Taliban," NYT, Oct. 17, 2009 for an account of how occupation and bombing reinforces anti-American feeling.

**********

This writer has reluctantly altered his conclusions.

Lots of reflection, a journalist's perpetual research and a lifetime of study go into an altered, painful stance toward an issue involving so much human suffering.

Raised with Quaker pacifist roots, he now believes that some kind of "surge" probably will be necessary -- given the growing strength of the Taliban.

In order to prevent a quick collapse -- and to lay a foundation for whatever stage comes next.

With Taliban strength growing, a "surge" may be necessary.

Important questions will be how big a "surge" to support; how large a series of operations in how much of Afghanistan over how long a period of time?

--Even if President Obama chooses a less ambitious strategy which avoids "seize and hold" counter-insurgency operations in a large part of the country.

--If American forces are to have any leverage in protecting even a limited part of Afghanistan from the brutalities of the Taliban.

--If the U.S. is to maintain a stable base from which to launch attacks on Al Qaeda.

--If the U.S. is to solidify its presence sufficiently to seek a political deal with some of the insurgents.

--If the U.S. is to help stabilize Pakistan and keep its nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists.

--Even if the U.S. eventually withdraws to pinpoint and fight Al Qaeda from offshore.

But it is highly doubtful that the U.S. government will be able to execute a limited surge with a clear exit strategy -- amidst the complexities of both American and Afghan politics.

Some things are near certain:

A large scale, long lasting military commitment is impossible.

If the American people turn against a long, costly war, it will be only a matter of time before the U.S. position in Afghanistan will collapse.

A long war would mean deep costs for the American economy and a likely decline in this country's military, economic, and political standing in the world.

**********

The challenge will be to find a workable mission and strategy which promise ways of getting out in a reasonable time period even as the U.S. gets more deeply in.

If the mission requires more troops, a "surge" must flow onto the beach and then back out again.

**********

A small surge risks being ineffective -- or of escalating into a large one.

A large surge runs the risk of escalating the conflict, getting more deeply trapped -- and producing a deadly and costly anti-American backlash across the South Asian region.

One result could be a destabilization of Pakistan -- with a theoretically increased danger that nuclear weapons could be obtained by terrorists.

**********

Ahead could be another cycle of blowback -- where forces unleased by American intervention come back to strike the U.S. -- as was the case with the 9/11 attacks.

The ultimate risk in this gamble is that a new generation of anti-American terrorists will ultimately get their hands on nuclear weapons.

For testimony on the destructive effects already evident from the Obama policy see an article by Graham E. Fuller, former CIA chief in Kabul.

Also a video of an interview with Pakistani journalist Hamad Mir dealing with the impact of American drone attacks in Pakistan.

**********
It is time, once again, to roll the Afghan dice.

The greatest grim gamble of all.

Dance toward the future with lessons from the past

2009-10-26T03:10:00.001-07:00

Enter Loreena McKennitt website
Night Ride Across the Caucasus
Dante's Prayer
She Moved Through The Fair
The Highwayman
The Highwayman, lyrics by Alfred Noyes

*****

"When in the springtime of the year.

When the trees are crowned with leaves.

When the ash and oak, and the birch and yew.
Are dressed in ribbons fair."

Follow the dance wherever it leads -- with a vision of the future and lessons from the past.

For Afghanistan: what lessons from "The Crater?"

2009-10-25T13:41:00.000-07:00

The battle for "The Crater," from the movie
"Cold Mountain"

For the complete story, click on
When "Cold Mountain" Meets Afghanistan
A Confederate account: preparing to kill negroes

We can build the most innovative of plans, as did General Ambrose Burnside -- Rhode Island's most famous native son.

But without the power and coordination to carry them out, we can be trapped in the craters we blow open, trapped amidst the screams.

"War is the Greatest Gamble."

Burnside gambled and lost at "The Crater" in front of Petersburg, Virginia on July 30, 1864.

He pushed a plan to mine and blow up Confederate lines in front of Petersburg -- to launch an assault with well trained negro soldiers.

The plan hoped to open the way for the capture of Petersburg, an assault on Richmond -- and an end of the war.

He whose star had already fallen in failure and demotion after brilliant amphibious landings to conquer coastal North Carolina, including New Bern, in March 1862.

His men charged into the crater -- as many as 15,000 trapped in and around the hole Pennsylvania miners had blown.

Hundreds on both sides died by clubbed musket, bayonets, and rocks in less than a morning of brutal hand to hand fighting.

Some four thousand on both sides were killed, wounded, or captured.

The dead included many of the Union negroes.

"No quarter" was the Union cry.

Little did the Confederates give.

Revenge against negroes fighting for the Union was the Confederate "cry."

General Ambrose Burnside

This man from a Quaker family opened the door to racial bloodletting during the failed Union offensive at "The Crater."

**************

The hunger for revenge is a wonderful motivator -- but can lead to disaster when it backfires. Each side stirred the passions of its troops for race revenge. The result was a Union disaster, a merciless killing of black Federal troops.

**************

Today President Obama, unlike President Bush before him, is bit more cautious.

Just how big a gamble will he take?

Time, again, to roll the dice.

**************

I thought I heard a black bell toll
A little bird did sing
Man has no choice
When he wants every thing

We'll rise above the scarlet tide
That trickles down through the mountain
And separates the widow from the bride

Man goes beyond his own decision
Gets caught up in the mechanism
Of swindlers who act like kings
And brokers who break everything

--"The Scarlet Tide," lyrics from the movie Cold Mountain

**************

The ghosts from "The Crater" are not still

They have a story to tell, lessons to teach -- passed down from generation to generation.

Each generation can be trapped in its own crater. Each generation can face afresh the challenge: how to climb out, up to the "higher ground?"

What should be done in Afghanistan? Can American forces "surge" through "The Crater" they have blown open -- or are they still trapped like birds in a "turkey shoot?"

Whether to press forward in the midst of continuing fire -- or find a better way to go around.

**************

There is that line where "one" must sometimes decide whether to soldier on -- or withdraw to something else, desert in quest of peace high upon "Cold Mountain."

Fighting never ends -- but there is always the dream of "Cold Mountain."

*************

The Killing of Union Negroes Erupts
"Listen" to a Confederate Account

From an old imperialist: a warning on Afghanistan

2009-10-14T05:53:00.000-07:00

From the shadows of costly colonial battles:
Rudyard Kipling on the "savage wars of peace"
A Master Storyteller "rings a bell" of caution

What has been, that will be;

what has been done, that will be done.

Nothing is new under the sun.

Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!"

has already existed in the ages that preceded us.

Ecclesiastes 1:9,10

Rudyard Kipling: His Poetry
Rudyard Kipling: Biography
Rudyard Kipling: The White Man's Burden, 1899

Rudyard Kipling: Ford O' Kabul River, Second Afghan War
Rudyard Kipling: Arithmetic of the Frontier, 1886
Rudyard Kipling: The Man Who Would Be King, 1888
(A short story on imperialism, set partly in Afghanistan, based on Josiah Harlan)
Josiah Harlan, the American Quaker who would be Afghan king, 1838

Frederic A. Moritz: More Troops to Afghanistan?

Frederic A. Moritz: Pick off an Occupying Army; an Old Story

Frederic A. Moritz: Will Obama Follow the Advice of Lord Roberts?

Disastrous British retreat to Gandamuk, First Afghan War, 1842

Victorious British March to Kandahar, Second Afghan War, 1880
Martini-Henry, the rifle which won the Second Afghan War

Edward Girardet, The Great Pretend Game

David Rohde, "Held by the Taliban," NYT, Oct. 17, 2009

(Video on growing anti-Americanism)

To PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA -- GREETINGS, my son!

But first, Mr. President, at the suggestion of my friend Frederic A. Moritz, may I include these words:

"Be Wise and Careful, for what benefit a man if he drown in the same river as those who came before."

And now, Mr. President, below may I commend to you a favorite poem I have penned: "Ford 'Ol Kabul River."

I have chosen each word carefully, for those such as yourself.

***************

KIPLING'S ALLEGORY FOR BRITAIN'S
"GETTING IN OVER ITS HEAD"

Ford O' Kabul River. 1879
(River disaster of the 10th Hussars: 46 drowned)

Kabul town's by Kabul river --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
There I lef' my mate for ever,
Wet an' drippin' by the ford.
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
There's the river up and brimmin', an' there's 'arf a squadron swimmin'
'Cross the ford o' Kabul river in the dark....

Kabul town'll go to hell --
Blow the bugle, draw the sword --
'Fore I see him 'live an' well --
'Im the best beside the ford.
Ford, ford, ford o' Kabul river,
Ford o' Kabul river in the dark!
Gawd 'elp 'em if they blunder, for their boots'll pull 'em under,
By the ford o' Kabul river in the dark.

***************

KIPLING ON "ASSYMETRIC WARFARE"

Arithmetic of the Frontier, 1886
(on the Second Afghan War)

...A scrimmage in a Border Station—
A canter down some dark defile—
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail—
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

No proposition Euclid wrote,
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow
Strike hard who cares—shoot straight who can—
The odds are on the cheaper man.

One sword-knot stolen from the camp
Will pay for all the school expenses
Of any Kurrum Valley scamp
Who knows no word of moods and tenses,
But, being blessed with perfect sight,
Picks off our messmates left and right.

With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem,
The troop-ships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap—alas! as we are dear.

***************

From The Naulahka:

"Now it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan brown.

"For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;

"And the end of the fight is a tombkstone white with the name of the late deceased.

"And the epitaph drear: 'A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.'"

***************
So MR. PRESIDENT -- If onward you must go:

"Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought."

***************
And MR. PRESIDENT:

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

"If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master;
If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

"If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

"If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run --
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son."

***************
Storytelling in the footsteps of Kipling

Above all, enjoy some music:
a very non-Afghan ballad,
"1952 Vincent Black Lightning."
Original by Richard Thompson,
British poet and storyteller

Or try a Del McCoury bluegrass version;
A recklessly hillbilly version by Reckless Kelly

Finally, try Butch Ross on dulcimer

***************

Britain won the Second Afghan war, but at great cost.

See a representation of Rudyard Kipling in this

video of "The Man Who Would Be King,"

a tragic allegory for Britain's involvement

in Afghanistan

The effort to follow Alexander the Great:
to be an invincible god

Joshua Harlan, American "Quaker" --
the real "man who would be king"

***************

Images of Afghan resistance to

British incursions, 1839 to 1919

Following Alexander the Great to Afghanistan

2009-10-07T06:09:00.001-07:00

************

These BBC segments speak for themselves.

1) Follow Alexander to Kabul and explore what he left behind.

2) Follow Alexander's military campaigns up across the Hindu Kush mountains

Here is a general account of the life of Alexander the Great. Here is a more specific account of his exploits in Afghanistan.

"After Alexander’s death, Afghanistan is divided amongst four Greek governors with their capitals being Kabul and its suburbs, Heart and Sistaan, Qandahar and Baluchistan, and Bakhter (balkh area) and ruled for the next 55 years. By 250 BC the Governors of these four regions declared their independence and established a new Greek-Bakhter government independent of mainland Greece. Roxanne pregnant with Alexander's son moves back to Macedonia. After giving birth to the heir of Alexander's kingdom, both Roxanne and Alexander IV are killed by insurgents."

Should Prez Obama take advice from a Russian?

2009-10-06T09:33:00.000-07:00

Russian military analyst: US could "win"
because of China and Russia
-- but at tremendous economic cost

********

How many times have "we" been warned about the dangers of repeating the mistakes the Soviet Union made in its diasastrous 1980's occupation of Afghanistan?

Here a Russian military analyst tells us the Soviet strategy might today work for the United States -- but at tremendous economic cost.

The Soviet Union, he reminds us, was opposed by both the United States and China.

Today, he maintains, neither China nor Russia are opposing the United States.

The United States, unlike the Soviet Union in the 1980's, has the co-operation of Pakistan.

Still, he cautions, any effort to transform Afghanistan into a Central Asian Valhalla could take a decade and cost far beyond what any nation is likely to afford.

This broadcast was made in February 2009, when President Obama had just beefed up troop strength in Afghanistan.

**********

Doris Day looks at "hybrid" Afghan choices ahead...

2009-09-25T18:08:00.000-07:00

A "Digital View" of Afghanistan

by Frederic A. Moritz
Former Asia Correspondent
The Christian Science Monitor

British defeat Afghans, 1880

**********

"The effort in Afghanistan is going to be the
longest campaign of the long war"
General David H. Petraeus
Centcom Commander, Oct. 2008

U.S. Marines, Helmand Province, 2009

**********

The Battle in Washington Will Dominate:

a "hybrid" policy in the wings?

"The object of continuous assessment is to identify

where and how the design is working or failing

and to consider adjustment to the

design and operation"

-- The U.S. Army Marine Corps

Counterinsurgency Field Manual, 4-14

"In every war there are hopes for peace.
In every peace there are seeds of future wars.
So it has always been.
So it will always be...."

**********

**********

Those who are familiar with the political philosophy of Doris Day may have "a leg up" in predicting future outcomes in Afghanistan.

It's the kind of insight you can get when you take a "digital view."

As Doris recently recalled:

"By 1880 massive British military power, including the rapidly loading Martini-Henry rifle, had vanguished Pashtun tribes sufficiently to pave the way for British withdrawal.

"A settlement with Afghan chieftains protected Britain from Russian inroads in Afghanistan.

"In return the British refrained from further efforts to occupy, dominate, and restructure Afghanistan.

"The more pacifist government of William Gladstone elected in 1880 had rejected the forward strategy of the defeated Benjamin Disraeli."

**********

The British succeeded in 1880.

There was quiet for decades in Afghanistan.

**********

Can the U.S. achieve its goals in Afghanistan without overreaching, draining its economy, bogging itself down in a kind of perpetual warfare?

Without dumping billions into an effort to restructure a tribal society into a modern nation.

Without provoking an anti-foreign nationalist resentment which brings fresh recruits to the Taliban.

Without going down to a humiliating defeat as did Soviet occupiers in the 1980's.

It will be a lot more complicated than it was for Britain in 1880.

All of this will have to be thought through, carefully planned.

Otherwise a troop "surge" can backfire.

These concerns have been eloquently expressed by Sen. Jim Webb, (D-Va.).

They are concerns I have raised in an earlier blog calling for opposition to a "surge."

**********

War, it has often been said, is the greatest gamble of all.

It is time, once again, to roll the Afghan dice.

Jack of Diamonds: "I bet you I beat you next game"
Check the cost of the gamble at iCasualties.org

**********

In the words of Doris Day, "Whatever will be will be."

Let us be hopeful, but not deluded.

Aware that in war there are few certainties, successes, but many pitfalls.

An ambitious strategy to achieve "victory" will reguire lots of blood and treasure.

So will a less ambitious strategy to avoid defeat.

In Rudyard Kipling's words: these are the "savage wars of peace."

**********

What do Afghans themselves want?

Difficult to generalize, but for some suggestions see Los Angeles Times article, September 31,2009.

**********
PBS Video: a graphic portrait
of "new" U.S. "seize and hold" tactics.
View the entire video.

**********

The troop intensive "seize and hold" strategy seeks to get in close to the civilian population.

It would aid in local administration and development -- while providing continued local protection against Taliban retaliation.

Confidence that U.S. forces would stay around would in theory encourage villager loyalty and overall stability.

A "hybrid" approach, summarized below by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, might clear and hold certain strategic Pashtun parts of the country but leave large areas unoccupied.

The secured areas could be used as a base for pinpointed, anti-terrorist strikes on Al Qaeda targets in other parts of the country.

The present policy appears to be such a "hybrid" approach:" -- clear and hold in about ten percent of the country -- with anti-terrorist strikes on the rest.

Here is how Kissinger describes this approach, citing the thinking of Centcom commander General David Petraeus:

**********

"Heretofore, America has pursued traditional anti-insurgency tactics: to create a central government, help it extend its authority over the entire country and, in the process, bring about a modern bureaucratic and democratic society.

"That strategy cannot succeed in Afghanistan... The country is too large, the territory too forbidding, the ethnic composition too varied, the population too heavily armed. No foreign conqueror has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan. Even attempts to establish centralized Afghan control have rarely succeeded and then not for long....

"Military strategy should concentrate on preventing the emergence of a coherent, contiguous state within the state controlled by jihadists. In practice, this would mean control of Kabul and the Pashtun area.....

"Gen. David Petraeus has argued that, reinforced by the number of American forces he has recommended, he should be able to control the 10 percent of Afghan territory where, in his words, 80 percent of the military threat originates. This is the region where the 'clear, hold and build' strategy that had success in Iraq is particularly applicable."

**********

**********

A problem with this approach is that it could "stir up a hornets nest."

The Pashtun part of the country is where bloody anti-American resistance can be expected -- especially if American clear and hold tactics provoke an upsurge of historic Pashtun anti-foreign nationalism.

The Pashtun tribes occupy the rugged border areas of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Subduing them could be a rough and costly job.

This strategy may require large surges of American troops.

The conflict could escalate over the border into Pakistan with unpredictable impact on that nation's stability.

If the U.S. maintains or increases its presence in Afghanistan, it will most likely need to refrain from efforts to build up a strong central government and military.

The Karzai government may become increasingly irrelevant.

Instead the U.S. would need a dual approach of accepting tribal independence in areas it does not "clear and hold" -- while working closely with tribal traditions of decentralized administration in those areas which U.S. troops hold sway.

The more of this working at the local level the U.S. does, the more costly will be the mission.

Writes the author of In the Graveyard of Empires, Rand Corporation political scientist Seth G. Jones:

"Masses of rural Afghans today still reject a strong central government actively meddling in their affairs. In southern and eastern Afghanistan, which are dominated by Pashtuns, many consider the central government a foreign entity. 'My allegiance is to my family first,' one tribal elder from Kandahar told me earlier this year. 'Then to my village, sub-tribe, and tribe,' he continued, noting that the government played no meaningful role in his daily life.....

"I have often been struck by the disconnect between the center and periphery when traveling through areas where, as recently as this year, some villagers had never heard of President Hamid Karzai, who has led the country since 2001. In a few cases, they even thought U.S. military forces I was traveling with were Soviets, not realizing that the Soviet army withdrew in 1989. Time has a way of standing still in rural Afghanistan."

**********

Still another approach under discussion would rely on strikes against Al Qaeda from outside of the country -- thus reducing any need for a surge of American troops within Afghanistan.

This is the strategy favored by Vice President Joseph Biden.

Some label this a "strategy of containment."

The President may have to accept a humiliating and brutal return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan if he orders a gradual retreat to an "offshore strategy."

Al Qaeda and the Taliban could claim victory over the world's greatest superpower.

That would be politically costly to President Obama. It could also energize Islamic extremist or separatist groups in Pakistan, India, Russia, and China.

**********

From Pakistan to Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass:
Another video of the Khyber Pass featuring
the poetry of Rudyard Kipling

**********

Finally there may be a host of variations on these options which require differing degrees of clear and hold, varying troop levels, varying amounts of civilian reconstruction, varying degrees of manpower intensive "nation-building."

The smaller the occupying "footprint" of the American military the less likely is a vast nationalistic anti-foreign Afghan backlash.

But how big a "footprint" necessary to prevent a Taliban comeback and the remergence of an Al Qaeda stronghold?

All this is now under discussion in Washington.

We can be sure that the more ambitious the mission set by President Obama, the more troops and resources in the form of a "surge" the military will seek.

If the President is unwilling to step up the resources, he will be forced to scale down the mission -- either formally or in some hidden, politically advantageous way.

Lastly, even a scaled down mission may require a carefully tailored "surge" given the military advances the Taliban has scored.

For a thoughtful discussion of a wide range of these options see the article by political scientist Howard Schweber of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

For a powerful critique of Obama's Afghanistan policies see the article by Graham E. Fuller, a former Kabul station chief for the C.I.A.

He points out ways must be found to decrease the American "footprint," to internationalize reconstruction, to open the way ultimately for an American withdrawal as a dominant occupying power.

For that "footprint" is likely to stimulate Pashtun nationalism -- which threatens to destabilize both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

**********

The Battle in Washington Will Dominate:
a "hybrid" policy in the wings?

**********

The Washington political battlefield will be at least as important as anything happening "on the ground" in Afghanistan.

Of most immediate importance is the late August pessimistic assessment by the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

That assessment carries with it a separate request for up to 40,000 additional troops to bolster a counter-insurgency "clear and hold" approach.

The U.S. commander concluded the war could be lost within a year unless there are major American reinforcements. It added that even with the reinforcements victory could not be assured.

Check an extensive interview with Gen McChrystal carried out by PBS Frontline, airing October 13.

This interview gives insights on how Gen McChrystal was "tasked" by President Obama during an early meeting after his appointment in May 2009.

It also gives insights on how and where Gen McChrystal concludes "search and hold" might be most useful.

**********

Any changed policy is likely to be a "hybrid" compromise of different approaches blended by the President after vigorous discussion and political infighting.

It will seek to build domestic public support by minimizing American casualties and by preventing an early Taliban takeover which might embarrass the President.

Obama will have to protect his flanks from both the "Left" pushing for rapid withdrawal and the "Right" lobbying for "victory."

The President will be get plenty of advice from advocates of staying deep in Afghanistan.

The more agressively interventionist, anti-insurgency approach of Centcom chief General David Petraeus will strengthen the hand of the powerful "Clinton faction."

This consists of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her ally, Special Representative Richard Holbrooke.

Gen. Petraeus is a chief architect of the U.S. military's current thinking on anti-insurgency warfare, as explained in a U.S. Army Field Manual on counter-insurgency campaigns.

His counter-insurgency approach as used in Iraq would seem to require vast increases in American troops in Afghanistan.

It should not be assumed that generals McChrystal and Petraeus favor "clear and hold" for the entire Afghan nation.

While their emphasis tends toward counter-insurgency and nation-building, their strategy might be made compatible with a more limited "clear and hold" approach focusing on smaller sections of the country.

That might require a smaller "surge. "

Petraeus enjoys enormous prestige, especially among conservatives, for his success in putting down the Iraq insurgency.

Obama will be vulnerable to conservative attack if he appears to break with Petraeus. He will be accused of disregarding the military advice of his most brilliant commander.

That would open the President to blame for any future military reverses.

*******

The New York Times has reported that Gen. Petraeus is apparently exercising caution lest he be accused of trying to dictate policy to President Obama.

The general is more distant from President Obama than he was from President Bush -- and has been less outspoken in public than he was under President Bush.

He is a significant player -- only one of several. The general is now more cautious both in public speeches and with Congress .

Despite speculation that Gen. Petraeus might wish to run for president, the general has so far refrained from staking out a visible stance against President Obama's military deliberations.

It is clear Gen. Petraeus seeks to avoid any comparisons to Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was fired as commander of U.S. forces in Korea in 1951.

Gen. MacArthur had openly defied President Harry Truman on Korean War policy by favoring an attack on China.

Like Gen. Petraeus, Gen. MacArthur was the "darling" of the then president's Republican opposition.

It is clear Gen. Petraeus seeks to quash any notion he is using his military position to run for president.

*******

The Clinton faction pushes toward agressive American control and reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Ambassador Holbrooke is known as a tough, aggressive, arrogant, but warmhearted political infighter who tends to dominate those around him.

Vice President Biden's off-shore containment strategy, plus Defense Secretary Robert Gate's cautious approach, may give President Obama some wiggle room.

On Secretary Gates' evolving approach see Wall Street Journal article, September 31, 2009.

**********

As part of a shift to a counter-insurgency strategy, American commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal is reported to be pushing a withdrawal of American forces from vulnerable remote outposts to more accessible population centers where they would protect and hold.

Eight American soldiers died the weekend of October 3 defending the Kadesh outpost in remore Nuristan, not far from Wanant where nine American soldiers died in a similar attack in July 2008.

**************

**************

One model for American success, however limited, is the British campaign of 1878 to 1880.

It will be much harder for the U.S. to extract itself from Afghanistan than it was for the British.

Britain could strike deals with Afghan emirs to keep the Russians out.

It is doubtful the U.S. could ever come to a comprehensive deal with the Taliban to keep Al Qaeda out.

There will be relatively few U.S. casualties if the U.S. stays on the ground in Afghanistan. Many more Afghans will die.

But the larger the mission, the faster the American toll will rise.

Only a little over 800 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2001.

Little consolation to many war weary Americans who have seen more than 5,000 of their troops die in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

Will they really care if a Taliban victory again imposes medieval barbarity on Afghanistan?

With far more Afghan civilian victims than ever killed by American bombs.

**********

If a "surge" is mismanaged, it could create new problems of expanded war and instability affecting Pakistan, India, Russia, and China.

A stepped up, longer term American presence in Afghanistan will impact the U.S. confrontation with Iran.

Teheran would then be surrounded by a ring of American bases on its west in Iraq and on its east in Afghanistan.

That is a strategic equation of encirclement likely to reinforce the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons.

On the other hand the Iranian regime has long been at odds with the Taliban. It shares with the U.S. a goal to keep the Taliban out of power.

**********

A bottom line:

Those who look back obsessed with and fearing a repeat of the Vietnam War can turn into a "pillar of salt."

Those who plunge ahead too fast without considering the consequences can sink into a deadly swamp.

*********

The best laid plans can go astray in the chaos of mountain passes and the screaming cliches of American politics and sensational mass media.

Even as this nation disingenuously seeks to convince itself it is not some outside power intervening in -- bogged down in -- what has been called "the graveyard of empires."

Afghanistan need not be the graveyard of the American Empire.

But "success" will most likely be both expensive and limited.

We can reasonably be sure that out of it will come in one way or another still more war.

"In every war there are hopes for peace.

In every peace there are seeds of future wars.

"So it has always been.

So it will always be...."

******

Let a "surge" go forward -- if carefully tailored to meet the realities and pitfalls of Afghanistan.

Left, Right join in: ring the bell on "Obama's War"

2009-09-14T10:15:00.001-07:00

"WAR IS THE GREATEST GAMBLE OF ALL"

LXXI
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
-The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Eleven days after this was written, the writer altered his conclusions to favor a limited military surge to provide greater security for population centers, provide stable base areas for the war with Al Qaeda and increase the US ability to strike deals with elements of the Taliban.

Critical issues, in his view, are size and length of surge, how wide a geographic area would be occupied and avoidance of mission creep into nation building.

Why the change?

Research and reflection. And a changed moral stance toward war.

*********

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT

At the moment when fateful decisions are being made.

Decisions to escalate "Obama's War" In the wild terrain of Afghanistan, the "graveyard of empires."

Decisions to send more troops, to widen their areas of operation, to commit untold resources to political and economic "nation-building."

This is no time to mourn for deaths already done.

When there could be so many more to come.

Even though President Obama has so far shown restraint in dealing with requests for U.S. troop increases.

Centcom Commander David H. Petraeus is clearly lobbying for expanded economic and troop commitments to replicate in Afghanistan an approach similar to the one he used in Iraq.

The August 30, 2009 report by his top U.S. and Nato commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal makes this clear.

To be quiet now could be complicity in hundreds, even thousands of deaths to come.

And risk the economic viability of this country for decades to come.

*********

It is well to keep perspective on the impact of prolonged war on the American economy and society.

War can become a kind of "social safety net."

It is the ultimate "stimulus package."

We can expect that the U.S. policy of extended war may provide solid military jobs for the less privileged.

Benefits for many who are squeezed by outsourcing of jobs, decline of manufacturing, an unreliable health care delivery system, and an often unaffordable higher education system.

Among the benefits:

Job security, "relatively few" combat deaths, generally good health care, affordable on or off-base housing, expense paid transfer, solid pensions after relatively short careers, and constantly improving treatment for war wounds and post traumatic stress disorder.

Corporations supplying the military also benefit -- both at the highest levels and for all those they employ.

We as a nation do reap important benefits from growing bloodshed in Afghanistan.

We should remember that the U.S. Great Depression was not truly ended until World War II stimulated the American economy and brought fuller employment.

*********

Still the U.S. policy of extended war drains its economy, blocks renewal of American infrastructure -- and contributes to the specter of huge, unmanageable government debt ahead.

Cuts (or decrease in the rate of growth) in many services may be necessary to support the people and activities employed by the military, funded by overseas American wars.

Employment and social services would increasingly delivered by the military sector -- rather than by the civilian sector of government funded activities.

So "roll the dice" again.

Decide what is most important to you.

If you wish to contain the risks, to avoid further "militarization" of the U.S. economy, take up the burden to oppose possible escalation by President Obama -- even if he is "your man."

*********

Now is the time to act.

Even though the nation is preoccupied with healthcare reform issues.

Even though Obama supporters may be reluctant to say or do anything implying criticism of the President.

Even though the raucous incivility of today's ideological polarization may build reluctance to produce another controversy.

Both liberals and conservatives "must" join in, speak out, write letters, even organize demonstrations.

Congressional hearings may help.

But they may not be enough to push media into sustained coverage and serious, non-ideological discussion.

The "heat" must be kept on the President.

We can expect media to emerge as much a part of the problem -- as of the solution.

It will be a difficult challenge to spread understanding of the range of choices ahead -- given the screaming and polarization of politicians and media in today's America.

Growing opposition to the war could sharpen the divide.

And make it difficult to find constructive solutions.

***********

We can hope -- but we cannot assume that an inexperienced Obama will make wise choices.

He has a range of options ranging from a full fledged counterinsurgency, nation-building strategy to a holding posture, with minor beef ups of military deployment while leaving open an option for some kind of deal.

We cannot assume that he will not try to appear "tough" -- so as to protect himself from hawkish critics at precisely the moment he needs to build support on health care reform.

So there must be constant public scrutiny -- somehow executed amidst the screaming hysteria of today's politics and media.

This will be difficult to accomplish, for we live in a country which represses, drowns out with noise historical perspective.

Still, It is time for liberals and conservatives to join hands:

To tell the President that if he plans to plunge deeper into Afghanistan, his plans shall not stand.

Ring the bell on "Obama's War."

***********

We know that the greater the American committment of troops and treasure, the greater is the "House of Cards" that can later fall.

An American presence in Afghanistan can remain to help make future deals. There are many possible choices.

But expanding that presence into major nation-building with expanded military operations defies the lessons of history.

An appearance of long term American occupation can sustain and strengthen Afghan Pashtun/Taliban tribal and nationalist resistance.

And will help squander the future prosperity and health of the the American people.

To be quiet now is to risk complicity in hundreds, thousands of deaths to come.

And watch America's strength and vitality sink into the rocky terrain of an Afghan wasteland.

Again, it is time for liberals and conservatives to unite:

To tell the President that if he plans to plunge deeper into Afghanistan, his plans shall not stand.

Ring the bell.

***********

Frederic A. Moritz has studied the outbreak of war since 1956. He is the author of Predicting Unexpected Attack, based on reporting as Asia Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor.

For a comprehensive critique of the Obama strategy, see Graham E. Fuller, former CIA Station Chief in Kabul, Obama's Policies Making Situation Worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"Ring the bell that can still ring...
they're going to hear from me"

Pick off an occupying army: update an old story

2009-09-10T11:52:00.000-07:00

Today's AK-47 is yesterday's Jezail

*************

A scrimmage at a border station -

A canter down some dark defile

Two thousand pounds of education

Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,

Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

-Rudyard Kipling

*************

Click here for another trip through the Khyber Pass,

including the poetry of Rudyard Kipling

Travel with me through the winding narrow 28 mile Khyber pass from Pakistan into Afghanistan....onward to the capital, Kabul.

To the land where Pashtun tribesmen have been fighting invaders for hundreds of years.

Into the valleys where American and other NATO forces fight Taliban Pashtun tribesmen....

Into the same valleys where Afghan tribesmen forced withdrawal of Soviet occupiers in a ten year war ending in 1989.

Where Pashtun tribesmen battled British invaders in three Afghan wars.

*************

Today's Pashtun Taliban battle high tech helicopters, satellite guided weapons, drones and all the computerized power of seasoned global American military, "inheritors" of Britain's world dominance.

Fierce, familiar with the rugged Afghan terrain, they use improvised explosive devices (IED's) and the ubiguitous AK-47.

The nations of the former "Soviet Block" have made some 100 million of these cheap, automatic, rapid fire "spray and pray" rifles.

They are perhaps the world's most popular military weapon.

This omnipresent gun is known for toughness, simplicty -- although its aimed range is limited to 350 yards.

That short range makes the AK-47 weak for sniping. The IED set in ambush for NATO patrols and convoys is a more lethal modern equivalent of long distance sniping.

Word is out that to supplement the short range AK-47, Taliban fighters are once again turning to the Lee Enfield for sniping.

That venerable and widely available British World War I fast bolt action rifle has a practical range of 650 yards extending out to still deadly at 2000.

As supplied by the CIA to the Mujahideen, this rifle played an important part in undermining the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Some 17 million have been made.

*************

The AK-47: today's powerhouse Jezail

With Lee Enfield for sniping as in days of old

The AK-47 is today's Jezail -- that ancient muzzle loading flintlock or matchlock musket which Åfghan soldiers used to kill hundreds of British soldiers back in the last century.

During Britain's First Afghan War of 1839 to 1844, the Jezail was a strong match for the British smoothbore flintlock muzzle loading "Brown Bess" musket.

The highly inaccurate Brown Bess had a practical aimed range of some 50 yards and a maximum effective range of 100 to 200 yards.

The "Brown Bess" tried and true -- the very same musket the British used against American rebels in 1775.

*************

The Jezail gave Afghans an important advantage over the British.

It was sometimes was rifled for accuracy and range -- which could extend up to 500 yards.

This is not to say it was the only reason the Pashtuns defeated the British in the First Afghan War.

Rugged terrain, weak British leadership, fierce Pashtun fighting skills, poor roads, extended supply lines, freezing winter, and a hostile population all were extremely important.

Still the short range Brown Bess musket was ill adapted to irregular warfare in rough terrain.

Effectiveness of the Brown Bess also required an enemy marching bunched together so that its inaccurate fire would be more likely to hit a target.

The British musket could have a tough time hitting wildly charging Afghans not in close formation.

The slow loading weapon had limited power against a mounted, fast charging Afghan tribesman. It could only kill a tribesman or his horse at relatively close range.

Once enemies got within that range, a British soldier would have little time to reload for more volleys.

Soldiers carrying the Brown Bess could be especially vulnerable to being outnumbered by tribesmen charging in fast on foot.

British soldiers had no ability to reload a muzzle loading musket at close quarters.

A soldier outnumbered and surrounded was quickly hacked to death.

*************

The Jezail smoothbore musket, with a long barrel and a tight-fitting ball, often had longer range, greater accuracy than the Brown Bess.

Because of this advantage in range, protected Afghan tribesmen often used the Jezail against the British during ambushes from the tops of cliffs, along valleys and defiles.

Afghans with Jezails could creep up close to British forts and snipe at British soldiers while out of musket range.

Thus primitive tribesmen with the right weapon and the ability to exploit remote terrain were able to defeat an army of the world's greatest military power.

Afghan snipers poured devastating fire on British soldiers and civilians retreating from Kabul through the Khyber pass in January 1842.

Thousands died from Jezail balls, attacks by tribal horsemen, and from freezing in the snows.

*************

Martini-Henry: killing Afghans at a distance

By 1878 the Martini-Henry breech loading single shot rifled carbine and full length rifle was in British service -- in time for hard use in Britain's Second Afghan War of 1878 to 1880.

With a range of up to 1500 yards.

It seemed a revolution in high tech weaponry.

Its long range and speed of single shot reload meant advancing Afghan horsemen could be cut down before hacking to death British troops.

But in the end Pushtun tribesmen held their own.

The British won many battles, but that was not enough to fully vanquish the Pashtun.

The British negotiated a deal, kept control over Afghanistan's external affairs to keep out Russia -- but granted internal Afghan autonomy.

Could this be a precedent for today?

*************

Britain was a global colonial power when Pashtuns loaded up their Jezails to pick off and massacre English and Indian troops in the First Afghan War.

It could swagger and huff after finally defeating Napoleon 's empire in 1815.

As could the Americans after defeating the Axis in 1945 and the Soviet Union in 1989,

But under the Jezails of Afghan tribes, the Pax Britannia was sorely tried

The British Raj sought to control Afghan tribesmen, to prevent Russian inroads towards British India.

Like the American colonial rebels of 1775 the tribesmen of David took on the British Goliath.

The tribesmen had terrain on their side. They knew it, could retreat to it, sally forth to ambush and snipe at British invaders so far from their bases across the Hindu Kush in India.

Here is how the British poet Rudyard Kipling described guerrilla war and the power of the Jezail in "Arithmetic on the Frontier."

*************

A scrimmage in a Border Station-

A canter down some dark defile

Two thousand pounds of education

Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,

Shot like a rabbit in a ride!

No proposition Euclid wrote
No formulae the text-books know,
Will turn the bullet from your coat,
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow.
Strike hard who cares - shoot straight who can
The odds are on the cheaper man.

*************

From Kipling's "The Young British Soldier"

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

*************

By the Second Afghan War, the Afghan Jerzail was clearly bested by the rifled breech loading Martini-Henry.

Despite the advanced rifle technology, tribal ferocity and difficult terrain required the British to ultimately make accommodations with the Pashtuns -- even though they were not massacred as in 1842.

Check out this 1925 video of a Persion hunter firing "sniper style." My guess is that his gun has a rifled barrel for accuracy and has the more reliable percussion caplock -- as opposed to the flintlock on many of the jezails used against the British.

Jezail: yesterday's AK-47 picks off an empire

"Brown Bess:" killing Afghans and Americans

The Jezail was a style of musket common in Muslim lands. Because the flintlock lock mechanism was complicated, many were just removed from captured Brown Bess muskets.

The distinctive curved butt must have been clenched between the right arm and side, not braced up against the shoulder.

The stock was hand-carved, the long barrel hand-wrought, and sometimes rifled.

Many Jezails were ornately engraved to mirror the beauty and lethality tribal warriors felt they possessed themselves.

It was the perfect weapon for a guerrilla who could move in to snipe on British troops from cliffs and roadside.

Much as American riflemen did at British troops during the battle for Lexington and Concord.

Circling the carcass with a Bamboo Curtain dead

2009-09-09T04:55:00.001-07:00

China and the U.S.

They are no longer opposites on two sides of a bamboo curtain.

They share many similarities and challenges, although their cultures and ideologies are vastly different.

Now they hold hands a bit, as happy partners -- while on the darker side nuclear powers circle in a "game" around the dead carcass of an Afghanistan devastated by thirty years of war.

A "game" that can both suck in and spill over.

***********

Bridging the nations: a Chinese Walmart

China and the U.S. Both come from extremely moralistic traditions. Both are culturally somewhat insular.

A major difference is that the US has been able to protect itself from the devastation of war fought on its own soil.

The only real traumatic, major incidence of war on U.S. home soil was the Civil War of 1861 to 1865.

China still recovers from the trauma of more than a century of bitter, violent war, both invasion and civil war. Where millions and millions have died, been uprooted, exiled, humbled into unpredictable positions in unpredictable times.

***********

Dancing in new times:

Another great difference is that China comes from the longest of histories. The US from the shortest. This impacts both in myriad indescribable ways.

China now has numerous challenges in its border regions, problems of possible separatism. How to balance the restiveness of more "backward" minorities such as Islamic Uighur and Buddhist Tibetan with the superiority claims of the Han?

The US lacks a separatist problem, but it is in the midst of a racial backlash after electing its first Afro-American president.

Once Obama made clear he would not merely be a smiling figurehead, the fear of a Black man in power has returned, echoing the deep insecurities the South felt after the Civil War --- when northern armies put blacks in charge of government.

This internal conflict, vast ideological polarization, fear and paranoia have important implications for America's interaction with the outside world.

The two countries have in common a growing polarization between poor and wealthy, a decline of meaningful guidance and regulation by government.

Both have highly unreliable social safety nets -- and sometimes dysfunctional political systems.

***********

In both countries localism, vested interest, bureaucracy and "bribery" sometimes make it difficult to enforce national policies, even where there is agreement on national policies.

Where America suffers in relation to China is its vast debt, its tendency toward bankruptcy at all levels of both private and public economy, its massive borrowing and trade deficit.

The mortgaging of future to dependence on consumer profligacy to keep the American economy going. With little left for renewal of a crumbling infrastructure.

A mixed blessing for China is its dependence on America's hunger for Chinese exports. And its dependence on interest income on American national debt.

The U.S. is an increasingly fragile nation which can put China at risk.

By emerging as number one, targeted by Al Qaeda, the United States feels compelled to continue the vast military expenditures which guarantee that funds will go into external occupation -- rather than renewal of American infrastructure.

China is freer to focus on building internal strength.

Being number one for the U.S. means, perhaps, there is little place to go but down.

China, by contrast, steers clear of moralistic expensive crusades, limits its military expenditures, keeps its belt a little tight as it gears for the future.

As the new guy on the block -- it can bypass many American problems.

Unless it crumbles under the weight of population, pollution, resource scarcity, polarized social classes, and/or political chaos, upheaval, fragmentation. How can it keep its many kinds of peoples and provinces in line?

***********

Now for the Afghan carcass:

BBC interview, Helmand Province, 2006

The BBC interview above is a classic illustration of how the Pashtun Taliban operate, recruit, and thrive off of resentment against foreign occupiers. See David Rohde, "Held by the Taliban," NYT, Oct. 17, 2009 for an account of how occupation and bombing reinforces anti-American feeling.

Over all this hangs the deepening swamp of Afghanistan, where America, Europe, Pakistan, India, China, and Russia, Iran, just to name a few, now are involved in a an increasingly violent "game."

A game that can both suck in and spill over.

China may be an American junior partner in Afghanistan, extending some economic aid -- while avoiding direct commitments.

Pakistan refrains from backing Islamic separatists in Xinjiang so long as China does not get too close to India.

China cozies up to Pakistan to limit its support for those who might stir up Islamic separatism in China.

Russian military analyst: U.S. can "win" in Afghanistan
because of China and Russia, February 2009

***********

China plays ball a bit with the US in Afghanistan hoping the US will tone down its human rights positions and its military backing for Taiwan.

Pakistan bends to Washington a bit to restrain Washington's support for India, but its intelligence agencies sometimes support the Taliban in Afghanistan to keep India from getting a toe hold there.

A very complicated world -- and one in which the Chinese can have a bright future.

But both China and the US walk tight ropes of potential internal political instability ---and a possible international tinderbox involving many countries with nuclear weapons.

A tinderbox which takes great care -- lest it drain the coffers of numerous nations.

India, Pakistan, the US, China, Iran, Russia --- all nuclear (or soon to be) powers circling on the dead carcass of a devastated Afghanistan.

How will this all impact the great international dance? Can regional and great power involvement be limited? Or will this Afghan abyss spiral upward and onward and outward as a defining morass for a host of nations?

Will Obama follow the advice of Lord Roberts?

2009-09-04T05:26:00.001-07:00

Will Obama bog down as the Soviets did with

a longterm occupation in the 1980's?

Or will he, like Britain's General Roberts'
expedition to Kandahar in 1880, push in
to "defeat" Taliban allied with Al-Qaeda;
then safely withdraw? Perhaps do

battle from "offshore?"

Is Obama the "imperial" Disraeli--

or the "moral" Gladstone?
Or somewhere in between?

Henry Kissinger joins the debate
Explore a diplomatic exit
Kipling's allegory: Ford O' Kabul River

*************

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is reported warning that an increasingly powerful Taliban is gaining the upper hand.

In response the U.S. is changing its strategy in the eight-year-old conflict by increasing the number of troops in heavily populated areas like the volatile, historic southern city of Kandahar, the former capital of the Taliban and the present insurgency's "spiritual home."

(The same Kandahar General Roberts relieved back in 1880. See a "soldier's letter to a mother at home," penned from Kandahar before the days of email, for a vivid picture of just how brutal Afghan fighting could be.)

The U.S. has a military and diplomatic staff far more sophisticated than the Russians had in Afghanistan during the 1980's.

Yet all of the sophistication of American military officers and diplomats may still lead down the path toward an empire's fate of bankruptcy and ruin.

*************

Hopefully Americans can refine their skills at targeted assassination, pinpointed drone bombings, even negotiating with potential Taliban allies.

American war aims, it is said, are limited: to destroy Al Qaeda, and kill and capture its leaders.

Yet this could become a "quagmire." Let us hope for the best, but not be surprised by the worst. Sometimes, even the "the worst case scenario" becomes real.

So let us consider the alternative proposed by columnist George Will: to withdraw and target and kill enemies from offshore.

Knowing full well that great powers seldom scale down their objectives -- until after they "bleed."

Could the Will approach work -- or is it profoundly naive?

*************

This commentary by former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer suggests the current American strategy may be even more complicated than it seems.

He has warned that Americans may be tempted to follow the disastrous Soviet occupation policy of the 1980's rather than the successful conquer and then withdraw campaign waged by Britain's Lord Roberts in 1880.

Scheuer could turn out to be dated, totally off base. He could be right on target. Obama must determine if there are alternatives to a costly "quagmire" of occupation and a massive expeditionary force designed to take the Taliban out.

*************

Yes, General Roberts pulled back.

The move coincided with election as British prime minister of that Scottish moralist, William Gladstone, arch enemy of the man he defeated, Benjamin Disraeli, author of Britain's "forward strategy" in Afghanistan.

In his famous Midlothian election campaign Gladstone had rejected the "forward strategy." After warning of the dangers of entrapment and defeat as during the First Afghan War of 1839, he preached the Christian virtues -- and railed against the reprisal burning of Afghan villages for attacks upon British soldiers.

Afghan women and children, he intoned, also are human and should not be left starving in the snow.

*************

Taking on proud Kandahar-based Afghan Nationalism

An Aljazeera correspondent on the road to Kandahar

"Oh Shenandoah, I love your daughter...."

2009-08-31T09:29:00.000-07:00

It is good to remember the longing refrains of "Shenandoah, I love your daughter."

Click below on Bruce Springsteen's version of this song I recently sang in a New Bern concert.

One of America's greatest ballads. It is many a man's voyage: a song of leaving, roving, but always loving...with the heart forever open to the dream of peace, a return home.

The trapper and the Indian maiden, the "archetypical" image of the American frontier.....where love and movement sometimes uneasily coexist. Centuries of romance have swirled around "Shenandoah's Daughter:"

'Tis seven years,; I've been a rover,; Away you rolling river,; When I return,; I'll be your lover,; Away, I'm bound away; 'Cross the wide Missouri.

It was once informally the state song of Virginia, before that a boatsman's song on the Missouri River, then a shanty song shipping around the world with the clipper ship crews out of New Orleans.

Listen to Paul Robeson's 1936 version. The great Afro American singer was a classmate of my father at Columbia Law School, class of 1923. This son of a slave, obsessed with the battle against lynching, threw in his lot as an apologist for the Soviet Union. He lost his show business career in the "Red Scare" of the early 1950's.

Few are the Americans who have not sung or heard this tale of the American voyage. Listen to the traditionalist Tennessee Ernie Ford. Check out a vast panorama based in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley as painted out on the melody of this great ballad. And click below to listen to a golden white robed choir of youth following with Bruce Springsteen's glistening arrangement.

Now it is truly international. Hear the words of the equisite Norwegian singer Sissel. Compare with New Zealand's teenage superstar Hayley Westenra. Listen to Shenandoah from Beijing. Why not add in a Bob Dylan version? Then there's Arlo Guthrie. Top it off with Anna Sophia-Henry, a nine year old soprano.

Lastly, listen to actor Jimmy Stewart's Hollywood version of "Shenandoah" -- tailored to a post Civil War call for peace and healing.

And here is a standard version of the grand old ballad:

Oh Shenandoah,

I long to hear you,

Away you rolling river,

Oh Shenandoah,

I long to hear you,

Away, I'm bound away

'Cross the wide Missouri.

Oh Shenandoah,

I love your daughter,

Away you rolling river,

I'll take her 'cross

Your rollin' water,

Away, I'm bound away

'Cross the wide Missouri.

'Tis seven years,

I've been a rover,

Away you rolling river,

When I return,

I'll be your lover,

Away, I'm bound away

'Cross the wide Missouri.

Oh Shenandoah,; I'm bound to leave you.; Away you rolling river,; Oh Shenandoah,; I'll not deceive you.; Away, I'm bound away; 'Cross the wide Missouri.

The origin of the name Shenandoah is much debated. One theory holds that Shenandoah is an Indian word meaning "sprucy stream" or "river flowing alongside high hills and mountains."

Acccording to Wikipedia, that great source of modern wisdom. the word Shenandoah does come from Algonquian-Wakashian American Indians and mean Beautiful star daughter; maybe spruce-lined stream or vast prairie.

Another theory is the origin of the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, Indian, of course, and also means "daughter of the skies."

Other claims are that Shenandoah is Iroquois for "great plains" and less likely, that it is derived from the Schind-han-dom or "spruce stream."

Whatever the source, the ballad lives on -- and its sounds ever change along the rivers of life.

#############

Ah, sweet Indian maid, where has thee been before? In "Song of the Indian Maid," by John Keats, 1818:

Young Stranger!
I've been a ranger
In search of pleasure throughout every clime;
Alas! 'tis not for me!
Bewitch'd I sure must be,
To lose in grieving all my maiden prime.

Come then, Sorrow,
Sweetest Sorrow!
Like an own babe I nurse thee on my breast:
I thought to leave thee,
And deceive thee,
But now of all the world I love thee best.

Let us come down from the highbrow lyricism of English poetry and explore the dozens of love songs about Indian maidens published in the "Tin Pan Alley" parlor music of a century ago (Click on the link to enjoy both the lyrics and the sounds).

Centuries of romance have swirled around "Shenandoah's Daughter."

US in Afghanistan: bearing "gifts" for other nations?

2009-08-29T11:34:00.000-07:00

CBS' Lara Logan (above) reports on growing military challenges

******

U.S. Marines (above) pursue an elusive Taliban

We can expect several countries to, at least privately, welcome a growing U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.

For some golden gifts may lie ahead.

Partly because escalation may help keep Islamic extremism from spilling into other countries.

Partly because escalation may help contain American "hegemony," unilateralism -- if the United States gets bogged down, "bled," overextended, "trapped" in Afghanistan.

Indeed the more "overstretched" the U.S. becomes, the more it could be forced to rely on co-operation with other nations -- and the less on unilateral supremacy.

Each nation which potentially benefits has the long term objectives described below. Whether American escalation actually brings such results remains to be seen.

There can be a downside if American pressure in Afghanistan and on Pakistan encourages Islamic extremism to destabilize Pakistan.

Growing fundamentalism in Pakistan could undermine an American/Pakistani alliance -- and even cast a threatening shadow over Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal.

Let's take a look at some possibilities:

******

1) In general, as the U.S. Goliath extends itself in another costly war, it will need to be extra sensitive to the needs and requests of a variety of nations around the world.

European countries may gain increased leverage over the U.S. as American military forces are stretched. The U.S. may need to make concessions on a variety of issues to secure allied support on military transportation and basing.

******

2) If Islamic jihadists flock to Afghanistan to defeat the U.S. there, that could mean fewer guerrilla and terrorist attacks in other parts of the world. With the U.S. largely footing the bill for battling the extremists in Afghanistan.

Jihadists flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980's. They flocked to Iraq to fight the U.S. after the American invasion. Now they may flock back to Afghanistan.

******

3) Anti-American forces around the world, including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Kim Jong-il in North Korea, can welcome stepped up American fighting in Afghanistan. They can take comfort in the reduced capacity of the U.S. to intervene in other parts of the world.

******

4) China may benefit from seeing a militarily extended U.S. less able to project power into the Pacific in support of American interests such as defending Taiwan.

China would also benefit if stepped up American action against the Taliban reduces the likelihood Islamic extremists can help Islamic separatists in China's Xinjiang province.

******

5) Russia could also benefit because the U.S. would be less likely to actively oppose Russian actions against rebellious nations such as Georgia and the Ukraine.

The U.S. may even need Russian cooperation against the Taliban. Hence the possibility of a less provocative policy toward the Kremlin, with less emphasis on tying former Soviet satellites into Western political and military alliances.

Russia also may benefit because U.S. action against Islamic extremists in Afghanistan could limit a spillover of Islamic extremism into Russia or other states on the Russian border.

The Russians cannot be very happy about an American presence in Afghanistan so close to their borders.

But they can take comfort since the U.S. intervention keeps Americans tied down and "bleeding" -- much as the Americans kept the Russian occupation in Afghanistan "bleeding" in the 1980's.

Putin will be happy if American power declines.

******

6) Iran may benefit because a larger Afghan war may leave the U.S. less free to commit attention and forces to contain Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons.

U.S. efforts to secure international support in Afghanistan may limit its leverage to secure international support against Iran.

Washington may need to work extra hard to avoid war with Iran if it is to succeed in Åfghanistan. The Americans may be more inclined toward limited accomodation with Iran if that helps American operations in Afghanistan.

******

7) Iraq may benefit if it feels greater freedom to set its own policies even when opposed by Washington. This could include closer bonds with Iran. Fewer U.S. forces in Iraq as deployments shift to Afghanistan will mean less American influence in Baghdad.

An American effort to secure a friendly allied client state in Afghanistan may thus loosen the U.S. grip on its newly created client state in Iraq.

******

8) India can welcome stepped up fighting between Pakistan and Taliban, as increased US operations in Afghanistan drive more Taliban across the border into Pakistan.

Fewer Pakistan forces will be available to counter India if Pakistan is forced to deploy more troops against the Taliban in Pakistan.

******

None of these considerations is absolute or certain. All can be tempered or modified.

The big guy on the block: a recipe for eternal war?

2009-06-13T15:30:00.000-07:00

It is the nature of defense establishments to conjure up enemies to justify healthy funding of military budgets.

Still every so often a real enemy does appear. If not, history shows, governments go out to make one. There is nothing like an external threat to justify a buildup of national power.

Fortunately for our military, America is the big guy on the block. "We" have plenty of enemies to challenge our power, to shelter our terrorist enemies, to develop nuclear weapons to oppose us, to thumb their noses in our face.

No need to make up enemies, as the above images of fighting in Iraq show.

Indeed it may be wise to avoid more shooting wars, for example against Iran and/ or North Korea....

Afghanistan and the remnants of Iraq should do nicely.

At least for now.....

While it can be great to have a weak enemy, such as Cuba under Castro or Panama under Noriega, four toughies at once can be a bit much.

Who knows? If we use our heads, two more wars might just be avoided. Some enemies can be isolated -- or even enticed into a dialogue.

But maybe not.

Being the world's only superpower can be a recipe for eternal war.

Tiananmen : seeing close how distant people hurt

2009-06-04T12:41:00.000-07:00

The suffering at Tiananmen was brutal.

But limited compared to the vast violence and sufferings of China's people both before and during communism.

Still it was the first time the technology of modern international media made China's suffering so immediate, so close, so graphic. Perhaps it was the first truly globalized, video enshrined human rights tragedy.

And now, some 20 years after the "Tiananmen Square Massacre," both the US and China struggle with similar problems.

America's rust belt finally crumbles some ten years after China's uncompetitive state industries were put out to pasture.

China's pensioners were unpensioned...amid fresh competition from the coastal special export zones and the blooming of private hinterland industry.

Ironically the American auto industry finally collapses as free enterprises threatened by overseas competition seek a hope of rebirth under bankruptcy and government bailout.

America returns to regulation as China struggles with the consequences of letting the capitalist tiger out of its cage. China, too, has its re-regulation to do.

Despite its rapid modernization, China is plagued by unemployment, uneven development, uprooting of established communities, migrant workers, poor medical services, an aging population, corruption and environmental degradation. Not exactly a mirror image of the U.S., but with problems hardly unfamiliar.

Both nations boast an expanding gap between the rich and poor. Both pump in their "stimulus packages." Both face growing political instability if deep problems stay out of control.

Two nations locked in a needy financial embrace. Wealth, growth, boom and bust. And how to deal with possibly explosive frustration, discontent.

China bails out the American budget deficit by investing in U.S. bonds even as the prospect of declining American demands for Chinese imports potentially threatens China's economy. Even as each prepares for possible cyberwar against the other.

The United States is dragged down by its overseas military campaigns -- and by its runaway deficit expenditures, in part to please unhappy voters.

China rises as a world power but seems determined not to follow the American example of entanglement in costly military adventures.

Determined not to follow the path of decline set by Gorbachev's liberalizations and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The United States has its free and increasingly wild media which encourages a fiery exaggeration of every nuance of difference. Whether it be on internet, TV or radio screaming is the order of the day.

China keeps cracking down on free expression, keeping the lid on public argument. To damp down the resentments which massive change can exacerbate. America's model of polemical media has little appeal to an insecure government sitting on a mountain of potential public discontent.

Tiananmen Square's victims -- they died in part because China's government was determined to protect itself from the spread of both American and Soviet diseases.

Yes, in today's world "no nation is an island." We see how other people hurt.

And viruses still tend to spread.

Mouthing off - or well lawyered in the digital age?

2009-05-14T09:16:00.000-07:00

The unsolved problem with newspapers weakening is who produces credible, costly content with some standards? And, who sues for "freedom of information" and does the investigative reporting? Who gets tough against the greedy -- as opposed to just mouthing off a cheapy opinion?

Despite the explosion of information and videos in new media, yes with everyone a "citizen reporter," without aggressive, well lawyered newspapers, the way opens for lots of governmental abuse.

Even a strong multi media web based Fifth Estate cannot easily do what a tough and ambitious well lawyered Fourth Estate could do.

On the other hand how many newspapers are well lawyered and truly aggressive? How many are simply into going along? Sending out reporters to keep things quiet, to give free publicity to local newsmakers, to local personalities of note?

Still it was interesting to see the BBC on line and on cellphone reaching out to "citizen reporters" in the Swat Valley of Pakistan and Srilanka for email feedback on military assaults there.

Everyone a reporter may sometimes shine a flickering candlelight on brutal armies.

We will soon see how all this plays out in Afghanistan.

So far we have no "citizen reporting" from underneath a drone --- or from a wedding party where a missile mistakenly takes out the bride and groom.

Empire's price: goodnight my friends, goodnight

2009-05-13T13:56:00.000-07:00

This one needs little introduction. Say goodbye to some fifty of the American dead in Iraq, 2007. Remember those who survive:

Rediscovering the oh so obvious: the "empire" is us

2009-05-12T03:44:00.000-07:00

For many years I have studied the expansionist hungers of America....and become convinced that it is a deep, sustained dynamic even when the men who lead it seem mature, civilized.

I believe my early 1960's Oberlin College education hid this, glossed over it. For in the "Cold War" were we not a democracy at war with the Soviet empire?

I learned of American expansion on my own, as a correspondent in the field and as a private scholar well outside of the establishment.

Long before the century turned -- and my 1960's University of California professor Chalmers Johnson discovered the obvious in his own "mavericky" way.

Going all the way back I felt a certain spiritual kinship with George Kennan, the moody, introspective diplomat and Soviet expert who functioned partly as a journalist.

A listener and a thinker, he gained wisdom from chatting even with "whores" on Berlin's streets when a diplomat there in the 1930's. After World War II he helped devise a strategy to "contain" the Soviet Union.

Then at some point he saw the military expansion so strong in postwar America -- and with his 1950's proposal for American Soviet military "disengagement" -- climbed off the train. For shelter in the embodiment of established, non frontier America, Princeton University.

Ah yes, the fist was often gloved, when the nation was weak or there was no need to show it.

But when challenged, the vengeful, expanding warrior came out. More than once there was "war without mercy."

And then the answer was often swift and violent -- as with Japan and Germany, as in Vietnam, as today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reagan drove the train all the way into the station in his bid to destroy the Soviet "evil empire."

He supported savage proxy wars in Central America and Afghanistan to "bleed" the Soviet Union.

For Reagan was a child of the heartland, even in his movies at peace amidst the savagery of American expansion and Indian resistance on the the frontier.

Deep in the American psyche has been a constant refrain.

To destroy those "evil empires" -- and be instead the white shining empire on the hill.

Moderation sometimes, but so often that dream born in religious zealotry, driven by financial greed, fueled by a sense of superiority, sometimes restrained by checks and balances. Often opposed by intellectuals and religious idealists.

How convenient to see Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee as an exception, the Mexican War as an aberration, the Spanish American War as an isolated product of "yellow journalists."

But a genius of America is that it is a democracy which can go all out when the need arises, to kill, to quickly move into the field vast amounts of men and weapons, open new overseas bases, to call the shots, to rebuild the world in its own image, even, God forbid, to torture.

Democracies can be expansionist.

Nothing wrong with that. Go for it, if you can.

Do not be surprised if it does not last forever. "Blows back" to bite.

Still, what emerges in its place might not be completely bad.

"Second Image Reversed:" fiction tells Afghan story

2009-04-21T17:11:00.000-07:00

Peter -- Interesting that your 1978 article The Second Image Reversed on the impact of international politics upon domestic politics appeared while I was a journalist covering China. Both far removed from our days as college students at Oberlin College, class of 1963

I dimly perceived coming conflagrations as international politics spilled into nearby Afghanistan and into far away El Salvador, Nicaragua.

In our last century the domestic has rarely been separate from the external. War and its consequences have been the fire that so often blows back into the societies and lives of individuals. So it has often been with international financial cycles.

Intriguing that it took your well noticed article to drive such a simple point home to the erudite political science/international relations academy.

This century appears no different.

The impact of international rivalries on personal lives and national politics is beautifully illustrated by the Afghan emigre Khaled Hosseini.

It is no secret that the Soviet American Cold War rivalry devastated the people of Afghanistan.

Then that devastation "blew back" to turn American society into an aggressive militarized fortress after Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan took down the Twin Towers in 2001.

Novelists are unconstrained by the sometimes rigid classifications of political scientists, historians, and journalists. They must be guided by experience, but also let their imaginations soar like kites.

Thus it was Harriet Beecher Stowe who broke the story on slavery and Charles Dickens who functioned as an investigative journalist poking into the dark shadows of class. And of course Mark Twain classically chronicled race in America.

Let us look now to the disintegration of Afghanistan as international competition turned it into a battleground of armies and guerrillas. Let us look now at a novelist's version of your "Second Image Reversed."

The film of Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner (Hardcover, Oct. 4, 2007) was partly made in Kashgar, Xinjiang, China -- my old stamping ground -- and the gateway to Afghanistan to the West. Equally illuminating of this part of the world is the same author's A Thousand Splendid Suns (Paperback, Nov. 25, 2008).

Cashing In: time to begin again, my sweetest friend

2009-02-06T10:23:00.000-08:00

With the circle unbroken, home keeps moving on. But, yes, there is always time to begin again "a brand new dance between old friends." June Carter Cash and Johnny Cash.

Yes, there is always time, but sooner or later God's Going to Cut You Down. In the meantime, as "the outlaws" put it in The Highwayman, "I am still alive."

Hurt: "But what have I become, my sweetest friend? Everyone I know goes away in the end."