Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Wild 'Iraqi Indians' with IEDs?
Worth pondering:
"The vast expanse of desert territory that has been annexed to our domain within the last few years is peopled by numerous tribes of marauding and erratic savages ... making war the business and pastime of their lives, and acknowledging none of the ameliorating conventionalities of civilized warfare. Their tactics are such as to render the old system almost wholly impotent.
"To act against an enemy who is here to-day and there to-morrow ... carrying devastation, rapine, and murder in his steps; who is everywhere without being any where; who assembles at the moment of combat, and vanishes whenever fortune turns against him; who leaves women and children far distant from the theatre of hostilities, and has neither towns nor magazines to defend, nor lines of retreat to cover; who derives his commissariat from the country he operates in, and is not encumbered with (materiel); who comes into action only when it suits his purpose, and never without the advantage of numbers of position -- with such an enemy the strategic science of civilized nations loses much of its importance, and finds but rarely, and only in peculiar localities, an opportunity to be put in practice.
"Our ... army, scattered as it has been over the vast area of our possessions, in small garrisons of one or two companies each, has seldom been in a situation to act successfully on the offensive against large numbers of these marauders, and has often been condemned to hold itself almost exclusively upon the defensive. The morale of the troops must necessarily be seriously impaired, and the confidence of the savages correspondingly augmented. The system of small garrisons has a tendency to disorganize the troops in proportion as they are scattered, and renders them correspondingly inefficient. ...
"No people probably on the face of the earth are more ambitious of martial fame, or entertain a higher appreciation for the deeds of a daring and successful warrior ... The attainment of such reputation is the paramount and absorbing object of their lives; all their aspirations for distinction invariably take this channel of expression. ... This idea is inculcated from the earliest infancy. It is not surprising, therefore, that ... the young man who, as yet, has gained no renown as a ... warrior, should be less discriminate in his attacks than older men who have already acquired a name. The young ... should, therefore, be closely watched when encountered on the Plains."
-- from "Indian Fighting," in The Prairie Traveler: A Hand-Book for Overland Expeditions, by Randolph B. Marcy, captain, U.S. Army (Bedford, Mass: Applewood Books, 1988; reprint, Washington, D.C.: War Department, 1859), 200-201, 205-206.
Setting aside questions surrounding the morality of the war in Iraq ...
Do they even teach the experiences of the old Indian fighters in the war colleges anymore???? Did the military learn NOTHING in the nineteenth century worth remembering today?
--ER
"The vast expanse of desert territory that has been annexed to our domain within the last few years is peopled by numerous tribes of marauding and erratic savages ... making war the business and pastime of their lives, and acknowledging none of the ameliorating conventionalities of civilized warfare. Their tactics are such as to render the old system almost wholly impotent.
"To act against an enemy who is here to-day and there to-morrow ... carrying devastation, rapine, and murder in his steps; who is everywhere without being any where; who assembles at the moment of combat, and vanishes whenever fortune turns against him; who leaves women and children far distant from the theatre of hostilities, and has neither towns nor magazines to defend, nor lines of retreat to cover; who derives his commissariat from the country he operates in, and is not encumbered with (materiel); who comes into action only when it suits his purpose, and never without the advantage of numbers of position -- with such an enemy the strategic science of civilized nations loses much of its importance, and finds but rarely, and only in peculiar localities, an opportunity to be put in practice.
"Our ... army, scattered as it has been over the vast area of our possessions, in small garrisons of one or two companies each, has seldom been in a situation to act successfully on the offensive against large numbers of these marauders, and has often been condemned to hold itself almost exclusively upon the defensive. The morale of the troops must necessarily be seriously impaired, and the confidence of the savages correspondingly augmented. The system of small garrisons has a tendency to disorganize the troops in proportion as they are scattered, and renders them correspondingly inefficient. ...
"No people probably on the face of the earth are more ambitious of martial fame, or entertain a higher appreciation for the deeds of a daring and successful warrior ... The attainment of such reputation is the paramount and absorbing object of their lives; all their aspirations for distinction invariably take this channel of expression. ... This idea is inculcated from the earliest infancy. It is not surprising, therefore, that ... the young man who, as yet, has gained no renown as a ... warrior, should be less discriminate in his attacks than older men who have already acquired a name. The young ... should, therefore, be closely watched when encountered on the Plains."
-- from "Indian Fighting," in The Prairie Traveler: A Hand-Book for Overland Expeditions, by Randolph B. Marcy, captain, U.S. Army (Bedford, Mass: Applewood Books, 1988; reprint, Washington, D.C.: War Department, 1859), 200-201, 205-206.
Setting aside questions surrounding the morality of the war in Iraq ...
Do they even teach the experiences of the old Indian fighters in the war colleges anymore???? Did the military learn NOTHING in the nineteenth century worth remembering today?
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
Which causes me, when I think about it, to incline to think that Marines and soldiers who, under stress and in untenable circumstances, commit heinous acts, be given major benefit of the doubt! Unless circumstances suggest utter disregard for clearly civilian life. Move the accountability up the chain of command.
Thought prompted by this alert:
-- The Associated Press reports Marines plan to charge seven Marines and one sailor with murder in connection with the April death of an Iraqi civilian in Hamdaniya, a defense official said.
Thought prompted by this alert:
-- The Associated Press reports Marines plan to charge seven Marines and one sailor with murder in connection with the April death of an Iraqi civilian in Hamdaniya, a defense official said.
"Did the military learn NOTHING in the nineteenth century worth remembering today?"
No.
Not from the 19th century, nor from the 20th, nor from all of recorded time, it would seem.
No.
Not from the 19th century, nor from the 20th, nor from all of recorded time, it would seem.
In that the two gentlemen that are now at the apex of our military establishment are both without combat experience and even qualify as certified draft doggers I'm not sure that you can blame the "military" for the cuurrent situation.
As for the Marines that (may have)practiced terrorism in order to prevent terrorism, well that is a tried and proven non-viable technique. They should have at least been trained to know that.
In the SW we used Apaches to catch Apaches. It worked very well. But then we sent them all, including our own (good)Apaches, to the same prisons in Florida. An art of war is always to assinate the assasins. One of America's problems is that we create these new "warrior Apaches" and then let them come home and expect them to be tame Indians. It didn't work after Vietnam, but this time it may be an even bigger problem.
"....
We sent thinking indiviuals
When we needed a mindless mob
Go do your job
Go slay the Eastern Dragon
Crush it beneath you feet
And their Customs never noticed
When they brought home the Dragon's teeth..."
Through the Looking Glass at Oakland
---William Sandia (1970)
As for the Marines that (may have)practiced terrorism in order to prevent terrorism, well that is a tried and proven non-viable technique. They should have at least been trained to know that.
In the SW we used Apaches to catch Apaches. It worked very well. But then we sent them all, including our own (good)Apaches, to the same prisons in Florida. An art of war is always to assinate the assasins. One of America's problems is that we create these new "warrior Apaches" and then let them come home and expect them to be tame Indians. It didn't work after Vietnam, but this time it may be an even bigger problem.
"....
We sent thinking indiviuals
When we needed a mindless mob
Go do your job
Go slay the Eastern Dragon
Crush it beneath you feet
And their Customs never noticed
When they brought home the Dragon's teeth..."
Through the Looking Glass at Oakland
---William Sandia (1970)
# posted by 
: 1:05 PM
: 1:05 PM
Libs and dems... the only people in the world who are unable to see that we are winning the war. The papers found after the death of Al Zaquari, etc, have shown that they knew they were losing. Yes... libs and dems want nothing but defeat because this is what they know. Their height of greatness was the Vietnam defeate and they want to return America there now.
Pathetic. And guess what, we defeated the Indians on the plains as well... so apparently they did learn something... what pathetic drivel. Libs and dems... they set out for war, vote for it, then when the going gets tough, they quit. Yes, sign me up for that!
Pathetic. And guess what, we defeated the Indians on the plains as well... so apparently they did learn something... what pathetic drivel. Libs and dems... they set out for war, vote for it, then when the going gets tough, they quit. Yes, sign me up for that!
# posted by : 3:33 PM
: 3:33 PM
Anon:
1. One can't win an unjust war. One can only find a way to end it with as little loss of life as possible.
2. Setting that point aside, how do you define "winning?" Will this war be just as long as we end up killing fewer citizens than Saddam did?
3. Do you truly think the way to stop the "terrorists" is by continuing to kill them, along with thousands of innocent bystanders in the process? Tell me this: How many of your friends and family members would have to be killed by the enemy before you were ready to give in to them? What?! You'd NEVER give in?
Imagine that. Fortunately for us, these "terrorists" are less than human and they'll give up once they see that we're willing to keep killing them and those around them.
4. The "libs" did NOT vote for this war. We did a great deal to try to prevent it. The Dems in office, yes, many of THEM voted for it but they did so against the wishes of their base. And, apparently, against the wishes of the majority of the US and against the hopes of the majority of the world, further establishing us as a rogue gov't and making us prone to - wait for it - yep, terrorism!
5. and you think the decimation of a several groups of peoples is a good thing?! No wonder you support this war and this president!
1. One can't win an unjust war. One can only find a way to end it with as little loss of life as possible.
2. Setting that point aside, how do you define "winning?" Will this war be just as long as we end up killing fewer citizens than Saddam did?
3. Do you truly think the way to stop the "terrorists" is by continuing to kill them, along with thousands of innocent bystanders in the process? Tell me this: How many of your friends and family members would have to be killed by the enemy before you were ready to give in to them? What?! You'd NEVER give in?
Imagine that. Fortunately for us, these "terrorists" are less than human and they'll give up once they see that we're willing to keep killing them and those around them.
4. The "libs" did NOT vote for this war. We did a great deal to try to prevent it. The Dems in office, yes, many of THEM voted for it but they did so against the wishes of their base. And, apparently, against the wishes of the majority of the US and against the hopes of the majority of the world, further establishing us as a rogue gov't and making us prone to - wait for it - yep, terrorism!
5. and you think the decimation of a several groups of peoples is a good thing?! No wonder you support this war and this president!
One of the problems with this war is that it is being fought with paid volunteers. As such we are killing some of our better citizens. Now in Vietnam we swept the streets for the draftees, and emptied the countryside as well.
I fought along side Black Pathers, Hells Angels, and college drop outs over there. As one of my world wise friends recently said we need the draft again to clean out our cities.
Anon, you can volunteer any time.
If they won't take you, then volunteer for an NGO. They'll take you.
I fought along side Black Pathers, Hells Angels, and college drop outs over there. As one of my world wise friends recently said we need the draft again to clean out our cities.
Anon, you can volunteer any time.
If they won't take you, then volunteer for an NGO. They'll take you.
# posted by : 6:52 PM
: 6:52 PM
Re, "we defeated the Indians on the plains as well ..."
How proud this "Christian" nation is! Horse apples.
How proud this "Christian" nation is! Horse apples.
ER,
but your point was that we didn't learn anything from fighting the Indians on the plains. As if your silly post was there to show we can't win in Iraq. Again, you are a defeatest and your most wonderful dream come true is the defeat of America...
Yes, I know, but you are just ashamed of America... What, we liberated the Iraqis from a ruthless dictator, and somehow this is a bad thing?
but your point was that we didn't learn anything from fighting the Indians on the plains. As if your silly post was there to show we can't win in Iraq. Again, you are a defeatest and your most wonderful dream come true is the defeat of America...
Yes, I know, but you are just ashamed of America... What, we liberated the Iraqis from a ruthless dictator, and somehow this is a bad thing?
# posted by : 10:56 AM
: 10:56 AM
Mouse:
Ah, no. My point was that we should learn how to fight the enemy before we walk into ambush after ambush after ambush.
Me, defeatist? Ah, no. We may have "success" of sorts, nothing as clear-cut as "victory, "in Iraq -- at tremendous cost to our people and our treasure.
Oh, and I LOVE silly posts, you silly-willy! Stick around!
Ah, no. My point was that we should learn how to fight the enemy before we walk into ambush after ambush after ambush.
Me, defeatist? Ah, no. We may have "success" of sorts, nothing as clear-cut as "victory, "in Iraq -- at tremendous cost to our people and our treasure.
Oh, and I LOVE silly posts, you silly-willy! Stick around!
Oh, and ah, no. I'm not ashamed of America. I'm ashamed of our lying president, our lapdog Republican Congress, and spineless Democrats.
There. *That's* cleared up now.
Shoo.
There. *That's* cleared up now.
Shoo.
I heard some of that NPR interview, too, quiche.
Back in the Plains wars, BOTH sides did some scalping, and BOTH sides were guilty of massacres.
War seems to always settle at the morality of the foe with the least morals. Or maybe I mean scruples ...
Post a Comment
Back in the Plains wars, BOTH sides did some scalping, and BOTH sides were guilty of massacres.
War seems to always settle at the morality of the foe with the least morals. Or maybe I mean scruples ...
<< Home
