Archive for the ‘military’ Category

Ukraine.

Saturday, August 26th, 2023

The escalation of American involvement in Ukraine continues in spite of growing questions about it. There is a whole bipartisan obsession with that country, going back to Joe Biden’s involvement and his son’s. Even before that, there was much concern about the fact that Ukraine was the site for many of the USSR’s nuclear missiles. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR, fears about those missiles resulted in an agreement. The 1994 agreement to remove those missiles, included a promise to protect Ukraine from aggresion.

The U.S., in a burst of diplomatic energy and at a time of unmatched global influence, worked to prevent the unprecedented collapse of a nuclear superpower from leading to history’s largest proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It was at a time of immense US power and a weakened Russia.

This diplomatic activity manifested in security assurances for Ukraine embedded in what has become known as the Budapest Memorandum. With the entrance of Ukraine into the international order as a non-nuclear state, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. pledged to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” The memo reaffirmed their obligation to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” The signatories also reaffirmed their commitment to “seek immediate” UN Security Council action “to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression.” These assurances upheld obligations contained in the U.N. charter and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act.

The nuclear weapons were sent to Russia to dismantle them. In 2014, sensing US weakness and indecision, Russia invaded and took possession of Crimea. Russia has a long history with Crimea.

Some argue that Putin’s annexation of Crimea is an attempt to return Russia to the glory of its pre-Soviet days, “as one of the world’s greatest civilizations.” Although Ukrainian nationalism remains strong, particularly in the eastern part of the country, Ukrainian officials and analysts report to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that significant demographic transformation is underway, with a huge influx of ethnic Russians.

This may or may not be true. Eastern Ukraine has many Russian speaking people, or had, and plebiscites have been confusing. There has been some evidence that those Russian speakers have been bombarded by Ukrainian forces for years.

In 2010, Victor Yanukovych, a pro-Russian Ukrainian was elected president.

Prior to entering national politics with his successful run for parliament in 2006, Yanukovych was the Governor of his native Donetsk Oblast from 1997 to 2002. He was simultaneously the Chairman of the oblast’s legislature from 1999 to 2001.

Yanukovych first ran for president in the 2004 election, where he advanced to the runoff and was declared the winner against former Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko. However, allegations of electoral fraud and voter intimidation caused widespread protests and Kyiv’s Independence Square was occupied in what became known as the Orange Revolution. The Ukrainian Supreme Court ultimately nullified the runoff election and ordered a rerun, which Yanukovych lost to Yushchenko. Yanukovych ran for President again in the 2010 election, this time beating Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in an election that was judged free and fair by international observers.[5][6]

Yanukovych had represented a Russian speaking portion of eastern Ukraine and was seen by the CIA as a Russian ally.
(more…)

Is the Biden regime risking war to hide its domestic failures ?

Saturday, January 29th, 2022

There is considerable talk in the media right now about Russia and Ukraine. Russia has moved troops close to the Ukrainian border. The Biden regime, which has no interest in the US southern border, has expressed alarming determination to stop a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Why are they so interested in a corrupt country that has no strategic importance to us ? Certainly the Biden family has profited from Ukraine. Hunter Biden, who seems to be the family bagman, was paid $50,000 a month by the Ukraine Burisma gas company.

It was in April 2014 that Hunter became a board member for Burisma with at least $50,000 per month compensation, and $83,000 by some accounts.

The board appointment for someone who had no experience in the energy industry or in Ukraine came just months after Hunter was discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserves after testing positive for cocaine.

Burisma’s board chairman, Alan Apter, said, “This is totally based on merit.” Apter added: “The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals.”

Recently, the president of Ukraine, in a phone call from Biden, is alleged to have told Biden to “calm down.” The transcript of the call has not been released.

Why the threats, including moving 8500 US troops to eastern Europe ? Back in the 1990s, there was a movie called “Wag the Dog.” The plot was “Shortly before an election, a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer join efforts to fabricate a war in order to cover up a Presidential sex scandal.” Is that what is going on now ?

Biden’s poll numbers keep going down.

At 33% approval last week. The 2022 election is coming in a few months and prospects for Democrats are poor. It is known in history that authoritarian governments, like this one, have been known to create war fever and even war to conceal weakness in domestic affairs.

Tucker Carlson had a show last night on this topic. He shows the left leaning TV shows all cheerleading the Biden threats. In fact, they are accusing Carlson of being pro-Russian. Sound familiar ?

I think, with the people around Biden, there is a real risk of major errors. These people belong in the Harvard faculty club, not the White House.

The Destruction of the US Military.

Sunday, May 16th, 2021

There is an old saying in the military, “Trust No one above O-6” They are all politicians. The Obama years saw more generals retired or relieved than there had been in years. General Carter Ham was one of the notable ones. Wiki sloughs over his relief about Benghazi.

Ham was in overall command of military forces when the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks were launched on the American consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. According to his June 2013 Congressional testimony, Ham chose not to deploy close air support during the attack, based on a lack of situational awareness about the circumstances on the ground. He denied the allegation by some Republicans that President Barack Obama or others in Obama’s administration had ordered him to “stand down” a planned rescue mission that was ready to deploy.

After a 24-month tour of duty[9] as Commander Africa Command, Ham was succeeded by General David M. Rodriguez.[10] General Ham retired in June 2013.[5]

That is one version.

Snopes, of course, insists “All is Well”

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

Navy Rear Admiral, former commander of the USS John Stennis Strike Group, Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette was also mysteriously relieved of duty, and all the brass will say is he is “under investigation” for, get this, “inappropriate leadership judgment.”

Just another way of saying that the admiral dared differ with the Administration’s Libya policy and perhaps openly defied Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Snopes, of course, disagrees. General Ham retired after 2 years of the 3 year assignment as AFRICOM.

The White House [has] flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.

That’s Snopes’ “Proof.”

On 29 October 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also asserted that this rumor was false:

The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence.

HR McMasters wrote a book about senior officer cowardice, but he has since joined the war makers. He resigned in protest of Trump’s intention to end the 20 year war in Afghanistan.

Obama appointed generals who showed their loyalty by attacking Trump

Retired military leaders who were nominated to senior positions by former President Obama began speaking out this week against President Trump, as he warned of using the military to end violent riots throughout the nation.

Their speaking out comes as Trump on Monday deployed the D.C. National Guardsmen and called up active duty forces to be on standby to protect the nation’s Capitol, after rioters defaced national monuments, looted, and burned a historic church.

This, of course, was well before the military occupied DC at the order of Nancy Pelosi in response to the January 6 riot. That was very different.

There is a longer list of those fired or retired by Obama.

Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented.Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the ‘purge’ of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place. As you will see below, dozens of highly decorated military leaders have been dismissed from their positions over the past few years. So why is this happening? What is going on right now is absolutely crazy especially during a time of peace. Is there a deliberate attempt to reshape the military and remove those who don’t adhere to the proper ‘viewpoints’ ? Does someone out there feel a need to get officers that won’t cooperate out of the way?

Throughout world history, whatever comes next after a military purge is never good.
If this continues, what is the U.S. military going to look like in a few years?

We now know. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin

Fresh off his confirmation as Secretary of Defense, General Lloyd Austin III took immediate action to clear out members of the Pentagon’s 42 advisory boards. Austin dismissed every single member, including those who were added in the waning hours of the Donald Trump presidency.

That was certainly important. What next ?

Indoctrination with CRT

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered a “stand down” of the entire US military over the next 60 days in order for commanders to address “extremism” in its ranks.

News of the military-wide pause came in an announcement Wednesday from the Pentagon, with press secretary John Kirby describing the move to reporters as similar to stand downs that units have to do to address safety concerns.

Kirby was Kerry’s spokesman as Sec State. A retired PI Admiral.

“Extremism” can be loosely defined as a Trump voter. During his confirmation hearings, Austin pledged that he would “rid our ranks of racists and extremists,” though he declined to offer details on how he planned to see that through.

Now we know who is not welcome.

Military.com reports that Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier has been relieved of his duties pending an investigation after he appeared on a podcast and criticized the rise of Marxism in the United States military.

Lohmeier served for 14 years in the U.S. Air Force before joining Space Force among its first officers and recruits. He has written and self-published a book, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest and the Unmaking of the American Military.” He appeared on a podcast, called Information Operation, to discuss the book on May 7. He was relieved of his duties as commander of the 11th Space Warning Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base in Colorado on Friday, May 14, by order of Lt. Gen. Steven Whiting. Public affairs made it clear that his comments are the reason his job now hangs in the balance.

“This decision was based on public comments made by Lt. Col. Lohmeier in a recent podcast,” a Space Force spokesperson said in an email. “Lt. Gen. Whiting has initiated a Command Directed Investigation on whether these comments constituted prohibited partisan political activity.”

Opposing Marxism is “prohibited partisan political activity.” Joe McCarthy should be alive to see this.

The Flynn Case Collapses.

Thursday, May 7th, 2020

Today, the Department of Justice (so- called) dropped its prosecution of General Michael Flynn. This followed a ferocious defense by Sidney Powell, an attorney and author of the excellent book, “Licensed to Lie” which explained the federal misbehavior in the Enron cases, one of which resulted in a unanimous decision by the US Supreme Court that reversed the conviction of Arthur Anderson Accounting Corporation in a miscarriage of justice by Andrew Weissmann who should be disbarred for the Mueller investigation which he ran with Mueller as a senile figurehead.

Why was Flynn prosecuted ?

Here is an explanation.

The only other Republican candidate to repudiate the “Bush Freedom Agenda” was Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. That is why the 2016 Republican primary became a two-man race between Trump and Cruz. The whole of the American Establishment had signed on to a utopian crusade to impose the liberal world order on the Muslim world. After nine years of frustration in Iraq, it saw in the so-called “Arab Spring” demonstrations of 2011 a second chance to bring its agenda to fruition. The result of this was the near-collapse of Egypt and an eight-year civil war in Syria that killed half a million people and displaced 10 million refugees.

Flynn called attention to this massive intelligence failure and had to be destroyed. It’s a shame that Cruz did not endorse Trump at the end on become part of a unity campaign.

I have previously posted my opinion on the Flynn matter, which does not differ from David Goldman except in detail.

After Flynn was driven out of his post at DIA, things got even more threatening to the intelligence officials, as he became a prime advisor to candidate Trump and, early in the campaign, other Republicans. After the 2016 elections, the IC officials went all-out to keep him out of the White House, sometimes resorting to spreading ridiculous stories. President Obama warned Trump not to appoint Flynn as national security advisor, and Susan Rice actually warned the president-elect that Flynn might be in violation of the Logan Act, for which nobody has ever been prosecuted, and hence blackmailable by the Russians. Meanwhile, the Bureau had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn’s activities. His digital communications were monitored, “unmasked” at the request of Obama officials, and leaked to friendly journalists.

Goldman’s version is a little different.

As chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2012, Flynn had warned that American support for Sunni jihadists in Syria had the unintended effect of supporting the new caliphate movement, that is, ISIS. Among all the heads and former heads of the 17 agencies that make up the US intelligence community, Flynn was the only one who had objected to the disastrous covert intervention in Syria and foreseen its baleful consequences. Obama fired him, but Donald Trump hired him as a top campaign aide and then appointed him national security adviser.

The Syrian debacle brought Russia into Syria in 2015; the American-backed jihad had turned into a Petri dish for Russian Muslims from the Caucasus, as well as Chinese Uighurs and a motley assortment of foreign militants. Russia had interests of opportunity, for example, a warm-water refueling station for its Mediterranean fleet, but the risk of blowback from the Syrian civil war was the most urgent motive for President Vladimir Putin’s intervention.

That is the background to the mutiny in the US Intelligence Community against the elected commander-in-chief. America’s noble – or perhaps narcissistic – intentions did more damage than Trump’s indifference.

In retrospect, I think I agree even more with Goldman on this. I supported the Iraq War at first but it was botched beyond redemption.

This is another post I made on the same topic last February.

CIA must be disestablished. Its functions should be returned to the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury. FBI must be restricted to law enforcement. At home, the Agencies are partisan institutions illegitimately focused on setting national policy. Abroad, Agencies untied to specific operational concerns are inherently dangerous and low-value.
Intelligence must return to its natural place as servant, not master, of government. Congress should amend the 1947 National Security Act. The President should broaden intelligence perspectives, including briefs from State, Defense, and Treasury, and abolish CIA’s “covert action.” State should be made responsible for political influence and the armed services for military and paramilitary affairs.

This is an obvious fact. Our intelligence capability has been destroyed in China and Iran by CIA incompetence in its secure communication systems.

The 75th Anniversary of D Day.

Thursday, June 6th, 2019

Today is the 75th anniversary of D Day. There are ceremonies honoring the men who landed that day. Few are left but about 170 did make it to the event. The President spoke and of course the leftist press is complaining.

How small he is! Small in spirit, in valor, in dignity, in statecraft, this American president who knows nothing of history and cares still less and now bestrides Europe with his family in tow like some tin-pot dictator with a terrified entourage.

To have Donald Trump — the bone-spur evader of the Vietnam draft, the coddler of autocrats, the would-be destroyer of the European Union, the pay-up-now denigrator of NATO, the apologist for the white supremacists of Charlottesville — commemorate the boys from Kansas City and St. Paul who gave their lives for freedom is to understand the word impostor. You can’t make a sculpture from rotten wood.

You can almost feel the spittle flying.

Ignoring the ankle biters, This is what the day is about

Bud's plane
That is my cousin, Bud Kerrison’s plane. He flew 50 missions as bombardier from North Africa.

theSalute

That is Bud home on leave before heading for Africa. That is me, age about five, saluting him.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Here are the bluffs at Omaha Beach that troops had to get over somehow.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Here is the top of that bluff. A long way up.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Here is one of the German bunkers on the beach. They were angled to avoid exposure to shell hits from the ships supporting the invasion. The angle was arranged to provide the best aim at high tide, assuming that would be the time of the landing. The troops landed at low tide to better see the obstacles and that gave them a bit of shelter as the guns had trouble traversing that much. Of course the sea wall was at the zero spot.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

This is the bluff at Pont du Hoc where the rangers climbed to reach gun emplacements that Were empty. The guns had been moved inland.

Utah Beach did not have the bluff to climb but there were marshlands east of the beach. The airborne landings were to seize and hold the causeways across those marshes.

DSCN0313

Some of them landed in the town of Sante Mere Eglise and one, in particular, got his parachute caught on the church roof. The town maintains museums celebrating the events of June 6,. 1944.

Museum at Sante Mere Eglise

Here is one of those museums. Their collection is growing as dying veterans often leave memorabilia to the museums.

Memorial

These road markers are all over the area just inland from the beach. They commemorate men killed at this spot.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

And then, of course, there are the cemeteries.

The key to the Russia hoax was the CIA’s hostility to Michael Flynn

Thursday, April 4th, 2019

I am more and more coming around to the opinion of David Goldman and Michael Ledeen.

The Russia hoax was aimed at Michael Flynn and his role as a Trump advisor.

It was all about General Flynn. I think it began on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, when Flynn changed the way we did intelligence against the likes of Zarqawi, bin Laden, the Taliban, and their allies.

General Flynn saw that our battlefield intelligence was too slow. We collected information from the Middle East and sent it back to Washington, where men with stars on their shoulders and others at the civilian intel agencies chewed it over, decided what to do, and sent instructions back to the war zone. By the time all that happened, the battlefield had changed. Flynn short-circuited this cumbersome bureaucratic procedure and moved the whole enterprise to the war itself. The new methods were light years faster. Intel went to local analysts, new actions were ordered from men on the battlefield (Flynn famously didn’t care about rank or status) and the war shifted in our favor.

I read Dakota Meyer’s book. He was denied permission to accompany his Civil Affairs unit into an Afghan village because he was being punished for shooting at Taliban tribesmen firing mortar rounds into his base camp. The reason ? They were “not in uniform.” The ROE of the Obama administration saved his life as the unit he should have been with was ambushed and killed. He made attempts to rescue them, resulting in his award the Medal of Honor.

On 8 September 2009, near the village of Ganjgal, Meyer learned that three Marines and a Navy Corpsman, who were members of Meyer’s squad and his friends, were missing after being ambushed by a group of insurgents. Under enemy fire, Meyer entered an area known to be inhabited by insurgents and eventually found the four missing servicemen dead and stripped of their weapons, body armor and radios. There he saw a Taliban fighter trying to take the bodies. The fighter tackled Meyer, and after a brief scuffle, Meyer grabbed a baseball-sized rock and beat the fighter to death.[8] With the help of Afghan soldiers, he moved the bodies to a safer area where they could be extracted.[9] During his search, Meyer “personally evacuated 12 friendly wounded and provided cover for another 24 Marines and soldiers to escape likely death at the hands of a numerically superior and determined foe.”

In his account of the battle in his book, he relates how it took hours to get permission for artillery to respond to the ambush.

(more…)

The role of the Polish Guarantee in WWII.

Saturday, March 9th, 2019

The second of the issues about Churchill arises from my reading of Pat Buchanan’s book, “Churchill, Hitler and the unnecessary War.” I like Buchanan’s books but disagree with most of what he writes here. He blames Churchill and Edward Grey for WWI. This prompted me to get a biography of Edward Grey, who was Foreign Secretary from 1905 to 1916 and I think it is fair to say, he had much to do with the beginning of the war. I disagree about Churchill who did not hold a post in the Liberal administration until he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911. In this role he is given credit for getting the fleet ready for war. He did not have a role in the crisis of July 1914 which led to it.

In The Second World War, his role was mostly early warning about Hitler and his ambitions. He spent the 1930s warning that Britain should rearm as Germany was doing. He was ignored. His warnings were so dismissed that his columns and radio broadcasts were stopped during the height of appeasement.

There is an interesting issue that Churchill had nothing to do with. The last moment Guarantee to Poland. His statement at the time and in his book, was:

‘Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.’

Buchanan makes fair case that, had Chamberlain not done his last minute and hopeless Polish Guarantee, Hitler might have gone on to attack Poland and then the Soviets and avoided war with France and Britain. There was no chance of avoiding war altogether once the Germans had occupied the Rhineland and been left alone. Czechoslovakia was a more difficult case. The Czechs might have been able to defeat the Germans in 1938. Perhaps Hitler would not have risked it.

By 1939 and with Poland landlocked and far away from France and Britain, there was no chance the guarantee would do anything but create a larger war. Poland, in fact, had carved off part of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and had no moral case for help. IT was a disastrous error but it was made by Chamberlain, not Churchill.

Some random thoughts on Churchill.

Saturday, March 9th, 2019

I am currently reading Andrew Roberts’ excellent biography of Churchill.

It does a better job with his early life than the other biographies I have read. I am 2/3 through it and have not yet reached Pearl Harbor so the emphasis is clear. I have reflected on a couple of items, not necessarily about Churchill but about his times.

For example, had Cecil Rhodes and the British gold miners not invaded the Transvaal would the Boer War have occurred and, if it had not occurred, would Germany have built its High Seas Fleet?

Now the Transvaal Republic might, like the Orange Free State, have simply remained as a small shut-in self-governing state without creating any disturbance. But the Transvaalers were the sons of the stalwarts who fifty years before had sought to escape from all British control. They looked upon South Africa as a Dutch not a British inheritance; they resented the limitations imposed on them by the British, and their experience had not taught them any respect for the British Empire. Their president, Paul Kruger, had himself gone on the great trek in his boyhood. It is not possible to doubt that President Kruger dreamed his own dreams of a United South Africa, but a South Africa under a Dutch flag, not under the Union Jack; though how far those dreams were shared by others is not equally clear. But whatever his ambitions outside the Transvaal, within the borders of the republic he intended to go his own way.

But then gold was discovered in Transvaal.

In 1885, however, the discovery was made of valuable goldfields within the territories of the republic; aliens, Uitlanders as they were called, for the most part British subjects, whatever their actual nationality might be, poured into the Transvaal to exploit the mines. The Boer government had no objection to the exploitation of the mines on its own terms, which did not include the concession of citizenship to the Uitlanders till after a very prolonged residence. All the burdens of citizehship were laid on the Uitlanders without its privileges. The Uitlanders began to feel that they had no security for justice, and to demand approximately the opportunities for acquiring citizenship in the Transvaal which were readily accorded to the Transvaaler who migrated into British territory.

Then came The Jameson Raid.

The Jameson Raid is one of the great mysteries of British imperial history. Launched in the early hours of the penultimate day of 1895, it has provided historians with juicy morsels to toy with ever since. Naturally, it caused enormous interest and controversy at the time, and, arguably was one of the main causes of the Boer War of 1899-1902. The Raid, led by Cecil Rhodes’ lieutenant and confidant, Dr Jameson, was a crude attempt to settle the Transvaal problem of the 1890’s by overthrowing Kruger’s republic, with the help of the English-speaking Uitlanders of Johannesburg and the Rand, and establishing a pro-British government of some sort in its place. The plan was a disastrous flop: Jameson’s troopers of Rhodes’ British South Africa Police Force were easily rounded up by the Boer Commandos, and the Uitlander uprising went off at half-cock; British policy in South Africa lay in ruins.

Germany was sympathetic to the Boers but the British Navy banned any attempt to help them.

Who were the Boers ?

The Dutch East India Company had been formed in the Dutch Republic in 1602, and the Dutch had entered keenly into the competition for the colonial and imperial trade of commerce in Southeast Asia. In 1648 one of their ships was stranded in Table Bay, and the shipwrecked crew had to forage for themselves on shore for several months. They were so impressed with the natural resources of the country that on their return to the Republic, they represented to the directors of the company the great advantages to the Dutch Eastern trade to be had from a properly provided and fortified station of call at the Cape. The result was that in 1652, a Dutch expedition led by surgeon Jan van Riebeek constructed a fort and laid out vegetable gardens at Table Bay.

Landing at Table Bay, Van Riebeek took control over Cape Town, the settlement developed during the previous 10 years. In 1671 the Dutch first purchased land from the native Khoikhoi beyond the limits of the fort built by Van Riebeek; this marked the development of the Colony proper. The earliest colonists were for the most part people of low station; but, as the result of the investigations of a 1685 commissioner, the government worked to recruit a greater variety of immigrants to develop a stable community. They formed a class of “vrijlieden”, also known as “vrijburgers” (free citizens), former Company employees who remained at the Cape after serving their contracts.[8] A large number of vrijburgers became independent farmers and applied for grants of land, as well as loans of seed and tools, from the Company administration.[8]

How did the British get involved ?

In 1795, Holland having fallen under the revolutionary government of France, a British force under General Sir James Henry Craig was sent to Cape Town to secure the colony for the Prince of Orange, a refugee in England?, from the French. The governor of Cape Town at first refused to obey the instructions from the prince; but, when the British proceeded to take forcible possession, he capitulated. His action was hastened by the fact that the Khoikhoi, deserting their former masters, flocked to the British standard. The burghers of Graaff Reinet did not surrender until a force had been sent against them; in 1799 and again in 1801 they rose in revolt. In February 1803, as a result of the peace of Amiens (February 1803), the colony was handed over to the Batavian Republic, which introduced many needed reforms, as had the British during their eight years’ rule. One of the first acts of General Craig had been to abolish torture in the administration of justice. Still the country remained essentially Dutch, and few British settlers were attracted to it. Its cost to the British exchequer during this period was £16,000,000. The Batavian Republic entertained very liberal views as to the administration of the country, but they had little opportunity for giving them effect.

When the War of the Third Coalition broke out in 1803, a British force was once more sent to the Cape. After an engagement (January 1806) on the shores of Table Bay, the Dutch garrison of Castle of Good Hope surrendered to the British under Sir David Baird, and in the 1814 Anglo-Dutch treaty the colony was ceded outright by Holland to the British crown. At that time the colony extended to the line of mountains guarding the vast central plateau, then called Bushmansland, and had an area of about 120,000 sq. m. and a population of some 60,000, of whom 27,000 were whites, 17,000 free Khoikhoi and the rest slaves, mostly imported blacks and Malays.

What about Germany and the Boer War ?

german volunteers

Germany Was sympathetic and many volunteers from Germany joined the Boers.

The relationship between the Boers and the German nation was an unusual one. During the Boer war there was great support for the Boer struggle within Germany and the Kaiser sent a telex to the Boers voicing his support for their war efforts.

The Boers were armed with weapons made by Mauser and Krupp. Although the Boer Commandoes fought in a manner foreign to European battlefields the Artillery was well trained in European methods. Major Albrecht, the officer commanding the Orange Free State artillery was a German Veteran.

A German Freikorps of Volunteers was formed who fought on the Boer side. This included German Officers and Graf Zeppelin who was killed at the battle of Elandslaagte. Another prominent European volunteer killed in action was the French colonel Villebois de Mareuil, a Foreign Legion officer serving on the Boer side.

Any attempt to provide more aid to the Boers was blocked by the Royal Navy, which threatened ships that carried contraband.

In Dec 1899 the British cabinet allowed the Royal Navy to search and impound foreign ships suspected of carrying war material to the Boers. Three German ships, the Bundesrath, Herzog and General were forced into port and searched, with negative results. These incidents certainly fanned the flames of Anglophobia in Germany, and actually allowed the German government to pass their Navy Bill of that year with minimum fuss. This bill set out plans to double the size of the German Navy, starting a European arms race that of course came to a head in 1914.

Intervention by other Great Powers in 1899 wasn’t a practical possibility though because of the Royal Navy’s overwhelming superiority.

But although foreign governments didn’t actively support the Boers, foreign anti-British volunteers most certainly did, including Germans Irish, Dutch, French, Scandinavians, Russians and Americans. Often they distinguished themselves: the Germans under Colonel Schiel at Elandslaagte, the Hollanders in Natal, the Scandinavians at Magersfontein (where a platoon was nearly wiped out when overrun by Highlanders).

The Kaiser’s frustration at this rather high handed behavior by the British was one major reason he began to build the High Seas Fleet. The rest can be read in Massie’s great history of the coming of World War I.

Robert Kaplan agrees with me on Afghanistan.

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019

Today, Robert Kaplan wrote a piece in the New York Times saying we need to get out of Afghanistan.

The decision by President Trump to withdraw 7,000 of the roughly 14,000 American troops left in Afghanistan, possibly by summer, has raised new concerns about his impulsive behavior, especially given his nearly simultaneous decision to pull out all American forces from Syria against the advice of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. But the downsizing of the Afghan mission was probably inevitable. Indeed, it may soon be time for the United States to get out of the country altogether.

Naturally, the anti-Trump lines are obligatory in the NY Times. He has the right decision and, of course, it is the one Trump announced but Trump hatred is a necessary ingredient in anything an author expects the Times to publish.

I have been saying this since 2009.

During Afghanistan’s golden age which consisted of the last king’s rule, the country consisted of a small civilized center in Kabul while the rest of the country existed much as it did in the time of Alexander the Great. I have reviewed Kilcullen’s Accidental Guerilla, which explains much of the Afghan war. He is not optimistic about it and neither am I. Aside from the fact that Obama is a reluctant, very reluctant, warrior here, Pakistan is a serious obstacle to success.

Today, Andy McCarthy calls our attention to an explosive editorial in Investors’ Business Daily on the links between the Taliban and Pakistan’s army and intelligence services.

it’s an open secret the Taliban are headquartered across the border in the city of Quetta, Pakistan, where they operate openly under the aegis of Pakistani intelligence — and the financial sponsorship of the Saudis.

Of course, Osama bin Laden was living in Pakistan and sheltered by them. Kaplan does have a few crazy ideas.

It did not have to be like this. Had the United States not become diverted from rebuilding the country by its invasion of Iraq in 2003 (which I mistakenly supported), or had different military and development policies been tried, these forces of division might have been overcome. According to the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, there was simply too much emphasis on the electoral process in Kabul and not nearly enough on bread-and-butter nation building — in particular, bringing basic infrastructure and agriculture up to the standards that Afghans enjoyed from the 1950s until the Soviet invasion of 1979.

This is insanity. There is no “nation” to build. Afghanistan was never a nation. The King was called “The Mayor of Kabul” and had no rule outside its limits.

The CIA seems to have done no better in Afghanistan than the military.

The movie “Zero Dark Thirty” described the maneuvers of the CIA and the incident of the suicide attack.

The one reliable reporter, Michael Yon, was kicked out of the country in 2010.

Michael Yon: The disembed from McChrytal’s top staff (meaning from McChrystal himself) is a very bad sign. Sends chills that McChrystal himself thinks we are losing the war. McChrystal has a history of covering up. This causes concern that McChrystal might be misleading SecDef and President. Are they getting the facts?

McChrystal has recently been criticizing Trump. I wonder if he has political ambitions ? He is a Democrat.

The United States’ special adviser to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, is trying to broker a diplomatic solution that allows the United States to draw down its forces without the political foundation in Kabul disintegrating immediately.

That may be the real reason the United States keeps spending so heavily in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is terrified of a repeat of 1975, when panicked South Vietnamese fled Saigon as Americans pulled out and North Vietnamese forces advanced on the city. The United States military did not truly begin to recover from that humiliation until its victory in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. An abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan could conceivably provide a new symbol of the decline in American hard power.

I think Kaplan has a good point here. Evacuation from Afghanistan will have to be by air and may be chaotic, especially as the last troops leave. Pakistan is no friend. It is going to be a mess but the sooner ewe get at it, the better

Is a collapse of civilization a risk now ?

Sunday, December 9th, 2018

The present political instability has given rise to several examples of pessimistic concerns about civilization, itself.

For example, The Late Bronze Age collapse is getting attention.

The Late Bronze Age collapse involved a dark-age transition period in the Near East, Asia Minor, Aegean region, North Africa, Caucasus, Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, a transition which historians believe was violent, sudden, and culturally disruptive. The palace economy of the Aegean region and Anatolia that characterised the Late Bronze Age disintegrated, transforming into the small isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages. The half-century between c.?1200 and 1150 BC saw the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, of the Kassite dynasty of Babylonia, o Here is one f the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and the Levant, and of the Egyptian Empire;[1] the destruction of Ugarit and the Amorite states in the Levant, the fragmentation of the Luwian states of western Asia Minor, and a period of chaos in Canaan

Why is this sort of thing getting so much interest ? Here is one opinion.

No one seems more confused about the import of the New Nationalism than the nationalists themselves. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is a coalition brought together by anger at the Merkel government’s decision to admit well over a million Middle Eastern migrants, but otherwise has no unifying characteristic. After a brief moment in the sun that included dinner with President Trump and a star slot at America’s leading conservative conference last February, Nigel Farage has fallen off America’s radar, and his most prominent admirer in the Trump White House, Steve Bannon, has left the Administration.

Bannon is a very impressive guy. His talk at the Oxford Union, in spite of the protests and hostility of most students, is impressive.

Angelo Codevilla predicted this years ago.

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

What’s next? France is seeing high protests by the “Deplorables.”

Why are books, and TV series, like “The Hunger Games,” so popular?

There is serious concern about collapse

One of the biggest mysteries in history is the late Bronze Age Collapse. There’s no good explanation for why an early globalized civilization should suddenly disappear at around 1177 BC. “Within a period of forty to fifty years at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the twelfth century almost every significant city in the eastern Mediterranean world was destroyed, many of them never to be occupied again.”

Modern archaeologists have advanced a number of theories to explain this catastrophe several of which will sound familiar to modern ears. Climate change — not the anthropogenic kind, since ‘fossil fuels’ had not yet been developed — might have caused drought and starvation. A technological revolution caused by the replacement of bronze with iron could have destabilized the international system. Perhaps most modern-sounding of all explanations is complexity. The interdependence fostered by trade left the linked empires open to a general systems collapse as the failure in one place unleashed a cascade of effects in others.

More important.

One mystery is why the empires never saw danger coming. What hit them seemed to come so unexpectedly they never even had a chance to take evasive action. The reason for the surprise according to the BBC article, is “what experts call nonlinearities, or sudden, unexpected changes in the world’s order, such as the 2008 economic crisis, the rise of ISIS, Brexit, or Donald Trump’s election.” The components of a crises may already be in existence unnoticed until some precipitating event connects the pieces together for the first time and makes them manifest.

The surprise outbreak of demonstrations against Emmanuel Macron are a recent example of a failure to connect the dots. Pearl Harbor, Hitler’s invasion of Russia, the fall of the USSR, 9/11, 2008, Brexit, or Hillary’s loss were alike nearly complete surprises because no one could interpret the significance of the precursor events until afterwards. The New Yorker notes that the protests now currently shaking France blindsided the press because it did not come from the usual suspects but mere motorists unable to make ends meet.

The Trump phenomenon was a Preference Cascade.

“This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly. (Click here for a more complex analysis of this and related
issues). Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don’t realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it – but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.

Is that coming ?

I’ve read two of Kurt Schlicter’s books. They are fiction and I hope they stay that way.