Sunday, July 13, 1924. End of the occupation of the Dominican Republic.

U.S. administration of the Dominican Republic, commenced in 1916, ended with the inauguration of Horacio Vásquez.

Dominican Campaign Medal.

Last edition:

Saturday, July 12, 1924. Transglobal flyers in the Balkans.

Labels: 1920s, 1924, Army, Art, First Around The World Flight, James Montgomery Flagg, United States Air Force

Crisis on the border. Roots, origins, angst, and what is to be done.

May 13, 2023

Mexican Border Crisis

The predicted chaos did not ensue yesterday, which doesn't mean it's not arriving.

Those seeking asylum, FWIW, are required to have first applied in the countries from which they are departing, or online, or if they traveled through another country or countries, those places.  The problem remains of dealing with the requests of those who are allowed in.

Most of the migrants are fleeing economic distress or violence in their homelands, the product of a wide-ranging number of things, and which varies by countries.  Haiti, for example, remains impoverished as a legacy of paying its original French slaveholders upon achieving independence long ago.  Almost all of the Central American and South American states contributing to the human flood also suffer from the legacy of Spanish Colonialism, which saw its original liberators largely act in the name of their own self-interest rather than that of the native populations.  Stable Central American states, looked at with a long lens, have a single stable government example, which also contributes to the flood due to being in an unstable neighborhood.  The existence of multiple Central American states in the first place is nonsensical and is a symptom of failed policies itself. They should really all be part of Mexico, which in fact was at least partially the plan early on.  Repeated efforts to reunite into one state have failed, leaving tiny rump states that have been corruptly ruled and which have fallen into the control of criminal gangs, something the US's unending appetite for illegal drugs, a symptom of its own failed American Dream, fuels.

Marines in Nicaragua, 1932.

Central Americans have lived in fear of US intervention for decades, although that seems to have ceased, as has U.S. intervention.  Unfortunately, the region is terribly governed, with Socialist ineptitude governing in some places (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela), to simply featuring failed states in others.  The US has repeatedly tried a "good neighbor" policy of non-intervention, and it retains guilt over supposed "American colonialism"  for intervention.  The US last put troops on the ground in Panama when it deposed the Panamanian leader during the Reagan Administration and then went right on to invade Grenada.

The problem remains that the neighbor analogy may be too appropriate.  It might be neighborly to ignore your neighbor's dissolute living for a while, but when it turns violent, do you?

It's clear something has to be done to address the root problems of what's being seen. But what is that?

Gun Boat Diplomacy? What year is it?

Yesterday in the news it was reported that over several days President Trump kept raising the topic of removing the government of Venezuela by military force.

Crew of the USS Denver in Nicaragua, 1912.

Yikes.

Let's make no mistake. The government of Venezuela is ruining the country.  But invading it?  That's wacky.

Apparently the President raised this with his advisers by surprise and kept raising it over a period of a couple of days, each time meeting opposition to the concept.  It was just a concept, but still that's really scary. And he even apparently mentioned the concept to the chief executive of Columbia.

Yikes again.

Trump seemed impressed by the American deposing of the Manuel Noriega, the military dictator of Panama in the 1980s whom President Reagan had removed (oddly, this was a topic of conversation with my son just yesterday, July 4.)  And it was mentioned in my very recent post on the U.S. Marines and World War One.   He also referenced the American invasion of Grenada.

M113 personnel carrier in Panama during Operation Just Cause.  Twenty three US servicemen died in the invasion and about ten times that number of Panamanian servicemen.

Neither of these are analogous.  After all, Panama was ruled by a military figure who had light support in that country in general, and Panama is a creature of the United States over which we exhibited fairly extensive control for eons.  Grenada is an island (over which the British retain some technical sovereignty).  Neither of these military missions were calculated to meet with much opposition, although they did meet with some.

82nd Airborne Division M102 howitzer firing a fire mission in Grenada.  Nineteen American servicemen died in this action and about three times that number of Grenadians and Cubans.

There would definitely be opposition in Venezuela.

And invading a nation simply because it is lead by whackadoodles is not a Just War.

Hopefully this idea has passed.

The United States Marine Corps in World War One (and before, and beyond).

It was the Battle of Belleau Wood that gave us the modern Marine Corps.

Just the other day I posted an item on the U.S. Second Division during World War One.

Now, there has been a United States Marine Corps since 1775, as somebody will surely point out if I do not.*  The Marine Corps claims a "birthday" only five month junior to that of the U.S. Army's, although the dates of those creations are a bit dubious in that neither organization has had a continual existence since that time.  The National Guard's is actually older, tracing back to 1636 in the form of colonial militias.  But whatever the history of those creations may be, the early Marines are not the same force that exists today in terms of its role and combat abilities.

To look at that force, you have to go back to September 21, 1917, when the 2nd Division was constituted.

The military establishment of the US was so small that when the government went to form divisions for service in France it was faced with a daunting problem, and massive internal strife. A lot of U.S. Army officers regarded the war as their show and their show alone. The Navy anticipated that the American role would really be on the North Atlantic and the concept of even forming a significant ground force in time to fight in France was an utter joke.  That joke became no laughing matter, however, when the Allies sent over delegations to the United States and the country learned, really for the first time, that in spite of Allied offensives in 1917, the Allies were on the verge of collapse and defeat.  When this became apparent, punctuated as it soon was by the Russian Revolution, it became rapidly obvious that the Army was going to have to be increased enormously in size and sent to France.

The Army, however, had only enough men to form a few divisions. And not even that many.  And on top of it, Army units were already stationed around the globe in places that the Army could not readily abandon.  Army units in the Philippines really couldn't abandon that mission. Some troops had to remain in Hawaii.  The Canal Zone had to be garrisoned, particularly during wartime.  And the Mexican border, while no longer looking like it was about to become the front-line in a war with Mexico at any moment, was still a long frontier that had to be manned and on which fighting continued to occur. The US, for that matter, still had troops in China (including Marines).

And in spite of these commitments, on April 6, 1917, when the United States declared war on Germany, it had just 127,151 men in the standing U.S. Army.  An additional 181,620 were in the National Guard.  Of that 127,151 there were a not negligible number that would have to remain overseas right where they were.  The 181,620 men in the National Guard had all been recently hardened by 1916 and 1917 border service, but even at that there were men who were not fit for continued service.

A daunting problem.

The Marines, part of the Navy, had just under 14,000 men, however.  Not a large number. . . but one that was significant in context.

They weren't, however, the force we imagine now.  They became that because of World War One.

The United States Marine Corps was modeled on the British Marines at the time of their formation.  Marines, in that context, were "soldiers of the sea", as the phrase goes, but their role was very ship oriented.  Marines in naval engagements at that time, the 1770s, filled  a role that's very well depicted in the film Master and Commander.  They formed a trained body of musket infantry for when ships were close to each other, with their targets being the sailors on the opposing ships.  They were part of the boarding parties, when that occurred.  And they formed an armed body to go ashore in small units when that was called for, which it frequently was.  It was not as if, after all, the Navy could depend upon the Army to provide infantrymen in small units for ships that were at sea for months, or in some cases even years.  A ship's commander, who had almost complete operational independence in those days, needed a body of infantrymen for any contingency that required putting men ashore, and it did fairly frequently.

 Continental Marines going ashore during the Battle of Nassau, March 1776.  They likely weren't this well dressed in reality.

Marines also formed the commander's police force against his own crew, something we don't think of much now but which was necessary then.  Sailors in 18th and early 19th Century navies were incredibly tough and independent bodies of men whose allegiances were often passing.  Unlike later navies of the steel and steam age, in the age of sail sailors were uniformly of that odd port culture that existed around the globe.  Most navies included men who were drawn from all over. The United States Navy, as an example, was integrated at the time in the enlisted ranks, and even slightly in the officer ranks, and included men who hailed from other countries as well as from American ports.  All that mean that experienced sailors, who were in demand for their skills, and who tended to regards ports as homes rather than nations, were liable to become disenchanted with military service and cause problems, even serious problems, for their officers.

Marines from every nation formed the officers bulwark against that.  Marine units were small and cohesive and kept apart from a ship's crew as much as possible.  In the case of the early United States Marines, the service was the most segregated in the regular establishment (the Navy was not segregated, as noted, and while the Army was, there were always odd exceptions in the Army).  That's not pleasant to contemplate, but it is the case.  The creators of the early Marine Corps wanted a racially cohesive separate body on teh theory that if they had to use it against the crew this mean that they were that much more likely to be loyal to their officers than to anyone else.

And so the Marines were first formed in 1775.  They were disestablished after the Revolution. But they were shortly brought back in.  And they've been in existence ever since.

 U.S. Marines, 1864.

Be that as it may, however, up until the Spanish American War their role remained the traditional one.  You can find exceptions, they were at Harper's Ferry for example, but they truly are exceptions. They filled the role that they were first created to fill.

Starting around the turn of the prior century, however, and a little before that, that began to slowly evolve.  As the steam and steel navy came in, the ability to project power, and to stay in touch with the US, increased.  The Navy had always been used that way to some extent, but you no longer saw individual ships sail off to distant lands and, frankly, do something weird.  Ship commanders didn't engage in local punitive expeditions in Korea anymore, for example, or get into naval battles in Japanese rivers.

But the Navy did start flexing American muscle in the Gulf.

 Marines with new khaki uniforms. These had probably just been issued prior to this 1898 photograph.  Prior to this they would have worn blue uniforms much like the Army had, with this pattern of campaign hat which the Army also wore.  Bending up the brims of the hats was particularly common for Marines.  As these Marines are all fairly young, there's a good chance that at least one of them would have still been in service during World War One, which if true would mean that he would likely have seen combat all over the globe by that time.

The change from sail to steam, and from wood to steel, had an impact on the Marine Corps that would be only slightly less substantial than the impact of the same on the Navy, and indeed it was because of the impact on the Navy that the role of the Marine Corps significantly changed.  Even in the waning days of sail it had often been the case that naval vessels were dispatched to far distant regions of the globe and basically left to the complete discretion of their commanders.  With steam, however, vessels moved more rapidly, and less independently, and greater operational control came in.  By the same token, however the ability to project power with a navy hugely increased, but not int he same fashion for every naval power.

For nations with empires, like the United Kingdom, the role of the navy greatly expanded, but the role of their marines did not.  This is at least in part because if colonial nations needed to project ground power, they usually had it nearby or at least within a transportable distance.  Contrary to what some might expect, the British Army prior to World War One was quite small, but it was widely dispersed around the globe.  The French army, in contrast, was large, but it also had a global deployment.  The U.S. Army, up until the Spanish American War, was deployed entirely in the United States and its few overseas territories as well as . Even after the Spanish American War this did not change greatly, although it did change a bit, particularly in regards to the Philippines, which the US found itself engaged in a guerilla war and occupation in, following its capture during that war.

So, given this, the Marines started to fill another role. With the only real way for the US to project power around the globe, the Marines, part of the Navy, started to become the US's rapid reaction, small scale, intervention force.  They became particularly active in deploying throughout the Caribbean Basin and Central American whenever the US decided it needed to show the flag, which it quite often felt it needed to.  They became so associated with intervening in Central America in this period, and became such effective fighters in that context, that they remain legendary as a nearly unbeatable force in that region.  But it even meant that part of the Marine Corps would find itself more or less permanently stationed in Asia, in China specifically, following the Boxer Rebellion.

Marines in  China, 1900.

Deployment to China was a groundbreaking change in the role of the Marines.  For the first time they were assigned to an open ended land based mission that separated them from ships on a continual basis and guaranteed that they'd be seeing land based action continually.  The Army actually shared the role, something that is commonly missed, and so this also formed the first instance in which the role of the Marines came to over shawdow that of the Army even where they were both present.

The Banana Wars, a series of Central American and Caribbean interventions, would really cement that image. These interventions, which commenced following the Spanish American War and went on into the early 1930s, meant that joining the Marines meant you would see combat.

 Marines boarding for deployment in Nicaragua in 1912.

All but forgotten now in the United States, and bitterly remembered in Central America, the wars were US efforts to influence the affairs of developing Central American nations. The wars also had a distinctive economic aspect to them. Navy and Marine Corps affairs, the Army was left out of them.

Sailors in Nicaragua in 1912.

These interventions were numerous, and even detailing them now would make for a much more expansive post than anyone would be interested in reading. Suffice it to say, however, their continual nature is impressive.

Marines in Haiti, 1915.

Just prior to World War One this role expanded out to include intervention in the Mexican Revolution prior to the Army doing the same in the Punitive Expedition.  In 1914 the Marines were put ashore in Vera Cruz, Mexico, and occupied the town in a direct, but limited, intervention in the Mexican War.

Marines and Sailor raising U.S. flag at Vera Cruz, 1914.

So when the United States went to form divisions of regular soldiers to be deployed to France, taking Marines and adding them to the 2nd Division made a lot of sense. They were extremely tough and very experienced infantry.

And they served in that role extremely well. An experienced body of men, they more than lived up tot their reputation.

Bain News Service photograph of U.S. Marines in France, June 6, 1918.  Note that these "Soldiers of the Sea", assigned to the U.S. 2nd Division, are wearing a stripped down uniform and are marching without their service coats, something that in June 1918 you will would not be likely to find in regards to soldiers of the U.S. Army.  The Marine Corps expanded for World War One, but even more than the Army it contained a high percentage of pre war enlistees, many who were rather salty.

 

The Marines became an integral part of the 2nd Division during World War One, even contributing to the division two of its divisional commanding officers.  It came out of World War One with its reputation as a potent ground force assured.

After the war, the Marine Corps returned to its former role, but its reputation was for ever changed. While the Marines continued on in the Banana Wars and in China, they also began to plan for the future.

 

Marines in Nicaragua, 1932.

And planning for the future, in the eyes of the Marines, meant building and expanding on the ground role they'd played in World War One. That meant, in their view, developing a seaborne landing capacity that was nearly independent in some ways from the Navy, although obviously not completely.  Between World War One and World War Two, the Marines, with the cooperation of the Navy, took amphibious landing to a new height, making it nearly a unique American deal.  The lessons and equipment they developed in this period would end up being used by the Army as well when World War Two came to include the United States and, ironically, the largest amphibious landing of all time, Operation Overlord, would not include a single landing Marine.  But the war in the Pacific certainly did, and in a major way.

Marines fighting on Iwo Jima during World War Two.

It was World War Two, of course, that gave us the fully modern Marine Corps.  Ironically, perhaps, the Marines of World War Two were distinct from that of World War One in that by the wars end most of them were wartime volunteers, not the salty professionals that made up the Great War Marines. They were molded around that example, however, and by the wars end the wartime Marines closely resembled that of the "Old Breed" that made up the core of the pre war Marine Corps.

Following World War Two the Marine Corps refused to accept what the Army, Navy and Air Force did and assume that all future wars would be nuclear wars with little ground action. They couldn't accept that, as that would mean no future for the Marine Corps. They continued to hone their seaborne abilities and expanded very early to include airborne assault.  Their saving example at Inchon during the Korean War guaranteed that they'd have a prime place in the post World War Two military, which they've preserved ever since.

The soon to be killed Lieutenant Baldomero Lopez scaling the seawall at Inchon.  Mere minutes after this photo was taken, Lopez intentionally dropped on a live grenade to save fellow Marines.

_________________________________________________________________________________
*The 1775 body was actually the Continental Marines. The United States Marine Corps did not come into existence, under that name, until 1798, at which time, which re established a corps of marines.