Monday, November 10, 1941. American Guide Week.

It was the start of American Guide Week, which had the purpose noted.  It seems odd that the Administration was boosting tourism right before World War Two, but it was.

On the same day, the British launched a commando raid on Rommel's headquarters, the same being Operation Flipper.  The mission by No. 11 Commando was designed to be a raid on the headquarters of Erwin Rommel on November 18.

The raid, timed with the commencement of a British offensive, was a flop.  Rommel had moved his headquarters weeks earlier and, by the time of the raid itself, was vacationing in Italy with his wife in celebration of his 50th birthday.  Two of the commandos were killed and 28 wounded in what was a fairly pointless endeavor.  The raid resulted in one posthumous Victoria Cross which has been criticized as, contrary to the norm, the report was not written by a witness and is contradicted by actual witnesses.

The German's launched an effort to take Sevastopol.  Elements of the Japanese naval force destined to raid Pearl Harbor started leaving Kure, their base in Japan.

Winston Church commented on this day that "should the United States become involved in war with Japan, the British declaration will follow within the hour."   The full speech read:

Alike in times of peace and war the annual civic festival we have observed to-day has been, by long custom, the occasion for a speech at Guildhall by the Prime Minister upon foreign affairs. This year our ancient Guildhall lies in ruins. Our foreign affairs are shrunken, and almost the whole of Europe is prostrate under the Nazi tyranny. The war which Hitler began by invading Poland, and which now engulfs the European Continent, has broken into the north-east of Africa, and may well engulf the greater part of Asia-nay, it may soon spread to the remaining portions of the globe. Nevertheless, in the same spirit as you, my Lord Mayor, have celebrated your assumption of office with the time-honoured pageant of Lord Mayor's Day, so I, who have the honour to be your guest, will endeavour to play, though very briefly-for in war-time speeches should be short-the traditional part assigned to those who hold my office.

The condition of Europe is terrible in the last degree. Hitler's firing parties are busy every day in a dozen countries-Norwegians, Belgians, Frenchmen, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Greeks, and above all, in scale, Russians are being butchered by thousands and by tens of thousands after they have surrendered, while individual and mass executions in all the countries I have mentioned have become part of the regular German routine.

The world has been intensely stirred by the massacre of the French hostages. The whole of France, with the exception of that small clique whose public careers depend upon a German victory, has been united in horror and indignation against this slaughter of perfectly innocent people. Admiral Darlan's tribute to German generosity falls unseasonably at this moment on French ears, and his plans for loving collaboration with the conquerors and murderers of Frenchmen are quite appreciably embarrassed.

Even the arch-criminal himself, the Nazi ogre Hitler, has been frightened by the volume and passion of world indignation which his spectacular atrocity has excited. It is he, and not the French people, who has been intimidated. He has not dared to go forward with his further programme of killing hostages.

This, as you will have little doubt, is not due to mercy, to compassion, to compunction, but to fear and to a dawning consciousness of personal insecurity rising in a wicked heart. I would say generally that we must regard all these victims of the Nazi executioners in so many lands, who are labelled Communists and Jews-we must regard them just as if they were brave soldiers who died for their country on the field of battle. Aye, in a way their sacrifice may be more fruitful than that of the soldier who falls with his arms in his hands. A river of blood has flowed and is flowing between the German race and the peoples of nearly all Europe. It is not the hot blood of war, where good blows are given and returned. It is the cold blood of the execution yard and the scaffold, which leaves a stain indelible for generations and for centuries.

Here, then, are the foundations upon which the "new order" of Europe is to be inaugurated. Here, then, is the house-warming festival of the Herrenvolk. Here, then, is the system of terrorism by which the Nazi criminals and their quisling accomplices seek to rule a dozen ancient, famous cities of Europe, and if possible all the free nations of the world. In no more effective manner could they have frustrated the accomplishment of their own designs. The future and its mysteries are inscrutable, but one thing is plain-never, to those bloodstained, accursed hands, will the future of Europe be confided.

Since Lord Mayor's Day last year very great changes have taken place in our situation. We were then the sole champion of freedom in arms. Then we were ill-armed and far out-numbered even in the air. Now a large part of the United States Navy, as Colonel Knox has told us, is constantly in action against the common foe. Now the valiant resistance of the Russian nation has inflicted most frightful injuries upon German military power, and at the present moment, the German invading armies, after all their losses, lie on the barren steppes exposed to the approaching severities of the Russian winter. Now we have an Air Force which is at least equal in size and numbers, not to speak of quality, to the German air power.

Rather more than a year ago I announced to Parliament that we were sending a Battle Fleet back into the Mediterranean for the destruction of the German and Italian convoys. The Admiralty brings us to-day news of the destruction of another Italian destroyer. The passage of our supplies in many directions through the sea, the broken morale of the Italian Navy-all these show that we are still masters there.

To-day I am able to go further. Owing to the effective help we are getting from the United States in the Atlantic, owing to the sinking of the Bismarck, owing to the completion of our splendid new battleships and aircraft carriers of the largest size, as well as the cowing of the Italian Navy already mentioned, I am able to announce to you that we now feel ourselves strong enough to provide a powerful naval force of heavy ships, with its necessary ancillary vessels, for service if needed in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

We stretch out the long arm of brotherhood and motherhood to the Australian and New Zealand people, and to the Indian people, whose army has already been fighting with so much distinction in the Mediterranean theatre. This movement of our naval forces, in conjunction with the United States main Fleet, may give practical proof to all who have eyes to see that the forces of freedom and democracy have not by any means reached the limit of their power.

I must admit that, having voted for the Japanese Alliance nearly 40 years ago-in 1902-and having always done my very best to promote good relations with the island Empire of Japan, and always having been a sentimental well-wisher of Japan and an admirer of her many gifts and qualities, I would view with keen sorrow the opening of a conflict between Japan and the English-speaking world.

The United States' time-honoured interests in the Far East are well known. They are doing their utmost to find a way of preserving peace in the Pacific. We do not know whether their efforts will be successful, but if they fail, I take this occasion to say-and it is my duty to say-that should the United States become involved in war with Japan the British declaration will follow within the hour.

Viewing the vast, sombre scene as dispassionately as possible, it would seem a very hazardous adventure for the Japanese people to plunge, quite needlessly, into a world struggle in which they may well find themselves opposed in the Pacific by States whose populations comprise nearly three-quarters of the human race.

If steel is a nation's foundation of modern war it would be rather dangerous for a Power like Japan, whose steel production is only about 7,000,000 tons a year, to provoke quite gratuitously a struggle with the United States, whose steel production is now about 90,000,000 tons a year. And I take no account of the powerful contribution which the British Empire can make in many ways. I hope devoutly that the peace of the Pacific will be preserved in accordance with the known wishes of the wisest statesmen of Japan, but every preparation to defend British interests in the Far East and to defend the common cause now at stake has been, and is being, made.

Meanwhile, how can we watch without emotion the wonderful defence of their native soil, and of their freedom and independence, which has been maintained single-handed for five long years by the Chinese people under the leadership of that great Asiatic hero and commander, General Chiang Kai-shek. It would be a disaster of the first magnitude to world civilization if the noble resistance to invasion and exploitation which has been made by the whole Chinese race were not to result in the liberation of their hearths and homes. That, I feel, is a sentiment which is deep in our hearts.

To return for a moment to the contrast between our position now and a year ago. I do not need to remind you here in the City that this time last year we did not know where to turn for a dollar across the American Exchange. By very severe measures we had been able to gather together and to spend in America about £500,000,000 sterling. But the end of our financial resources was in sight; nay, had actually been reached. All we could do at that time-a year ago-was to place orders in the United States without being able to see our way through, but on a tide of hope, and not without important encouragement.

Then came the majestic policy of the President and Congress of the United States in passing the Lease-Lend Bill, under which, in two successive enactments, about £3,000,000,000 was dedicated to the cause of world freedom, without-mark this, because it is unique-without the setting up of any account in money. Never again let us hear the taunt that money is the ruling power in the hearts and thoughts of the American democracy. The Lease-Lend Bill must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history.

We for our part have not been found unworthy of the increasing aid we are receiving. We have made unparalleled financial and economic sacrifices ourselves, and now that the Government and people of the United States have declared their resolve that the aid they are giving us shall reach the fighting lines, we shall be able to strike with all our might and main.

Thus we may, without exposing ourselves to any charge of complacency, without in the slightest degree relaxing the intensity of our war effort, give thanks to Almighty God for the many wonders which have been wrought in so brief a space of time, and we may derive fresh confidence from all that has happened and bend ourselves to our task with all the force that is in our soul and with every drop of blood that is in our veins.

We are told from many quarters that we must soon expect what is called a peace offensive from Berlin. All the usual signs and symptoms are already manifest, as the Foreign Secretary will confirm, in neutral countries, and all those signs point in one direction. They all show that the guilty men who have let Hell loose upon the world are hoping to escape with their fleeting triumphs and ill-gotten plunder from the closing net of doom.

We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our Russian Allies and to the Government and people of the United States, to make it absolutely clear that whether we are supported or alone, however long and hard the toil may be, the British nation and his Majesty's Government at the head of that nation, in intimate concert with the Governments of the great Dominions, will never enter into any negotiations with Hitler or any party in Germany which represents the Nazi regime. In that resolve we are sure that the ancient City of London will be with us to the hilt and to the end.

Churchill's statement was no doubt true. ..  for lots of reasons, but it cannot realistically be regarded as that great of an offer of help.  The US was as far into the war in the Atlantic in aid of the British as conceivably possible and a Japanese attack on the US, while it would cause British setbacks, and it did, also just made that near belligerent status a full belligerent status.

In fact, as the item below notes, on this date the US commenced escorting a British troop convoy from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to India.  Escorting a convoy of troops at war is an act of war, irrespective of where those troops were going.

Today in World War II History—November 10, 1941

Also, according to that entry, the US adopted the famous M1 helmet and the "Parson's" field jacket on this date in 1941, which while that might not seem like much to many, actually are big events in material history.

The M1 helmet was a huge improvement over the Brodie pattern M1917 helmet that had been adopted during World War One, and which was of the type still used by the British.  The M1 had full head coverage and was a great helmet.  The M1 covered the head fully, and could be separated from its liner to be used as a basin, a not insignificant feature.

It wasn't adopted on this date, however. That date was June 6, 1941. By this date in 41, thousands had already been produced.  It was in use for decades and worn by millions of servicemen. . .including me, my father, and three of my uncles.

The M1941 field jacket, i.e., the "Parson's", was adopted, as the designation indicated, in 1941 as well.  I'd question whether it was this late in 41, but it was adopted in 41.  FWIW, this was the second model of the jacket, not the first, so this type of jacket had been in service for a while.

Based on civilian "wind breakers" the wool lined jacket was much more practical than the Army Service Coat which had replaced the Service Coat of World War One.  For nearly inexplicable reasons, the Army, in the early 1920s adopted a service coat which replaced the closed collar service coat of the Great War which soldiers wore for nearly any service. The new service coat more closely resembled an Edwardian business suit jacket, with an open collar, and was designed to be worn with a tie. It even featured brass buttons, as opposed to the earlier subdued blackened ones.  In addition, a separate distinct patter was introduced for officers of a dark green with khaki colored trousers.

This uniform doubled as a dress and field uniform, but it was completely lacking in suitability for the latter.  Indeed, it was much less suitable in this role than its predecessor.  By the late 30s this was extremely obvious, and the Army took a giant step in a more practical direction, replacing the service coat for "field" use with a "field jacket", of which the M1938 was the first.  This was, we should note, before the build up of the service for the war had commenced, as the war had not commenced.

In 1941 the new pattern was adopted with some changes that, if nothing else, made it appear a bit more military than the prior jacket had. The same year the Army adopted the M1941 Winter Coat, which was also a wool lined jacket.  This jacket became popular with armored vehicle crewman and is mistakenly associated with them.  It was in fact used by all branches.

We could go on at length, as the topic of World War Two Army coats is surprisingly complicated, but we will simply note that in 1943 the Army adopted the M1943 field jacket which became the pattern for every Army field jacket for decades and of which there is still an authorized version.  The M1943 was designed as part of a paratroopers uniform, but the Army was wisely concluding by that point that was good for paratroopers worked for everybody else.  What you can take from all of this is that things were very much in a state of uniform flux by this point in the US military, and would be throughout the rest of the war.

March 12, 1921. The Map Makers.

 

Participants in the Cairo and Jerusalem conference, plus two lion clubs.  Those photographed include Winston Churchill and T. E. Lawrence.

A convention commenced in Cairo on this day in 1921 to discuss the future of the Middle East, now occupied by French and British forces, but with strong regional forces seeking immediate independence.  The conference would run through the end of the month and issue a report of its findings.  Sessions were held in Cairo and Jerusalem, and numerous contending entities including forces in rebellion against European parties were interviewed.

Criticized in later years (the photo above has been captioned as being of "the forty thieves"), T. E. Lawrence, a great friend of the Arabs, declared that it fully fulfilled British promises to the Arabs and that Winston Churchill had "made straight" the tangle of post war interests in the region.

March 12, 1921, Saturday Evening Post.

Skeptics would have been entitled to doubt a rosy future.

Those Tires. Was, Lex Anteinternet: The Week. Old Injuries and Old Addictions (Coffee...

Lex Anteinternet: The Week. Old Injuries and Old Addictions (Coffee...:

Man these tires are massive.  And they sure look like radials, even though they can't be.

The Long Range Desert Group in North Africa. These guys needed to hydrate.

November 16, 1920. Timely advice, then and now. Airlines, then and now. Beersheba.

Cartoon of this date with some timely advice.  From Reddit's 100 Years Ago Subreddit

.

The Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service, Qantas, was formed on this day in 1920.  The third oldest airway in the world, its now the Australian national airline.

Qantas' first office.

Herbert Samuel, the British governor of Palestine, toured Beersheba.

The Big Red One

Men of the 1st Infantry Division at Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944.

I'm constantly surprised to find I haven't reviewed a movie that I thought I should have quite some time ago. This is one such instance, particularly as this movie is by Sam Fuller and I have done his much less well known Korean War film, The Steel Helmet.

Fuller was a pulp fiction writer early in his career and turned to movie scripts after the Second World War.  During World War Two Fuller served as an infantryman in the 1st Infantry Division and the screenplay is more than a little bit semi autobiographical, although the Fuller character in the film, Pvt. Zab, is not the central focus of the film.  Rather, the squad's Sergeant, who is never given a name in the film, and who is played by a weary Lee Marvin, basically is, to the extent that the overall infantry squad itself isn't.  Indeed, the squad basically is, which shows a real military focus on the party of Fuller whose experiences as a Second World War infantry enormously showed in that respect.  Fuller wrote his screenplay prior to 1950 and there was some thought of making the movie as early as that, but instead the film was made and released in 1980.  While it is undoubtedly the biggest budget film ever associated with Fuller, it was actually filmed on a low budget and mostly in Israel.  It was released in two versions, with the original version being shorter and a second version restoring cut scenes.

The film follows a single squad, or really a half squad, of the 1st Infantry Division in World War Two, from Operation Torch (November 1942) through the end of war in Germany (May, 1945).  It interestingly starts off, however, with Lee Marvin's character in a short scene that takes place in November, 1918.  This introduces us to a character who is to be the "old" sergeant, the senior figure of the squad.  In the 1918 scene he wears no rank insignia so, at that time, we presume him to be a private in the same division, and given is later service in World War Two, a career soldier.

In spite of being filmed on a low budget the movie is a remarkably good movie and it stands out as a World War Two movie in a way that really isn't rivaled until the much larger budget Saving Private Ryan.  

The basic premise of the film is the story of the men of a single U.S. Army squad in World War Two.  Fuller was a highly decorated veteran of the 1st Infantry Division so he naturally chose this unit and the script is closely based on his own experiences, featuring as noted one soldier who is basically Fuller.  The unnamed Sergeant is in the role of an experienced combat soldier trying to shepherd his squad through the war.  The film never depicts, except in two instances, a full infantry squad, which is probably partially due to a story telling choice in that it allows a more focused look at the men in the unit rather than expanding it out to two to three times that size, which would be required for a full squad.  That choice also emphasizes the attrition of the war as we come to understand in various ways, sometimes through the addition of added characters, that attrition is keeping the unit small and that experience is keeping these men alive.

So as a story its well done, but how does it hold up to actual history.

By and large, not too badly.

After the brief 1918 scene, the movie takes us to combat in North Africa, Italy, France and on into Germany, reflecting actual use of the division during World War Two. The restored version fills in a bit of the winter gap in 44 and 45 and also some of the late war experience of the unit, although its questionable whether the restored scenes add anything to the film (the scenes added for Germany do not).  The original version tracks very closely to the divisions experiences during the Second World War. The restored version does not depart greatly, but does add a couple of story lines that were inputted for dramatic effect which likely don't, such as a mounted French Foreign Legion charge against German armor and a female German noble woman who conspires to admit American troops into a gathering of high ranking German officers.

As readers here know, we also always discuss material accuracy, and there's a fair amount to discuss concerning that in this film.  Here too, it does a good job.  It does a really good job if we consider that it was made in 1980 and is therefore from the pre Saving Private Ryan era.

Indeed, as this film takes place over three years, it's remarkable in regard to this as some material items changed a lot in the U.S. Army in this time frame and this film manages to depict that accurately.  In 1942, when the film starts, the U.S. Army in North Africa was uniformed, for instance, with a different uniform from that which it wore in Europe in 1945. This film gets that right.  The film also equips every solider in it with the M1 Garand, resisting the temptation that movies so often fell into to depict infantrymen carrying submachineguns or carbines, which they usually did not.  This is so much the case that the film never depicts anyone in the squad carrying a Browning Automatic Rifle, which at least one soldier should be, if the entire squad is considered.  Of course, as noted, the film is typically showing a depleted squad.

One depiction that may be questioned is the depiction of the Marvin sergeant character in terms of age.  During World War Two sergeants were E4s, not E5s, and therefore we're looking at a depiction of a "buck" sergeant who has had over twenty years of service and has not advanced about that rank. That wouldn't occur in the modern Army, but it did then.  Indeed, at that time there were men who retired as privates.

"Old" sergeants did occur in World War Two including in infantry formations.  Still, most NCOs who had World War One service were higher ranking than that during the Second World War even if they entered the war at that rank.  Indeed, quite a few NCOs were commissioned as officers during the war if they had long pre war service, although certainly not all did.  So the depiction is possible, just not extremely likely.  Additionally, while Marvin was 35 years removed from his own military service at the time this film was made, he always had an older appearance and that somewhat fits the appearance of men of that career and that period in time.  If we can take him to be about twenty years old or so when the film opens, and there was an effort to make him look younger for those scenes, the character would only have been in his early 40s at the start of the film. That is old, in that real world role, but it did occur and overall World War Two American soldiers were on average older than generally imagined.

Overall, this film is one of the "must see" World War Two films. Very well done, and almost completely unique in following a group of infantrymen throughout the entire European campaign.

August 20, 1920. Football, News Radio, Ships and Transjordan

On This Date in Sports August 20, 1920, the American Professional Football Association, precursor to the NFL, formed.

The Akron Pros, one of the teams in 1920.

I don't care anything about football, but a lot of people do, and this marks a notable event.  Note that one of the players on the champion 1920 team depicted above, was black, meaning that in that very early season, football was integrated.  The drafting of the first black athlete into the NFL is generally regarded as having occurred in 1949, but in fact very early on blacks were part of the professional sport.

Advertisement for 8MK from August 31, 1920.

The first commercial radio station in the United States, 8MK (at the time) began broadcasting on this date in 1920.  The radio station, now WWJ, first broadcast on an amatuer license out of Detroit, where William E. Scripps, the newspaper publisher, started the station as a new radio station.

It's still in business and its still news radio for the Detroit area.

In the Great Lakes area, on the same day, the SS Superior City collided with the Willis L. King in Whitefish Bay, resulting in the loss of 29 lives.

Far outside the United States, the British representative in Palestine announced a proclamation extending his governance into Jordan. The British rapidly repudiated the effort and denounced it.

[August 20, 1920]  The high commissioner's first visit to Transjordan. Reading of "The Durbar", a proclamation annexing Transjordan, in Es-Salt

March 8, 1920. Villa back in the headlines, Syria declares a putative state, Allies and Turks clash, Motoring hazards.

Pancho Villa was back in the headlines on this day in 1920, seemingly back to his old habits.

And the unfinished results of World War One were in the headlines in regard to Turkey, whose new government was fighting the Allied powers that were in the country and seeking to redraw its map.

Part of that map had already been redrawn as imperial possessions of the Ottoman Empire were severed from it. What would become of them wasn't quite known at the time, but the Syrian National Congress thought it knew what should happen to that part which was Syrian.  On this day in 1920 it declared Syria to be an independent Arab kingdom with Hashemite Emir Faisal, famous for his role in the Arab Revolt during the Great War as its king.

King Faisal I of Syria.

Syria had been regarded as the prize by Arab revolutionaries during World War One and Faisal's ascendency of its thrown was therefore a personal ascendency as well.  It would be instantly challenged by France, which felt itself to have a special role in Syria dating back to the Middle Ages.   This was known to the  Syrians at the time, and indeed Faisal had already entered into an agreement with France which more or less made Syria a French protectorate. That agreement was massively disliked in Syria and was renounced by Faisal prior to his being declared the king.  The declaration of independence would shortly lead to the San Remo Conference which would decide Syria's statuts, at least for the short term, as well as the status of Faisal's claim to a Syrian throne.

Also in the Middle East on this day, there were protests in Jerusalem.  

Protests at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.

The protests would keep on and would soon turn violent.  Their focus was opposition to Jewish immigration into Palestine but the motivation for protests on this day and the day prior were sparked by the Syrian National Congress declaring the existence of the Syrian state, which claimed British controlled lands within its boundaries.

On a lighter note, Gasoline Alley pondered one of the hazards of the motor age.

I was actually in a motor vehicle accident in the late 1980s when a kid doing something just such as this rear ended my 1954 Chevrolet sedan.

Asymmetrical War and Gross Overreaction

Dear readers, it is important to note that Pearl Harbor has not been struck by the Japanese in a second sneak attack.

Eh?

Well, the reason I note that is that event was the last one which caused the United States to declare war on anyone. Sure, we've fought several undeclared conflicts since then, one, or two, of which were illegally fought in that they required, in my view, a declaration of war, but there's no risk of "World War III".

None the less, some in the Press are even kicking around World War III headlines, which provides evidence of why people who are deeply informed on any one topic tend to take the Press with a very high dose of salt.

At the same time, we'd note, basically historical ignorance combined with people's basic love of panic, and people do love a good panic, is contributing to the complete and utter nonsense that's circulating right now.

Okay, what's this about and what's really going on, to the extent we know.

Death from above.  Starting with the Obama Administration and continuing now onto the Trump Administration individual enemies of the US and those near them have found themselves alive one moment and in eternity the next through strikes conducted by Predator drones, such as this one in Iraq.  Last week Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani found himself in the situation of flying into Baghdad to consult with those he lead in the name of the spread of Shia Islam to being in the next world and finding out if the 7th Century founder of Islam was right. .  or wrong. . . or perhaps a now greatly misunderstood Gnostic preacher who wasn't sending a message as now understood.

Last week President Trump, without informing Congress, ordered a drone strike on Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani.  Soleimani, in an acting of stunning hubris, flew into a nation where Iran maintains client militias in the Iranian's government effort to subvert the Middle East for the purpose of spreading the Shia theocracy, even while its own people are leaving Islam in droves and declaring they've had enough of the Shia theocracy.

Indeed, were the Iranian government lead by men with flexible minds overall, they'd democratize the country immediately, which would give Shia fundamentalism a much better chance of retaining influence in Iran, assuming its not too late, than their current course.  The course they're on right now will result in the secularization of the nation through disgust, sooner or later, and an educated Iranian population is already well into the process of pondering Islam's contradictions and problems.

But that's not the course of action they're going to take. They're going to go down with the ship, and make it worse for themselves.

And part of that is sponsoring guerrilla war against all sorts of forces and states in the region, including subverting the Iraqi government  and sponsoring militias there.

Gen. Qasem Soleimani had been instrumental in it and he met a fate he basically deserved.  

He deserved it as he was an instrument in a struggle that depended at its core on Iran's opponents not behaving like Iran.  And just like the rude motorist who finds himself cutoff by a tow truck driver who has had enough, Iran is complaining about it.

Citing Gasoline Alley may seem odd here, but in essence, Iran is behaving like Doc.

Iran of course feels this way as its been allowed to.  Western powers have restrained themselves from taking on the theocracy since its first creation, no matter how difficult that nation has been, for a variety of reasons.  And there's real logic to that approach.  Sooner or later, Iran's going to collapse under its own oppressive weight and the problem will be solved.

None of which means that anyone must tolerate their violent misbehavior in the meantime.

Which also doesn't mean that killing a top general of their's is wise

Indeed, all of this is very problematic.  For one thing, it's extremely odd to be using killer drones over the downtown street of a country you theoretically are aiding.  Indeed, as we are the guest, and they are the host, we presumably would want permission to act in this fashion.

We didn't get that, and we wouldn't have received it either.  Iran has strong influence in the Iraqi government.

Additionally, flat out killing an Iranian general in this fashion, while technologically impressive and oddly honest in a way as well, isn't really strategically sound for a variety of reasons, first and foremost of which is that overall any one general's ability to influence the long term outcome of a struggle is always questionable.  

Even if he is key, however, doing it outright will cause the Iranian people to rally to their government, no matter how much they might otherwise detest it.  Deeply Orthodox Russian soldiers fought for the atheistic Soviet Union heroically, as Mother Russia had been attacked.  

Red Army soldier, likely a Soviet Pole, and a Catholic, during World War Two.

And while it may be a bad or disturbing example, German soldiers fought tooth and nail during the final months of World War Two against the advancing Soviets.  Viet Cong solders, increasingly youthful as the war went on, fought hard in the 1970s for a cause they only understood loosely at best simply because the other side was there, in their concept of another side.

The point is that this actually may serve to prolong the struggle with Iran.

Which is why, if it was necessary, most nation's would have gone about this differently.  In Baghdad nobody would have though much of a couple of RPG rockets slamming into a car followed by concluding bursts of AKM (AK47) fire.  It'd look like another Iraqi militia had done it.

Indeed, a colleague of mine who had once been a Navy SEAL told me that in his day, for sidearms they carried Browning Hi Powers. They were used by so many nations at that time that if one was dropped, you could never tell what military had been there.

This assumes, of course, that it was necessary to kill Soleimani, which is a big assumption.  It's difficult for me to see how that would have been true.  Of course, the New York Times is now declaring he was no big deal, but the Times, like Chuck Todd, has become so partisan its lost all objectivity.  Suffice it to say, however, taking us to a higher level of conflict with Iran right now really raises some questions.

One question it doesn't raise is whether or not we're going into "World War III".

There's actually some outright moronic speculation of this type.  On Twitter, for example, the Twitter Twits are causing this to trend today:

Politics · Trending

#Iranattack

Trending with: #IranUsa, #WWIIl

That's just silly.

But perhaps not as silly as this:

Selective Service

@SSS_gov

·

Jan 3

Due to the spread of misinformation, our website is experiencing high traffic volumes at this time. If you are attempting to register or verify registration, please check back later today as we are working to resolve this issue. We appreciate your patience.

Eh gads, any narcissistic fool who seriously is calling the Selective Service as they think there's going to be a resumption of conscription is truly a bed wetter.  Head out of the phone bucko, and read some real history.

There isn't even going to be a conventional war between Iran and the United States.  Iran would loose it and they know that.  All of which makes the public freaking out about this downright dumb.

Indeed, probably the most amusing freak out was that of Rose McGowan. She's an actress, and therefore is part of the vapid set, who posted a gif of an Iranian flag with a sunny and a smiling bear, or something, on it, with this text:

Deaar #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani

That's really stupid.

That it was stupid became pretty obvious really quickly and she began to back-peddle enduing up with this:

Ok, so I freaked out because we may have any impending war. Sometimes it’s okay to freak out on those in power. It’s our right. That is what so many Brave soldiers have fought for. That is democracy. I do not want any more American soldiers killed. That’s it.

Oh horse sh**.  This was an example of vapidness blowing up on the commentator.  There's a lot of it around right now.  And its just not very smart.

There's going to be no conventional war with Iran.  We aren't going to engage in one, and the Iranians aren't either.  Neither side, in fact, could easily do it, but it it occurred, it would be the end of the Iranian theocracy, and they likely know deep down that its winding down anyhow and they don't want to accelerate that.  At some foreseeable point in the near future the Shiite mullahs of Iran will have the same level of influence on Iran that the Church of Sweden has over that county's affairs. That's not to say none, in either case, but it won't be what it is now.

Speculation about the effectiveness of the Iranian military has been rampant for a really long time, but the best evidence is that it isn't.  The common citation to their effectiveness is the example of their war that Iraq fought with Iran from 1980 to 1988 in which both sides actually demonstrated a raving level of military incompetence.

Fighting to a draw with modern weapons and World War One technology isn't an example of military prowess.  At that time Iran had a western trained 1970s vintage military with 1970s vintage military equipment and Iraq had a Soviet trained 1970s vintage military with 1970s vintage military equipment.  Both side managed to forget their training nearly immediately and fought with their respective 1970s equipment as if it was 1917.  

Iran still has 1970s equipment but now are largely internally trained and, in a conventional war, would be even less competent than they were in the 1980s, much like the Iraqis were in the 1990s and 2000s. And they likely have no illusion about being able to fight anyone.

Iranian F-14s in the 1980s. The F-14 was a great plane, but old airplanes with no parts don't stay great and technology has moved on.

Indeed, they don't really try. The Iranians like asymmetrical, irregular war, and that's what we'll likely see.  But we will see that.

Which does bring us back around to a more tense situation.  Will Iran try to close the Persian Gulf and what will the Europeans do if they do (they depend on it being open more than we do)?  Will Iran ramp up terrorism?

Indeed, the latter appears to be a certainty, as Iran has already stated that its retaliation will be "against military sites". That's worrying, but what that suggest is that they'll engage in asymmetrical war at a calculated level.  Basically, like Arab nations did with Israel for decades.  Just enough violence to not really provoke a war terminating their state.

All of which means that this will go on, most likely, for years. . . depending upon our reaction, which is proving to be the difficult one right now.  And that's the weird situation that Iran finds itself in.  Like a habitual rude driver, they suddenly find themselves having angered somebody who appears to be irrational and are now in the "oh crap. . . did that tow truck driver cut me off and is he getting out of the cab with a beer and a gun. . . ?"  Nobody knows what any reaction from the United States will be right now.

Including Americans.

But it won't involve World War Three and it won't involve conscription.

It'll be more analogous to the the long Arab Israeli struggle, at least for the time being.  Which means that panicked might have to do a little studying.

Pax Americana and the Middle East

Royal Saudi Air Force F3 Tornado.

As it becomes increasingly more likely that Iran had a role in this past week's drone strikes on Saudi Arabian oil production facilities which resulted in a 5% reduction in the world's oil supply (albeit at a time in which that doesn't matter much) the question has increasingly become, what will the U.S. do about that?

Note that it doesn't seem to be the case that people are debating whether or not the US should do nothing at all.

There are, of course, a lot of reasons for that.  A primary ones is that a strike by a rogue nation that has a long history of crossing the line in participating in wars and quasi wars outside of its own borders is hard to ignore.  Iran does more than aid its allies, including irregular allies, in the region, it directly participates in the struggles in those countries and invariably through a lens that's filtered through a very Shiia view, even if Iran's people aren't necessarily on board with such actions.  Perhaps a larger reason, however, is that a strike in this fashion on 5% of a critical resource used around the globe is impossible to ignore.

Having said that, however, there seems to be a simple assumption that the US should and will do something about this.

We're less dependent upon Saudi oil than most European nations are and than Asian nations are.  As American oil production increases, we're now a net energy (not oil) exporter.  The 5% reduction in the global supply wouldn't really hurt us if the supply was tight, which it isn't.

And Saudi Arabia is a nation which shares no values with the US whatsoever.  Iran is an Islamic republic, which is a term that has debatable meaning but which means, in its case, that Shiia clerics have a sort of an extra governmental role in the country and that it's not a real democracy.  But Saudi Arabia is a Sunni monarchy.  It's not democratic either.

Of course, Iran has had an expansive view of itself in which it has had sort of a missionary zeal, now much reduced among its population, to spread a certain sort of Islam wherever it can, and by whatever means, including violent ones, that it has.  Saudi Arabia never had that, with its founding family's alliance with a certain conservative brand of Sunnism at least somewhat for convenience.  It's goals were local, and it ceased being expansive in the 1920s.  That does make it distinctly different.

Be that as it may, it has a military and that military has an air force.  And that air force is a good one.

The Saudi army is a tiny one and real questions exist about its ability to do anything much in the case of a real war.  It never has had to fight one on its own, and it's likely not accidental that its army is small.  A standing army is a threat to a monarch.  Iran's standing army did nothing to aid the Shah when he fell, basically taking the Hindenburg/Ludendorf option when that time came.  Egypt's standing army deposed its monarch and still basically runs the country over 60 years later.

But Iran's army isn't all that great either and at this point, frankly, there are likely real questions about its loyalty.  And Iran and Saudi Arabia do not share a border.  Iran can make trouble for Saudi Arabia with terrorist forces, which Saudi Arabia no doubt knows and which is likely part of the reason that the desert monarchy is taking a role in the Yemeni civil war.  So while Iran can make things worse for Saudi Arabia, it's not holding back all that much now.

And Iran doesn't really have much of an air force. It's had a hard time getting modern aircraft since the Islamic Revolution and therefore while it has military aircraft, it's really frozen in time with them and has a hard time maintaining the aircraft it has.

The long and the short of that is that Saudi Arabia can undoubtedly hit Iran from the air and there's not all that much Iran can do about it.

But due to the Pax Americana, it won't, and we likely will do something.

Saudi Arabia is not, contrary to what pundits will claim, our "ally", at least in a formal sense.  There are unspoken arrangements, to be sure, however.  And since 1945, or perhaps really since 1941, we've decided that there are certain things that our allies shouldn't do, or our clients shouldn't do, or that we'd rather other countries not do, so we do them ourselves.  We're not the world's policeman, to be sure, but perhaps more the world's ranger, or sheriff, or something.  Maybe just the local bodyguard in other ways.

Anyhow, as part of that, it's interesting to see that everyone is so acclimated to the concept that the question isn't, "will Saudi Arabia strike back?", but will we?

_________________________________________________________________________________

September 19, 2019

A couple of interesting developments in this story today.

The first links back to something I mentioned above, more or less. The New York Times has an editorial headlined We Are Not The Saudi's Mercenaries.  In other words, it's up to the Saudis to do something about this situation, not the U.S.

Other headlines keep noting that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the attacks were an "act of war".  He did, but the way he said it gives rise to how the press can be accused of inaccurate reporting, at least in headlines.  Pompeo actually said it was an act of war upon Saudi Arabia, and specifically noted that the Iranian backed strikes was upon that country.  That strongly suggests that the US was noting the strikes as an act of war, which if Iran launched them directly, it definitely is.  But his further remarks suggested an effort to push Saudi Arabia to act or at least that the US regarded the strikes as an act of war upon a friendly nation.

That may very well be a predictor on how this will play out.  Something will happen, but it may not be obvious to us what it is.  Saudi Arabia has been strongly opposed to Iran for decades, but it has never shown an inclination get into a war with Iran, or any major Middle Eastern power, and it's unlikely to do so now.  By noting that it was an act of war upon Iran, the US may be indicating that it will support what Saudi Arabia does, but that shouldn't be taken as a signal that the US will necessarily be the country that takes action.  Indeed, President Trump, while he has talked tough on Iran, has been pretty openly reluctant to take military action against it where prior Presidents of both parties might have been.

_______________________________________________________________________________

September 20, 2019

Iran's foreign minister declared yesterday that if the United States or Saudi Arabia strike its territory there will be "all out war".

If any more proof was needed that Iran's self isolation has reduced some of its government to being dangerously deluded in a "we only listen to ourselves" sort of way, this would be it.  You can't really launch an air strike, by any means, including by proxy, and not be aware that this is itself an act of war.

It seems increasingly likely that Saudi Arabia will be taking the lead in a response and that there will be one.  Iran's action seem to bizarrely be done in the belief that by attacking Saudi Arabia people will be convinced to deal with it as its a dangerously armed nation having a temper tantrum.  It's sort of like a drunk trying to get admission to the bar by smashing a window.

_________________________________________________________________________________

September 24, 2019

Germany, the United Kingdom and France yesterday proclaimed their certainty that Iran is behind the recent drone strikes on Saudi oil production.  Iran dismissed the charge claiming that if it had been, the destruction would have been much more complete.

At this point there seems little doubt that Iran's behind the action in one fashion or another. The question therefore has become what shall be done, and who shall do it.