The Fireforce vertical envelopment tactic was used by the 1st Battalion of the Rhodesian Light Infantry in the first example of its use. The tactic was developed as Rhodesian AĆ©rospatiale Alouette III had a limited carrying capacity in comparison to the very large helicopters used by the US in similar roles.
Ostensibly exploring the practice of law before the internet. Heck, before good highways for that matter.
Saturday, February 24, 2024
Sunday, February 24, 1974. Advent of Fireforce, getting mad at Confucious.
Sunday, September 17, 2023
Tuesday, September 12, 2023
Wednesday, September 11, 1923. The British Empire in Southern Africa.
Southern Rhodesia became a British colony when the British government took it over from the British South Africa Company due to a 1922 referendum. Prior to that time, it had been informally been known as Zambesia, based on the Zambezi River. It would form a government on October 1 and would retain its status, sort of, as a British colony until 1964.
Southern Rhodesia, massively British in terms of its colonial character, saw itself in that fashion, and its white residents had been highly supportive of World War One. They would be again of World War Two.
Flag of Northern Rhodesia.
In 1953, it was confederated by the British with Northern Rhodesia, which had a larger landmass. In the 1950s, it began to fall apart with the rise of African nationalism. Northern Rhodesia became independent and changed its name to Zambia in 1964, interestingly changing its name during the course of the Olympics, and therefore entering the games with one name and exiting it with another.
When Northern Rhodesia became independent, with the cooperation of the British government, it struck fear into Southern Rhodesian whites, and the country, which was controlled by them, issued its Unilateral Declaration of Independence as Rhodesia in 1965. The winds of change already well set in, Rhodesia, while it had cooperation from various countries, was unrecognized by any. It fought an increasingly losing battle against African nationalist forces in the 60s and 70s, and returned to British colonial status brief in 1979, before becoming the current state of Zimbabwe.
Monday, November 28, 2022
Honesty and suffering Wyoming.
I should note here that I'm cynical about politicians and politics once a person leaves the local realm.
Now, I don't feel that way about politicians at the local level. The ones I've known personally were genuinely engaged and had entered into politics as they had real concerns about their communities, or schools, etc.
And, of the few state legislators I've known, most fit that same description.
Theodore Roosevelt, long before he ever ran for the Oval Office, once rebuked a reporter for suggesting that he might some day occupy it. In doing so, he stated that a person must never tell a politician, which he already was, being in the New York Assembly, that he might some day be President as he'd quit being his natural self and alter positions so that he could obtain that goal.
There's really something to that.
Harriet Hageman is in the category of politicians I've met and sort of once somewhat knew.
During the recent race, I was frankly shocked by a lot of her conduct, which I at first attributed to her simply wanting to be in Congress. Since that time, I've come to wonder if in fact she may believe the positions she's taking, in which case that's scarier yet. That would likely mean that of our three person Congressional delegation, she's the only true ideologue, and not in a good way.
Back in April, Harriet Hageman spoke in Powell and made this statement:
I’ve really got a dog in this hunt, I’m from Wyoming. My family’s from Wyoming … Wyoming is my passion. The way that I put it is that when Wyoming prospers, my family prospers. But when Wyoming suffers, my family suffers.1
That's the very first thing I've seen attributed to Hageman which would give a person a reason to vote for her. That same reasoning applied to the primary candidates who ran against Cheney when she first ran, and won, which of course means that a lot of the people who might find this view appealing now, apparently weren't all that worked up about it back when, including Hageman who at one time supported Cheney. None of which means that it isn't a good point.
Mind you, there are a lot of reasons not to have voted for Hageman, although most Wyoming voters who participated in the off year election did. The big reason for that is that most Wyoming voters bought the Trump lie that didn't sell nationwide this election, that the election was stolen.
Wyoming's voters, frankly, have been buying a lot of cheap fibs and obfuscations in recent years, so perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised.
So we should hope that Hageman really means what she says, and that she remains capable, as an attorney should be, of analyzing the facts. Given her age and status, she won't be personally culpable for failing to do so. I.e, if what she has been selling turns out to be a bill of goods, well she'll go on to retire and not bear the brunt of it.
Hageman says she has a dog in the "hunt" as she's from here and her family is too. And she is from the Ft. Laramie region and her family is here, in agriculture, although unlike those of us who have kids who to worry about for the future decades hence, she has no children, so that's really worrying about her extended family. I have no reason to believe that she doesn't genually bear them in her heart.
In any event, however, worrying about what happens when Wyoming suffers means, more than anything else, looking at the world honestly, and not at some romanticized past that never existed and which, to the extent it did, is evolving.
In 1960 Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, addressed the reality of the state of British colonialism to the South African parliament, stating:
The wind of change is blowing through this continent and, whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.
Macmillan was right, and there was no holding back the change those winds brought. But he had a concern beyond that, and stated:
As I see it, the great issue in this second half of the twentieth century is whether the uncommitted peoples of Asia and Africa will swing to the East or to the West. Will they be drawn into the Communist camp? Or will the great experiments of self-government that are now being made in Asia and Africa, especially within the Commonwealth, prove so successful, and by their example so compelling, that the balance will come down in favour of freedom and order and justice?
Not everyone was willing to accept the storm that had arrived. Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, did not, and took his country out of the British Empire.
Rhodesia no longer exists. Zimbabwe, a wreck of a country, exists in its place. Many of the departing African colonies have had terrible post-colonial histories, but Zimbabwe has one of the worst. It's story is complicated, but in part that disaster can be put at Smith's feet. MacMillan proved correct, Smith's actions gave strength to Marxist revolutionaries, who won, and who effectively destroyed the country's economy.
Elections have consequences, as they say, and so does ignoring reality. Wyoming has a lot of going for it, but it doesn't control every trend in the United States or globe. Every time somebody says "electric cars will never work here", they cast a vote for fantasy. That's a minor example, but it's a relevant one. Harriet Hageman claimed, back in April when she gave her speech in Powell, that her first act in Congress would be to introduce a bill requiring the United States to use American energy.
Well fine, pass that bill (it won't pass), but what she means is almost certainly petroleum oil and coal. California, with a population dwarfing ours, is already legislatively phasing out the use of petroleum. Congress isn't going to be able to mandate a change in course that's already been taken, and not just here, but all over the globe and in the hearts of minds of consumers.
Wyoming has a lot going for it economically, and a lot of that predates its oil and coal history. But will it value it, or will it insist that we return to the 1980s and expect others to go along? I fear the latter is almost certain.
In addition to that, when Hageman claimed nativist grounds for people to vote for her, she ironically pointed out something that's very much impacted our recent political history. Yes, Cheney was not from Wyoming but John Barrasso isn't either. Foster Freiss, whom the far right here adored, very much was not.
Nor are a host of Wyoming political figures, some of whom are angry relocates from points further east.
The point isn't that you have to be born here to win elections or to run, but rather this. We should be very careful about taking our political views from out of state imports, whose presence is usually temporary. In recent years, particularly in the COVID era, we've received a lot of new people, but the backstory is a lot of them leave pretty quickly. The myth of Wyoming is that "everyone is so friendly", which isn't really true. It's easy to mistake politeness and curiosity for friendly.
Wyoming is a hard place to live and work. A lot of people flood in when the price of oil is high, and then hang for a while when it drops until they chase the dollar somewhere else. A lot of those people bring their views, often from the west of the Missippii, south of the Picket Wire region, and that temporarily impacts views here. Freiss, when he ran for office, had a campaign style that somewhat resembled something out of 1970s Alabama, for example. When they leave, that view usually goes with them.
Likewise, Wyoming throughout its history has had influxes of outsiders, people born well outside the region, who prove to be temporary. Nice summers are attractive at first, but long winters, no services, and the howling wind take their toll after a few years, and they move on. Something like 50% of people who move here just to move here move on in less than a year.
At the end of the day, Wyomingites, those born here who stayed, and those who moved here, mostly from neighboring states that have a lot of the same character, are invested in the state in ways that others aren't and want its character preserved. That means its entire character. You can't be the Congressman from the Oil Industry, or the House member from Coal, or the Representative from farmers in Ft. Laramie. It's the whole smash, and those who have lived and endured here, rather than those taking up temporary residence of a fictional Wyoming that exists only on Yellowstone or Longmire, do have opinions that matter more than those moving through.
That means being honest. Honesty starts with being honest to yourself first, and then to everyone else. It's a character trait that's really departed from national politics to a massive degree in recent years.
So, don't make Wyoming suffer, starts with being honest.
Footnotes
Before the Oil. And after it? The economies of Wyoming and Alaska.
The Wyoming Economy. Looking at it in a different way.
Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1. The Economy
Looking at the nature of Wyoming's economy again
Dare we, and should we, Wyomingites that is, ponder a near term world in which coal and oil use decline? Part I.
Thursday, October 27, 2022
Friday, October 27, 1922. Horse events, funerals, savings certificates. And the March on Rome begins.
Elsewhere, a military funeral was also conducted.
Andrew Mellon was issuing new Treasury saving certificates.
Southern Rhodesia, which later became Rhodesia, and which is now Zimbabwe, held a referendum on joining South Africa. Voters rejected the proposal.
Italian Fascists took possession of cities around Italy as the March on Rome began. The mach was a mass demonstration that was also a slow rolling coup in progress intended, ultimately, to put so much pressure on the Italian government that it would fall, and the Fascists take control of the government. It would succeed in that aim.
Wednesday, November 24, 2021
Wednesday November 24, 1971. The Flight of D. B. Cooper
On this day in 1971 a man wearing as suit and tie, typical travel attire for the era, checked into a short flight from Seattle to Tacoma, Washington, something only requiring thirty minutes of flying time. Once the plane was airborne, he slipped a note to a stewardess seated nearby, who at first ignored it, thinking he was trying to pick her up. He then told her to read the note, which claimed he had a bomb in a briefcase.
At the time no search of carry ons was conducted, and the stewardess asked to see the bomb, which the man proceeded to show her. And then a several hours long ordeal unfolded in which the man, who had checked into the airplane as Dan Cooper, ordered that he receive $200,000, two reserve parachutes and two main parachutes, and that the plane take a route in which Mexico was the declared ultimate destination. The money and the parachutes were provided in Tacoma, where Cooper also released most of the passengers and all of the stewardesses save for one. Showing very advance knowledge of the aircraft, a Boeing 727, he instructed the pilots to fly it at 10,000 feet, keep the wheels down, and to set the flaps at a certain angle, all of which made sure that it was flying very slowly.
Once airborne, he parachuted into the night near Mount St. Helens during a severe thunderstorm, leaving via the 727's unique integral downloading back staircase. The man, misnamed by the press as "D. B. Cooper", was not apprehended and most of the money has never been found.
This has, of course, been one of the most enduring air mysteries and crime mysteries of all time. The serial numbers of the bills involved were microfilmed, but only a small number of them have ever been located, and those by campers on the Columbia River in 1980. The bundles they found were, moreover, badly deteriorated but their bundling was not, with a small number of bills missing in a manner which raised questions as to how that could have occurred. Given that the money did not resurface, the official speculation is that Cooper died parachuting into the forest, in a thunderstorm, at night.
There's plenty of reason to suspect that is the case. He obviously was extremely familiar with the aircraft, its systems, and knew something about parachuting. Nonetheless, he wasn't dressed for a hike through the wilderness and, dropping at night, he could not possibly have had anything but a remote idea as to where he'd be coming down. While some discount the chances of his death, night drops are always risky, let alone one in which a military parachute was used (which it was) and in which he was badly dressed for the endeavor. The fact that the money never resurfaced strongly suggests he was killed in the attempt.
In spite of the massive effort to capture him, he was not located alive and no body was ever found. . .to date and, more oddly, nobody was ever reported as missing. The knowledge that he displayed was quite distinct and therefore the number of suspects would seem rather limited, but nonetheless there's never been any solid leads.
The mystery remains an enduring one not only because Cooper wasn't captured, but also because there are so many clues regarding him, and yet he remains elusive. Suffice it to day, if the event occurred today, which it would not as airline security has changed so much, Cooper would have been captured or found dead.
Cooper in fact left many clues as to his background, and therefore his identity. There was, of course, first of all his appearance. He had "olive" skin and therefore a "Latin" appearance, something that gave him somewhat of a minority appearance for a Caucasian. He was smoking heavily, although that could have been to steady his nerves, and therefore was a smoker at any rate, although at that point a little over 40% of all Americans smoked weekly, with that likely meaning that well over 50% of men did.
More tellingly, however, Cooper demonstrated a knowledge of parachutes, and expressed a request for military parachutes rather than sporting ones. A comment from the air noted that he recognized the Air Force base at Tacoma. And he had an extremely advanced knowledge of the features of the 727, knowing how slow it could go, knowing how to precisely set the flaps to slow it further, and knowing that it uniquely had a real loading under fuselage staircase that could be opened in flight.
Indeed, the 727 had seen military use in Vietnam due to its rear loading staircase for that very reason, with the Central Intelligence Agency using them for air drops of material.
These combined facts strongly suggest that Cooper had a military background of some sort, but they also, when combined with other factors, discount his having been a paratrooper, as is sometimes suggested.
Cooper did not ask for the static line T-10 model of parachute in use then and now, but rather one that could be deployed manually, as would have been necessary for the drop. That was a necessarily choice, but otherwise Cooper seemed to display an ignorance as to actual dropping. He wanted the plane low, 10,000 feet, which makes sense, but military parachutes have a very violent deployment which meant that getting his stolen loot to the ground would have been difficult. Beyond that, keeping his shoes on would have been difficult as well.
Landing safely would have been extremely difficult. Deploying into the night, and in a severe thunderstorm, the odds would have been against him making it to the ground and landing uninjured. Even if he did come down in the storm without injury, military parachutes of the era required, for good reason, the wearing of protective footgear, which his dress shoes were not in any fashion. Moreover, his leaving in the night meant that he was risking coming down in trees experienced parachutists desperately seek to avoid as they are so strongly associated with death and injury to them.
Finally, his clothing wasn't close to being suitable for a hike out of the forest.
Indeed, the entire concept of parachuting out of the plane, at night, seems to have been intentional, but it also seems to have been reckless in the extreme for a plot which was otherwise very well planned out. Cooper's plan either seemed to discount the dangers and difficulties with making his departure from the plane to the ground safe, and his escape complete, or he just didn't care, trusting to luck at that point. And that also gives us an interesting hint as to his potential identity.
Combining all fo these up to this point, what this suggests is that Cooper had military experience involving parachutes and airplanes, but not that of being a paratrooper. Being a pilot or a cargomaster seems the most likely candidates.
Analysis of his tie, however, conducted years later suggests that he worked in heavy industry, and in some managerial capacity. The aircraft manufacturing industry itself would seem to be a good candidate, as his clip on tie contained metals and substances that were used in that industry at the time, and which were unlikely to be picked up accidentally.
Combining all of these, it seems likely that Cooper was or had recently been an employee of an aircraft manufacturing company, perhaps Boeing the maker of the plane, and in that capacity he had become very familiar with the 727. He likely had some prior military experience, or at least was aware of the military use of the plane. He knew too much about the 727 for that knowledge to be casual, and if he had picked up any studied knowledge for the attempt, it would have been as to the use of the parachutes, and not the aircraft. That knowledge would have been easier to obtain, and perhaps could have been obtained on the job.
Indeed, the oddity of it can't help but cause a person to have at least some question as to a possible connection with service in the CIA, and that has been suggested.
Of course, suggesting a CIA connection to things is commonly done with certain big events, with some reaching the absurd level. The claims, for instance, that the CIA was involved in the 9/11 attacks provides such an absurd example. But here, there's at least some credibility to those claims.
So could he be found now?
Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith and British Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home signed an agreement lifting British economic sanctions in exchange for Rhodesia outlawing racial segregation, with the eventual goal of the country gong to majority black rule.
The agreement was shortlived and really didn't go anywhere. It is an interesting reflection, however, on politics of the time.
Rhodesia had declared independence unilaterally in 1965 over the objections of the United Kingdom. It was one of those area of the British Empire/British Commonwealth which had a reputation of being more English than the English, but only if a person considered the English minority population of the country.
The move came about due to Harold MacMillan's policies, as Prime Minister, of divesting the UK of its colonies, something that had become inevitable but which the UK had struggled with since the Second World War. That the British Empire could not survive in that form had been obvious since before the Boer War, and the British had developed the commonwealth concept as a means of trying to evolve outright rule of its colonies into an association of English influenced nations. The concept is hard to express now, but basically it was based on there being a certain Britishness, and once a colony became mature, it joined in the commonwealth as part and parcel of the British nation, looking to the King or Queen as the sovereign, and not really fully independent, at least as to foreign affairs. Canada was the first former colony to achieve this status, obtaining it in 1867. This was followed by Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa and the Irish Free State. In 1926 the dominions were given authority over their foreign affairs.
By the time the Irish Free State was given dominion status, which followed its treaty with the United Kingdom gaining its independence, the entire concept was in trouble. Ireland didn't want dominion status in the first place. It wanted outright independence and simply terminated its dominion status in 1937 unilaterally. South Africa proved to be a problematic dominion at best as the Afrikaans population of the country resented the English both in the UK and in South Africa. Meanwhile, in places like Rhodesia, being English continued to be a huge matter of self identity.
World War Two made the entire colonial/dominion enterprise untenable even while it was the last great gasp of empire. The United States obviously closely supported the United Kingdom even while making it known that it did not support the ongoing maintenance of empire. Ireland sat the war out as an official belligerent. South Africa entered the war, but barely supported it. Following the war, the United Kingdom struggled for a time to maintain the system, but following the Suez crisis of 1956 it became clear to the UK that the day of empire and even commonwealth was simply over. In 1960 the winds of change speech was delivered in South Africa, and the UK essentially announced that it was going to recognize independence movements in its colonies and divest itself of them.
This created a firestorm of concern in the British colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923. Recognizing that white minority rule was untenable even before the Suez Crisis, the British had attempted to create a larger political entity in 1956 by creating the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, It proved unstable right from the onset, with Rhodesia having outsized influence upon it. It broke up in 1963 and its other regions headed rapidly towards independence. Concerned that the British would force Rhodesia into a racial equality, the white controlled government declared independence in 1965. No nation every recognized it. For that matter, the British South African Police, which formed the policing body of the nation, nearly refused to recognize the move, while the army in the region did, leading to a rather odd tense situation. Ultimately the BSAP came around, reluctantly.
This resulted in a hostile relationship between Rhodesia and the United Kingdom with Labour Party Prime Minister Harold Wilson very much opposed to the unilateral move. In 1970, however, Edward Heath became the Conservative Prime Minister and the position for Rhodesia improved. The agreement noted above was negotiated with the thesis that it would move the country towards eventual full democracy.
The agreement was really moribund from the onset, being of the nature of too little too late. By 1971 colonial constituents everywhere were no longer willing to wait for Europeans to eventually recognize them as political equals. Such proposals elsewhere featuring slow evolution of this type, such as in Algeria, had likewise met with failure. Added to it, as the Cold War was now raging, it became fairly easy for independence movements to secure funding and arms against colonial governments or, in this case, one that looked back toward the United Kingdom in an old-fashioned, and very English, way. The proposal met with no acceptance by black nationalist movements and rapidly failed. For that matter, Heath would be back out of office by 1974 and Wilson back in.
The ultimate results were not surprising, but perhaps what would be to a current audience is the degree to which Rhodesia, even though it did not gain political recognition anywhere, nonetheless retained some sympathy. It obviously had it with conservatives in the United Kingdom, which were willing to acquiesce to the concept of eventual political rights to Africans, but not immediate ones. It had a fair amount of support in South Africa, for obvious reasons, as it was also attempting to maintain a whites only rule. Even in the US, however, a fair number of people supported it. The nation was a pariah of a type, but only of a type.
All of that has since obviously changed and it's nearly impossible to imagine any of this occurring now. South Africa only had 250,000 white residents and a black population of 5,000,000.
Japan's diet recogized on this date the Okinawa Reversion Act which sought to vest control of the island back in Japan. Somewhat controversial in the US, the treaty with the US returned Japanese control to the island that had been the scene of bloody fighting in World War Two.
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Lex Anteinternet: MUGABE FALLS! ZIMBABWEAN ARMY STAGES COUP. Or maybe it sort of kind of does.
Lex Anteinternet: MUGABE FALLS! ZIMBABWEAN ARMY STAGES COUP: The Zimbabwean Army deposed Robert Mugabe, a horrible human being and one of the worst leaders in Sub Saharan Africa. Mugabe epitomize...Like a scene out of Monty Python.
Oh, I was always hoping for too much. Zimbabwe is barely a real country to start with, and with no real democratic history or even a history of a national government to look back up. It's not like, say Romania, which prior to its long Marxist nightmare was a series of governments, not all of which were very admirable by any means, but they were real anyhow.
Or maybe that's a bad example. . . or a good one in this context in that it would serve as a bad example. One of those Romanian governments was pretty fascistic. And during World War Two Romania went berserk in regards to its Jewish population. Not very admirable, to say the least.
But, whatever the case may be, when the Communist fell in Romania, they fell. Not like what we have going on in Zimbabwe where the Marxist geriatric is hanging on refusing to leave like the Black Knight in Monty Python while the Army refuses to push him. And I probably shouldn't have supposed they would. Today's Zimbabwean army is really the heir to one of the two communist guerilla armies of the Bush War period, not a real national army, in spite of the attempt to make it one, that we might wish for. The army pushing out Mugabe would be asking for too much, even though they're attempting to do so. They're according him way too much respect.
Which isn't to say that I want more blood spilled in an already bloody land. But I'd be for trying Mugabe for his crimes against his nation. He richly deserve the judgment in fact that history will ultimately give him.
But instead his hold on his nation lingers on even in a deposed state, as his cold "comrades" negotiate for him to gracefully leave.
A trip on Air Koryo anyone?
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Conscription in the English Speaking World. Passing an Anniversary
Which leaves us with the US.
We've explored that a bit in recent posts. Conscription was not a popular concept going into World War One by any means, having only strictly existed during the Civil War. The Wilson Administration was so concerned it would be poorly received that it attempted to camouflage its nature by calling it "Selective Service", a name it still officially retains in the United States, under the theory that the country would be fooled that the country was simply selecting volunteers, more or less. Nobody was fooled.
Generally, Americans volunteered enthusiastically, and enthusiastically accepted the draft, during the Great War. Nonetheless that well known story isn't as simple as it is often related to be. There were two uprising amongst southern yeoman populations against conscription during the war, one of which we've already discussed. These were serious armed uprisings, not mere protests. And hard left organizations, which were in some ways at the peak of their popularity in the country, were dead set against conscription. Organizations like the IWW actively campaigned against it.
The US did have compulsory militia duty on the part of military aged males from the colonial period up until after the Civil War, and that's a type of conscription, so this story isn't quite as clear as it might at first seem. That had passed away by the late 1800s, however, and the memory of it seems to have been largely forgotten. So the World War One draft was an unusual event. After the war conscription was halted, only to be reintroduced just prior to World War Two, but with very narrow support. It went away again after World War Two but, just as in the UK, it came back in 1948 with the need to form a large Cold War Army. It was retained in the US up until 1975, although nobody was conscripted after 1973.