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 1st Division in World War One.

 

I've oddly, I suppose, posted on the 2nd Division and the 3d Division, but not the 1st Division.   We seek to correct that omission here.

Rather obviously, the 1st Division was one of the very first U.S. Army divisions to be formed as the United States sought to build an Army to send to France.  Like the 2nd and the 3d, it was a Regular Army division made up of units of the standing U.S. Army.

The 1st Division is the oldest continually serving division on the U.S. Army.  Most sources will indicate that the division was formed on May 24, 1917, just after the American declaration of war, but like the 2nd Division and the 3d Division, it has a Civil War antecedent and a case can be made that the 1st Division first existing during that conflict.  At any rate, it's been serving continually as the 1st Division ever since May 24, 1917 and its seen action in every major American conflict since that time.  It's arguably the most famous U.S. division, although that could be contested I suppose.  It's the only US division to have its nickname, The Big Red One, used for the title of a movie, which says something.

The 1sts was the first U.S. division to fire an artillery mission during World War one and the first to sustain casualties.  It was also the first to launch an offensive operation, Cantigny.

It's make up was typical for an American "square division" for the war:

• Headquarters, 1st Division
• 1st Infantry Brigade
  • 16th Infantry Regiment
  • 18th Infantry Regiment
  • 2nd Machine Gun Battalion
• 2nd Infantry Brigade
  • 26th Infantry Regiment
  • 28th Infantry Regiment
  • 3rd Machine Gun Battalion
• 1st Field Artillery Brigade
  • 5th Field Artillery Regiment (155 mm)
  • 6th Field Artillery Regiment (75 mm)
  • 7th Field Artillery Regiment (75 mm)
  • 1st Trench Mortar Battery
• 1st Machine Gun Battalion
• 1st Engineer Regiment
• 2nd Field Signal Battalion
• Headquarters Troop, 1st Division
• 1st Train Headquarters and Military Police
  • 1st Ammunition Train
  • 1st Supply Train
  • 1st Engineer Train
  • 1st Sanitary Train
    • 2nd, 3rd, 12th, and 13th Ambulance Companies and Field Hospitals.

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.

The Mexican Election

Mexico has just elected a populist.

And he's not a right wing populist, if that's what Donald Trump is, but a left wing populist.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly as AMLO, is a member of Mexico's brand new National Regeneration Movement (Movimiento Regeneración Nacional, MORENA), a left wing party that didn't even exist at the time of the last Mexican presidential election.  MORENA doesn't have enough representation in the Mexican legislature to have a majority, so it has entered into a coalition with the left-wing Labor Party and right-wing Social Encounter Party under the name "Juntos Haremos Historia."  The fact that MORENA has aligned with two other parties, one from the right, and one from the left, isn't actually surprsiing, but rather indicative of its populist nature.

MORENA is  hard to define, and Americans are going to be struggling to do just that.  It is Cardenist, socialist, and nationalist in nature.  It's not going to be like any party that Americans have had to deal with in Mexico for decades.  It will be radical, but that radicalism will be of a form that we'll have a hard time grasping.  Some will call it Socialist and even Marxist, others will declare it Fascist or Peronist.  It's what it is, and in some ways it will be all of those things and none of them at the same time.

AMLO promises, basically, to end corruption and to champion the poor, fine promises but ones lacking in real detail.  Nobody knows really what he'll do, but we do know that he's had to align with populist parties from the right and the left, meaning presumably that his focus will have to be both for the impoverished in a now middle class nation that has a mindset of poverty that doesn't quite reflect the reality, and on ending rampant corruption and crime, which is in fact a giant Mexican problem.

Of course, AMLO, if he's as left wing as he original was, could just make problems worse.  Mexico has plenty of its own problems to be sure, but as the PRI has slowly declined its brand of Mexican socialism also has and in fact the economy has enormously improved.  Most Mexicans are now in the middle class, even if Mexico's national psychology does not allow that mental concession, for the first time in Mexico's history, a gigantic achievement which free marketers everywhere should be trumpeting.  Mass Mexican illegal immigration is now a much reduced problem for the United States and in fact, at least recently, there has been more migration back into Mexico (and even more population transfer in that direction if you include American migration to Mexico, which is quite real) and the big immigration problem now, as we've just noted, stems from Central America, not Mexico.  MORENA could really disrupt that economic progress and even send it into retreat.

What can be done about corruption remains to be seen. Quite a lot, perhaps, particularly as the century old grip of the PRI on Mexican politics has now ended, although that grip was loosening and evolving for quite some time.  A big factor in corruption anywhere is money and in the Mexican case that money comes, ultimately, from the United States, tied to our illegal drug appetite.  That will be difficult in the extreme for AMLO to do anything about, but it would appear that it would at least require an increased police presence in a nation where that's been increasing anyhow. And that's where this could get to be frightening, or not.  Mexico generally hasn't handled such things terrible well historically, but then the Mexico of today isn't the one of the past.

Indeed, that's pretty evident as this small revolution was done at the ballot box.  We no longer even think of it being done at the point of a gun in Mexico anymore, which at one time is how such things were in fact done.

Should be interesting, anyhow.

Just as learning how a Mexican populist president of a now middle class nation economically tied to the United States deals with an American populist president, and vice versa.

What happened to summer?

This "summer" has been absolutely freezing.

I have a pretty good recall on weather events and temperatures over the years for one reason or another, and this has absolutely been the coldest summer I've ever experienced.  It's like Fall, and not even early Fall. It's been arctic.

It's July 4 and when I woke up this morning the temperature was in the low 50s, it's wet and overcast.  Where I live, that means that last night, the temperature was down in the 40s. 

That's winter like weather.

Granted, it's supposed to get up to the low 80s, but in July it should be in the low 80s.

Now, every now and the it'll get up to the 90s for a day and then drop back down.  The average high for July is 87F.  The average low is 53F.  If you take that, we're about a good ten degrees below normal. . . every day.

The record high for July is 106 (2006).  The record low is 30F (1972).  I'm wondering when we'll beat that.

In spite of this, I'll note, when on some odd day the temperature isn't actually in the Sitka Rain Forest in April range, somebody will complain about it being hot.  This is usually coming in or out of my office where the air conditioning has it down at the Absolute Zero range anyhow. 

One hot day doesn't make the entire summer hot.

Is the 90s hot?  Well, so be it.  Bring it on and stop the rain.

It was July 4, 1918.

Equestrian Show, Remounts from Ft. Lewis' Remount Station, Tacoma Washington.

Marching sailors, New York City.

Razzle dazzle camouflage example on a model ship, note the American and Japanese flags on the building in the background.

Japanese, Italian and American flags on the Hotel Savoy.  Dignitaries viewing parade.

Parade, Washington D. C.

23d Infantry Regiment veterans of Chateu Thierry at the La Place de la Concorde, Paris.

Parisians cheer American troops.

American soldiers passing in review at the Place de I'ena on the Avenue du President Wilson, Paris.  The statute is of George Washington.

American Army band, Avenue du President Wilson.  Group of wounded soldiers watching.

General William Scott at July 4th celebrations in Bordeaux

Allied officers at Belgian Headquarters salute the American flag, July 4.

Wounded American soldiers being transported to the Cafe des Ambassadeurs, Paris.

Wounded soldiers arriving by truck at the Cafe des Ambassadeurs.  Boy Scouts on left.

Ship builders were busy.

Camp Meigs, Washington.  USQMC

Battle of Hamel, July 4, 1918

British soldiers depicted in Hamel in March 1918, prior to their withdraw from the town in the German 1918 Spring Offensive.

On this day in 1918 Australian and American soldiers jointly attacked and took the French village of Le Hamel in northern France.

The attack was a meticulously planned combined arms attack featuring the innovative use of the fast (for the time) British Mark V tank and air support from the RAF.  It was also a joint operation, under the command of Australian General Sir John Monash, featuring primarily Australian infantry but heavily augmented by units of the American 33d Division and supported by a creeping barrage using British and French artillery.

The attack was well planned by the experienced General Monash and provided an learning example of new combined arms tactics.  It was not without its problems, however, in that the American troops were somewhat reluctantly supplied and when supplied were directly attached to Australian units at the small unit level, something the American Army did not approve of.  The American Army had approved the use of troops of the 33d Division for a raid, not an outright assault.  Indeed, fewer troops of the U.S. 33d Division were supplied at first than initially promised and when the Australians were further supplied with U.S. troops prior to the battle some were withdrawn upon General Pershing learning that they were being assigned out to Australian formations at the company level.  The augmentation was partially needed by the Australians due to the thinning of their ranks by the Spanish Flu.

The assault technically commenced at 22:30 on July 3 when British and French artillery opened up simply to mask the noise of the deploying tanks.  A harassing artillery barrage commenced again at 03:02 which caused the defending Germans to anticipate a gas attack, for which they accordingly masked.  The RAF went immediately into action at that time and deployed fighters as light bombers, with each assigned pilot flying at least three extremely dangerous pre dawn flights.  The infantry assault commenced at 03:14 with American units showing their inexperience by advancing into the allied creeping barrage.

Allied objectives were calculated by Monash to require 90 minutes and in fact took just 93.  The Australians began to resupply the successful units with tanks and the Royal Australian Flying Corps immediately commenced areal photography in order to produce new maps.  The RAF, for its part, participated in resupply operations by dropping some supplies by parachute in a brand new technology which was, of course, necessarily limited by the nature of the aircraft of the time.

The Germans reattacked, using storm troopers, at 22:00 and were initially successful.  A flanking Australian attack, deploying grenades and clubs, reversed that and the shocked Germans retreated.

The battle was significant for a number of reasons.  For one thing, it was the first signficant use of an American division, partially, that was made up of National Guardsmen, in the case Guardsmen from Illinois, which was what formed the 33d Division.  Beyond that, it was a spectacular example of clear thinking in a meticulously planned combined arms attack using every new and old arm in the Allied arsenal successfully and also using forces from four different armies.  Beyond that, it showed that Allies had not only withstood four months of German assaults but were more than capable of going into at least limited offensive operations at this time, tactics which sucked up German storm troops, upon which their success now depended, who were shown to be capable of being beaten. Indeed, Australian troops in the action showed an offensive spirit so pronounced that they were willing to resort to the most primitive of weapons.

President Wilson's July 4, 1918 speech at Mount Vernon.

 Woodrow Wilson laying a wreath at Washington's tomb at Mount Vernon.

President Wilson's July 4, 1918 speech at Mount Vernon:

I am happy to draw apart with you to this quiet place of old counsel in order to speak a little of the meaning of this day of our nation’s independence. The place seems very still and remote. It is as serene and untouched by the hurry of the world as it was in those great days long ago when General Washington was here and held leisurely conference with the men who were to be associated with him in the creation of a nation. From these gentle slopes they looked out upon the world and saw it whole, saw it with the light of the future upon it, saw it with modern eyes that turned away from a past which men of liberated spirits could no longer endure. It is for that reason that we cannot feel, even here, in the immediate presence of this sacred tomb, that this is a place of death. It was a place of achievement. A great promise that was meant for all mankind was here given plan and reality. The associations by which we are here surrounded are the inspiriting associations of that noble death which is only a glorious consummation. From this green hillside we also ought to be able to see with comprehending eyes the world that lies about us and should conceive anew the purposes that must set men free.

It is significant,—significant of their own character and purpose and of the influences they were setting afoot,—that Washington and his associates, like the barons at Runnymede, spoke and acted, not for a class, but for a people. It has been left for us to see to it that it shall be understood that they spoke and acted, not for a single people only, but for all mankind. They were thinking, not of themselves and of the material interests which centred in the little groups of landholders and merchants and men of affairs with whom they were accustomed to act, in Virginia and the colonies to the north and south of her, but of a people which wished to be done with classes and special interests and the authority of men whom they had not themselves chosen to rule over them. They entertained no private purpose, desired no peculiar privilege. They were consciously planning that men of every class should be free and America a place to which men out of every nation might resort who wished to share with them the rights and privileges of free men. And we take our cue from them,—do we not? We intend what they intended. We here in America believe our participation in this present war to be only the fruitage of what they planted. Our case differs from theirs only in this, that it is our inestimable privilege to concert with men out of every nation what shall make not only the liberties of America secure but the liberties of every other people as well. We are happy in the thought that we are permitted to do what they would have done had they been in our place. There must now be settled once for all what was settled for America in the great age upon whose inspiration we draw to-day. This is surely a fitting place from which calmly to look out upon our task, that we may fortify our spirits for its accomplishment. And this is the appropriate place from which to avow, alike to the friends who look on and to the friends with whom we have the happiness to be associated in action, the faith and purpose with which we act.

This, then, is our conception of the great struggle in which we are engaged. The plot is written plain upon every scene and every act of the supreme tragedy. On the one hand stand the peoples of the world,—not only the peoples actually engaged, but many others also who suffer under mastery but cannot act; peoples of many races and in every part of the world,—the people of stricken Russia still, among the rest, though they are for the moment unorganized and helpless. Opposed to them, masters of many armies, stand an isolated, friendless group of governments who speak no common purpose but only selfish ambitions of their own by which none can profit but themselves, and whose peoples are fuel in their hands; governments which fear their people and yet are for the time their sovereign lords, making every choice for them and disposing of their lives and fortunes as they will, as well as of the lives and fortunes of every people who fall under their power,—governments clothed with the strange trappings and the primitive authority of an age that is altogether alien and hostile to our own. The Past and the Present are in deadly grapple and the peoples of the world are being done to death between them.

There can be but one issue. The settlement must be final. There can be no compromise. No halfway decision would be tolerable. No halfway decision is conceivable. These are the ends for which the associated peoples of the world are fighting and which must be conceded them before there can be peace:

I. The destruction of every arbitrary power anywhere that can separately, secretly, and of its single choice disturb the peace of the world; or, if it cannot be presently destroyed, at the least its reduction to virtual impotence.

II. The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship, upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.

III. The consent of all nations to be governed in their conduct towards each other by the same principles of honour and of respect for the common law of civilized society that govern the individual citizens of all modern states in their relations with one another; to the end that all promises and covenants may be sacredly observed, no private plots or conspiracies hatched, no selfish injuries wrought with impunity, and a mutual trust established upon the handsome foundation of a mutual respect for right.

IV. The establishment of an organization of peace which shall make it certain that the combined power of free nations will check every invasion of right and serve to make peace and justice the more secure by affording a definite tribunal of opinion to which all must submit and by which every international readjustment that cannot be amicably agreed upon by the peoples directly concerned shall be sanctioned.

These great objects can be put into a single sentence. What we seek is the reign of law, based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind.

These great ends can not be achieved by debating and seeking to reconcile and accommodate what statesmen may wish, with their projects for balances of power and of national opportunity. They can be realized only by the determination of what the thinking peoples of the world desire, with their longing hope for justice and for social freedom and opportunity.

I can fancy that the air of this place carries the accents of such principles with a peculiar kindness. Here were started forces which the great nation against which they were primarily directed at first regarded as a revolt against its rightful authority but which it has long since seen to have been a step in the liberation of its own people as well as of the people of the United States; and I stand here now to speak,—speak proudly and with confident hope,—of the spread of this revolt, this liberation, to the great stage of the world itself! The blinded rulers of Prussia have roused forces they knew little of,—forces which, once roused, can never be crushed to earth again; for they have at their heart an inspiration and a purpose which are deathless and of the very stuff of triumph!

Winston Churchill at Westminster, July 4, 1918.

Winston Churchill at Westminster, July 4, 1918.

I move that the following resolution be cabled from the meeting as a greeting to the President and people of the United States of America: This meeting of the Anglo-Saxon Fellowship assembled in London on the 4th of July, 1918, sends to the President and people of the United States their heartfelt greetings on the 142nd anniversary of the Declaration of American Independence. They rejoice that the love of liberty and justice on which the American nation was founded should in the present time of trial have united the whole English-speaking family in a brotherhood of arms.

We are met here to-day at Westminster to celebrate the national festival of the American people and the 142nd anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We are met here also as brothers-in-arms facing for a righteous cause grave injuries and perils and passing through times of exceptional anxiety and suffering. We therefore seek to draw from the past history of our race inspiration and comfort to cheer our hearts and fortify and purify our resolution and our comradeship.

A great harmony exists between the spirit and language of the Declaration of Independence and all we are fighting for now. A similar harmony exists between the principles of that Declaration and all that the British people have wished to stand for, and have in fact achieved at last both here at home and in the self-governing Dominions of the Crown.

The Declaration of Independence is not only an American document. It follows on Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as the third great title-deed on which the liberties of the English-speaking people are founded. By it we lost an Empire, but by it we also preserved an Empire. By applying its principles and learning its lesson we have maintained our communion with the powerful Commonwealths our children have established beyond the seas.

Wherever men seek to frame politics or constitutions which safeguard the citizen, be he rich or poor, on the one hand from the shame of despotism, on the other from the miseries of anarchy, which combine personal freedom with respect for law and love of country, it is to the inspiration which originally sprang from the English soil and from the Anglo-Saxon mind that they will inevitably recur. We therefore join in perfect sincerity and simplicity with our American kith and kin in celebrating the auspicious and glorious anniversary of their nationhood.

US troops on parade in Paris July 4, 1918 - silent film newsreel

The Mexican Border . . . today.

Already  here?  Movie Poster announcing the film Sicario, Day of the Soldado is "coming soon".  On the border it's already arrived.

I recently had the privilege of catching up with an old friend from Texas.  A native born and bread there, although one who in his old age has take up residence for most of the year in Wyoming.

He's an interesting character and very well informed on a lot of things, including things going on, on the border with Mexico.

"You don't hear about this on the news" was a comment he made a couple of times, and he's quite right.  The things he was referencing, and he's a trustworthy soul, were hair raising.  

Indeed, so much so that the situation described reminded me very much of that depicted in the movie Sicario.*  For those who haven't seen it, Sicario is a violent film depicting the drug trade, corruption and ambiguous allegiances on a nearly lawless U.S.-Mexican border.  It goes beyond that, however and weaves in corruption or nearly illegal activity by the US government in regards to the situation, including the quasi legal use of special US armed forces units in order to attempt to address it. To hear my friend describe the situation, it doesn't differ much in reality from what is depicted in the film.  

Indeed, I was sufficiently surprised that I asked a couple of other knowledgeable Texans I know and they confirmed the degree to which the US border has become lawless and basically abandoned in some areas by agricultural operations.  People who work and live on the border go about armed in many areas for self protection.  The U.S. Park Service restricts its employees from entering some areas in one of the rare National Parks in that region as its too dangerous for them to enter.**  Large ranches have been abandoned and sold as they're too dangerous to operate.

And yet, as my friend notes, "you don't hear about this on the news".

Human trafficking and drug trafficking are the sources of the problem.   While news on the abhorrent separation of children from adults has been much reported on recently, the bigger problem isn't.  Even with a large reduction in Mexican illegal immigration into the US the border is still basically partially out of control and having an out of control border is irresponsible for any nation.  It makes a joke out of an immigration policy to start with, and the U.S.'s policy, which accommodates a huge legal rate of immigration, is out of control to start with.  The sources of illegal immigration now are Central American nations that have descended into chaos, largely due to the drug trade.  A person can hardly be blamed for wanting out of that situation, which is so bad in some areas that armed gangs control entire regions.  Mexico does little to control the trafficking through its territory for a presumed variety of reasons, in part because it has plenty of its own drug related problems and in part because the migrants are traveling through Mexico to the US and not stopping in it.

Drugs are also the reason that northern Mexico, in large areas, is controlled by criminal gangs that field what basically amount to sizable guerrilla armies.  The most well known, in the US, of these are the Zetas, named for the letter Z, which not only have a guerrilla army, basically, but were in fact formed by deserting members of the Mexican special forces.  It certainly isn't the only Mexican drug cartel by any means.  Nor are the cartels active solely in Mexico.  They have extensive contacts with the US and are allied and associated with various criminal gangs in the US.

The US appetite for illegal drugs is a huge part of this problem.  It's temping to say that the US is unique in this fashion, but that really wouldn't be true.  The US is indeed a huge market for illegal drugs, but Europe and Russia also have illegal drug problems and therefore trafficking.  Indeed, illegal drug trafficking tends to be sort of freakishly related everywhere as circles that smuggle to one region often end up connecting with others that expert the illegal substance on to somewhere else.  As a market, illegal drugs are darned near the perfect model of what Adam Smith imagined, in some ways, in regards to the wonders of free market economics.

Be that as it may, a semi unique aspect of the problem to the US is that the US has an extremely long border with a nation that's only now entering the First World and which isn't in control of all of its own territory.  The situation is so bad in Mexico that Mexico uses its armed forces against drug cartel armies, something that would be regarded as illegal in the United States save for the situation of armed insurrection, which in fact it basically is.  

We've posted here a lot here about the border in the early 20th Century. We haven't posted much about it after the 1920s.  Maybe we've been remiss in that.  There's never been a period in which illegal crossings, in both directions, haven't occurred, but not every period has been the same.  During the revolutionary period the border with Mexico remained tense, slowly easing as the 20s wore into the 30s.  The Depression brought new pressures to the border, but the modern border era really came in during World War Two when policies were created to allow for seasonal agricultural workers, which American agriculture very rapidly became dependant upon.  Still, that did not create a great deal of illegal immigration until the 1970s when economic migration from Mexico turned into a flood.  Policies designed to deal with that largely failed and its only been recently when they seemingly started to get in control, which has a lot to do with the Mexican economy, in spite of being burdened as it is, has improved and Mexico has become a middle class country for the first time in its history.

The period of large scale illegal migration from Mexico is largely over, which doesn't mean that it still doesn't go on, but now we're enduring a second period of large scale migration from Central America, and that doesn't seem to be close to abating.  And the drug trade, which has been a problem dating back into the 1960s, remains a full scale problem to the extent of causing local rebellions, effectively, and a species of warfare.

All of this summarizes the problem but it doesn't offer any solutions. What is clear is that turning a blind eye towards the problems does not amount to a solution.  Pretending that massive drug importation and creating a border that has become a No Man's Land in some areas hasn't happened is irresponsible.  Also pretending that American appetite for drugs hasn't created his problem is also irresponsible.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*For those who may be curious, the word Sicario means "hitman" in Spanish and Italian, from the Latin word sicarius, which meant the same thing.  That word came about from the word sica, a curved dagger, which was the weapon of choice in Palestine for such operatives against the Romans when they were there.

**As an aside mini editorial, those politicians in Wyoming who constantly proclaim the virtues of "taking back" the Federal domain should note that there's next to no public land in Texas, which has brought about the current situation in which the general public has very little access to wild lands at all.

The Big Picture: Gila Forest Camp, N. Mex., 109th Engr's., 34th Div., June 1918, Col. F. E. Downing, C.O. Copyright deposit, July 2, 1918.

"Members of Division [sic] standing at attention, men in covered wagons and carts behind, tents, and smoke from fires in background."

The Big Picture: Lebanon Pennsylvania, July 2, 1918.

Antidemocratic Liberals and Democratic Conservatives. The politics of Federal Court appointments

A really rich and oddly ignored aspect of the politics of Federal Court appointments is that political liberals opt for judicial liberals who are heavily antidemocratic.

That would seem to be contrary to the "liberal" impulse, but in fact it isn't.

This is very loudly pronounced in terms of judicial appointments.  Right now, political liberals, to include a large number of lawyers, as lawyer tend to be politically liberal, are whining and crying that Anthony Kennedy's long overdue departure from the Supreme Court means the end of the Republic. . . by which they mean they're worried that the people might get to vote on stuff.

Horror of horrors.

Judicial liberals haven't always operated in this fashion, but following the voting rights expansions of the 50s and 60s, which they supported, they have.  That has been, in fact, the hallmark of their viewpoint.

Take, for example, the topic of abortion.  No matter how else a person might wish to phrase the issue, the real impact of Roe v. Wade was to remove the topic from state legislatures.  At least one state had moved towards opening up abortion, no matter what a person might think of it.  Others had opposed such moves in no uncertain terms.  The Supreme Court decided to remove the issue from the voters entirely and declare, in Platonic Oligarchic fashion, what people's rights and burdens were, irrespective of what they wanted to do.

All the subsequent argument over the Supreme Court decision has kept that feature.  The argument isn't phrased in that fashion, or even conceived of in that fashion, but that's a prime feature of it.  When this argument is presented as an argument for "reproductive freedom", or whatever, what the pro abortion politicians are really arguing is "For goodness sakes, don't let this go to the voters as they don't agree with us."

It isn't just this issue either.  Kennedy's Obergefell decision is a prime example of it.  Kennedy and his fellow travelers jumped the gun on what was felt to be an evolving trend in state legislatures in what looks like an effort to be hip and cool and declare in one swoop what they felt would likely be a decade or more political debate.

And judges deciding an issue because they don't like political debate is antidemocratic.

In contrast, conservative jurists tend, one way or another, to just apply laws as written and figure if people don't like them, they'll rewrite them.

And that's what the liberal debate about a new Supreme Court justice is all about.

Political liberals don't trust you at the ballot box to think they way they do, so they want judges to decree in dictatorial fashion what you ought to think.  Peasant.

Issues In The Wyoming Election: An issue that won't be there. The Courts

Note:  I started this post before the recent retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Courtroom at the University of Wyoming's College of Law.

Wyoming had a judicial appointment system for Court appointments.  It's called the "Ohio Model".

The way it works is this.  A committee takes in and interviews applicants. It chooses three candidates and sends the names to the Governor.   The Governor picks one of the three.  And then, when his first term is up, he stands for retention and stands again every so often.

With that being the case, you'd think that this would be a consideration in the Gubernatorial race.

It isn't.

It is never mentioned.

That may be a good thing, really, as it may mean that Wyoming judicial appointments are pretty good as a rule.  Every governor has a different style, but the choice for the bench isn't solely up to the governor.

The judges do vary, of course.  And some judges are more conservative and some more liberal, but all in all, they're good solid jurists.

And so, this doesn't end up an issue in Wyoming's elections.

I'm not suggesting that this means something on a larger level. I'm just noting it.

It's amazing how much they changed in just a few short years.

I'm not really very good at identifying automobiles from the 1960s, but I think this is a 1964 Chevrolet Impala. If I have the make, or even the model, off, it won't be off by much.

It's odd to think of how much this model of car changed in just a few short years.  The Impala was introduced in 1958 and was one of the classic giant sized, roundy, cars of the 50s.  The next year, it started changing.  Nobody was making a car like the 50s cars by the early 60s.

2nd Division Captures Vaux, July 1, 1918.

The 9th and 23d Infantry Regiments of the U.S. Army, elements of the 2nd Division, captured Vaux on this day in 1918.

The battle isn't one that you hear a great deal about, perhaps because it was so perfectly executed.  The Army carefully studied the ground and planned and executed a late afternoon assault supported by artillery. The Germans were caught off guard and lost 500 men as prisoners and an additional 500 as casualties.  Losses to the U.S. Army were 300 casualties.

The town itself was a ruin, having been devastated by the fighting in the region.

Camp Dodge Iowa, July 1, 1918.

Losing Connection With the Seasons?

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, Rock Springs Wyoming..

Churches of the West: Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, Rock Springs Wyoming

Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church is located one block from St. Cyril and Methodius Catholic Church in Rock Springs in what was probably an ethnic neighborhood at the time the churches were built.  In addition to having a sizable Slavic Community, Rock Springs had a sizable Greek community as well, both drawn to the area in the early 20th Century by coal mining.

Best posts of the week of June 24, 2018

Best post of the week of June 24, 2018:

Issues In the Wyoming Election. A Series. Issue No. 1 (e). What about those other industries?

The German Navy's U86 commits a high seas atrocity. June 27, 1918.

Did you feel the earth shift?

The US Second Division

The 2018 Wyoming Election. Volume Three

Don't be dissin' on my fishin'