Co. K, 2nd Indiana Infantry, Indiana National Guard. August 31, 1917.

Send Off Day for the 27th Division. The New York National Guard leaves for Camp Wadsworth, South Carolina. August 30, 1917.

Send Off Day Poster.

On this day in 1917 the State of New York held a massive parade in New York City for its sons in the National Guard. Those men formed the 27th Division.

The parade lasted a massive five hours.  The dignitaries in the reviewing stand included former President Theodore Roosevelt.  4,000 New York City policemen were deployed to control a crowed that was estimated to reach as high as 2,000,000 spectators.

 Col. James S. Boyer. Washington Arch Square in the background.

The New York National Guard's 27th Division had a fair number of dignitaries and representatives from well known families itself amongst 24,000 members in and of itself.

Colonel Cornelius Vanderbilt III, Commander of the 22nd Engineers, New York National Guard.  In civilian life Vanderbilt was an engineer associated with his family's railroad interest but often on the outs with his parents due to a marriage that they disapproved of.

The unit wasn't going to France yet, but actually just leaving the State of New York for Camp Wadsworth, South Carolina.  And the New York National Guard wasn't contained completely within the 27th Division.  Other units remained in training in the state and would be deployed to Army training camps in the coming weeks, resulting in more, if not quite so massive, farewell parades.

The unit Vanderbilt commanded at this time, the 22nd Engineers, New York National Guard.

 

Watching from downtown New York.

 

Major General John Francis O'Ryan, commander of the 27th Division.  He was a lawyer and a life long resident of New York City.  He was also a rare National Guard officer in that he was a graduate of the Army War College.  The youngest division commander in the Army at the time of his arrival in Europe, he was also the only National Guard officer still in command of a division by the war's end.

Lt. Col. Paul Loeser, Commander of the Eighth Coast Defense Command (coastal artillery).

The parade also included units of the New York National Guard's Coastal Artillery.  Coast Artillery is something we don't think much about anymore, but it was a major defensive organization at the time by necessity and it was a natural for the National Guard, given that Guardsmen could train in place on the same weapons they'd man in war.

Col. Sidney Grant, Commander of the Thirteenth Coast Defense Artillery.  By the time this phoograph was taken the day must have grown hot as Col. Grant has taken off his service coat.

 

 Maj.Wilbur T. Wright, Commander of the Second Battalion, Second Field Artillery, New York National Guard.

Col. John J. Byrne, the Commander of the Ninth Coast Defense.

Scenes like this were playing out all over the nation as National Guard units were being sent off to training camps and ultimately to the war.  New York's example was an unusually large one, but then the populace state had a very large National Guard establishment.

Conscription in the English Speaking World. Passing an Anniversary

We've been posting some on conscription and today is a World War One conscription anniversary.

 

The Irish Canadian Rangers, a unit raised, but not fully filled, in Quebec, drawing from Irish Canadians.  It had to be filled out by Irish recruits from Ireland, and then was folded into another Canadian unit.  In some ways, its story is emblematic of the situation in Quebec during the Great War.

Not in the United States, however. Rather, its the centennial of the Military Service Act which, ineffectively, ushered in conscription in Canada for the Great War.

Canada was a country with a population of only 8,000,000 people during the great war.  It's almost a shock to realize how small the population really was.  23% of that population was made up of the Quebecois.  During the war 400,000 Canadians, more than a few of whom were English immigrants, although the majority were not, volunteered to serve in Canadian army.  Full mobilization, for countries with universal conscription, is usually regarded as 10% of the population, all male in the traditional form of conscription.  So Canada mustered men at the rate of 5% of the population.  Pretty darned impressive really for an all volunteer force. And that doesn't include those contributions from Prince Newfoundland, and Labrador, which were not part of Canada at the time.

Royal Newfoundland Regiment crossing the Rhine, 1918. This is not the Canadian army.

By 1917 the well had somewhat run dry in Canada. And in these regards it was facing the difficult choice that other English speaking countries had already faced.

Conscription was not a strong land army tradition in any of them.  The English had never had conscription for ground troops in modern times, although it did have it for sailors in the 18th and early 19th Century.  Indeed, conscription of sailors gave rise to the War of 1812 between the United States and the United Kingdom as the Royal Navy felt free to remove Englishmen from American ships to serve in the ongoing war with Napoleonic France.  There's more to that to be said, but given as this isn't an entry on the War of 1812 of the Napoleonic Wars I'll forgo telling it.  Anyhow, that did mean that England had a bit of a tradition of conscription, but not for land armies. That came to an end with the British Military Service Act of 1916 which made men from age 18 to 40 liable for service in the English Army.

The application of that act, of course, gave rise to the Easter Rebellion in Ireland which ultimately lead to the Anglo Irish War and an independent Ireland.  Conscription in Ireland was pointless, really, as the Irish were already serving in such high numbers.  In the end, conscription was likely necessary for the British in the war, but the cost proved to be great in terms of permanently severing the UK's political ties with Ireland.  Perhaps an added element of irony in regards to that is present however as the UK would resort to conscription very early in World War Two and the Irish, now citizens of the "Free State", once again volunteered to serve in the British Army in high numbers.  Very unusually, and in recognition of the Cold War, the UK would reinstate conscription in peacetime in 1948 but would phase it back out a decade latter and official end it in 1960.

Australia put conscription up for vote twice during the Great War, and both times it was defeated, although narrowly.  Australia would contribute 416,809 men to the Australian army during World War One, a massive contribution given its also small population.

An Australian pro conscription poster.  The Australians weren't persuaded and while plenty of Australians went to help, they were all volunteers.

Australia's conscription story was more complicated for World War Two during which it first made all unmarried men of 21 years of age liable for military training.  In 1942 it introduced conscription, but it wasn't until the end of the war that Australia deployed conscripts overseas.  Australian soldiers who were conscripts stand apart ab bit, during World War Two, as they did not measure up to the same aggressive quality, at first, that Australian volunteers did.  Australia twice reintroduced conscription after the World War Two, once for the Korean War and once for the Vietnam War, but unlike other nations that kept prolonged peacetime drafts, they kept them tied to the wars themselves.

New Zealand had a friendlier view towards compulsory military training than Australia, having had a militia history that is somewhat analogous to that of the United States. While almost every English Commonwealth nation had been looking at compulsory military training prior to World War One, that movement was fairly well received in New Zealand. New Zealand, therefore, had started compulsory military training for teenagers in 1909, exempting conscientious objectors.  Conscientious objectors, however, were not well regarded.  Having already established compulsory military training and having effectively created an army reserve prior to the war, it is not surprising that New Zealand followed the UK by enacting conscription in 1916.

That brings us back to Canada.

Canada had a vigorous militia system prior to the Great War and readily adapted that enthusiastically to its army that went overseas in World War One.  It was an all volunteer system, however.  Noticeably absent amongst the volunteers were the Quebecois.

There are undoubtedly a variety of reasons for this but chief amongst them were that the Quebecois, a sizable minority of the Canadian population at 23% of that population, but concentrated in Quebec where they were a majority, did not regard the United Kingdom as the mother country and had a distance and separate history from France, having been severed from Imperial France during France's royal Bourbon period.  They did not see the war in Europe as their war and were not keen in serving in it.  Their view cannot be regarded, quite frankly, as unreasonable.  By 1917 the Canadian government was ready to attempt to force the issue which was largely unsuccessful. There was large scale opposition to conscription in Canada and in the end only 24,132 conscripts were sent to France.  The word "only" has to be used with some caution, of course, as that's over a division of men and 124,000 men were drafted and therefore added to the army.  Not everyone in a North American army in any war has made it overseas, so perhaps this contribution was more significant than supposed.

Canada would repeat this history during World War Two. Canada enacted conscription at the start of the war but it was overwhelmingly opposed in  Quebec.  As a compromise Canadian conscripts were not liable for overseas service at first but by late 1944 this was changed.  During World War Two only 12,908, contemptuously called "zombies" were sent by order overseas, although quite a few draftees volunteered for overseas service.  The repeat of conscription during World War Two, however, served to worsen relations between the Quebecois and English speaking Canadians which would have an impact after the war.  Canada has not attempted to enact conscription since the war.

Other Commonwealth nations had other experiences with conscription.  I do not believe that it was attempted in the Union of South Africa during World War One or Two, no doubt because of lingering resentment against the British amongst the Afrikaans population during that period.  In 1967 the country started to conscript white men over the age of 16, a young age for conscription by that time, and then phased it back out in 1993 after the collapse of apartheid. The country has toyed with reintroducing it in recent years.  It's neighbor to the north, Rhodesia, enacted conscription following its declaration of independence from the UK modeling it on the British system.  I don't know if Zimbabwe retains it today.

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.

 Selecting the first U.S. draftee during World War One.

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.

Jeffrey Mellinger, who was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1972 and who remained in the Army until he retired in 2011, making him the last American serving who entered the military as a conscript.

The View from the San Jacinto Monument

A live webcam, right on the harbor. 

It is a very strange thing . . .

to look at photographs of a disaster and recognize places in it.

 

Downtown Houston.

I'm not going to second guess anything or anybody on this.  It's simply a shock to see it.

The past several years I've spent a lot of time in Houston.  In terms of large cities, I'm fairly certain that only Denver Colorado has claimed more of my time.  As a result, I've become pretty familiar with parts of the enormous city, although because it is an enormous city I certainly don't know all of it by any means.  Indeed, I'm really only familiar with the downtown, the energy corridor, and various bits and pieces of the town.  Having said that, I've been in it so much that it's one of the large American cities I'm comfortable with to a degree.

Given that, while there are millions of people in Houston, I can't but feel that I have a bit of a personal connection to the city.

Well, God bless those there.

People will post prayers, of course, and they should. For some reason, I always think of the Navy Hymn when things like this occur.  Perhaps because Hurricanes and their aftermath are so closely connected to the sea.  Indeed, they're the sea come on land, really.  So, that being the case, I'll post the text here.  Give some thought to Houston and its residents today.

Eternal Father, strong to save,

Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,

Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep

Its own appointed limits keep;

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,

For those in peril on the sea!

O Christ! Whose voice the waters heard

And hushed their raging at Thy word,

Who walkedst on the foaming deep,

And calm amidst its rage didst sleep;

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,

For those in peril on the sea!

Most Holy Spirit! Who didst brood

Upon the chaos dark and rude,

And bid its angry tumult cease,

And give, for wild confusion, peace;

Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,

For those in peril on the sea!

O Trinity of love and power!

Our brethren's shield in danger's hour;

From rock and tempest, fire and foe,

Protect them wheresoe'er they go;

Thus evermore shall rise to Thee

Glad hymns of praise from land and sea.

The Sad Emblem of American Industry, the Jeep: Fiat Chrysler looks at selling Jeep to Great Wall Motors

And I'm not thrilled about it.

The original, or almost the original. An abandoned M38 in rural North Dakota, a vehicle basically identical to the CJ2A and the immediate descendant of the Jeeps of World War Two.

I have a Jeep. It's the third one I've owned.

But not one of them was made by the same manufacturer.

My first was military M38A1.  It was made by Kaiser.

My second was a 1946 CJ2A.  It was a Willys.

My third, and current Jeep, is a Chrysler.

Now, we learn, Fiat Chrysler is pondering selling the Jeep line, which is doing well, to Great Wall Motors, a Chinese automobile maker.

Don't do it Fiat.

One of those silly little cars that Fiat is known for.

Jeeps were the original vehicle in their class and, in the US, they only survivor in that class.  Once populated with rivals, some very good rivals (oh, Toyota Land Cruiser, where are thou?), its' outlasted hem all as it stayed true to its original off the track form. The others morphed into bigger family trucksters, or weenie pathetic SUVs.  Not the Jeep.

And that's how the Jeep has managed to endure being traded around like a prized marble from maker to maker as its owners became troubled.  Willys, Kaiser, American Motors, Chrysler-Fiat.  And now, potentially, Great Wall Motors.

Frankly, the entire Chrysler episode worried me in the first place.  Not because I dislike Chrysler's, I like them, or rather I like Dodge.  No, because Chrysler has been in trouble ever since the  Cold War ended.  And as part of that the Chrysler brand has been tossed around a fair amount itself, going through a Daimler ownership on to an American holding company and then on to that maker of silly little Italian cars.  Fortunately, all those holders have avoided messing with Jeep, and messing much with Dodge, other than the Daimler attempt to put European diesels in Dodge vans, a Germanic flight of fancy that worked out about as well as Operation Barbarossa.

Now Fiat, which presumably doesn't really completely grasp its American market, or maybe doesn't care, is pondering selling Jeep to Great Wall, which certainly doesn't.

Jeep won't survive Great Wall.

Jeep is a red blooded American vehicle and, quite frankly, only soccer moms in New Jersey track homes are going to buy a Chinese Jeep.

The whole thing, really, is sadly symbolic of American industry in general, or maybe the United States in general.  From the arsenal of democracy, to a major industrial power with a strong rural base, to an anemic also ran that grows acres of safe blue grass for cubicle dweller dog walkers who buy, and must buy, everything from a rising non democratic Asian giant and rival.

A sad state of affairs.

The Big Picture: Co. G, 2nd Inf., Minnesota National Guard. Austin, Minnesota, Aug. 28th, 1917

Today In Wyoming's History: August 27

Today In Wyoming's History: August 27: 



1917:   Allen Tupper True receives a contract to paint eight oil on canvas murals for the Wyoming State Capitol in
Cheyenne. True was a prominent muralist who did a collection of prominent murals in the region.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Greybull Wyoming

Churches of the West: Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Greybull Wyoming:

This Catholic Church in Greybull Wyoming features Gothic and Romanesque features. The bell tower in particular is an interesting Romanesque addition to the existing church.

Advertising in history: Pabst Blue Ribbon Presents: The Greatest Beer Run Ever

I will confess to liking beer.

I'm not much of a fan of whiskey and the only wine I really like much is Chianti, but I rarely drink it. But, beer I like.  I don't care if it's pedestrian or not.

And, while I like best, in American beers, what are sometimes referred to as "craft beers' now, and my favorite beer, if you consider it that, is Guiness Stout, I'll also confess to liking Pabst Blue Ribbon.

PBR is in that class of beers which beer snobs snub, but that's just because they're beer snobs.  I like it.  And interestingly enough, over the past few years its undergone a revival as sort of the good, anti-craft, beer.  It has a big following, apparently, on the Pacific Coast's Northwest, which is otherwise a craft beer epicenter.  It's become sort of the working man's beer there.

So, here's to PBR and their interesting commemoration of an event during the Vietnam War.

Poster Saturday: Marine Corps recruiting poster, 1971.

The Vietnam War was still going on and we still had troops in the field, although the numbers were decreasing steadily.

In that atmosphere, and with a background of protest in the country, the Marine Corps released one of its most iconic recruiting posters of all time, riffing off of Lynne Anderson's popular country song of the year prior.

The Big Picture: Company G, Fourth Nebraska National Guard. August 26, 1917.

The Best Posts of the Week of August 20, 2017.

Best Posts of the Week of August 20, 2017.

Changing times. The centennial of the 94th Aero Squadron. August 20, 1917-2017.

Regional History, Buffalo South Dakota

Berlin Air Lift Rates

Rotary Sidewalk Clock, Casper Wyoming

Well I have to admit. . .

Blog Mirror: The Aerodrome; Maybe Berlin Airlift Rates were achieved.

The Houston Riots of August 23, 1917

Lex Anteinternet: The Houston Riots of August 23, 1917. The fate of Cpl. Baltimore

President Trump's August 21, 2017 Speech on the War In Afghanistan.

Today In Wyoming's History: August 26, 1917. New production at Salt Creek Oil Field.

Today In Wyoming's History: August 26: 1917  New producing oil well came in at the Salt Creek Field.  The field was highly active during World War One, and a regional oil boom also occurred, along with a horse boom, because of the war.  There was, a result, a great deal of construction in downtown Casper during this era. Attribution:  Wyoming State Historical Society.

Blog Mirror: Hundred-Year-Old Advice About Drinking Water

Some interesting century old advice:

A Hundred Years Ago

Hundred-Year-Old Advice About Drinking Water

Friday Farming: War Garden of Bronx Suffagist, August 25, 1917

The Big Picture: 23rd Regiment, United States Army, Syracuse, N.Y. August 25, 1917

President Trump's August 21, 2017 Speech on the War In Afghanistan.

"U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua Smith, 82nd Airborne Division’s 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, talks to group of Afghan children during a combined patrol clearing operation in Afghanistan's Ghazni province, April 28, 2012.  U.S. Army Photograph"

While the locals, including myself, were being stunned by the solar eclipse, President Trump was delivering a long speech on the war in Afghanistan. The full text of that speech follows.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Please be seated.

Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Tillerson, members of the Cabinet, General Dunford, Deputy Secretary Shanahan, and Colonel Duggan. Most especially, thank you to the men and women of Fort Myer and every member of the United States military at home and abroad.

We send our thoughts and prayers to the families of our brave sailors who were injured and lost after a tragic collision at sea, as well as to those conducting the search and recovery efforts.

I am here tonight to lay out our path forward in Afghanistan and South Asia. But before I provide the details of our new strategy, I want to say a few words to the service members here with us tonight, to those watching from their posts, and to all Americans listening at home.

Since the founding of our republic, our country has produced a special class of heroes whose selflessness, courage, and resolve is unmatched in human history.

American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives -- and though their lives were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality.

By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal, and to remain one nation under God.

The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission, and one shared sense of purpose.

They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together -- and sacrifice together -- in absolutely perfect cohesion. That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They're all part of the same family; it's called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag, and live according to the same law. They are bound together by common purpose, mutual trust, and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other.

The soldier understands what we, as a nation, too often forget that a wound inflicted upon a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt. And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together.

Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate.

The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.

As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas -- and we will always win -- let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name that, when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.

Thanks to the vigilance and skill of the American military and of our many allies throughout the world, horrors on the scale of September 11th -- and nobody can ever forget that -- have not been repeated on our shores.

But we must also acknowledge the reality I am here to talk about tonight: that nearly 16 years after September 11th attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory. Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history -- 17 years.

I share the American people’s frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly lives, trying to rebuild countries in our own image, instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.

That is why, shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia.

My original instinct was to pull out -- and, historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office; in other words, when you're President of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David, with my Cabinet and generals, to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.

First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.

Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11th.

And, as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq. As a result, our hard-won gains slipped back into the hands of terrorist enemies. Our soldiers watched as cities they had fought for, and bled to liberate, and won, were occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS. The vacuum we created by leaving too soon gave safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit, and l

aunch attacks. We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq.
Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense. Today, 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the highest concentration in any region anywhere in the world.

For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is worse because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose tense relations threaten to spiral into conflict. And that could happen.

No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan and South Asia, but we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions. When I became President, I was given a bad and very complex hand, but I fully knew what I was getting into: big and intricate problems. But, one way or another, these problems will be solved -- I'm a problem solver -- and, in the end, we will win.

We must address the reality of the world as it exists right now -- the threats we face, and the confronting of all of the problems of today, and extremely predictable consequences of a hasty withdrawal.

We need look no further than last week’s vile, vicious attack in Barcelona to understand that terror groups will stop at nothing to commit the mass murder of innocent men, women and children. You saw it for yourself. Horrible.

As I outlined in my speech in Saudi Arabia three months ago, America and our partners are committed to stripping terrorists of their territory, cutting off their funding, and exposing the false allure of their evil ideology.

Terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next. They are nothing but thugs, and criminals, and predators, and -- that's right -- losers. Working alongside our allies, we will break their will, dry up their recruitment, keep them from crossing our borders, and yes, we will defeat them, and we will defeat them handily.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s interests are clear: We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America, and we must prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists and being used against us, or anywhere in the world for that matter

But to prosecute this war, we will learn from history. As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways:

A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I’ve said it many times how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin, or end, military options. We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities.

Conditions on the ground -- not arbitrary timetables -- will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.

Another fundamental pillar of our new strategy is the integration of all instruments of American power -- diplomatic, economic, and military -- toward a successful outcome.

Someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field.

Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.

The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists.

In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies. The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices.

But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately. No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace.

Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India -- the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development. We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region.

Finally, my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people, will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively and work quickly.

I have already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our warfighters that prevented the Secretary of Defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy. Micromanagement from Washington, D.C. does not win battles. They are won in the field drawing upon the judgment and expertise of wartime commanders and frontline soldiers acting in real time, with real authority, and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy.

That’s why we will also expand authority for American armed forces to target the terrorist and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos throughout Afghanistan. These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide; that no place is beyond the reach of American might and Americans arms. Retribution will be fast and powerful.

As we lift restrictions and expand authorities in the field, we are already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq.

Since my inauguration, we have achieved record-breaking success in that regard. We will also maximize sanctions and other financial and law enforcement actions against these networks to eliminate their ability to export terror. When America commits its warriors to battle, we must ensure they have every weapon to apply swift, decisive, and overwhelming force.

Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will. Since taking office, I have made clear that our allies and partners must contribute much more money to our collective defense, and they have done so.

In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us.

Afghanistan is fighting to defend and secure their country against the same enemies who threaten us. The stronger the Afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do. Afghans will secure and build their own nation and define their own future. We want them to succeed.

But we will no longer use American military might to construct democracies in faraway lands, or try to rebuild other countries in our own image. Those days are now over. Instead, we will work with allies and partners to protect our shared interests. We are not asking others to change their way of life, but to pursue common goals that allow our children to live better and safer lives. This principled realism will guide our decisions moving forward.

Military power alone will not bring peace to Afghanistan or stop the terrorist threat arising in that country. But strategically applied force aims to create the conditions for a political process to achieve a lasting peace.

America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check. The government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military, political, and economic burden. The American people expect to see real reforms, real progress, and real results. Our patience is not unlimited. We will keep our eyes wide open.

In abiding by the oath I took on January 20th, I will remain steadfast in protecting American lives and American interests. In this effort, we will make common cause with any nation that chooses to stand and fight alongside us against this global threat. Terrorists take heed: America will never let up until you are dealt a lasting defeat.

Under my administration, many billions of dollars more is being spent on our military. And this includes vast amounts being spent on our nuclear arsenal and missile defense.
In every generation, we have faced down evil, and we have always prevailed. We prevailed because we know who we are and what we are fighting for.

Not far from where we are gathered tonight, hundreds of thousands of America’s greatest patriots lay in eternal rest at Arlington National Cemetery. There is more courage, sacrifice, and love in those hallowed grounds than in any other spot on the face of the Earth.

Many of those who have fought and died in Afghanistan enlisted in the months after September 11th, 2001. They volunteered for a simple reason: They loved America, and they were determined to protect her.

Now we must secure the cause for which they gave their lives. We must unite to defend America from its enemies abroad. We must restore the bonds of loyalty among our citizens at home, and we must achieve an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the enormous price that so many have paid.

Our actions, and in the months to come, all of them will honor the sacrifice of every fallen hero, every family who lost a loved one, and every wounded warrior who shed their blood in defense of our great nation. With our resolve, we will ensure that your service and that your families will bring about the defeat of our enemies and the arrival of peace.

We will push onward to victory with power in our hearts, courage in our souls, and everlasting pride in each and every one of you.

Thank you. May God bless our military. And may God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay, what about this speech and what it reveals.

It's being interpreted in the punditsphere in various ways. Surprisingly (and I was surprised) the New York Times actually said it might help conditions on the ground in Afghanistan.  Given that the Times has gotten to where whatever Trump says is wrong, that's a pretty interesting comment.

Secondly, about the only real strategic thing in the speech, in terms of military strategy, is that he's indicating that the rules of engagement will be liberalized.  We now know that the US will also commit an additional 4,000 or so troops to the country, but in real terms that's not a large addition of manpower (an American division includes about 15,000 troops).

"Members of Co. C, 1st Bn, 8th Inf, 1st Bde, 4th Inf Div, descend the side of Hill 742, located five miles northwest of Dak To. November 14-17, 1967"  U.S. Army photograph.  The US commitment to the tenuous government of South Vietnam was far more vast than that to the government in Kabul.  At one time up to 500,000 US troops were in the Southeast Asian country, and additional forces were there in our support from numerous other nations.  The South Korean commitment alone number 50,000 troops.

It's very long been the case that troops in the theater have criticized the rules of engagement for Afghanistan.  I don't know how far back it goes, but it goes back a long ways.  Now, rules of engagement exist for a reason and we don't want the war in Afghanistan to become the war in Vietnam in the "burn the huts down" sense.  No matter what those sort of images portray, what that leads to is always bad and in this day and age, and thankfully at that, we don't want to go there and can't either.  We aren't, after all, the French operating in Morocco in 1908 in a news vacuum.  And we don't want to be either.

General Lyautey re-entering Marrakech.  He really did go by automobile, the first one in Morocco.  And it really was equipped with a machinegun  Lyautey's efforts were not marked by overreaction, but earlier French efforts had featured "scatter the tent" type actions.

Shoot, for that matter, even later French actions in the post World War Two environment in North Africa, or US ones for that matter, couldn't operate in any sort of heavy handed fashion long term.

French soldier of unspecified unit, but a paratrooper based on appearance, with suspected Algerian terrorists.  In Algeria the French faced a disunited, but hostile population and a determined guerilla opponent.  Ground efforts waxed and waned in their success with guerilla bands taking refuge in neighboring nations.  A counter guerilla effort that relied on similar terroristic tactics was successful but when its existence became known to the French population it was stopped as the French would not tolerate it.

But the rules have, according to the soldiers fighting the war, been far too restrictive.  This seems like a good tactical change, depending upon how its actually implemented.

It should be noted, however, that the present situation didn't come about solely due to the rules of engagement by any means.  Early tactical errors caused it also, and now they are difficult to repair.  Afghanistan was the central locus of the enemy that launched the September 11, 2001 attack upon the United States and therefore the US had to engage in some sort of military intervention in the nation.  The extent of that action can be debated, but a full scale invasion, which is what we did, was not irrational.

It was not sound, however, to so quickly refocus the nation's attention on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein was a nuisance, to be sure, but its now quite clear that the invasion of that country so hard on the heels of Afghanistan used a great deal of military resources that would have been better spent in Afghanistan.  The thesis in Afghanistan was that we could win the war on the cheap.  That thesis was proven wholly incorrect.  We did push out the existing quasi government but we did not destroy the opponent, which perhaps we could have done, and if we were going to enter the nation, should have done.  Doing it now will have a completely different psychological sense to the native population than doing it in 2001 would have.  We have to keep that unfortunately in mind.  We will not be the vengeful justified wounded in 2017 as we would have been in 2001.

 "Members of an Iraqi Concerned Citizens group discuss a checkpoint with coalition forces in Haswa, Iraq, Sept. 22, 2007. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Justin K. Thomas)".  U.S. troops in Iraq ten years ago.  There too our invasion didn't result in peace, but in a second war, that's now given way to a third.

Beyond that, it seems we're turning up the heat on Pakistan, which is a good thing as that country has been far too conciliatory to the forces we're fighting.  It seems we might be cozying up to India, which is a bad thing as we have no dog in the Pakistan v. India fight, and that will unfortunately suggest that we do, or even cause us to have one.

So what beyond that?

We can't really tell.

Other than that we're not getting out.

"U.S. Army National Guard Spc. Timothy Shout, a native of Austin, Texas, scans the nearby ridgeline along with other members of the Provincial Reconstruction Team Kunar Security Force element, following an engagement with anti-Afghan forces. Shout is deployed from Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 143rd Infantry (Airborne) out of Austin, Texas. The unit took small-arms fire from a nearby mountain top during a routine patrol, and was able to suppress the enemy with the assistance of local Afghan National Security Forces."  U.S. Army photograph.

Trump had suggested to some degree that we might get out. And plenty of Americans would like for us to get out. For one thing, this war has been incredibly long, sixteen years.  But the comment in the speech about what happens if we get out is right.  It goes back to being a training ground for Islamic Caliphatist terrorist, and perhaps a worse one than it was before.

Now, it should be noted, that some would suggest that this could in fact be addressed even with us still withdrawing by using what I'll call the Israeli option.

 IIsraeli airborne officers of the Paratrooper Battalion 890 in 1955 with Moshe Dayan

It's often noted that Israel has maintained its independence since 1948 surrounded by more or less hostile neighbors (some a lot more hostile than others), and that they've won several wars against those neighbors.  What's rarely noted, however is that all of its victories have been partial.  Israel has never achieved a total victory over anyone neighbor and frankly it's leadership has been to smart, given its strategic situation, to try for one.  Israel can't occupy an entire Arab neighbor for any prolonged basis and even attempting to do so would be some sort of strategic nightmare.  This should give Israel's neighbors a sense of security, for good or ill, even if nothing else does. But what this has meant is that Israel has had to be prepared to act on a greater or lessor basis continually for seventy years.  Most of its wars, if we reconsider them in the long term sense, other than the 1948 war for independence, where giant raids.  In between those giant raids have been a lot of smaller raids, some big in raid terms, and some very small.  We don't hear about most of them, but we do about hte bigger ones.

So, if we got out, and this is what those proposing we get out have sometimes suggested, in Afghanistan what we have to do is be prepared to raid on a nearly continual basis.  And some of those raids would be really big, from time to time.  It's an option, but a distasteful one.  Particularly as we have sixteen years in now.  Who knows how long that would go on?

But for that matter, we don't know how long this will go on either.  It's amazing to think that starting this year or next we will have enlistees in the services who were born the year this all started, and then the following year people who were born after it started.

 

  US Troops fighting in Vietnam.

I recall that when the US withdrew from Vietnam in 1973 my mother was relieved as it meant that there was no chance I'd have to go to Vietnam.  Heck, I was ten.  That struck me as absurd then, but looking at it now, she had a keen sense of history and she was not an American by birth.  Growing up in an era in which the British Empire was a strong thing and still supported greatly by her native country, Canada, a war lasting twenty or more years in some far off pile of bush no doubt didn't seem that long to her.  How long, after all, had the British, with Australian, New Zealander, and Rhodesian help, fought in  southeast Asia after World War Two.  Longer than that, really.  How long will this go on, and how long will we be prepared to tolerate it going on?

I can't answer those things, but I suspect that this effort will bring some renewed success on the ground but ultimately any long term solution means un-doing what the Soviets did in 1979 when they entered the country and wrecked its culture.  Contrary to the way we imagine it now, Afghanistan wasn't always 100% wild Islamist combatants.  It's always partially been that, but it was once a country of large cities, farming, and country villas.  It's proof that civilization can in fact retreat, and retreat enormously.  Had the country continued to develop in the fashion it was in 1970, which is no certainty, it may have been a shining light of quasi democracy in the region today.  A lessor Turkey, perhaps (although Turkey now has its own problems).  Now its a mess.

Cleaning up that mess is going to be really hard.  How can it be done?  I frankly have no idea, and it seems nobody else has much of one either.  But do we have any other choice?

It might do us well to remember the lessons of history in regards to this.  While I don't like the term "post colonial wars" very much, that term is perhaps useful here.  Almost none of the Western efforts after the Second World War in the Third World have been militarily successful.  The French failed in Indochina and Algeria, although the nature of those wars is not really analogous here.   We failed in Indochina as well, although a good case can be made that we were successful, and had won the war on the ground, following a fifteen year effort, only to loose it shortly there after when we lost our political will and abandoned the South Vietnamese government.  The Rhodesian Bush War, which pitted a white English government against two black insurgent armies was also not successful, although its not very analogous either.  Wars in Angola, Chad, and the like are too dissimilar to provide useful examples.  The Soviet Union certainly failed in Afghanistan.  Only the Malayan Emergency stands out as a successful Western, in that case Commonwealth, example of Western nations clearly defeating an indigenous guerilla foe.

 Royal Australian Air Force Avro Lincoln dropping bombs on insurgents during the Malaysian Emergency.

In that example we find that the British lead effort took twelve years, a long time, but it was treated more as a police action, supported by the military, than the other way around. Does that teach us something?  Perhaps. The British were patient, but they also simply treated the foe as an illegal criminal organization, recasting a guerilla war as a civil emergency.  Perhaps there are lessons to be learned there.  The country is over half Islamic, although of the relaxed Southeast Asian variety, and a functioning democracy today.  It tolerates other religions.  It is a federation with more than one ethnicity.  The British effort was a success.

Of course, Malaysia is not Afghanistan.  Nor is the British effort, which was fairly coherent from the start and even back into the Second World War, is not the American one.  Perhaps it provides lessons, but perhaps those lessons come a little too late? Perhaps not?

Perhaps the best that can be done is to give the government in Kabul the high side of the fight and then get out, hoping for the best.  That's not a grand victory, but it might be the best we can hope for.  But it's going to take, bare minimum, a few years to do that.

Lex Anteinternet: The Houston Riots of August 23, 1917. The fate of Cpl. Baltimore

I posted this, earlier today:

Lex Anteinternet: The Houston Riots of August 23, 1917: While, once again, we are not doing a "1917 day by day", particularly as the story of the Punitive Expedition can't be run...

I also posted a link on the Reddit 100 Years Ago Today site.

Someone asked what happened to Edwards, the soldier first arrested, and Cpl. Baltimore, the military policeman who was so abused.  I don't know what happened to Edwards, but Baltimore's fate is documented.  As I related there:

In the other post on this here somebody asked what happened to Edwards and Baltimore. I don't know about Edwards, but here's the details on Baltimore:

Baltimore apparently joined the men marching downtown when he returned and was accordingly tried and sentenced to death. His sentence was carried out.

Baltimore was a stoic man and a sterling soldier. He wrote to his brother that he was innocent of shedding any blood but that the execution was "God's will", quoting John 3:16.

The Houston Riots of August 23, 1917

While, once again, we are not doing a "1917 day by day", particularly as the story of the Punitive Expedition can't be run day by day on a centennial basis, we are still in the same era and we do note some things. Today we note a terrible event.

On this day in 1917, in Houston Texas, two policemen arrested a black soldier for interfering with the arrest of a black woman.  In the afternoon a military policeman, or as we should note a black military policeman, Cpl. Charles Baltimore, inquired of a white city policeman of the arrest. The white policeman took offense, there was an exchange of heated words, the white policeman assaulted Cpl. Baltimore who then fled, and was shot, but not killed, while making his retreat.  Baltimore was shot at three more times, took refuge in an unoccupied house, was arrested, and then released.

In spite of Baltimore's release, a rumor rapidly spread through nearby Camp Logan that Baltimore was being held and the soldiers of the all black 24th Infantry began to arm themselves in order to march downtown and secure his release.  Their officers first discounted anything occurring but then took steps to secure arms. A rumor then circulated that a white mob was marching on Camp Logan and the riot was off and running.  Led by Sgt. Vida Henry, who had first alerted his superiors of the planned raid prior to the riot, about 100 soldiers of the 24th Infantry marched on downtown, killing fifteen (white) Houstonians, including four policeman.  Twelve other Houstonians were wounded, including one policeman who later died.  Four soldiers were killed as well, two of whom were friendly fire incidents.  After the mutineers shot Cpt. Joseph Mattes, Illinois National Guard, by mistake their cohesion broke down and Sgt. Henry advised them to slip back into Camp Logan.  He then killed himself.

The Army indicted 118 enlisted men of I Company, 24th Infantry (the only company to participate in the riot) for mutiny and rioting.  110 were found guilty. Nineteen were hanged and sixty-three received life sentences. One was judged incompetent to stand trial. Two of their white officers faced courts-martial but they were released. No Houstonians were tried.

The military court martial was joint in nature and constitutes the largest murder trial, in terms of defendants, in U.S. history.  It was aided by seven soldiers turning states evidence against their fellows early on.

The event left a lasting mark on race relations of the time but it did lead to reforms in military court martials that imposed more executive oversight over them, stemming from a feeling that the Army had reacted too harshly.  It oddly also lead to a smoother transition into integration in Houston years later as one of the city politicians of that era had witnessed the events as a young boy, and privately and effectively urged integration on a private basis.