Today marks the sixtieth anniversary of the opening of the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler’s last offensive and one of the most desperate and courageous stands in the storied history of the U.S. Army.
American veterans mark and remember the day. The day is also remembered and honored by the people of Belgium, who lost thousands of civilians during the fighting.
More on the U.S. veterans of the battle can be found here.
December 7, 1941, a date which still lives in infamy.
The Commissar has collected a list of sites with information on Pearl Harbor (hat tip to Ben). I expecially recommend the National Geographic entry.
War is mainly a catalogue of blunders.
—Winston Churchill
The above quote is most assuredly true and unavoidable. War is a series of traps, a string of opportunities for error. Perhaps the most difficult pitfall to avoid actually begins before combat commences. In fact, it begins immediately in the aftermath of the previous conflict, be it a small engagement or a worldwide conflagration of hostility, and continues on into the next conflict. Put simply, the mistake I write of is the misuse or neglect of possible lessons to be learned. I’ll leave it to Cyril Falls to put it more eloquently:
Those who study warfare only in the light of history think of the next war in terms of the last. But those who neglect history deprive themselves of a yardstick by which theory can be measured.
The obvious mistake is to misinterpret or neglect the abundant information available, be it from failures or successes. An example of this would be the successful torpedo-plane attack on Taranto in early World War II. The Japanese chose to learn from the British air success against a shallow, sheltered harbor, while the Americans learned little or nothing from the sinking of three Italian battleships. Result: five American battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor, less than thirteen months later.
The more subtle trap is to fall into the thinking that the next war will be fought in the manner of the previous one. This leads to limitations on both strategic and tactical thinking and their subsequent effect on training and preparation. Drawing from WWII again, an easily identified example is that of the French. Having seen the trench warfare, relatively stable fronts and bloody results of attacks against fortified positions, the French relied too heavily on this experience with their dependence on the fixed fortifications of the Maginot Line. Result: the capitulation of France to Nazi Germany in just six weeks.
During my time in the National Guard, I saw first-hand this type of thinking, at both a strategic and tactical level. Even into the latter ’90s, much of the US armor training was based on the planned defense-and-counterattack of the anticipated massive tank showdown with the Soviets in Europe. On a small-scale level, my platoon was going through a move-to-contact engagement on the tank simulators at Ft. Knox (I’m talking about the old platoon-to-battalion level SimNet, which may or may not still be in use). The exercise was late in the day and the platoon reacted poorly to the eventual enemy attack. Overnight, the platoon leadership planned for the same exercise, anticipating the meeting with the OpFor to be in the same location. Sure enough, as the engagement was rerun the following morning, the enemy were in the same location and were decimated. We had made a mistake and been rewarded for it — wrong lesson learned.
Military history is replete with examples of both lessons that were failed to be grasped and lessons that were learned too rigidly. How best to avoid this trap? Learn the lessons of the previous conflict but don’t allow them to exclusively dictate doctrine or tactics. Innovate while anticipating innovation. Despite the above case of Pearl Harbor, along with my own examples and many more throughout our history, the modern American military has generally been pretty good about this, overcoming the potential pitfalls with flexibility and innovation. One of my old lieutenants liked to say, “We train in chaos.” (He also, in his fair share, was fond of saying, “I’ll get the next pitcher.” He’s still a dear friend.) This has been noticed by our foes as well, as a Soviet military document apparently held the following gem:
One of the serious problems in planning against American doctrine that the Americans do not read their manuals nor do they feel any obligations to follow their doctrine.
So far in the war against Islamist terror, this potential trap has played to our advantage. In Afghanistan, the Taliban felt secure without a build-up for a repeat of the Soviet engagement. In Iraq, Saddam and his military seemed paralyzed when the ground onslaught took off without a lengthy air campaign, as was expected from the first Gulf War. In both, the US used innovation and adaptation to overcome the enemy without allowing them the luxury of benefitting from their acquired experience.
A trio of historical examples are driving today’s war — Viet Nam in general, Tet specifically, and Mogadishu. The Islamists are hoping that a slow bleed or a sudden hemorrhage will cripple the will of the American public.
Which is stronger — the will of the American people to succeed or their fear of the failures of our history? The hopes of our current enemy based on our past or the future imaginative actions of the American military?
I anticipate having children someday. They and their children will live in the world that results from the answer to that.
I was asked today and have often wondered something about Veterans Day — who is it truly meant to honor? Memorial Day is easy — that is a day to remember and pay homage to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the uniform (though everyday we wake up free should be such a day). I knew the origins of today’s holiday, with Nov. 11 (the anniversary of the end of World War I in 1918) formerly being set aside as Armistice Day to honor those who served in that great conflict. In 1954, the name of the holiday was changed to include the veterans of WWII and Korea. Obviously, Veterans Day is a tribute to veterans, but my question was if it was truly meant for combat veterans or those like myself who only served in peacetime?
Well, according to the FAQ on the government’s official Veterans Day site, the answer is as follows:
Q. What is the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day?
A. Many people confuse Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Memorial Day is a day for remembering and honoring military personnel who died in the service of their country, particularly those who died in battle or as a result of wounds sustained in battle.
While those who died are also remembered on Veterans Day, Veterans Day is the day set aside to thank and honor ALL those who served honorably in the military – in wartime or peacetime. In fact, Veterans Day is largely intended to thank LIVING veterans for their service, to acknowledge that their contributions to our national security are appreciated, and to underscore the fact that all those who served – not only those who died – have sacrificed and done their duty.
In light of this confirmation, I would like to thank all who served before me, all who served with me, all who served after me and all who currently serve and sacrifice.
Why the picture of the flowers on my posts about Veterans Day? That’s a pic of poppies from Flanders Field in Belgium, and the significance of that particular flower and its relation to Veterans (formerly Armistice) Day stem from the poem “In Flanders Fields” by WWI Canadian army physician John McCrae. The poem and its history can be found here (hattip to Damian Brooks at Babbling Brooks).
If John Kerry had been president after 9/11, the U.S. would’ve already had Osama bin Laden behind bars or in a body bag. Just ask him.
Kerry accused President Bush of allowing bin Laden to escape by relying on Afghan warlords to try to hunt the al-Qaida chief down in the caves of Tora Bora in December 2001.
“Can you imagine trusting them when you have your 10th Mountain Division, the United States Marine Corps, when you had all the power and ability of the best-trained military in the world?” Kerry told a rally at the University of Nevada-Reno. “I would have used our military and we would have gone after and captured or killed Osama bin Laden. That’s tough.”
Yes, that is truly a tough stance. It is so easy to picture the glory-clad senator, standing on that tall hill and framed by a magnificent sunrise in America, strongly guiding our fine country with his perfect hindsight.
Of course, there’s no reason to believe there’s any truth to his assurance of a success that could’ve been. In fact, there’s every reason to scoff.
Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said the Democrat’s claim was “another exaggeration of John Kerry, saying anything no matter how untrue it is.”
“During the time of when the United States was engaged in offensive operations in Tora Bora, John Kerry praised that strategy and tactics,” Schmidt said.
Also, the Kerry’s accusation of Bush’s failure stands contrary to not only his own words at the time, but also to the current stance of the U.S. commander during the action in question.
“As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora and I can tell you that the senator’s understanding of events doesn’t square with reality,” retired general Tommy Franks wrote in The New York Times.
Kerry has repeatedly accused US President George W. Bush of surrendering the job of hunting for bin Laden to allied Afghan tribal leaders, who were unable to find the Al-Qaeda leader in the caves of the mountainous Tora Bora region in late 2001.
Franks said he did not know to this day whether bin Laden was in Tora Bora in December 2001 to begin with.
“Some intelligence sources said he was,” he wrote. “Others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time. Still others suggested he was in Kashmir.”
According to Franks, the US military relied heavily on Afghan forces in that battle because they knew Tora Bora after fighting there for years against the Soviet occupation.
“Third, the Afghans weren’t left to do the job alone,” the retired general continued. “Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes.”
Franks, a declared Bush supporter, said the president had “his eye on that ball” in conducting the “war on terror” while Senator Kerry did not.
This is not leadership on Kerry’s part. Rather, this is some couch potato watching his team on Sunday giving up a shutout on the last play of the game, only managing a 42-7 victory. Said potato cheers at the time, then bitches the next day that, had he only been coach, that last touchdown would’ve certainly been prevented by a sack. This would be GOP candidate Thomas Dewey in 1944 promising that, were he president instead of FDR, the Americans would’ve handled Kasserine Pass differently and better, brashly claiming on the campaign trail that he would have secured victory in the action and the disastrous battle was Roosevelt’s fault. Dewey didn’t do that, because it would have been a disgusting tactic in a wartime election. Then again, Kerry has never been one to be overly concerned with using disgusting tactics in his choice of words while American troops were still in the field.
A Spanish sailor has begun his attempt to recreate Magellan’s famed voyage using the same technology … sort of.
Spanish sailor Jose Luis Ugarte on Sunday set sail from this southern Spanish city bound for Japan in a replica model of Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan’s 16th Century galleon Victoria.
The replica vessel was built for the 1992 Seville Expo and, if it reaches Japan without mishap, will be a part of the Spanish pavilion in the World Expo 2005 in the Japanese city of Aichi from March to September next year.
The original Victoria left Seville on the Guadalquivir river in 1519, while the modern-day version, measuring 25.9 by 6.7 metres (87 by 23 feet), underwent six months of work ahead of its odyssey, which began on Spain’s national day.
Ugarte, 75, told a news conference in Bilbao last week he wants to emulate Magellan and Juan Sebastian Del Cano, the Spanish captain who won his place in history by skippering the original Victoria back to Europe after Magellan was killed in the Philippines in 1521 without making it to Japan.
Ugarte is using only the technology and instrumentation available, though his ship is equipped with a motor, presumably for emergencies. I would assume that it is also equipped with communications gear and, hopefully, better food than was carried at sea back in the day.
The replica will head for the Panama Canal and hopes to reach the Mexican Pacific coast resort of Acapulco by year’s end.
I don’t know off-hand the time the original voyage took to reach Japan. For pacing, I’m sure Ugarte can compare his passage of the Panama Canal with that of Magellan.
Continuing their Orwellian repainting of events, the Chinese stand by their view of 1989’s massacre at Tiananmen.
Chinese President Hu Jintao says Beijing has no intention of reversing its view of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
Mr. Hu made the comment Saturday in Beijing at a news conference with French President Jacques Chirac.
When asked about the Tiananmen events, President Hu said there has been no consideration of re-classifying the official view that they were a subversive riot. He said the government’s decision to put down the protests led to China’s later economic growth.
The statements were Mr. Hu’s first public comments on the Tiananmen protests since he became head of the Chinese military last month.
Second verse, same as the first.
Mr. Hu, ask Lenin, Stalin, et al., about their control of history. Their versions held true only for a time. However, today’s more accurate view of history is not on their side of the story. And the world moves ever quickly onwards. Your spin of history may not outlast your days.
Every unit patch I wore on the left arm of my BDUs is now officially a memory.
During my nine-year enlistment in the Army National Guard, I wore two unit patches on my BDUs (granted, it should’ve been three, but my time officially drilling as a member of the D.C. Guard was so brief I never received the Capitol Guardians patch). When I signed up in 1990, the Texas Guard had seven M60-A3 battalions, five in the 49th Lone Star Armored Division and two joined with the New Jersey Guard in the 50th AD. My unit, HHC 7/112th AR, was part of the 50th.
In 1993, the Texas Guard upgraded to M1s but also, as part of the general post-Cold War reduction in force, was reduced to five battalions, all part of the 49th AD. My unit served temporarily as HHC 5/112 before becoming HHC 4/112 AR. Shortly after my return from D.C., I transferred to a line company to become a gunner on an old buddy’s tank. I served out the remainder of my time, including an extended enlistment, in D Co, 5/112 AR. I left the Guard in April 1999. Immediately after that year’s annual training period, D Co was done away with as part of an across-the-board restructuring of armored battalions. My last unit was no more.
Now, albeit well past the actual occurence, I’ve recently found out that the 49th AD is also no more.
“We are transforming our Army to better meet the demands of the 21st century,†said Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee. “Today’s re-flagging from the 49th Armored Division to the 36th Infantry Division is representative of these changes.â€
Brownlee and Texas Gov. Rick Perry attended the unit’s re-flagging ceremony, resulting in the National Guards’ loss of all armored divisions. The Guard Soldiers stood reverently as their commanders changed colors July 18 on Camp Mabry’s parade field in Austin, Texas.
“Transformation is not new to our Army or the Texas National Guard,†said Maj. Gen. Michael H. Taylor, commander of the 36th Inf. Div. “We’ve transformed many times in the past 200 years, especially since World War II. Our job is to stand ready, leave our family and our jobs, augment the active forces to serve our nation. It’s what we do.â€
The 49th was organized after World War II. Since then, it has supported the Berlin crisis, operations in Bosnia, Operation Nobel Eagle and Operation Enduring Freedom.
The 36th “Texas Division†was originally established at Camp Bowie, Fort Worth, Texas, prior to World War I with units formed from Texas and Oklahoma. The patch is a “T†in front of an arrowhead.
“It is a patch worn by thousands before you who stood steadfast for freedom, who placed themselves in harms way for liberty and life,†said Perry.
The 36th Soldiers fought in World War I and it was the first American combat division to land in Europe during World War II. The unit was deactivated in 1968 as part of the Department of the Army program to reduce the number of division-size units.
“Tough days lie ahead,†Perry said. “The work of freedom is a tough duty. But we must keep our eyes on the goal and remember the reason that you set out.â€
By next year, about 4,000 36th Inf. Div. Soldiers will be in Iraq.
“Places change, soldiering stays the same,†said Taylor.
Yes, the 36th ID has a great and storied history. Yes, I may still go back and, if so, I’ll be proud to wear the patch of the 36th. Still, I’ll miss the 49th AD. Farewell, Lone Star.
In a move in the well-earned right direction, the Brits have offered serious hope and recognition to some of the globe’s truest warriors:
Britain has extended full citizenship rights to Gurkha soldiers from Nepal who serve in the British armed forces, Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.
“The Gurkhas have served this country with great skill, courage and dignity during some of the most testing times in our history,” Blair said.
“They have made an enormous contribution not just to our armed forces but to the life of this country, and it is important their commitment and sacrifice is recognised,” he said Thursday.
Gurkhas and their supporters have been trying for three years to publicly shame the British government with the charge it treats these soldiers as good enough to die for Britain, but not good enough to become citizens.
The announcement that most Gurkha soldiers have won the right to become British citizens follows an 18-month review by Britain’s Home Office and the Foreign Office.
Gurkhas said they could not wholeheartedly welcome the move because the new provision will apply only to those who were discharged from the forces after July 1, 1997, meaning that around 100 of the estimated 400 Gurkhas currently resident in Britain will not be eligible.
The Gurkhas have been stout, gallant combatants for the Crown for a long, long time. This is a huge step, but more is needed for these proud warriors and their amazing history.
I’ve previously posted about the christening of the latest USS Texas, the second member of the Virginia class of submarines. In that post, I briefly mentioned one of her predecessors, the battleship Texas. The Dallas Morning News did a feature piece today on the aging vessel, describing the dire condition and expensive needs she faces (registration required, try bugmenot.com).
Age, relentless saltwater corrosion and tight budgets are doing what no bombs, torpedoes or bullets could – destroying the Battleship Texas.
Sixteen years after the state spent $14 million to help preserve it, the nearly century-old Texas – the only remaining battleship to survive World Wars I and II – needs an overhaul to keep it from rusting away.
“The ship is in need of significant repair,” said Steve Whiston, director of the infrastructure division of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The department maintains the 573-foot-long, 34,000-ton vessel in a berth on the Houston Ship Channel. “There is corrosion at the water line. We’re continuing to experience problems that cause us concern. And the ship, given its age, is pretty fragile.”
This ship has quite the storied past, serving significantly in both World War I and II.
The Texas is the oldest of the eight remaining American battlewagons and the last of the Dreadnought class, patterned after the British battleship that featured unprecedented speed and armaments at the turn of the 20th century. Launched in 1912 and commissioned two years later, the Texas was touted as the world’s most powerful weapon.
In World War I, it served as U.S. flagship in the British Grand Fleet. In 1940, it was named flagship of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, took part in D-Day in 1944, later experienced casualties when hit by German artillery off France and provided Pacific support for World War II battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Alas! The current outlook for the Texas is not good, with funding not the only issue.
In 1988, the ship underwent its first major restoration in 40 years. It was towed to a Galveston shipyard where the hull essentially was replaced.
The ship again needs extensive renovations, but there is no money or a convenient place for repairs.
“A ship like that really needs significant dry-dock repairs every eight to 10 years, so we’re really past our cycle,” Mr. Whiston said.
The Texas Legislature approved about $12 million for bonds to pay for renovations but didn’t provide a way to pay off the bonds, Mr. Whiston said. Park officials hope to remedy that with a budget request during the legislative session that begins in January.
But since the last round of repairs, the Galveston dry-dock where the Texas was towed closed, and there’s doubt any shipyard in Texas can do the job. Officials are also not sure that the ship could survive a move.
“It’s fine floating in one place, but when you put a ship of that age in open water, that stress, we were concerned we may lose it,” Mr. Whiston said.
One proposal calls for building a dam around where the ship’s now docked, along with a dry dock, allowing engineers to remove the water as needed to make repairs. Another idea is to permanently raise the ship from the water on a kind of cradle.
It would be a tragedy to lose this piece of our state and national history. I honestly do not see the Lone Star State failing to take care of this lady, though. At least that’s what I’m hoping.
More on the battleship Texas can be found here.