The Washington Post this week ran a 4-part series called "Left of Boom," about the struggle to combat the use of improvised explosive devices in Iraq. There was one quote from Chimpster McHalliburton that is of mention:
IEDs allow "the terrorists . . . to attack us from a safe distance, without having to face our forces in battle," the president said.
That is wrong on a few levels.
First off, the US does not hesitate to resort to remote killing. Dropping bombs from aircraft against an enemy with no anti-aircraft weapons. Firing cruise missiles from submarines at targets with no ability to strike back. Firing Hellfire missiles from drones controlled in Nevada. Bush's statement is hypocrisy on a grand scale.
Second, Bush daring the insurgents to "come out and fight us" is like Mike Tyson daring Ashley Olsen to step into the ring for three rounds.
News flash, Chimpy: There is no "fair fight" in war. Remember when we were the insurgents, hiding behind trees and sniping at the Lobsterbacks? (Oh, right, you were too wasted in school to remember history lessons. My bad.)
And third: A man who did his level best to avoid having to go to war when he was younger, along with his partners in war crimes, who arranged for their own series of deferments, has no grounds to call anyone else a coward.
Coping With Loss
53 minutes ago
2 comments:
Just a slight historical correction. There is only one battle of the American Revolution where the colonials sniped at British soldiers from behind trees and stone fences, and that was the first one (Lexington and Concord) and it worked only because General Gage had sent out an understrength detachment without its normal contingent of skirmishers. The British in fact had much experience in how to combat such tactics (gained in battle against the French and Indians during that war), and the next time the Colonials tried them, on Long Island, the British handled the Colonials their ass and sent them hauling for the hills. Every other battle of the American Revolution was a normal battle for that time, consisting of ranks of regular soldiers armed with normal military muskets either defending a piece of ground (usually behind a wall or earthworks, they weren't stupid) or charging a piece of ground with bayonets fixed. Note that because smoothbore muskets have an effective range of only 100 yards or so and are wildly inaccurate, massed fire is the only way to get any stopping power out of them, thus the reason why most battles were won by the bayonet, not by the bullet. The goal of the defender's musket and cannon fire was to thin out the ranks of the attacker enough by the time he reached your defensive positions that he could no longer present a uniform bristle of bayonets thus allowing your defenders to leap through the gaps and stab enemy soldiers from the sides with their own bayonets.
Also a myth was the myth that colonial riflemen played a major part in the war. The Pennsylvania flintlock was really not a very effective war weapon. It takes close to a minute to re-load it, and it can't be mounted with a bayonet. Riflemen were used as snipers to thin out the British officer corps, but that was the extent of their use. All other soldiers, even the militia, were armed with typical smooth-bore military muskets of the day, military weapons with little use in hunting which were maintained in village arsenals by the militia (i.e., the militia in general were *not* using their personal weapons, people who had personal weapons had those bell-nozzled fowling pieces or long rifles mostly, not military muskets, which were of little use in hunting). The advantage of the military musket was a) high rate of fire (comparatively speaking), and b) bayonet mount. Disadvantage was poor range and accuracy. Thus the reason for military tactics of the day -- they were set by the limits of the military technology of the day.
And the final myth is that American "minutemen" or militiamen played a major part in the war. Other than the first battle, they did not. They were famed for running for home after firing their first volley, such as at Long Island. They did play some part in destroying General Gage's supply train at Saratoga via hit-and-run attacks from the rear, but it was regular trained soldiers who ended up destroying Gage's army in the end. The only other battle in which militia played a major part was during the Cornwallis campaign in the South, where the American commander placed the militiamen so that when they ran (as he knew they would do after loosing their first volley), they would end up trapped by a river with nowhere to go. So the militiamen ran, got trapped by the river, realized they weren't going to get home that way, reloaded, and started back the other way... where they ran into the flank of the British advance and fired another volley that surprised the British to the extent that the British panicked and broke ranks, thus allowing a bayonet charge by the regulars to put an end to them.
So anyhow, the American Revolution really is a bad analogy for what is happening in Iraq. It is only modern military technology -- remote-detonation of bombs, AK-47's, RPG's, etc. -- which allow an Iraq-style insurgency. On the other hand, it is only modern military technology (specifically, air power) which requires an Iraq-style insurgency too -- prior to the modern era, people wanting to conduct a revolution raised regular armies, since the military technology of the day did not give such a great advantage to the incumbent army.
- Badtux the Military Penguin
I'm a Bay Stater by birth, so the events of April 19, 1775 are sort of in my blood, so to speak.
Post a Comment