Revolutionary War Battle in South Carolina

In part two of the American Guerillas series, we covered a revolutionary war battle that took place at Musgrove’s Mill. The Battle of Musgrove’s Mill was a significant, yet lesser known battle during the American Revolution. The battle happened on August 19, 1780, along the Enoree River, which is near present-day Clinton, South Carolina. American Patriot forces defeated Loyalist and Provincial soldiers. Furthermore, they used guerilla style tactics in the fight.

One thing to note is that the Loyalists and Provincials were from the American colonies. The Loyalists were part-time militia soldiers that fought for the Crown. The Provincials were the colonists that wore red coats and fought as full-time soldiers for Great Britain. For the sake of brevity, I will call them British only to designate that they fought for the British. But, by their origin, they were from colonial America.

Prelude to Battle

Prior to the battle, an intense civil war broke out between Patriots and Loyalists. In May 1780, the British seized Charleston, South Carolina. After taking Charleston, they launched a campaign deep into the heart of South Carolina. Furthermore, they captured key terrain and set up posts in an arc through the colony. General Charles Cornwallis commanded British troops. He was determined to control South Carolina and move further north into North Carolina. In response, Patriot militia units fought back. This included Colonel Isaac Shelby, Colonel James Williams, and Colonel Elijah Clarke from Georgia.

At Musgrove’s Mill, the American Patriot forces encountered 200 Loyalists on the night prior to the battle. Along the river was a gristmill owned by a man named Edward Musgrove, which is where the battle gets its name. Near the mill was a ford at the Enoree River. By morning on August 19, 1780, the 200 Loyalists had been reinforced by an additional 300 Provincials. The numbers were 500 on the British side compared to 200 on the American militia side.

Plan of Action

Recognizing that they were outnumbered, the American militia came up with a hasty plan. They placed themselves on the high ground north of the Enoree River. The Patriots’ were above a clearing. Running north to south was a wagon road, which crossed the ford at the Enoree River.

A Patriot Captain named Shadrach Inman rode to the ford, and engaged the British forces south of the river. He baited them into a pursuit. As the British followed Captain Inman, he withdrew back toward the American line on the high ground. After moving across the ford, the British trampled through the woods. The day was brutally hot, and they were moving up hill. The Provincials must have sweated in their red coats.

The Trap is Sprung

When the British emerged from the woods and pushed  into the clearing, they spotted the Patriots along the high ground. They fired a volley. However, since their fire was outside effective range for musket fire, the shots were ineffective. Nevertheless, they charged up the hill toward the Patriot line.

When the British got within 70 yards, the Americans released a coordinated volley, which had a devastating impact. After this volley, the British fixed bayonets and attempted to charge the American right flank. However, the British commander, Alexander Innes, was shot and wounded. The loss of their commander was a tough blow for the British Loyalists and Provincials.

As the Loyalists got within ten yards of the American line, Colonel Clarke led a fierce counterattack, which repulsed the Loyalists on the American right flank. The picture shows the approximate location of the American right flank. The view looks down at where the British would have approached.

Winning the Day

After tough hand to hand fighting, the Patriot militia beat the British back to the Enoree River. It was a decisive victory for the Americans, who suffered only 16 casualties compared to 133 on the British side. It was an important victory that occurred only three days after the disaster at the Battle of Camden.

One of the most important impacts of the Battle of Musgrove’s Mill was the development of guerilla style tactics in the south. The Patriots sent a small unit forward to pull the British forces into the main engagement area. When the British were in the pre-determined area, the Patriots held their fire until the British were within effective range. This is called fire discipline in the defense. It is a critical part of command and control.

The Americans demonstrated tactical creativity. They understood how to use the terrain to their advantage. Furthermore, they rightly anticipated how the enemy would respond to their probing attack, which sucked the British into the fight.

Finally, the Battle of Musgrove’s Mill foreshadowed how the Patriots would fight at battlefields like Blackstock’s Plantation and Cowpens. Musgrove’s Mill remains an important battle to study how the war in the south was conducted. For military scholars, it is an exemplary case study in tactical ingenuity.

Additional Resources

• Check out the latest podcast episode that covers the Battle of Musgrove’s Mill
• American Battlefield Trust article
• Gordon, John W. South Carolina and the American Revolution: A Battlefield History. Columbia, SC, The University of South Carolina Press, 2003. South Carolina and the American Revolution

Washington, the Realist

George Washington understood that nations like men act in their self-interest. His understanding of human nature developed many years before his role as commander in chief during the Revolutionary War.

Washington cut his teeth on the western frontier of Colonial Virginia. As a Lieutenant Colonel in the Virginia militia, he was tasked with a diplomatic expedition to the Ohio River Valley to deliver a message to the French. The French occupied land claimed by the Ohio Company, which was a British company.

During the expedition of 1754, Washington was accompanied by Indian “allies” under the leadership of Mingo chief Tanacharison. Washington led a force of 150 militia soldiers as well as Tanacharison and his Mingos. After discovering a French party of 50, Washington’s unit attacked. Carnage quickly followed. France claimed that the leader of their group, Jumonville, was on a diplomatic mission. Washington’s allies were accused of war crimes that included scalping and bodily desecration.

As subsequent events unfolded, Washington and his Virginians defended a position encircled by French forces at what is known as the Battle of Fort Necessity. The French overwhelmed Washington and his Virginians. As a result, on July 4, 1754, Washington signed terms of surrender. By this time, Tanacharison and his Mingos had abandoned Washington.

The frontier was an early lesson in diplomacy and fragile alliances. Washington’s allies were necessary, but also fickle. At the first sign of trouble, they left. They looked out for themselves and with little regard for Washington’s fate. Indian alliances went back and forth between the French and British. During the Revolutionary War, many tribes allied with the British. Some with America.

Washington’s Mindset

With respect to Russia and Ukraine, Washington would not tether America to one party unconditionally. He would recognize that nation’s interests shift. Internal politics change. Leaders change. America should define its own interest first, just as every other nation and tribe defines their own interest first.

During the Revolutionary War, America would form an alliance with France. As mentioned, Washington also fought a war against the French twenty years prior. But, there were no hard feelings. By 1775, America was different and had a new set of political priorities. France’s priorities aligned with America’s. A formal treaty made sense. It was signed on February 6, 1778.

During Washington’s presidency, he was also confronted with the dilemma of the French Revolution. The politics of the United States were favorable to France and many statesmen like Thomas Jefferson saw parallels between America’s revolution and that of France. However, Washington read the news from Paris through the lens of a realist. In doing so, he was able to look past the exuberance and see the French atrocities for what they were and the tyranny they represented.

One of Washington’s signature foreign policy achievements was to steer America on a path to neutrality between France and Britain. As war broke out in Europe, Washington determined neutrality made sense for America. For Washington, any appeal to support a historic ally rang hollow. France in 1794 was different from France in 1778.

The arc of Washington’s approach to France is noteworthy. He fought against them in one war. Allied with them in another. Finally, he declared neutrality during his presidency. In his professional career as officer, general, and statesmen, he was an enemy, ally, and neutral party.

Washington’s Experience

How would Washington approach the current hysteria over unconditional support for our NATO “allies” or Ukraine? He would say get real.

Washington was a farmer from Virginia. A lot of his diary entries relate to the weather. Washington noted with keen interest daily fluctuations in the weather. His early politics were also shaped by men like George Mason. Like many of his fellow American founders, Washington’s political ideas were rooted in enlightenment ideas such as the laws of nature.

This is to say that the state of nature is a state of change and fluctuation. In his own professional life, Washington shifted his farm production from tobacco to wheat. He was willing and able to adapt to new circumstances.

He knew that men changed too. Former cabinet member, Thomas Jefferson became a political rival. So did James Madison, who wrote Washington’s first inaugural address. Thomas Paine, who wrote Common Sense, later cursed Washington. George Mason also had a falling out with his Virginia friend and former colleague.

As a general Washington survived at least one serious attempt to undo his command during the Conway Cabal from 1777 through February 1778. At Newburgh, NY, he singlehandedly stopped a mutiny among Continental Army officers to overthrow Congress in 1783.

In conclusion, Washington had a firmer grasp on nature and human nature than America’s current political class. He had contributed to the formation of America and the many ups and downs that accompanied it. He understood that it was a rough and messy process. A friend today could be an enemy tomorrow and vice versa.

America’s Current Foreign Policy

In the 21^st century, American statesmanship is tied to a couple convenient heuristics like Hitler and World War II and Russia and the Cold War. If we want to get real sophisticated, we could probably throw in Wilsonian philosophy of “making the world safe for democracy.” None of these historical events are unpacked beyond recycled platitudes that are clobbered Frankenstein-like into lazy foreign policy. The sloganeering plays well at think tanks, corporate-sponsored fireside chats, and on five minute cable news segments. Most voters shrug. Another set of voters eagerly repeat what they hear. Thus, a quarter of the neighborhood is dotted with Ukraine flags.

But, “our democracy” and “defend democracy” are just catch phrases to distinguish good from bad. Washington did not think in these terms. Post-Revolutionary France was a democracy, and the effects were tyranny. By contrast, America was founded as a republic and even Washington’s first two election victories were not decided by direct votes from the citizens of the United States.

All of this is to say, that Ukraine as a “democracy” simply means we think they are the good guys. Until 2022, most Americans couldn’t find Ukraine on a map, and now they are flying their flag. In contrast, America defined Russia as the bad guy long before their invasion. However, Russia and Putin are not the Soviet Union. Russia of 2023 is different from Russia of 1989 or even 2000. Washington would have understood this. In doing so, it is doubtful that he would have defined preconditions for cooperation in strict moral terms as the U.S. has done over the last two decades.

How would Washington respond?

When Russia invaded Ukraine, America went all in for Ukraine. Washington might have recognized Russia as the obvious aggressor. But it is doubtful that he would have done what America’s current political class has done and continues to do without any clear end state. Perhaps the biggest reason is that Washington would have wanted to clearly define America’s interests. Is the war killing Americans? No. Will the war kill Americans? Highly unlikely. Is this war a threat to American commerce? No.

The reasoning of politicians who went all in for Ukraine was typically threefold. First, Putin is bad. Second, Russia might invade other European nations after Ukraine. Third, China is watching our reaction and taking notes. Even if he accepted all three premises, Washington would still find flaws in each one.

On point number one, Washington would want to know whether the “badness” of Putin has any effect on Americans. Furthermore, he might conclude logically that it does not make sense to provoke a very bad man with very powerful nuclear weapons.

On the second argument, Washington might conclude that European nations should take necessary steps to defend their own borders and deter any threat of Russian invasion on their own.

Third, with respect to the China argument, Washington would probably conclude that this is more of a reason to play it cool. Why tip your hand in a conflict that has little impact on American national security? A younger, more impetuous Washington might have responded rashly. The elder statesmen would have bided his time.

Final Reflection

The politics of reality are that the “strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.” This is harsh and does not sit well with most Americans. Unfortunately, this is the situation in Ukraine. Proxy wars perpetuate suffering because they don’t do anything about the strong and they continue to prop up the weak. While a real war can defeat the strong, America is not willing to fight a real war against Russia. Frankly, there is no reason to do so. At the very least, American support for Ukraine should be used for diplomatic leverage and to exact concessions from Russia. If terms of negotiation do exist, none have been outlined publicly.

It could be the case that Washington’s America was still too weak to do anything but play diplomacy with larger powers. One could make a convincing argument that way. But, Washington’s statecraft laid the groundwork for America to become a superpower. Furthermore, his decisions were rooted in a lifetime of experience. As a result, Washington would not veer from his realist approach. With respect to Russia and Ukraine, negotiations would have happened by now.

Resources

Learn more about the Battle of Fort Necessity here

My essay from a year ago when the war began.

The Past Crisis of Military Recruiting

The year was 1776. George Washington’s Army was on the run. The British defeated the Continentals at Brooklyn. Washington and his Army narrowly escaped disaster. The British pursued the Continental Army through present day Manhattan to Harlem Heights. After the Battle of White Plains, the Continental Army crossed the Hudson River into New Jersey. Finally, General Washington’s forces moved into Pennsylvania and further south. They stopped on the western side of the Delaware river across from Trenton, New Jersey.

During this time, morale plummeted. Desertion increased. Continental soldiers were imprisoned by the British. Compounding the Army’s bad fortune, enlistments were nearing expiration on December 31. Overall American troop strength had declined from 9,000 at Brooklyn Heights to around 2,400 by December. As the year 1776 came to an end, General Washington had a serious recruitment problem.

The Revolutionary spirit that had inspired many colonists to join the fight was looking bleak in the face of a powerful enemy. What caused morale to plummet was the reality that the enemy was winning. Defeat weighed heavy on the minds of those who chose to fight. No one wants to be on a losing team however noble the cause might be.

Overcoming the Past Military Crisis: A Clear Cause and Winning

On the eve of the Battle of Trenton, Thomas Paine wrote The American Crisis. This brilliant pamphlet was meant to help with recruiting and retaining soldiers. It begins with the classic line, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” It was first published on December 19, 1776 and read aloud to Washington’s soldiers on December 23. Thomas Paine’s writing was clear and passionate. It articulated the reasons to fight and possibly die for the cause of independence.

Paine’s tract is often viewed as an influential recruiting tool. However, The American Crisis would not have had the impact on recruiting without the events that followed several days later. Washington’s famous crossing of the Delaware took place on Christmas night in 1776. The Battle of Trenton occurred early the following morning. It was a bold attack that caught the Hessian forces by surprise. General Washington needed it to regain momentum and secure enlistments. The decisive victory at Trenton was followed by another victory at the Battle of Princeton.

As Washington’s forces encamped for the winter at Morristown, New Jersey, winning two important battles helped shore up the manpower shortages needed to sustain the fight for independence. Revolutionary fervor can easily be snuffed out under crushing defeat. But it can just as easily be re-kindled through the sweetness of victory. Victory restored trust and confidence in Washington’s leadership. It also motivated Americans to continue fighting for the cause of independence.

The Present Crisis of Military Recruiting

Amidst the many hot takes on why the Army and the military more generally has a recruiting problem, no one has seemed to focus on the simple fact that the United States just lost a war. We waged a war against the Taliban. Their political goal was to wrest control of Afghanistan. The American goal was to displace the Taliban and install a pro-American regime.

When the last American plane left Kabul, the Taliban was in charge and the American backed regime was not. Furthermore, the withdrawal was poorly planned by American civilian and military leaders alike. This resulted in a nightmare scenario in which the Taliban surrounded and provided security at the Kabul airfield. American forces scrambled to evacuate U.S. civilians as well as thousands of Afghans. The culmination of this poor planning and lack of foresight tragically led to the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers.

The withdrawal was a debacle. The collateral effects of an embarrassing loss continue to be felt in the military’s inability to enlist new talent. While this is mere hypothesis, it makes more sense than all the punditry over tight labor markets or young Americans being too fat. While young Americans might indeed be too fat, the skinny ones apparently do not want to be soldiers. Why is that? Is it really because the Baskin-Robbins is offering a more competitive sign-up bonus? Free ice cream at the end of the mall shift? That might enlarge the recruiting pool, but not in the way that the military would want.

What are we fighting for?

A new National Security Strategy (NSS) document was published on October 12, 2022. Curious readers will yawn through it. There are no sentences that strikes the emotional note or the sense of purpose found in Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis. Perhaps it is because the NSS doesn’t even recognize the nature of America’s current crisis. Indeed, the document’s lack of awareness is symptomatic of our current crisis. The NSS is more concerned with climate change than the security of America’s citizens. If one wonders why Army recruiters are not fielding hundreds of inbound calls, its probably because prospective soldiers are not willing to take up arms to get the earth’s temperature a half Celsius lower.

The NSS does not adequately define America’s national interest. This is partially because it reads like it was written in Davos at the World Economic Forum. It’s concerned with global interests and attempts to fit America somewhere in the middle. While not everything can be defined as a national security problem, there is a strong case to be made that over 107,00 people dying from drugs in 2021 might be one of them. But there is no consideration of the suffering caused by fentanyl deaths. Nor is there any acknowledgement that the illicit drug trade coming across an unsecure border might be a national security matter.

What’s happening now

It’s clear that Americans don’t remember what victory feels like. We cannot imagine the sensation of joy in the Battle of Trenton’s aftermath. When June comes around, Americans throw parades for LGBTQ causes but no one throws a parade or celebration to remember victory at the Battle of Normandy. The largest amphibious invasion in U.S. history began on June 6, 1944 and was fought throughout June at tremendous cost. If June were military pride month, and Americans celebrated winning battles with red, white, and blue parades then perhaps recruiters would get more of their calls returned.

The reality is that we have lost our national pride in ill-conceived wars. In several of these wars, the endstate was both poorly planned and not supportive of American national interest.  To compound these problems, American politicians are bungling into a similar trap in Ukraine. Most people intuitively understand that this is the same movie that played out after 9/11. Crisis happens. Emotions run hot. Shoot first, ask questions later. Maybe it would be wise to ask the right questions first and plan accordingly.

Second and Third Order Effects

Did any of the adults in the room at the National Security Council or Joint Chiefs of Staff think about the impact America’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan might have on recruiting? Probably not. After all, this is a tertiary effect and one that the military brass can brief away with talking points about tight labor markets and pudgy kids. One can assume that there is probably a Power Point brief at the Pentagon with a line graph showing that the kids are fatter now versus 1990. Perhaps kids are overweight, but they are not motivated to get skinny and join the Army. Nor are they eager to dig a foxhole to patch up the ozone layer or import democracy to countries that have only known corruption for hundreds of years.

The military needs to redefine its purpose as winning wars that are in America’s national interest. No amount of slick ads starring a soft-spoken sorority girl with disabled lesbian moms will boost their numbers. The problem is not that recruits do not “see themselves” in the military. People want to see themselves on a winning team and feel like a winner personally and professionally. Furthermore, they want to win in a cause that advances the well-being and security of the people they love. Why should a seventeen year old senior from Ohio care about Afghan girls going to school when his big brother just overdosed on fentanyl? According to the NSS, he would be better off installing solar panels anyhow.

The Way Forward

The military and its civilian leadership need to stop emulating the corporate HR departments and the DEI administrators running roughshod over college campuses. They are overdue for lessons in history and human nature. There was another development in George Washington’s recruiting pitch. In an effort to retain soldiers, his tone softened. He addressed them as men and Americans. He eschewed previous formalities. Ron Chernow writes in his biography of Washington, “The war was molding him into a far more egalitarian figure” (Chernow 278).

At the start of 2021, the military conducted stand down training focused on “extremism” in the ranks. As recently as August 2022, the Commander-in-Chief labeled “MAGA Republicans” extremists. There are a lot of active military members that voted for Trump and would likely do so again. Many probably share memes of Joe Biden looking goofy. They probably like guns and want to own more of them. Many go to church and love their country. Perhaps that makes them both Christian and Nationalist i.e. Christian Nationalists. Which part of that speech was meant for them and recruits that might think like them?

Instead of giving a divisive speech, imagine if the Commander-in-Chief went on a speaking tour across the country to urge young people to enlist and active military to re-enlist. He could simply quote the words of George Washington: “My brave fellows you have done all I asked you to do and more than could be reasonably expected. But your country is at stake, your wives, your houses, you will render that service to the cause of liberty and to your country which you probably can never do under any other circumstances” (Chernow 278).

The present recruiting crisis is real. It needs more attention than it is getting. Just like in 1776, it will only be solved with a combination of boldness, humility, and leadership.

References

• National Security Strategy October 2022
• CDC link for fentanyl deaths
• Army recruiting advertisement
• Chernow, R. (2010). Washington: A life. Allen Lane.
• WSJ article “The Pentagon’s Recruiting Woes”

In early American history, taverns were a natural hot bed of political activity. Before the internet and social media, a man’s “tweet” was slurred over a pint in drunken utterances. My guess is they were more than 240 characters too.

One can imagine the raucous and rowdy gatherings in low lit pubs with people cramped elbow to elbow. The latest rumor passed from one man’s lips to another man’s ear. Imagine the whispers of gossip and intrigue. The spreading of rumors both real and imagined went viral in those taverns.

Has much changed since then?

Bars remain a fixture in American life. But, they are a place to catch a sports game, and not the latest news. Now, the news is found on an iPhone and the rumor goes viral on social media. So, the answer is yes. A lot has changed.

But, many of our proud institutions remain. Among them is one of the greatest in military history. From the heart of Philadelphia in a place called Tun Tavern, the Marine Corps was born. On this day, November 10, the Marine Corps celebrates 245 years since its inception.

The Marine Corps is Born

On November 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress authorized two battalions of Continental Marines through a Congressional act.

The first commissioned officer was Captain Samuel Nicholas. He was also the first Marine recruiter. I like to imagine that as the first Marine battalions were sailing to invade the Bahamas, there was at least one young Marine saying, “My recruiter lied to me. He promised a nice cruise vacation to the Caribbean.” Nevertheless, when the Marines landed in Nassau, it was game on. They fought with rifles and bayonets and started a proud tradition of hooking and jabbing from ship to shore.

When the Revolutionary War was over, the Marine Corps was temporarily disbanded. But, this did not last long. Alas, the young American nation knew that from the rugged frontiers of the American wilderness and the hard streets of American port cities, the nation still needed a place for its rowdy young citizens to prove themselves in combat. The Corps was destined to return!

The Marine Corps is Re-Born Hard

On 11 July 1798, the Marine Corps was brought back to life when Congress passed “An Act for Establishing and Organizing a Marine Corps.” Some interesting facts from the act. At the time, a Major’s pay was set at $50 per month and three rations a day. But, no BAH (housing allowance). Things were tougher back then!

I also noted the following part of the act:

The non-commissioned officers and musicians, who are or shall be enlisted into the army of the United States, shall be, and they are hereby, exempted, during their term of service, from all personal arrests, for any debt or contract.

Someone needs to let the car dealers and loan sharks from Oceanside to Jacksonville know about that one!

It was not long after the Marine Corps came back in blue that many of the Marines would be back on ship. To this day, Marines still deploy abroad on Navy ships. In the days in which they sailed in search of Barbary pirates, I have to wonder the most critical question. How was the weight room on the ship? I wonder if Marines back then also fought with the Sailors for a spot on the bench press.

If they did, then it didn’t last long. The early Marines were soon storming to the shores of Tripoli and making history. Of course, this is a reference to the expedition of First Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon. During the First Barbary War in 1805, Lieutenant O’Bannon led a small group of Marines and other allies to capture the city of Derna on the shores of what is today known as Libya. But, back then it was Tripoli, which is great because the “shores of Libya” would not sound nearly as good in the Marines’ Hymn.

Battles in the 1800s

The 19th Century provided some rich, yet overlooked Marine history. Some of the battles making the highlight reels are as follows:

• 1812- Battle of New Orleans
• 1812- Battle of Bladensburg, Maryland
• 1847- Battle of Chapultepec- this is where we get the “Halls of Montezuma”
• 1861- Battle of Bull Run
• 1898- Marines fight in the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection

While the 1800s does not have as many battles as the 20th Century, it can claim the “Grand Old Man of the Marine Corps.” This was the Century of Archibald Henderson. Colonel Henderson served a whopping 53 years in the Marine Corps. He was the Commandant from 1820 to 1859 (that’s a lot of NJPs!). But, he is also credited with one of the more colorful quotes in Marine Corps history. Apparently he left a note on his office door before heading south to fight Seminole Indians in Florida and Georgia.

Gone to Florida to fight the Indians. Will be back when the war is over.

General Archibald Henderson

Two World Wars Define the Corps

The Marine Corps’ reputation was sealed during World War I and World War II. Let’s start with the First World War. This is the war that earned Marines the nickname “Devil Dogs”. It came from the German word “Teufelshunde.” This is the way the Germans described the Marines. Who can blame them? From dashing across the fields of Belleau Wood and battling other hard to pronounce French cities like Soisson and Chateau-Thierry, the Marines of World War I were a force of reckoning.

Come on, you sons of bitches- do you want to live forever?

Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly

And what Marine wouldn’t have charged into German machine guns at Belleau Wood? It was either that or face the wrath of a Gunny that was awarded the Medal of Honor not once, but TWICE. Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly spat fire and led Marines with the best of them. The Germans didn’t have a chance.

During World War II, the Marines primarily fought in the Pacific against the Japanese Empire. While many people know that the U.S. Army and American allies pulled off one of the largest amphibious invasions in American history. The Marines did a lot more amphibious invasions and on some of the most brutal terrain consisting of sharp rocks and craggy atolls.

In what became known as the “island hopping” campaign, U.S. Marines invaded small Japanese controlled island atolls across the Pacific. These invasions led up to one of the most consequential in Marine Corps history at the Battle of Iwo Jima beginning February 19, 1945. An invasion force of 70,000 Marines landed on the volcanic island and fought for 36 days across and in the process raised the U.S. flag on Mount Suribachi in what is now the most iconic picture ever taken. Admiral Nimitz was also quoted saying that among the Marines “uncommon valor was a common virtue.”

Post-World War II

In the aftermath of World War II, the Marines remained busy. The Cold War began and the Marines had plenty of work to do. These wars were not easy, and the battles were not always decisive. But, the Marines did what the nation called them to do.

During the Korean War, the Marines made a name for themselves during the freezing cold at the Battle of Inchon. This is the battle where the famous Marine General Chesty Puller quipped, “We’re surrounded. That simplifies things. We can shoot in any direction.”

From 1965- 1972, the Vietnam War was another war that challenged the Marine Corps. Among the more famous battles of Vietnam was the Battle of Hue. This was one of the first times in American history when the Marines engaged in urban combat.

The next major war that involved the Marines took place in the early 1990s with Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. This was one of the first times that the Marines fought against Saddam Hussein and his Revolutionary Guard. But, it was not the last. In 2003, the Marines returned to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). At the same time, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan was taking place. Indeed America has called on its Marines to take a large role in the Global War on Terror.

Looking Ahead to the next 245

While the last 20 years have been dominated by the Global War on Terror, the Marine Corps finds itself in a familiar position. Once again it is fighting to be relevant and to prove that the nation needs its Marine Corps.

General Berger is the current Commandant of the Marine Corps. He has laid out ambitious plans to get the Marine Corps back to its amphibious roots. He has recognized that the Indo-Pacific region remains one of the most contested parts of the world as the U.S. sees China as a strategic competitor.

To that end, General Berger has made big changes to include abandoning the Marine Corps’ armor capabilities. For more on the strategic direction of the Marine Corps, the interview with Lt Col Cuomo is a must listen.

The Marine Corps Celebrates 245 Years

On November 10, 2020, the Marine Corps celebrates 245 years of rich history. Units will gather for Marine Corps Birthday Balls. These are always a good time and also a chance to see the Lieutenant try to dance and the Lance Corporals try to out drink the Company Gunny. There will be a lot of headaches on November 11!

The traditions of the Birthday Ball include 13th Commandant General John A. Lejeune’s birthday message to recognize November 10 as the official Marine Corps birthday. There is also a message from the current Commandant of the Marine Corps. Also, the oldest and youngest Marine both receive the first two pieces of cake. Marine Corps units celebrate the birthday all over the world even while deployed. The birthday is a continual source of pride in the legacy and tradition of America’s finest fighting institution.

Ways to Celebrate this Year

For veterans, there are many ways to network and meet with other Marines and veterans. Organizations like the VFW and American Legion exist throughout the country and routinely host events and celebrations to commemorate days like the Marine Corps’ birthday.

If you are on the West Coast, I highly recommend a visit to the Marines’ Memorial Hotel in San Francisco, CA. The hotel is considered a “living memorial” and it is an exceptional place to stay. They host many events and speakers. But, it is also a museum with a lot of historical artifacts from Marine history. The Marines’ Memorial Hotel also has an impressive library. After reading or thinking about reading, you can go eat at the Leatherneck Steakhouse and drink at Chesty’s Bar. The views from the bar and restaurant are outstanding and look over the San Francisco Bay Area.

For those on the East Coast, I highly recommend a trip to Quantico, Virginia to see the National Museum of the Marine Corps. Going up I-95, the Museum looms large and the architecture is inspired by the flag raising on Iwo Jima. The Marine Corps Museum has an impressive number of exhibits and displays from every battle the Marines have ever fought. There is also multiple events, speakers, and educational opportunities. Also, after walking through the exhibits for several hours, there is also a bar and restaurant, which is appropriately named Tun Tavern.

Other Resources

Consider a subscription to the Marine Corps Gazette, Leatherneck Magazine, and joining the Marine Corps Association and Foundation.

Studying history and Marine history is important. Obviously I am a staunch advocate of it and I hope to inspire others to get involved and do the same. While we celebrate 245 years of hooking and jabbing, we want to ensure that the Marine Corps continues for the next 245.

Finally, here is a list of several great books on Marine Corps history.

With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa

The Last Stand of Fox Company: A True Story of U.S. Marines in Combat

Fields of Fire: A Novel

Marine!: The Life of Chesty Puller

Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead

First to Fight: An Inside View of the U.S. Marine Corps (Bluejacket Books)

Making the Corps: 10th Anniversary Edition with a New Afterword by the Author

“Utah. Omaha. Gold. Juno. Sword.”

If the words sound like the cadence that a quarterback might shout before a snap, well, that is kind of the point.

These are the code names for the five beaches upon which Allied troops landed on June 6, 1944. The main countries involved were the United States, Britain, and Canada. Together, Allied troops made a brave and heroic dash across the English channel onto Nazi occupied France. This was no small feat. As seen below, the numbers were staggering. The risks were high. But, by the summer of 1944, the Allies had to take action. They decided that Hitler and his Nazi regime needed to be destroyed.

At the time, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, future American President, and all-around American badass, was the man in charge. Or for those of you who really know your acronyms, he was the HMFIC! Last year, I wrote about General Eisenhower and some of the history of one of America’s greatest generals.

The Invasion by the Numbers

This was the largest amphibious assault in U.S. military history. Let’s break it down by the numbers —

• 6,939 ships involved
• 15,000 total aircraft involved
• 156,000 Allied troops involved on D-Day
• 300 yards of beach that Allies fought across on Omaha
• 326,000 total number of troops that landed by June 11
• 50,000 total number of vehicles that landed by June 11
• 50 miles of beach invaded
• 7 million tons of supplies shipped to staging areas (WOW!!)
• 450,000 tons of ammunition shipped to staging areas
• 4 million landmines (estimated) along Normandy’s beaches

Imagine being a young soldier on that day. You are packed in a small landing craft and float to an unknown beach. Your gear is soaked. Your .30 cal M1 rifle is soaked. You’re shaking with cold and nerves. You’ve been trained, yet wonder if it is enough. Bullets ping the hatches. You must wonder if you will make it out alive. Many did not.

The “human factors” were remarkable. Soldiers packed gear to survive for three days. But, what happened when they didn’t land on the shore? What happened when the landing crafts dropped them in the water? Ammunition, rations, and medical supplies weighed the soldiers down. They had a choice to either drown or ditch their gear. Unfortunately, many soldiers did drown under the weight of their gear. One can only imagine how difficult the invasion was for the average soldier.

For further reading about the “soldier’s load”, S.L.A. Marhsall’s book Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation is one that is often studied.

• 

Key Facts about D-Day

There are many books and resources that provide more details about the battle and the history which I will provide links to below. However, I think that it is important for people to have a basic understanding of the history. So, here is a list of some key facts to takeaway and reflect on in honor of today:

1. Operation Overlord was the name of the D-Day operation. It took a significant amount of time to plan and prepare. “Exercise Tiger” was the name of the initial rehearsal. It was a disaster. German E-boats crashed the party. They killed 749 U.S. troops.
2. The Allies carried out a major deception campaign prior to the invasion. There is an adage in warfare that “when you try to defend everywhere, you are strong nowhere.” This speaks to why intelligence is so critical. When the Allies kept the Nazis guessing as to their true point of invasion, they were able to stretch their forces thin. In fact, the Allies were able to make the Nazis think that Pas-de-Calais might have been the site of the invasion.
3. Hitler tasked Field Marshal Erwin Rommel with defending against an invasion. “The Atlantic Wall” was a 2,400-mile network of bunkers and obstacles. The goal was to defend against the inevitable Allied invasion.
4. Before the boats landed, paratroopers spearheaded the invasion. They came from the 82nd Airborne and 101st Airborne among others.
5. Weather delayed the invasion by one day. However, June 6 had to be the launch date or the invasion would have been delayed another few weeks as the invasion was based around phases of the moon.
6. Omaha beach was the bloodiest. Very few of the landing craft made it to the beach. Allied forces were dropped in the water instead of the beach. A barrage of machine gun fire greeted Allied forces. They had to wade through obstacles, land mines, and barbed wire. When they finally made it across the beach, the sheer size of the cliffs presented further challenges. Casualty estimates are up to 2,400.

A Key Turning Point

D-Day was decisive. It turned the tide of World War II. In less than a year, Nazi Germany would declare unconditional surrender. That day of victory was called V-E day on May 8, 1945. V-E stands for “Victory Europe.”

Today, we remember the legacy of those that fought and died at Normandy. We live in turbulent times. However, D-Day is a moment to pause and reflect.

D-Day is an opportunity to be grateful for the millions of Americans that have been willing to serve their country and put their lives on the line. As highlighted earlier, the human factors were incredible. It is hard to imagine the difficulty of what America’s heroes accomplished. But, they accomplished it nonetheless. And the world is better for it!

Where to Visit

If one has the means, a visit to France is ideal. To actually see the beaches where the Normandy invasion took place is an amazing experience. The row of perfectly aligned white crosses is emotional.

But, if one does not have the time or the means, there is another great option. The National D-Day Memorial is in Bedford, Virginia. Why Bedford? Bedford was made famous for the “Bedford Boys”. The town sustained the most casualties per capita of any town in the United States. With a population of only 3,000 people, nineteen of its citizens were killed on Normandy.

However, COVID-19 is causing some temporary halts in activity. Nevertheless, the D-Day Memorial will open again. In the meantime, the website provides the opportunity to virtually commemorate the 76th Anniversary of D-Day.

Additional Reading and Resources

D-Day by Stephen E. Ambrose

The First Wave: The D-Day Warriors Who Led the Way to Victory in World War II by Alex Kershaw

The Bedford Boys: One American Town’s Ultimate D-day Sacrifice

The History Channel website

 

Memorial Day is a time once a year when we make a deliberate effort to pause and reflect on the sacrifices made by our nation’s Veterans. We salute those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Our lives and the freedom we enjoy would not be possible without their dedication and willingness to die for others.

When I decided to serve, people asked me, “Why?” There were many things that I could have done with a college degree. I could have gone into any profession. But, several quotes kept playing in my head.

First, there was a quote from President Ronald Reagan, who said, “Some people live their whole lives wondering if they made a difference, Marines never have that problem.”

As corny as it sounds, there was an element of truth to me. I have heard many stories from people who “would have joined” or “could not” join for one reason or another. They were always close to joining or they always had something else going on. That was not going to be me. I wanted to be the guy to say proudly, “I served my country in uniform.”

The next quote was one from the Bible. Specifically, when Jesus speaks to his disciples and says, “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends.”

That quote was powerful because I was deciding to join during a time of war. Servicemen and women were going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Many did not make it back alive. These heroes laid down their life for their country. Everyone who serves has to ask if they are willing to do the same. The answer for me was “yes.”

I am still in the Marine Reserves to this day. There is a chance I could be called up again. If our nation is in a full-scale war then I will probably fight in combat since my primary MOS is infantry. I know that I would still be willing to lay down my life for this great country.

This is why Memorial Day is so important. When we stop paying honor to those who died for this country, than it makes it less likely that others will do the same. If there is no honor in one’s sacrifice, than how can we expect others to feel motivated to serve and be willing to die in the future?

Now, there will be some who serve for sure. But, the bar is extremely low for people on Memorial Day to simply take a moment and thank Veterans for their service, to listen to their stories, and tell them that we honor you and the sacrifice you are willing to make.

With that said, I had the privilege of helping at a Virginia Veterans Care Center in Richmond, VA. With the resources of my company (a service-disabled veteran owned business), we purchased eight iPad stands at the request of the staff. One of the staff members said that with the iPad stands, the Veteran residents would be able to Skype, Zoom or FaceTime with their loved ones for long periods of time. Meanwhile, the staff would not have to hold the iPads, but could instead take care of other Veterans and attend to other needs.

I was excited and proud to make this contribution. It is a small gift. But, my hope is that it will inspire other people to do the same. Many small acts toward our Veterans makes a big difference. It is a great way to say, “Thank you.” It is a great way to honor those who served and to celebrate Memorial Day.

On a warm, sunny September morning in 2019, I walked to the One World Trade Center. During the week, the area around it bustles with activity. The Freedom Tower rises tall and proud near the two Memorial reflecting pools on the 16 acre rebuilt site. These two Memorial pools are located on the spots where the iconic North and South Twin Towers of the original World Trade Center once stood. In remembrance of those killed in the attacks of 2001 and 1993, each one of the 2983 names is inscribed along the Memorial pools.

In an effort to remember the tragic events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, I spent a morning at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. Since moving to New York City recently, I had planned on visiting. It seemed appropriate to do so only a few days before the anniversary of those attacks. For anyone living in or visiting NYC, it should be a high priority of places to go. The events of September 11, 2001 re-shaped the entire twenty-first century. The effects of that day reverberate and will continue to do so for generations.

An enduring mission of the 9/11 Museum and Memorial is to educate and tell the story so that future generations will know what happened on that day. It has been eighteen years. Therefore, a population of young adults are coming of age without having lived during 9/11. The Museum and the Memorial exist to serve and to honor those that lost their lives on that day. Furthermore, it captures the human experience, the loss, the heroism, and the triumph of the American and world spirit that arose in the aftermath.

Telling the Story from the Beginning

The 9/11 Museum and Memorial gets crowded early, which I consider a good thing. Therefore, I opted for the early morning tour prior to official hours of operation. I was with a group of about twenty people. Our tour guide was professional and well-versed in re-telling what happened and the history behind it. The story begins with the actual construction of the original Twin Towers. The goal had been an ambitious project to make NYC a great port city and as the name suggests, the center of world trade.

The construction of the World Trade Center and Twin Towers took place in 1973. It was built in lower Manhattan between what is known today as the Financial District and Tribeca. Other landmarks in the neighborhood include Federal Hall, the New York Stock Exchange, Battery Park, and Trinity Church. By the 1980’s, the World Trade Center became profitable, and the original vision of reviving commerce and trade came to fruition.

The financial history of the World Trade Center is key. It was targeted because of the economic prosperity that it not only represented but also contributed to. When the towers were destroyed, many people who were killed worked in the finance industry. Among the worst companies to suffer was Cantor Fitzgerald. In fact, the firm lost more people than any other organization with 658 employees becoming victims of the devastating attacks.

While the World Trade Center represented financial strength, the Pentagon symbolized American military might. Furthermore, Capitol Hill was the intended target of Flight 93, which went down in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

The Lead up to 9/11

The history of the World Trade Center includes an attack that took place on February 26, 1993. Six people were killed by a truck bomb placed beneath the North Tower. The Memorial keeps their names and pictures along with the 2977 victims of September 11. While the truck bomb failed to destroy the buildings, our tour guide noted that it did lead to some improved security procedures that may have helped to prevent further loss of life on September 11.

A section of the museum wades into the history and rise of Al-Qaeda, which is Arabic for “the base”. The group emerged from the 1980s emboldened by their fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Soviet departure from Afghanistan gave Osama bin Laden, their founder and leader, confidence that a small dedicated group could successfully fight against a world superpower. During the first Gulf War, when the U.S. fought Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and in the process liberated Kuwait, Al-Qaeda turned their attention to the United States.

Among many grievances, the terrorist group resented the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia during and in the wake of the first Gulf War. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda opposed U.S. support for Israel. Finally, Al-Qaeda objected to sanctions that the U.S. imposed on Iraq in the 1990’s. As a result, Osama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996.

While few people in America knew or cared, Al-Qaeda plotted and executed a series of deadly attacks. In 1998, they used truck bombs to attack U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, subsequently killing 224 people. Following-up the embassy bombings was the 2000 attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen. This attack killed 17 Navy sailors.

For more detailed history, I recommend a book called The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright. The book is informative and easy to read.

The Events of the Day

The sky on the morning of September 11, 2001 was bright blue, and cloudless. A picture taken shortly before the attacks looked like a postcard image (see above). It was a regular work day for most people. They traveled via train and subway from outer boroughs, New Jersey, and Long Island. Most people had never heard the name Osama bin Laden. Very few had heard of Al-Qaeda.

That morning nineteen hijackers seized control of four planes. The four aircraft took off from airports on the East Coast bound for the West Coast. This was a deliberate decision by the terrorist plotters to ensure each crash had enough explosive fuel. American Airlines Flight 11 was the first plane to strike the north face of the North Tower at 8:46 am. United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower 17 minutes later at 9:03 a.m.

American Airlines Flight 77 hit the western side of the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. Finally, delays on the Newark Airport runway stalled United Airlines Flight 93. As a result, the other attacks occurred prior to the hijacking of Flight 93. Part of the story of Flight 93 is that the passengers and crew became aware of what was happening as they placed outbound calls from the plane. One of the last audible words was that of Todd Beamer, who said, “Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.” With that the passengers and crew charged and attacked the four hijackers. This action ultimately brought the plane down and thwarted a potential strike on the Capitol building. The Museum provides an emotionally gripping story of the heroic actions of the passengers on Flight 93.

Heroes of the Day

The museum and tour provide multiple accounts of heroism on the part of many people. Its exhibits capture the panic, the fear, the chaos, and confusion as well. But, in the midst of the turmoil, there are inspirational stories.

In a city that can feel cold and impersonal, the people of New York united together and became as strong as ever. Clearly, the first responding police, fire fighters, and port authority police deserve recognition for their selflessness and sacrifice. One of the displays recognizes the firefighters of Ladder Company 3. They were led by Captain Patrick “Paddy” Brown, who served as a Marine in Vietnam. He was committed to saving as many people as possible before he was killed.

Another remarkable story is that of Jan Demczur, who was employed as a window washer. He and five other people were stuck in an elevator shaft around the 50th floor of the North Tower. Using his squeegee, Demczur pried open the shaft. He and the other people then took turns hacking at the dry wall that blocked their way out. The trapped passengers eventually made a hole, and managed to escape before the North Tower collapsed.

These stories and others help to highlight some of the extraordinary actions that people took on that day. While the tragedy is real, the American fighting spirit and will to persevere was and remains a marvelous thing.

The Aftermath

The United States received an outpouring of support from many nations. The first part of the 9/11 Museum has a section where people around the world react to the attacks. Each face bears the same shocked expression.

The day changed everyone’s life in some way. Many people remember where they were when it happened. It was and still is the single worst attack by a foreign actor on U.S. soil.

Since that time, U.S. foreign policy has been largely dominated by the War on Terror. The events of this week still bear that out as President Trump called off a meeting with Taliban leaders to discuss peace talks in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan remains the longest war in U.S. history. There are currently 14,500 U.S. troops stationed over there.

Additionally, Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the attack, is now dead. A team of elite Navy SEALs killed him in a raid on May 2, 2011. The raid took place at a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Thus, marked the end of an exhaustive search to achieve some sense of justice for what happened on 9/11.

Additionally, the toxic fumes from ground zero have caused the deaths of many of the emergency personnel who responded. The fumes caused many forms of cancer, which continues to afflict and take the lives of the first responders. This issue recently came to light prominently with a testimony that Jon Stewart delivered to Congress on behalf of 9/11 first responders. Congress ultimately passed the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.

The 9/11 Memorial

It is hard not to walk through the 9/11 Memorial without feeling a rush of emotion. There is a picture for each victim. Most of the pictured faces are smiling and cheerful. The people in them are from different places, ethnic backgrounds, races, and religions. They worked in many industries- some white collar, blue collar, and public service. They were loved by family and friends, and taken from them too soon.

New York is a city with people from all over the world. People come to live and work, and try to make a good living. As I walked from the 9/11 Memorial back outside to the streets of lower Manhattan, I could imagine the faces that I had seen inside smiling in their pictures. I could see them walking these streets once upon a time. Furthermore, I could see them in the faces of the people walking on a September morning in 2019 too.

Today, the Freedom Tower stands large and imposing in the Manhattan skyline. Ground zero has been reborn from the rubble of the attacks. The area stands as a center of commerce and trade again. Eighteen years after the attacks, the memory of those that died endures through the every day actions of those that have returned to work, live, visit, and enjoy the revival of One World Trade Center and the area around it.

The terrorists wanted to destroy America’s way of life. They failed. The American spirit endured. It is as strong today as it was on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 Museum and Memorial do an excellent job reminding us of that. As long as we continue to honor the memory of those that died, recognize the heroism of those that responded, and cherish the unity that it brought to the world and the United States, it will remain strong forever.

In a letter dated June 5, 1944, Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, wrote a touching letter to his wife. He advises her not to take it personally if he doesn’t write for a few days. He says starting on June 6, 1944, he will be going on a “series of trips” that will last 6-10 days.

Let me translate this into modern parlance for the younger readers. Here goes, “Hey babe! Sorry for the late text, didn’t mean to ghost you. Got super busy. Hope we can hang out again soon ; )”

For the older audiences, “ghosting” is essentially when communication drops off without explanation. It typically happens through text messages. Letter writing? That’s a whole different level of bold! Being “ghosted” can suck, and if its a close relationship then it can get a bit personal. In most cases, ghosting your wife would be pretty uncool. However, launching the greatest amphibious raid in modern history to free the world from Nazi oppression… I think the General has a valid excuse. Ike, you’re off the hook!

So what’s the occasion? It’s the 75th anniversary of the Allies invasion and liberation of Normandy. Furthermore, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum recently obtained General Eisenhower’s letter. The Wall Street Journal published it yesterday. It is short, and worth reading. Letters present a trove of valuable information that helps add color to history. In particular, they humanize the people involved. We glorify previous generations and historical figures, and for good reason. Their accomplishments are enormous. But, its also great to remember they are ordinary dudes too. They thought about sports, beer, women, and getting back home. Today, I suppose you could throw Call of Duty and Red Dead Redemption in there.

My definition of heroism is ordinary people stepping up to do extraordinary things. General Eisenhower’s letter reveals that he was “ordinary” in a basic human sense. He loved his wife and cared about his family. On the day before he would lead 155,000 troops ashore at Normandy, he was still worried about ending up in the dog house.

In today’s military, many resources exist for families through “family readiness” programs. More than ever, the military recognizes the importance of taking care of families. Families serve and sacrifice in a different, yet important way. General Eisenhower’s wife would have been very much nervous, fearful, and on edge waiting for word from her husband. Her experience is no different than that of many families and spouses who have had to say goodbye to loved ones throughout the years. In today’s era of constant communication, the pressure can be even harder. Younger generations text and talk instantly. But when they deploy aboard a ship or to a remote part of the world, it becomes more difficult to maintain this type of communication. This can present another layer of stress for younger couples. They should take a cue from the General and be honest and up front about the drop off in communication. It does make a difference.

When studying history, we ask ourselves what would we have done? Could we have measured up? It is hard not to look back 75 years later at the sacrifice and service of the “greatest generation” and wonder these things.

Nevertheless, today’s generation has followed their lead. Stories are coming out from recent conflicts and the current operational theater that show they are up to the challenge. This is good. Every year, the population of World War II veterans shrinks. It is incumbent on today’s generation to carry the torch and maintain their legacy. How can we do this? Reading and studying is great. Especially when the reading in question (i.e. Ike’s letter) takes less than a minute. Constantly preparing physically and mentally is a must. Training and preparation cannot be a cake walk. The human factors of combat are too arduous to take things lightly. The possible enemy threat is too great to stay happy with the status quo.

Today, June 6, 2019, we continue to revere and honor the legacy of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers’ generation by keeping the memory of what they did alive. Seventy-five years after the fact, we can maintain connection with previous generations through service, hard work, and preparation to answer our nation’s call.

To all our veterans, we say thank you! For those continuing to serve, we appreciate your sacrifice and commitment.

Memorial Day. People know it as the unofficial start of summer. The weather is warmer and it seems everyone flocks to beaches, lakes, and other destinations to enjoy family, friends, and, of course, a good BBQ. The majority of workers get Monday off, and the long weekend is a nice break reprieve from long hours at the office.

But, it should go without saying that the weekend and the day represent something greater. The meaning that should be attached to this weekend cannot be overstated. In fact, it needs to be amplified, but not through discounts and store sales. On the other hand, it should be a time for people to ask, “Who do I know that put on the uniform and swore an oath to defend this country and its constitution.” If the answer is no one, then the next question is “How can I meet such a person?”

Remember that this day is about honoring those that made the ultimate sacrifice for this great country. Their sacrifice should never be forgotten. We also thank and celebrate those who continue to serve and have served. 

My suggestion for people looking to embrace the spirit of Memorial Day is to take the time to talk with a veteran or someone currently service. I am not suggesting you need to simply thank them for their service. While saying “thank you” is a fine and respectful gesture, I can say personally that it means more to talk to someone and genuinely listen to them. 

Ask a veteran about their experience. Perhaps they are willing to share. Most are willing. If they are, then listen. What does listening mean? It means taking an interest in what the veteran is saying and relating to you. Why am I saying what seems to be obvious? Because the fact is that most people can’t listen to veterans without trying to interject their own personal history into the conversation. For example, if a veteran says, “I was in the Marine Corps.” Chances are that the person they are talking to will start to rack their brain to think of someone that they know in the Marine Corps. Most veterans know exactly what I am talking about. 

In my personal experience, conversations that I have with non-veterans usually start with “What did you do? Thank you for your service.” However, most of the time, the other person takes the conversation and starts to talk about the people they know or how they wished they served. I believe that it is well meaning. Most people are trying to find some solidarity and common ground. They are trying to relate. But, if you’re not a veteran and you’ve been doing that then I suggest that you tone it down a notch.  

Again, veterans are generally very respectful and humble people. They served and they understand that service has sacrifices. For my part, I knew that serving was not going to be easy. When I got out of active service, it wasn’t any easier. Making a transition to civilian life is tough and a lot of veterans struggle for many reasons. My suggestion to non-veterans who want to establish solidarity and common ground with a veteran is to do them the service of just listening. By listening and trying to understand, you will be greatly serving those that served. In some cases, you will learn something. Ask questions too. Again, most veterans would love to talk and share their experiences.

I find that bridging the civilian-military divide is an important duty that needs to be done in our great country. But, both sides need to work on it. When attempting to bridge the divide, veterans need to be given the platform to speak. After all, they represent a small portion of the population. 

America is the greatest country in the world. Is it perfect? Not always. But, we have an amazing constitution, a powerful economy, and even more powerful military comprised of awesome people. It is thanks to the service and sacrifice of so many people that we are able to live in this great nation and enjoy the liberties that we have. Everyone can do their part to say thanks by having a conversation and listening to those who served. 

President Trump announced his intention to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in May. This decision defies diplomatic precedent. It’s not unexpected from a presidency that consistently defies expectations. President Trump promised to do politics differently, and this decision is consistent with that promise.

While diplomacy is the preferred method of resolving international conflict, it is a complicated process. If mishandled, the most well meaning diplomatic engagements can fall apart quickly and more problems can emerge. The upcoming meeting between the two leaders arouses many questions, concerns, and hope too. Will something good emerge from direct talks? We will watch closely and see. In the meantime, we have history to guide us in anticipation.

Strategy

The Professional Military Education podcast has covered a range of issues related to strategy and diplomacy. In an interview on the book Strategy, the author Sir Lawrence Freedman discussed strategy as “the art of creating power.” Two sides mutually agreeing to direct talks indicates that each feels that they have some leverage to use in negotiating with the other. The United States has its vast economic and military resources. Tight sanctions have been in place for months and the U.S. does not show any signs of giving them up. North Korea may feel emboldened by their missile tests which now clearly demonstrate their capability to strike the United States directly. Furthermore, North Korea has always maintained a bargaining chip by virtue of the thousands of artillery cannons that stand poised and ready to strike Seoul, South Korea at a moment’s notice. Each side has escalated to the point where they might be in a position to negotiate. For example, the U.S. loosens sanctions if North Korea halts missile tests.

Iran

In an interview with Jay Solomon about his book The Iran Wars, Mr. Solomon chronicled the process in which U.S. sanctions ultimately pressured and brought Iran to the negotiating table. However, sanctions took a long time to bring about the necessary pressure. In the meantime, U.S. diplomats engaged with their Iranian counterparts to lay the groundwork for a final agreement. During this time, President Obama never met directly with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini. But, he did send him several personal letters. Perhaps President Trump and President Obama have more in common than people realize. President Obama believed that he could use his personal influence to affect foreign policy. Does President Trump believe that he can have a similar affect with respect to Kim Jong Un?

North Korea’s Objectives

In separate interviews with Dr. Kori Schake and Bruce Bechtol, a North Korea expert, there seemed to be a consistent narrative related to Kim Jong Un’s intentions. Both theorized Kim’s objective to be regime preservation. North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a way to project power at home and abroad. In domestic politics, these weapons can engender immense national pride and solidify Kim’s support. From the perspective of international relations, nuclear weapons gives North Korea legitimacy. The world can’t ignore a nuclear weapons capable North Korea. Furthermore, nuclear deterrence becomes a means of self-preservation. Kim Jong Un knows that he is less likely to go the way of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or Qaddafi in Libya. However, one can argue that with artillery pointed at Seoul, deterrence doesn’t require nukes.

A meeting with President Trump gives Kim the legitimacy he seeks. The question is whether it is enough legitimacy to cause him to abandon his nuclear weapons program. For the moment, the U.S. President’s actions show that the U.S. takes North Korea seriously. Whether that gives the North Korean leader the credibility he seeks both at home and abroad is still to be determined. In the meantime, suspension of missile tests and less aggression on the part of the U.S. and South Korea are short term steps towards peace. For the sake of many innocent lives, we should hope that they lay the groundwork for long term peaceful solutions.

Russia

The final interview that is worth listening to is with Steven Lee Myers on Vladimir Putin. Mr. Myers discusses in his book how both Presidents Bush and Obama sought to engage with Vladimir Putin and re-establish better relations with Russia. However, as Mr. Myers explained Mr. Putin felt consistently snubbed by the inconsistency of U.S. talk with action. The most prominent example relates to the handling of Libya in which Mr. Putin saw the U.S. spearhead regime change after pledging only “humanitarian intervention.” Additionally, under the Bush administration, tensions persisted over the Iraq War as well as American withdrawal from the ABM treaty. All of these examples demonstrate how talk without consistency of action can give way to mistrust which fuels further animosity. This is something to consider as world leaders meet especially if preconditions aren’t firmly handled before the meeting.

 

Earlier this week, Iraq claimed victory over ISIS in Mosul. Iraqi forces launched the assault in October 2016. Nearly eight months later, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi declared Mosul liberated from ISIS. His speech came three years after ISIS seized Mosul and nearly one third of Iraq’s territory. On Twitter, Prime Minister Abadi announced the challenges of reconstruction while praising his troops for their bravery and hard work. Iraq should be proud of their victory on the battlefield. But, now the hard work begins.

How Wars End

It is a mistake to think that wars end on the battlefield. They don’t. If Iraq and its coalition partners fail to translate tactical success into strategic victory, more people will die at the hands of ISIS. Indeed, ISIS will return in force.

The difficulty for Iraq is that there are numerous players involved in the coalition against ISIS. When the fighting ends, these groups will have a divergence of political and strategic interests.

Kurdish forces have done significant amounts of work in the coalition. They have been amongst the strongest and most capable fighters. However, Turkey regards the Kurds as a threat. Turkey is a NATO member. But, in their opposition to the Kurds, they have been complicit in facilitating ISIS operations. This presents many complications for the U.S. and Iraq.

Furthermore, Iraq is a mostly Shiite country. Shia militias backed by Iranian Quds forces were able to play a major role in the fight against ISIS. However, the U.S. is wary of Iran’s influence. Furthermore, there will have to be reconciliation with Sunni Arabs. In this area, religious divisions create another set of difficulties. Sunni tribes welcomed ISIS in 2014 as they feared the repression from the Iraqi Shiite government, which was then run by Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki.

All of these ethnic divergences complicate political reconstruction. Additionally, ISIS will remain in Iraqi cities and shift to counterinsurgent tactics. As the Iraqi government seeks to rebuild cities, ISIS will try to launch terrorist attacks in Baghdad and other Shiite cities. The goal will be to draw Iraqi security forces out of Sunni cities. This was a tactic developed during the Iraq war when Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) existed under Zarqawi. It is known as the “belts strategy.”

What’s Next for Mosul?

The city of Mosul is in ruins. There are thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) otherwise known as refugees. Rebuilding Mosul will be a major challenge as the destruction of Mosul’s homes and infrastructure has been significant. The first priority has to be stability of the city and region. With improved security and restoration of basic services, the goal is then improvement of economic conditions. Next, long-term political institutions will need to reflect the concerns of Sunni tribes. The U.S. will have to play a role in this process if it wishes to see Iraq stabilized.

The rise of ISIS in Iraq occurred due to a confluence of circumstances such as the Syrian Civil War and the Sunni tribes that welcomed ISIS as Sunni protectors. As Joby Warrick explained in his book Black Flags, these tribes turned on AQI when the U.S. launched its surge strategy in 2007. But, when the U.S. withdrew forces from Iraq in 2011, conditions changed. Political winds shifted, and ISIS was able to capitalize on popular support from Sunni people. Thus, despite the U.S. success in counterinsurgency nearly ten years ago, strategic decisions negatively affected its ability to maintain long-term security. That will have to change. In my interview with Mr. Warrick, we discussed the rise of ISIS in detail.

Is ISIS Done?

As mentioned, ISIS tactics will change. Although their loss of physical territory is a blow, their ideology continues to persist and influence many people. They will look for different ways to exploit areas of instability where Sunni Muslims live. In an al-Qaeda playbook called The Management of Savagery published in 2004, al-Qaeda defined this strategy. The goal is to expand their influence, build cells, and provide security in destabilized areas from the Maghreb to southeast Asia.

Additionally, ISIS inspired supporters, who operate on the fringes of the organization, are still a threat. The potential for individual acts of violence is strong. Moreover, ISIS fighters from Iraq and Syria will likely regroup and use their training and experience to carry out attacks potentially in Europe and the United States.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda has consolidated their own base of support in Syria. They continue to maintain a long-term vision of striking the “far” enemy i.e. the United States.

Victory in Mosul is positive. It is an outstanding development. But, it is a tactical victory. There is a lot of work that remains to turn tactical success into strategic victory. For a more in depth discussion on “How Wars End”, check out the interview I did with Gideon Rose. Mr. Rose discusses the topic of how wars end based on his book of the same name.

The Revolution

The Iranian Revolution was one of the most transformative events in the history of U.S. foreign policy as it dramatically reshaped geopolitics in the Middle East. Prior to the overthrow of the shah’s regime, Iran had been a steady and reliable ally of the United States. The alliance was part of the United States’ Cold War strategy, and Iran served as a useful buffer against Soviet interests in the Middle East. But, by 1979 change was coming quick and the entire paradigm was about to shift. The U.S. was caught on its heels by the swift and sudden rise of Ayatollah Khomeini, who returned from political exile in Paris. Khomeini’s writings revealed a deep animosity and bitterness towards America, which he dubbed the “Great Satan.”

In his book Guests of the Ayatollah, Mark Bowden writes of the revolution, “Like most of the great turning points in history, it was obvious and yet no one saw it coming.” He continues to explain the dynamics of global diplomacy and western diplomatic strategy that drove the Iranian population’s angst and hatred toward America. What happened was a revolutionary fervor rooted in radical Islamist ideology. This ideology gained support by directing the subject of its ire at the United States, the nefarious outside enemy, who according to the revolutionary narrative had been the cause of the people’s woes. The laundry list of grievances was long, and began with support for Iran’s monarchy in the figure of the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was treated for cancer in the U.S. At that time, President Jimmy Carter allowed him to stay in America, which upset the population that opposed him. The shah had been in power since 1953 when a coup d’état had been staged and financed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The coup overthrew Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq, who was intensely nationalist and hostile toward British and American oil and business interests. With the shah placed in power, the U.S. increased its funding in Iran’s economy and military. Shortly after the shah returned to power, President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered a milestone speech to the UN General Assembly on December 8, 1953. The speech was called, “Atoms for Peace,” and it laid out a plan for civil nuclear development. From this initiative began construction of a nuclear reactor in Tehran in 1967. From the speech:

It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.

The United States knows that if the fearful trend of atomic military buildup can be reversed, this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind.

-President Eisenhower (“Atoms for Peace” speech)

Other historical sources of Iran-U.S. animosity have included America’s backing of Sunni Gulf states. This dynamic still plays a deciding factor in Middle Eastern politics as Sunni Arabs represented in Gulf states like Saudi Arabia oppose the Persian Shia influence of Iran. The struggle between Sunni and Shia states trying to assert power in the region has played out in conflicts in Yemen and Syria. In Yemen, a civil war has raged for two years in which Iran has supported the Houthi rebel movement against the government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who is backed by a Saudi led coalition that has carried out airstrikes in which more than 7,600 people have been killed and 42,000 injured since March 2015 (BBC report).

Finally, Iranians saw American influence as corrupting their society, culture, and, most importantly, their religion. Western values of liberalization and gender equality were strongly denounced in Iran during the time of the revolution. Khomeini was able to galvanize his base of support with the narrative that American influence was promoting decadence and dissolving the moral fabric of Iran. Thus, as the number of anti-government protestors grew, as the military attempted to crack down on dissidents, as the shah went into exile, and when Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran, the stage was set for a revolution.

 

Hostage Crisis

The events of the Iranian revolution led to protests outside of the American embassy. The embassy in Tehran inflamed the resentment that had been part of the protests and violence that brought about the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khomeini did not relent from his opposition towards America, and it would become the central policy position that drove the revolution within Iran and beyond. It is important to understand that the Iranian Republic views the revolution as an ongoing process, and as one that must be spread and exported abroad. As a result, Iranian foreign policy, which is driven principally by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to this day remains committed to expanding Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary vision.

The Iranian hostage crisis was one of the worst foreign policy crises in American history. The history of this era and the crisis has been revived thanks in part to the feature film Argo (2012) in which Ben Affleck  played the lead role and also directed the movie, which won an Academy Award for best picture. In the film, an undercover agent stages as a film producer for a space movie to be filmed in Iran. The space movie is a ruse for a plot to free six Americans trapped inside the country. The movie is based on a true story. But, the story of the hostage crisis began on November 4, 1979 as student protestors scaled the walls of the embassy compound and broke inside. From there, they proceeded to kidnap fifty-two Americans within the embassy. President Carter’s administration watched helplessly as reports emerged of the fifty-two American diplomats and citizens being taken into Iranian captivity. The hostages were paraded blindfold in front of cameras for the world, and America to see. This became the longest hostage crisis in world history. For a total of 444 days from November 4, 1979 until January 20, 1981, Americans were held captive in Iran. The issue would become a political black eye for President Jimmy Carter, who lost his re-election in 1980 to Republican Ronald Reagan. To make the situation worse for President Carter, the hostages were released no more than a minute after President Reagan took the oath of office and was officially sworn in. The message was clear, and meant to display retribution for the decision to grant the shah asylum in the U.S.

During the crisis, one significant rescue attempt was made in what also became a black eye for military special operations. The rescue attempt was called Operation Eagle Claw in which U.S. commandos planned to free the hostages Tehran on helicopters. Complications occurred before the helicopters could reach their objective. As the helicopters flew low to avoid Iranian radar, they encountered a sand storm and the mission had to be aborted. Additionally, eight U.S. service members were killed and others were injured when a helicopter ran into a C-130 during refueling operations. No other significant rescue attempts were made. The administration continued to negotiate for their release.

Despite the hostages being freed on Reagan’s first day as President, Iran-U.S. relations remained tense and bitter throughout his two terms. Iraq invaded Iran shortly after the revolution, and the U.S. backed Saddam’s war against Iran. Furthermore, Iran would continue to pursue its revolutionary agenda in countries like Lebanon where terrorist attacks caused by Iranian proxies, namely Hezbollah, claimed the lives of many Americans to include 241 Marines in the devastating 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut.

To this day, American and Iranian relations remain tense, although currently held together with a fragile nuclear agreement negotiated in July 2015. Nevertheless, the history of the revolution and the hostage crisis continue to loom large in the consciousness of Americans and Iranians. The distrust and animosity does not appear to subside anytime soon. Indeed, with stepped up American military operations in Syria and Iraq as well as Iranian proxies active in the form of the IRGC’s Quds force, the prospect of better U.S.-Iran relations does not look promising anytime soon.

Below is a great documentary on the Hostage Crisis.

For more information check out Mark Bowden’s book, Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America’s War with Militant Islam.

Another great book is by David Crist called, The Twilight War: The Secret History of America’s Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran.

Finally, be sure to check out Episode 6 of the PME podcast with Jay Solomon on his book The Iran Wars: Spy Games, Bank Battles, and the Secret Deals That Reshaped the Middle East.

Background- Second Chechen War

On August 26, 1999, Russia launched a war against Chechnya in response to the invasion of Dagestan by Chechen separatists affiliated with the Islamic International Brigade (IIB), an Islamic mujahedeen group, which recruited Chechen separatists and international Islamist fighters. In response, Russia invaded Chechnya on October 1, 1999. They established a siege on the Chechen capital, Grozny. Putin declared that Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov was no longer the legitimate leader of Chechnya in spite of his democratic election in 1997. The war turned into a bloody insurgency as Russia attempted to re-assert control over Chechnya. Throughout the conflict, Russia was condemned by international human rights activists for alleged war crimes and claims of misconduct to include indiscriminate killing of civilian targets as well as looting and pillaging by Russian troops. The Chechen separatists were led by two commanders: Shamil Basayev and Khattab, a man of Saudi descent and a veteran of the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan. These men led the separatists as part of the IIB. Khattab was killed in 2002. Basayev was killed in 2006.

In the wake of the war against Chechen insurgents, Russia was struck by several high profile terrorist attacks throughout the early 2000’s. The first major attack occurred in 1999 and involved the bombing of several apartment complexes. In response, Putin as Russian Prime Minister responded with a larger military campaign against Chechnya. It is important to understand that these actions and the perception that Putin was “banging the hell out of the bandits” increased his popularity among Russia’s citizens (Myers 164). In my interview with Steven Lee Myers, he explains that the first war against Chechnya under Boris Yeltsin in the mid-90’s was immensely unpopular. However, under Putin, the Russians waged a much tougher and brutal campaign designed to break the will of the Chechen insurgents. As a result, by 2009 Russian operations ended, and Chechnya remains largely pacified under Russian control.

It is also worth noting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, who were responsible for the 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon in the U.S., were reportedly born in Kyrgystan and “are of Chechen ethnicity.”

 

Apartment Bombings 1999

The first of several notable terrorist attacks against Russian civilians and non-military targets took place in September 1999 as Russia experienced a string of four separate apartment bombings in Moscow, Buynaksk, and Volgodonsk. These bombings collectively killed 293 people and wounded over 1000 people. There was also a thwarted attempt on a building in Ryazan. However, this Ryazan incident is surrounded in suspicion and controversy over theories that the FSB may have staged it. David Satter, a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute and the author of the book The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin, testified in a 2007 address to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee that the apartment bombings were part of a “massive provocation” by the Russian government intended to solidify the political power of Vladimir Putin.

 

Nord-Ost Siege 2002

The next high profile attack was the Moscow Theater siege on 23 October, 2002. This siege, also called the Nord-Ost Theater siege, was carried out by 40 Chechens, who took nearly 900 hostages. While the Chechens demanded Russia remove its troops from Chechnya, Putin refused and affirmed that negotiations with the terrorists would not happen. Furthermore, Putin vowed to strike back at Islamic terrorists. In the wake of the Nord-Ost siege, the NYT reported, Mr. Putin’s opposition to negotiations had the effect of “hardening his stance” towards Chechnya’s rebel leader, Aslan Maskhadov. As the Nord-Ost crisis worsened, a plan was developed by the FSB to end it. Russian Spetsnaz troops pumped an anesthetic gas through the ventilation system and into the theater in an effort to incapacitate the hostage takers. However, the toxic, opiate-based gas had an adverse effect on many hostages, and reportedly killed a total of 116 people. Total casualties also included the 40 Chechen insurgents and 130 hostages. The terrorists who were knocked out by the gas were shot in the head by the Russian special forces. Below is a National Geographic documentary on the Moscow siege:

 

Beslan Hostage Crisis 2004

One of the most notorious and most tragic terrorist incidents was the Beslan hostage crisis that took place in September 2004. Beslan is a small town in North Ossetia in the North Caucus region of Russia. The hostage crisis began on September 1, 2004 and lasted for three days. Throughout the crisis, men, women, and children were kept packed on top of one another in the sweltering heat of a gym without food or water. There were over 1,000 hostages. By the time the crisis ended, the reported death toll included 186 children out of 330 total deaths. Putin asserted that the hostage crisis in Beslan was comparable to 9/11 for Russia. In the aftermath of the Beslan hostage crisis, Putin attempted to consolidate and expand the power of the Kremlin. As reported by The Moscow Times, “Putin used Beslan to toughen laws on terrorism and expand the powers of law enforcement agencies.” Steven Lee Myers writes that the incident shaped Putin’s thinking in that Putin “seemed to blame the siege in Beslan on Russia’s inability to preserve the strength that made the Soviet Union he remembered as a boy so strong and respected” (Myers 259). He quotes Putin saying, “We demonstrated weakness, and the weak are beaten” (Myers 260).

 

 

Black Widows

One of the most notable aspects of the terrorist attacks was the emergence of female terrorists referred to as “Black Widows.” There were 19 Black Widows in the Nord-Ost siege, and these women had bombs strapped to their chest intended to blow up themselves and the hostages as a means to deter Russian authorities. Additionally, the Black Widows have been held responsible for other suicide attacks in Russia to include the March 29, 2010 Moscow Metro attack, which killed nearly 40 people. There have been many other attacks perpetrated by the Black Widows at Russian bus stations and airports. A Daily Beast article entitled “Inside the Minds of Russia’s Black Widows” was published in 2013, and it claimed, “In the last 12 years, 46 women have turned themselves into suicide bombs in Russia, committing 26 terrorist attacks (some attacks involved multiple women). Most of the bombers were from Chechnya and Dagestan.”

 

Recent Attacks

The Washington Post reported that in Russia “more than 3,500 people are estimated to have died in over 800 attacks since 1970.” On April 3, 2017 at least 11 people were killed in a terrorist attack on the Saint Petersburg Metro. After the Metro bombing, a Rand article was published called “How Russia Became the Jihadists’ No.1 Target.”  The article claims, “Russia is fast replacing the United States as the No. 1 enemy of Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadist groups motivated by violent and puritanical Salafist ideology.”

 

Be sure to check out Episode 5 of the PME Podcast to hear the two hour interview with Steven Lee Myers, author of The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.

“Welcome to Putinland” is an in-depth series based on Episode 5 of the PME podcast, which will be released in early April 2017. The episode is an interview with New York Times columnist Steven Lee Myers, and it focuses on Myers’s biography, The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin. In the first part of this series, the early life and rise of Vladimir Putin is explored. The goal is to draw out important facts and insights from Myers’ biography for learning and study.

 

Distrust and Fear of the West

On March 24, 1999, NATO launched air strikes against Serbia and Montenegro, which was under the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic. America and European powers considered the actions Slobodan Milosevic against Albanian Muslims in Kosovo to be ethnic cleansing. After seventy-eight days, Milosevic agreed to withdraw Serbian forces from Kosovo and allowed for international peacekeepers to return to the region. Myers writes that this event “inflamed Russia’s wounded pride over its deflated status since the collapse of the Soviet Union” (Myers 143). In my conversation with Myers, he emphasized that Russians saw this as an act of NATO aggression that posed a threat to Russia. Nevertheless, at a Hague trial, Milosevic was charged with “genocide, deportation, murder and persecution on religious, political and racial backgrounds but he died half way through his trial” (Source: Balkan Transitional Justice).

Russia launched a military assault against Chechen rebels beginning in August 1999. The war was a bloody, brutal conflict in which Vladimir Putin promised to “bang the hell out of the bandits.” The war drew a lot of international attention and criticism. Russia was heavily scrutinized by European nations and America for human rights abuses and suspected war crimes. Western criticism of Russian actions in Chechnya drove a divide between Russian and Western leaders. Check out the documentary on the Second Chechen War below:

After 9/11, Vladimir Putin called President Bush to offer Russia’s support and condolences. In spite of a moment of solidarity after America was attacked on September 11, 2001, the good relations between Russia and America quickly diminished over the issue of the American led invasion of Iraq, which took place in March 2003. Furthermore, Russian animosity toward America grew over the U.S. decision to withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in June 2002.

In 2004, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine occurred after the disputed election results between Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych. Yushchenko was poisoned during the re-election campaign and his face bore the scars of the assassination attempt. His opponent, Yanukovych, was heavily backed by the Kremlin. Yanukovych later served as President of Ukraine from 2010-2014. He is known for backing out of an agreement to move Ukraine into the European Union. He later sought asylum in Russia, and has been charged with high treason by Ukraine. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO and the European Union was something that Putin could not stand. Myers explains that the Ukraine holds significant historical and cultural significance to Russia.

At a 2007 Munich Conference, Putin gave a critical speech against the United States. Putin claimed “the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.” Myers explains that Russia thinks in terms of “spheres of influence.” As a result, they see the influence of the European Union and NATO as a direct threat to their sphere of influence. Here is the full transcript of Putin’s speech from 2007.

In 2008, Russia launched an invasion of Georgia. Russian and Georgian relations have been strained over Georgia’s desire to join NATO and move closer to the West. One of the more notable events that took place in the conflict between Russia and Georgia was the use of cyberattacks in the war.

As the events of the Arab Spring developed, Putin was critical of the U.S. intervention of Libya, which led to the toppling of Muammar Qaddafi’s regime in 2011. As Myers explains, “there existed a dark association in [Putin’s] mind between aspirations for democracy and the rise of radicalism” (Myers). Putin also continues to oppose any attempts to overthrow Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, from power.

 

Primary Source:

1. Myers, Steven Lee. The new tsar: the rise and reign of Vladimir Putin. London, England: Simon & Schuster, 2016. Print.

“Welcome to Putinland” is an in-depth series based on Episode 5 of the PME podcast, which will be released in early April 2017. The episode is an interview with New York Times columnist Steven Lee Myers, and it focuses on Myers’s biography, The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin. In the first part of this series, the early life and rise of Vladimir Putin is explored. The goal is to draw out important facts and insights from Myers’ biography for learning and study.

Who is Vladimir Putin?

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born on October 7, 1952 in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) a city “scarred” by the “Great Patriotic War” against the Nazis and the purges of Joseph Stalin in the late 1940’s. Steven Lee Myers writes that Vladimir Putin would grow up hearing “tales of heroism and suffering” (Myers 12). Below is a short video that offers some perspective on the siege of Leningrad during World War II. The siege lasted nearly 900 days, and the video shows some of the suffering that took place.

 

In 1975, Vladimir Putin became a KGB agent. Mr. Myers explains that Mr. Putin “represented a new generation in the KGB, the post-Stalin generation of recruits who were thought to be less ideological, too young to remember the horrors of Stalin’s regime.” In my interview with Mr. Myers, he also explains that 1975 was the “high water mark of the Soviet era.” Putin’s decision to join the KGB was partially influenced by a book turned movie called The Shield and the Sword by Vadim Kozhenikv. The book is a story about a Soviet secret agent in Nazi Germany. Putin became a foreign intelligence officer, and was initially stationed in Leningrad. Check out the book here:The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

 

As a KGB agent, Putin attended the Red Banner Institute in Leningrad where among other skills he learned “how to recruit agents, to communicate in code, to conduct surveillance, to lose a tail, to make and use dead letter boxes” (Myers 34). He was later assigned to Dresden where he would work as a foreign intelligence agent collaborating closely with the Ministry of State Security- the Stasi- until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Myers writes, “The KGB’s objective in East Germany was to gather intelligence and recruit agents who had access to the West” (Myers 43).

Image of the Red Banner Institute (Source: Espionage History Archive)

Vladimir Putin was in Germany during the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. He was deeply affected by the events, and what Myers calls his fear of “mob rule.” At one point, he stepped outside of his KGB villa in Dresden to confront a crowd, and warn them not to touch KGB property. The crowd left.

 

Putin’s early political career began when he worked for a politician named Anatoly Sobchak, who wanted to implement democratic reforms. Sobchak served as mayor of Saint Petersburg until 1996. Putin worked as his deputy with the job of attracting foreign investment to the city. When it appeared that his role in the KGB might be a liability to his boss, Sobchak, Myers explains that Putin noted “the American President, George H.W. Bush, had previously served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and no one disqualified him from holding office” (Myers 75). Myers also writes about an incident in which Putin met Henry Kissinger and as they chatted about Putin’s KGB background, Kissinger said, “All decent people got their start in intelligence… I did, too” (Myers 76).

Throughout the 1990’s, Russia’s transition to a more democratic political system was not easy. Myers notes that the elections were often “crazy,” yet they were “free and fair.” In 1996, Sobchak lost his re-election to mayor of Saint Petersburg. Myers explained in our interview that the loss of Sobchak affected Putin deeply. Additionally, due to the growing pains with democratic reforms, Myers writes, “Most Russians now associated their democracy with the dishonesty, criminality, and injustice they had long been conditioned to fear. Russia had become, as one historian put it, a ‘nightmare vision of the West’” (Myers 107). After the loss of Sobchak, Putin moved to Moscow where he worked for the Presidential Property Management Department and was later appointed by Boris Yeltsin to be chief of Presidential Staff.

Boris Yeltsin became President of the Russia in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He assumed the difficult role of leading Russia through a time of economic and political transition that began under Mikhail Gorbachev with the implementation of perestroika and glasnost. Yeltsin’s health plagued him toward the end of his presidency. (Source: History.com)

 

Putin’s career evolved rapidly. In July 1998 he was appointed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin as the director of the Foreign Security Service (FSB), which was the domestic descendant of the KGB. It is comparable to the FBI. Myers concludes that Yeltsin was looking for “his man in the FSB” and one who could crack down on economic corruption as well as “fight against political extremism and nationalism, against foreign spies, and against the newly arrived and slowly expanding World Wide Web” (Myers 125). With the new job at the FSB, “Putin immersed himself once again in the life of the intelligence agent, where everything is secret and everyone is suspect” (Myers 126). Myers also writes that Putin “exuded the full authority of the country’s secret service and a fierce determination not to let political or popular unrest undermine the state’s authority.”

On August 9, 1999, Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister. Shortly after Putin became Prime Minister, war broke out between Russia and Chechen insurgents after Chechen insurgents invaded Dagestan. As Putin pursued a vigorous strategy to win the war in Chechnya, his popularity soared among Russian people. On December 31, 1999, Yeltsin resigned as president, and Putin became acting president. Putin was officially elected president on March 26, 2000 and inaugurated on May 7, 2000.

 

Primary Source:

1. Myers, Steven Lee. The new tsar: the rise and reign of Vladimir Putin. London, England: Simon & Schuster, 2016. Print.

 

Alexis De Tocqueville was a French political scientist, who published two volumes of Democracy in America in 1835 and 1840. The book is widely regarded as a seminal work in American political science. De Tocqueville wrote in the post-Napoleonic era in which military strategy shifted into the type of brutal warfare that we witnessed in the first half of the twentieth century. That is the transformation of entire societies into war machines. The strategy for winning meant employing masses of troops on the battlefield to achieve significant results. As the industrial revolution expanded the destructive capability of weaponry, the wars from De Tocqueville’s era through the Twentieth Century were the bloodiest in the history of mankind. With this historical context, we examine Alexis De Tocqueville’s theory that democratic armies are “desirous” for war while democratic societies prefer peace.[i]

De Tocqueville argued that “the principle of equality” animated the pugnacious spirit of democratic armies while simultaneously tempering the bellicose desires of democratic societies. In considering equality as a principle that might cause the hawkish impulses of democratic armies, De Tocqueville pointed to a contrast with “aristocratic societies.” He argued that within aristocracies, military service was a rite of passage among the elites. The upper class of society became officers, and military service did not change their high positions within society. On the other hand, De Tocqueville stated that since democratic armies draw military officers from all positions of democratic society, this framework “extends the bounds of military ambition.” De Tocqueville expanded on this point by explaining, “It is easy to see that, of all the armies in the world, those in which advancement must be slowest in time of peace are the armies of democratic countries.” De Tocqueville’s thesis was clear: In a democratic society, people work in many industries to improve their trade and seek promotion, and the military falls within this self-interested model. While social advancement via the military may seem relatively benign, it is only a problem in De Tocqueville’s model if one accepts that democratic armies must be engaged in war to reap the full benefits of their trade and earn their desired praise and promotion. It’s a serious question, which we shall examine in depth.  [ii]

In many respects, De Tocqueville described what seems obvious, that military service provides substantial opportunity for social mobility and long-term economic benefit. Indeed, active military members receive innumerable benefits such as good salaries, pension plans, cheap housing, free health care, discount services, and many on base amenities. Veterans also receive exceptional benefits to include educational benefits like the post-9/11 GI Bill. None of these benefits appear to be at risk anytime soon. Politically, the military is virtually untouchable. Any politician proposing cuts to the defense appropriations budget does so with trepidation. Defense cuts are like a political hot potato. In contrast to today’s massive defense industry and appropriations budget, De Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America at a time in which the American military was relatively small, and did not have nearly the influence that it has today. Therefore, it is important to look carefully at the part of De Tocqueville’s thesis that democratic armies are “desirous for war.” If this is true, then considering the nearly invincible status which the military maintains today then it would seem to create a significant crisis to our democratic society, which, per De Tocqueville, should be desirous for peace.

De Tocqueville continued his examination of democratic armies by claiming that they are “often restless, ill-tempered, and dissatisfied with their lot.” He explained that a soldier may feel himself in an “inferior position” which creates the potential to “stimulate his taste for hostilities.” In the present era, there is often significant confusion over why morale may be low during times of peace. This is not to say that morale does not suffer during war due to long deployments and extended time away from family. But, one would expect morale to be high in a peace time military. However, if a soldier or Marine spends most of their service training to fight, their morale may suffer when they do not get the opportunity to do what they trained to do. This is like a doctor spending their entire life in medical school, but never actually treating patients. People receive training in multiple professions with the expectation of doing what their job. In peace, democratic armies still want the opportunity to do their job. This is a slightly different interpretation of De Tocqueville who argued that it was social mobility, acquisition of property, and a sense of importance that made democratic armies desirous for war. There are elements of that sprinkled into the conclusion which I have stated namely that the average Marine and soldier, especially in the combat arms professions, want to do their job.[iii]

I mentioned how in the post-Napoleonic era, warfare changed significantly. Men became as indispensable as machines in a giant strategy of attrition. But, the twenty-first century battlefield has evolved significantly, and military doctrine has moved away from attrition. Masses of troops are no longer needed to achieve strategic victories. As such, the civilian population does not need to fear mobilization on a large scale. Instead a handful of volunteers can do the fighting its nation requires. Within the military, an even smaller number of soldiers and Marines do the actual close combat fighting since most military members occupy support roles and many never deploy. Thus, De Tocqueville’s argument that democratic societies would have to constrain the aggressive tendency of democratic armies made sense in the early nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, there has been a paradigm shift.

Furthermore, the paradigm shift has become more pronounced in the global war on terror (GWOT). In fact, GWOT has thrown De Tocqueville’s thesis upside down. To effectively prosecute this “war”, a smaller number of service members are needed, and they do not always have to be conventional forces. With the Iraq War, conventional forces were used extensively. Nevertheless, the Iraq War is being viewed retrospectively as bad GWOT strategy. Since the invasion produced significant sectarian violence, fueled a Sunni-based terrorist movement and allowed Iran to increase their proxies, the logic and effectiveness of nation building strategy is being re-examined. Nevertheless, nation building was never fully embraced by the military in the first place. Before the Iraq War, high ranking former military members were often its most vocal critics. For example, former Commander in Chief Central Command (CENTCOM), Marine General Anthony Zinni objected to the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq. Furthermore, the neoconservatives who sought to reshape the world in the image of western, democratic models of governance were all civilians. Additionally, when the decision to invade Iraq was made, these civilians pushed for a “light footprint” strategy even as some military commanders were wary of this approach. For example, Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki made the case that the post-invasion force would necessitate several hundred thousand more troops than what Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz were advocating. At the same time, the American population favored war in Iraq and congress voted for it. The point is simply that Iraq was a war of choice made by civilians representing the interests of democratic society. To make matters worse, the military was handed the blueprint for executing that war of choice by the same civilians.[iv]

De Tocqueville said, “No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.” America has been living the last decade and a half in the shadow of the GWOT. During this time, American democratic society has made a lot of sacrifices with respect to personal freedoms and privacy rights. To prevent another 9/11, Americans have become comfortable with giving up some personal freedoms. Under GWOT, U.S. foreign policy has been highlighted by two conventional wars, a permanent detention center in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, the overthrow of an African dictator in Libya, and intensification of a drone war without congressional authorization, yet none of these actions have been due to the influence of a “democratic army.” In fact, we are now seeing a shift in which former military commanders most notably Secretary of Defense James Mattis, another former CENTCOM commander and Marine General, appear to be pursuing reasonable strategy over the warlike instincts of democratic society. Today’s generation of military leaders are in a unique position. They have seemingly outsized influence, yet without ideological crosses to bear. This appears to be the case with Secretary Mattis, who stands apart as a rare non-ideologue in Washington. As concerns were raised over military influence in the current cabinet, they fell on deaf ears. With the aforementioned paradigm shift and the current state of GWOT, the military has shouldered the burden of restraining the impulses of its citizens.[v]

How is it that the military has inherited this responsibility? Military education and training has produced and continues to produce military leaders with practical and strategic mindsets, problem solving abilities, and disciplined planning methodologies. Military thinkers are taught to observe and appreciate the complexities of different scenarios, and to understand that there is not always one absolute answer. Nuance is part of the problem set. This is different than the strategic thinking of De Tocqueville’s era in which problem sets involved one solution: Throwing more bodies at the problem. The best military strategists of De Tocqueville’s era were the ones who could get the most bodies to the battlefield before the enemy could get more of his bodies there. Therein lies the problem which American society has not figured out. War in the twenty-first century is not solely reliant on masses of tanks streaking across the desert or masses of bodies being thrown at a beachhead. American society only understands war through the lens of television, movies, and commercially successful books about the glory of battles. American democratic society does not have to take martial studies seriously because most of its citizens will not be affected by the good or bad decisions that are made. Therefore, war becomes just another reality TV show. It becomes another consumer product. It becomes no more real to the lay person than a video game. They don’t understand the consistency of its nature and the shifting of its character.

De Tocqueville was right that our military members, particularly senior members have earned a significant amount of prestige, social status, and even modest wealth. He was right that they want to do their jobs. But, they want to do them for the right reasons and under the right strategy. Inevitably, armies at peace will be restless and want to do what they have been trained to do. Nothing will change that. But, military professionals who have trained their soldiers and Marines for years can appreciate the value of young lives in a way that civilian society cannot. If there is any force of restraint, it would be from the military commanders who do not want to commit the lives of servicemen and women to a bad strategy because of a public opinion poll. De Tocqueville had a lot of important insights, but we need to reassess some of his conclusions in the twenty-first century, and re-think who in a democracy is truly desirous for war and why.

 

[i] TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS DE. “Tocqueville: Book II Chapter 22.” Tocqueville: Book II Chapter 22. AMERICAN STUDIES PROGRAM, 01 June 1997. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Margolick, David. “Meet the Generals Who Spoke Out Against Donald Rumsfeld’s War.” The Hive. Vanity Fair, 30 Jan. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

[v] TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS DE. “Tocqueville: Book II Chapter 22.” Tocqueville: Book II Chapter 22. AMERICAN STUDIES PROGRAM, 01 June 1997. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

 

 

How to Make Safe Zones Work

Looking for answers in the Malayan Emergency 1947- 1960

by Tim Rose

 

“Now I’ll absolutely do safe zones in Syria for the People.”[i]

-President Trump (ABC News Interview with David Muir, Jan 25, 2017)

 

Unlike most military and diplomatic jargon, “safe zones” in the context of the refugee crisis is relatively self-explanatory. These are areas where persons displaced by war can receive humanitarian aid, food, shelter, and medicine without the threat of violence. The idea of safe zones for refugees from Syria and Iraq existed previously in drafts of the controversial Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States and in President Trump’s own words. However, concerns over safe zones include commitment of troops and escalation of U.S. involvement in the region. Safe zones would inevitably become no fly zones like those created in the 1990s in Kurdish and Shia populated areas of Iraq. The commitment of U.S. troops and military assets would expand dramatically beyond just special operations forces. The number of troops would need to be based on the size of the safe zones or the planned size of the safe zones. If the U.S. were to establish safe zones with roughly 500,000 refugees (this number referenced later), this would require a commitment of several battalion’s worth of soldiers or Marines. As of this writing, safe zones have not received a lot of publicity having been overshadowed by U.S. domestic issues such as healthcare and immigration. Nevertheless, they could become the preferred path to assist with the refugee crisis and create stability in a war-torn region. Indeed safe zones make sense in theory. However, there are multiple second and third order effects and issues to consider in implementation.

The historical precedent for safe zones should be viewed not only in the examples from Iraq in the 1990’s, but also in a British counterinsurgency campaign that took place in Malaya from 1947- 1960. The Malayan case study is one of the best examples of effective counterinsurgency strategy. A component of its success was the establishment of resettlement camps that attempted to cut off ethnic Chinese populations from Communist guerillas. After World War II Malaya was a British colony with an abundance of rubber plantations that drove its economy. An ethnic Chinese population of roughly two million people settled in squatter communities that were influenced by the Malayan Communist Party. The Malayan Communist Party was inspired by the Maoist model of guerilla warfare, which sought to embed themselves within the population to delegitimize the government and ultimately overthrow it. The events in Malaya turned into an “emergency” in 1948 when guerilla terrorist attacks overwhelmed the ability of law enforcement to restore order and provide safety. Ultimately, the military was needed to establish security. However, the initial military efforts were largely unsuccessful as guerilla forces moved through the jungles and population centers to plan, stage, and launch attacks.[ii]

By 1950 the situation had not improved, and the Malaya Federation asked the British government for assistance. The British government appointed a retired Lieutenant General named Sir Harold Briggs as director of operations. Briggs had been General Officer Commander-in-chief in Burma, which provided him with a baseline knowledge on counterinsurgency strategy and operations. With his knowledge and understanding of the situation, Briggs immediately implemented a plan to resettle 500,000 people (hence the number referred to previously) from the Chinese squatter communities into 410 new villages. The idea was to cut the people off directly from the guerillas. Other important actions taken by Briggs included consolidating civil, military, and police into a formal council for planning and policy decisions. This was implemented as the Federal War Council. Additionally, Briggs pushed for greater intelligence work, and sought ethnic Chinese resettlement officers who could be used to engage with the Chinese populations. The establishment of State and District War Committees (SWEC and DWEC) fit the model for operational planning that involved police, military, and civil authorities.[iii]

It is important to understand the impact of SWEC on Malayan counterinsurgency strategy. These committees were designed to make decisions and enact policies on issues ranging from health, safety, and employment in the resettled populations. Representatives were brought together across the broad spectrum of economic, civil, military, and law enforcement agencies. DWEC operated on a smaller scale and was generally composed of a battalion sized military area of operations. Within each district was the same integration of civil and military affairs in which a balance was achieved in planning and execution of operations based on civil-military cooperation.[iv]

The counterinsurgency lessons from Malaya are strong. When analyzing the failure of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, historians view it as an inability to understand that there is a political and military dynamic to war. The senior editor of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Rose, called this the “Clausewitzian Challenge” in his book, How Wars End: Why We Always Fight the Last Battle. This is a reference to Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist who defined war as a violent clash of wills that is political in nature. Rose explains that prior to the Iraq war, military and civilian planners focused exclusively on the battlefield aspects of war, but neglected to plan for the political outcome that followed when the fighting stopped. British counterinsurgency planners in Malaya did not make that mistake. When Winston Churchill was re-elected Prime Minister in 1951, he appointed General Sir Gerald Templer to a post that merged the role of High Commissioner and Director of Operations, which was previously held by Briggs. The effect of this move was to merge the civilian and military colonial leadership into one position. Upon his appointment Templer then combined the military Federal War Council and the political Federal High Council into one entity, and he did so with the following memorandum:

Any idea that the business of normal civil Government and the business of the Emergency are two separate entities must be killed for good and all. The two activities are completely and utterly interrelated.

It is important to note that Templer’s leadership and broader powers did not represent a break from the work established by Briggs. In fact, the goal was to capitalize on the successes of Briggs’s plans by putting in “full operation the machine that Briggs had assembled.”[v][vi]

The Malayan example demonstrates the principle that effective counterinsurgency depends on separating the population from insurgents. This is not always easy when insurgents attempt to blend in as local civilians. However, in Malaya identifying guerillas became easier as operations were decentralized and the military and police cooperated in intelligence collection. In this case, intelligence fueled the military operations needed to systematically isolate and destroy the insurgents’ network. If we were to apply this model to safe zones, police forces would have to be recruited from the safe zone’s refugee populations. Additionally, as safe zones would turn into small towns, civil authorities would also have to be recruited from the refugee populations. The safe zones would need to be established like any other municipality with schooling, local economies and government services. In following the Malayan model, these services would need leadership and representation in committees with law enforcement and military representation. The goal is to create a safe and stable environment in which the military works with recruited police forces. Concurrently the state department provides the primary assistance for civil affairs. Like Malaya, plans and policies for the safe zones would be done through joint civil-military planning.

The entire safe zone concept could quickly be eradicated if the U.S. were to commit troops to current areas of conflict that exist in Iraq and Syria and conduct counterinsurgency in them. However, this does not seem probable. Instead, after the fall of Mosul, the U.S. will most likely shift focus to Raqqa where it is doubtful that U.S. ground troops will be the main effort to seize Raqqa from ISIL. However, since the Trump administration has indicated a commitment to use more troops in Syria, it may be the case that establishing safe zones is a way to accomplish that objective without having American ground troops doing most of the fighting. Thus, American ground troops will be in position to capitalize on gains in Raqqa as they are essentially used as a reserve to support military operations against ISIL. None of this has been decided, and it is possible that this assessment will prove inaccurate. As Secretary Mattis recently presented the White House with a classified plan for the defeat of ISIL, no reports indicate that safe zones were part of it. However, this does not mean that safe zone options have been removed from consideration. It is simply too early to know right now.[vii]

Whether safe zones are established or the U.S. continues in its current role, the lessons from Malaya endure. If we assume safe zones do become a course of action, the success will be in the execution. Plans for safe zones should begin with a focus on the endstate of what the U.S. hopes to achieve strategically. The strategic end goals should be focused on, but not limited to, the following:

1. Establishing a safe means of assistance for refugee populations i.e. the victims of the wars in Iraq and Syria.
2. Cutting off ISIL, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups from the population centers which provide them with money and recruits.
3. Recruiting, training, and equipping rebel forces needed to oppose Assad.
4. Working toward the long-term goal of resettling refugees in their former homes.
5. Implementing a robust information operations campaign that demonstrates the U.S. commitment to resolving one of the worst humanitarian crises in world history that affects the lives of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and many other faiths.

 

Along with focusing on the strategic end goals, the U.S. must also recognize and wargame the strategic problems that exist:

1. Syria currently opposes and will continue to oppose the creation of safe zones. This matters because their opposition influences Russia’s cooperation or non-cooperation in the establishment of safe zones.
2. Massive commitment of U.S. troops and resources to include billions of dollars in spending.
3. Safe zones could become a haven for terrorist recruitment.
4. There is a high probability for U.S. casualties due to terrorist attacks or attacks from Syria (or potentially Russia on “accident”). Any attacks could escalate violence and tensions while laying the groundwork for greater military intervention.
5. On the domestic political front, the plan for safe zones would need bipartisan congressional support in a way that could endure multiple election cycles.
6. Safe zones should require a U.N. resolution and a broad international coalition.

Conclusion: The President needs to understand the sacrifice that America would have to make in establishing safe zones. For the reasons highlighted above, safe zones can have strategic benefits, but they will inevitably be weighed against domestic concerns. While the U.S. has been engaged in war and nation building over the last fifteen years, our schools and infrastructure have suffered, and the American voting population is sensitive to these pains. Although President Trump has indicated his “absolute” commitment to safe zones prior to the Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry, it is doubtful that he has been briefed on the comprehensive details regarding the sacrifices for their success. Although safe zones have not dominated the national conversation recently, the concept has not gone away or been dismissed. In fact, safe zones as an American foreign policy option have the capacity to be resurrected very soon.

 

[i] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-speaks-campaign-rally-florida/story?id=45584942

[ii] Sunderland, Riley, “Organizing Counterinsurgency in Malaya 1947-1960.” Memorandum RM 4171-ISA. September 1964. The Rand Corporation. Santa Monica, Ca.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Rose, Gideon. How Wars End: Why We Always Fight the Last Battle. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. 3-4.

[vi] Sunderland, Riley, “Organizing Counterinsurgency in Malaya 1947-1960.” Memorandum RM 4171-ISA. September 1964. The Rand Corporation. Santa Monica, Ca.

[vii] “Mattis Gives White House Plan to Defeat ISIS” http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/28/mattis-gives-white-house-tentative-plan-rapid-defeat-isis.html