Indian War parallels

[Rifleman]

In spite of the frequent rhetoric about "another Vietnam," etc., the author makes a case that the GWOT is best compared to the Indian Wars. Agree or disagree I found the comparison interesting.


The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is, like all historical events, unique. But both its supporters and opponents compare it to past U.S. military conflicts. The Bush administration and the neocons have drawn parallels between GWOT and World War II as well as GWOT and the Cold War. Joshua E. London, writing in the National Review, sees the War on Terror as a modern form of the struggle against the Barbary pirates. Vietnam and the Spanish-American War have been preferred analogies for other commentators. A Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, Anne Applebaum, says that the war in Iraq might be like that in Korea, because of "the ambivalence of their conclusions." For others, the War on Terror, with its loose rhetoric, brings to mind the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs."

I'd like to suggest another way of looking at the War on Terror: as a twenty-first century continuation of, or replication of, the American Indian wars, on a global scale. This is by no means something that has occurred to me alone, but it has received relatively little attention. Here are ten reasons why I'm making this suggestion:

Complete article here:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0120-20.htm

[goesh]

I couldn't argue against the Indian wars analogy. Most everything we need to know is already there. One nagging element of comparison is the problems caused by translators who either by incompetence or complicity create all kinds of tactical and political problems. The classic example IMHO occured in 1877 when Crazy Horse the principal war leader of the Lakota brought in his band. They came in fully armed, undefeated. At the same time, Chief Joseph and Looking Glass of the Nez Perce were causing problems to the West. Crazy Horse was approached in an effort to enlist his help against the Nez Perce. Lakota oral tradition tells that during the meeting of some Officers and Crazy Horse, CH told them, " I will fight them until they are no more". There were several Lakota present at this meeting. The interpretor told the Officers present that CH said, " I will fight you until you are no more". This then caused his attempted arrest and subsequent killing. This in turn caused Sitting Bull to keep his band out for another 5 years and many Lakota say the killing of CH was a prime factor in the Lakota participation in the Ghost Dancing, which in turn caused more problems in 1890. The last Indian combat occured in 1973 at Wounded Knee II when Lakota militants occupied that site and had a stand off. Federal forces, Marshals and FBI, and Indian warriors exchanged gunfire more than once. This action also resulted in a fire fight at the Jumping Bull compound later on which resulted in 2 Marshals KIA. Incidentally, there was Ghost Dancing at Wounded Knee II and at least one authentic Ghost Dance shirt from the previous dust-up was worn. Two Medicine Men, Crow Dog and his Uncle, played a significant role at WK II. I don't think we've ever fully understood the interplay of spirituality and combat but that's a topic for another discussion. It's all been done already starting with King Philip's War in the 1600s to Wounded Knee II in 1973.

[Bill Moore]

I read the article, and personally think the author is grasping at straws. The Indian wars were not wars of ideology, but rather conquest and while not genocide, it was definitely was racial/cultural. We're coming, join us or get on your reservation.

It was largely an internal war; though other nations used the Indians as surrogates throughout the years.

The war we're fighting now is global (with a homeland defense requirement), it is a war of ideology (political religion) that ultimately will decide what laws and economic models those being fought over will live under. It is a war that is waged on the internet, in the media, mosques around the world, and it is not restricted to tribes (Anyone can become a Muslim from Indonesian, Thailand, N. Africa, Ohio, Canada, etc. regardless of race, not everyone can become an Indian), cover actions, and overtly on the battlefied. It is very much like the cold war, except the nation state (with the possible exception of Iran) isn't the main the threat. Our objective isn't total defeat (we can't do it), but rather to win over large segments of the Muslim population to a non-radical view. During the Cold War our objective was win over large segments of the global population from communism to other forms of government and economic models (we didn't start pushing democracy that hard until after the collapse of the USSR, we didn't have that luxury until then).

There may be several loose parallels to the Indian wars, but it is a stretch, and not near as close a parallel as the Cold War in my opinion.

[120mm]

I think the current GWOT is very very parallel to the 300 years Indian War on the N. American continent, in theme. Two conflicting cultures which are non-compatible;

The role of "young bucks" committing acts of terror, regardless of their elders.

The back and forth "embracing of the noble savages" alternating with "kill all the bastards" attitude..

Yep, very familiar.

The settling of the West was not a planned, purposeful event, uniformly supported. The farther you headed East, the more sympathy there was for the Indian, and blame for the settlers. The rhetoric in the press was similar, also. Lots of "noble savage" publishing, but Easterners could get worked up right after an Indian massacre.

[Steve Blair]

There are certain strong similarities, but the parallel is not exact. But I also don't see much similarity with the Cold War model. The parallels with the Indian Wars are mostly in the tactical and operational areas. The only similarity I see with the Cold War is the scope of the AO.

Pressed for time now. When I have a chance I'll post some of the Indian Wars parallels I see. Been doing a fair amount of thinking about this one.

[Rifleman]

It occurs to me that there are some similarities between the Army today and the fronter era Army.

The frontier era Army often had small units scattered across large geographical areas instead of the massed formations of the Civil War. Many of the officers were never quite comfortable with that too. They would have preferred the Civil War's massed formations and large cavalry actions. Some officers today are not really comfortable with COIN, low intensity operations, etc.

The frontier era Army was often understrength and accepted troops that were not really qualified. In that case it was often immigrants that could barely speak English. Today the Army is lowering educational standards, raising age limits, and waiving gang tattoos. But either way they often had/have a less than ideal troop.

During the Civil War the entire country was at war, but America was not on a war footing for the Indian Wars. The Army was at war but not the nation. While there were political activists, many citizens in the east scarcely thought about it. America as a whole isn't at war today either. Not like during WWII. The military is at war, America is at the mall.