Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: "How a Revolution Saved an Empire" (NYT, 5 July)

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    24

    Default "How a Revolution Saved an Empire" (NYT, 5 July)

    "How a Revolution Saved an Empire," by British General Michael Rose (free reg. required for link):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/opinion/05rose.html

    Unfortunately for Britain, he [George III] attempted to fight a conventional war against insurgents, and sent far too few troops across the Atlantic to accomplish the mission. Although they initially took New York and Philadelphia, the British subsequently failed to adjust to a counterinsurgency strategy against the “war of the posts” that George Washington adopted after his defeat at Germantown, Pa., in October 1777.

    Instead of trying to isolate the rebels and gain the support of the loyalist and uncommitted colonials, the British spent much of their time defending their bases and maintaining their supply lines, only occasionally venturing out on punitive expeditions. They never succeeded in cutting off the heartland of rebel resistance in New England by taking control of the Hudson River Valley. Nor was the British Army — the finest in the world — ever able to establish sufficient security in the countryside or counter rebel propaganda. It soon came to be regarded as foreign occupation force.

    Finally, the British were never able to prevent a steady flow of arms, ammunition, instructors and fighters from entering the colonies from abroad. Thus Washington, whose Continental Army was down to a few thousand fit soldiers, managed to survive the harsh winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge and rebuild his military strength. When the British switched their main effort to the Southern colonies, Nathanael Greene, probably the most successful insurgent leader in military history until Mao Zedong, was able to wear down Cornwallis’s army in the Carolinas to a point where Washington, now reinforced by the French, was able to beat the British in a conventional battle at Yorktown.
    Bob

    "Amid all the terrors of battle I was so busily engaged in Harvard Library that I never even heard of ... [it] until it was completed." —A student a few miles up the road from Bunker Hill, 17 June 1775

  2. #2
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RJO View Post
    "How a Revolution Saved an Empire," by British General Michael Rose (free reg. required for link):

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/opinion/05rose.html



    Bob
    So is this a sideways critique of Iraq?

    (By the way, someone needs to tell the general that we didn't do "propaganda," we did "strategic communications.")

  3. #3
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    So is this a sideways critique of Iraq?

    (By the way, someone needs to tell the general that we didn't do "propaganda," we did "strategic communications.")
    Like beauty, "propaganda" is perhaps in the eye of the beholder. The usual designation I see attached to Thomas Paine is "pamphleteer." I wonder if Ayman Al Zawahiri (the Egyptian optometrist and #2 to Bin laden, I'm sure I butchered the spelling of his name) considers himself now the Thomas Paine of Al Qaeda? Or perhaps Leon Trotsky? I heard that his latest video communique is quite lengthy.
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  4. #4
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus View Post
    Like beauty, "propaganda" is perhaps in the eye of the beholder. The usual designation I see attached to Thomas Paine is "pamphleteer." I wonder if Ayman Al Zawahiri (the Egyptian optometrist and #2 to Bin laden, I'm sure I butchered the spelling of his name) considers himself now the Thomas Paine of Al Qaeda? Or perhaps Leon Trotsky? I heard that his latest video communique is quite lengthy.
    I've never seen Zawahiri referred to as an optometrist before. I thought he supposedly was a surgeon.

  5. #5
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Well, according to Wikipedia, he has a degree in surgery. You're right. I was aware he was a medical man, not sure where I got the idea that his specialty was optical. Probably from some terror expert on television.

    Maybe I'm confusing the good doctor with some other terrorist-physician. It seems to be the rage these days. They are giving the term "doctors without borders" a new meaning, altogether. I'm curious if these doctors from Muslim countries have anything like the Hippocratic Oath.
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    78

    Default

    If people would care about historical parallels, they would have laughed when someone proposed to invade Afghanistan and stay there till some (whatever) job was done...

  7. #7
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lastdingo View Post
    If people would care about historical parallels, they would have laughed when someone proposed to invade Afghanistan and stay there till some (whatever) job was done...
    And they did laugh. And a single special forces group quickly accomplished it by going in, becoming native, and using indigenous forces and assets such as air power to do what the British and Russians were never able to do over an extended period of time. What that SF Group did was nothing less than historic. Then the Big Army got involved and then NATO got involved. Two bureaucratic monsters that can ruin a wet dream.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  8. #8
    Council Member Tacitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bristol, Tennessee
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    ... do what the British and Russians were never able to do over an extended period of time. What that SF Group did was nothing less than historic.
    I've always gotten the impression that the British crown jewel in the region was India. India was what mattered, and what they wanted for their empire. Did they really see much of value in Afghanistan? Was Afghanistan only significant because it contained seemingly ungovernable warlike tribes which threatened Pakistan (which was a part of India at that time)? Just wondering if trying to rule the Afghans was really the goal there. More likely that in London they viewed the place as a buffer state between the British Empire and Tsarist Russia.

    As for the Russians, I guess they were able to grab control of Kabul and install a puppet regime there, but not much beyond that. The view from the Kremlin might be that we have accomplished about the same thing. Namely, a mayor friendly to our interests to in Kabul, with not much authority beyond the city limits. Long dead British generals and retired Soviet commanders wouldn't necessarily view that as having accomplished mission impossible.

    Now building a stable Afghan state with recognized authority over all the country, with ultimtely loyalty to the head of state, at peace with those around it. Accomplish THAT and we'd really have something to crow about to the old British Empire and USSR. That would be a strategic victory. As it currently stands, I bet if you withdrew American combat forces from Aghanistan, the Taliban would be in charge in Kabul before you knew it.
    Last edited by Tacitus; 07-07-2007 at 01:52 PM. Reason: typo
    No signature required, my handshake is good enough.

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    78

    Default

    It was rarely a problem to get into Afhanistan in the right season, or to install yourself in power in Kabul.
    The historical pattern is that every foreigner was thrown out after some time, even if he felt secure in power in the meantime.

    The SF approach in the beginning was indeed successful in turning the civil war, the communities and their militias changed sides like dominos.
    But I bet the politicians in Washington and London did never consider to really leave asap, and that was utter stupidity.
    The Northern alliance would most likely hold the Taleban away with some support, there was absolutely no need to waste troops and ressources on a highly questionable democratic experiment.

  10. #10
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tacitus View Post

    Now building a stable Afghan state with recognized authority over all the country, with ultimtely loyalty to the head of state, at peace with those around it. Accomplish THAT and we'd really have something to crow about to the old British Empire and USSR.
    Wouldn't that be a misnomer considering that that even the Ottoman Empire knew that was not feasible? And that doesn't just pertain to Afghanistan as well. "Manifest Destiny" is not the goal of the Global War on Terror. It also goes against COIN doctrine.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    Green and Francis Marion had an easy time of it in the woods and swamps with real red coats to aim at and the fighting amongst Loyalists and Patriots was never fully exploited by the British. They had more fights amongst themselves than against the Brits. It probably all boils down to Banastre Tarleton just like it will all boil down to Pretraeus where one man can carry all of history on his back for one brief, flaming moment.

    "I never liked a General who couldn't for brief periods of time wear an Emperor's crown." (Hezzakiah Goesh, 1781)

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Afghanistan was always relatively easy

    Culpepper I agree that the SF Group did an outstanding and heroic job up using guts and technology to oust the Taliban. There were several factors that played into that victory, to include a plug and play resistance force just standing by waiting for a little help, etc., and an incompetent enemy. Now we're doing the hard work, no glory, just hard work and the outcome remains uncertain.

    The fact is that the Soviets and the Brits both rapidly conquered Afghanistan also, but gradually the tide turned against them. They did it with conventional armies, not small specialized teams and air power, largely because that capability didn't exist at that time. The outcome of the initial invasion was never in question (the amount of risk was in question, but not the final outcome never), but the hardest part from a strategic perspective started after the fall of the Taliban. The Soviets spent 10 or so years in Afghanistan, so we can compare outcomes after we get to our 10 year mark. I'm almost certain our results will be much better than the Soviets, but the final outcome is still very much in question. I have to agree with Lastdingo, conquer Afghanistan and stay to do what?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •