On Trolls of the world unite - a love letter from an admirer received today - must be a Trump supporter

Name: Evaristo Lecuona

Email Address: d.azteca69@gmail.com

Subject: Some feedback

Message: Well, I'll be sucint: there are big dick-headed pricks and then there's you, Mr. Professional Writer. I won't even dive into your horrible iranian terrorist name, that'be xenophobic and I rather differ to your lack of civility. I see on your twitter page that you're 73, and as I've read recently the most proclive people to succumbing to the novel coronavirus are the elderly. I sincerely hope you hike through this doom-like pandemic with your health intact, I truly do, so that you can see your impatience slapped and thrust deep down into the darkness of your condemned soul. 

On the key differences between European conventional warfare and colonial warfare in the late 19th and early 20th centuries

The fundamental difference between European conventional warfare and colonial warfare was the asymmetric nature of the belligerents. These distant wars were waged with little guidance from the European governments, relying instead on a handful of soldier-politicians or businessmen, and their small armies, to subdue the native population for economic gain. Racist ideologies, coupled with brutal military operations against insurgent and civilian alike, were hallmarks of asymmetric wars.[1]

European conventional warfare is rooted in maneuver warfare as epitomized by 17th and 18th century campaigns conducted by professional soldiers and mercenaries. It was replaced by a new war, the levée en masse, or conscription, during the French Revolutionary Wars in 1793. It mobilized all the state’s resources under the guidance of a political authority to seek decisions on the battlefield against peer or near-peer enemies. This became the hallmark of European conventional warfare.

Colonial warfare was never waged under European conditions of equality. Overseas warfare pitted asymmetric forces against the encroaching European powers. The weaker actors avoided direct battles, striking intermittently, thereby protracting the uneven struggle into a war of attrition.  

Beja - Sudanese Warrior

Although colonies were important for the economic growth of European powers, commitment from Europe remained absent. The distance to colonies, and national interests focused elsewhere, meant that overseas investment was low and dependent on regional commanders - men on the peripheral edges of European life, the colonial officers.[2] The French colonial experience was driven by officers who sought to make the conquered part of the empire, have a profitable economic relationship, and to reinvigorate a national purpose against their perceived malaise of Republican France.[3] Colonies were intended to make France great again. Because the European governments did not fully support overseas expansions, settlers and business interests such as the British East India Company or the German East Africa Company, aggressively used their freedom from political oversight to expand their holdings. Colonial warfare’s aim was the subjugation of the natives for power and financial gain. 

European forces sought decisive battles against larger hostile, often ill-armed and ill-disciplined, armies ranging from European-trained armies to fanatical devotees to guerrillas.[4] Open battles resulted in the wholesale slaughter of the indigenous force.[5] Thus small war fighting became dominant and was conducted by guerilla forces much to the frustration of the regular armies. One such example was the raiding tactic employed by T.E. Lawrence’s Arabs during the Great War who formalized these experiences into a theory on guerrilla war.[6] Theirs required mobility, security, time and doctrine but, importantly, popular support and propaganda.[7]

Colonial warfare practitioners were not respected by their European counterparts and failed to rally the military institutions to their cause.[8] Their means were limited and there was no glory in overseas service. Joseph Gallieni and Hubert Lyautey, for example, the creators of the oil-spot doctrime in Indochina, one of expanding the military footprint in a hostile region, did not bring their colonial warfighting experiences to the French army upon their return but instead sought to learn the latest European military theories. [9] The carrot and stick as well as the oil-spot counterinsurgency doctrines remained exclusively a colonial military application.

Colonial wars had two components; insurgencies, resisting a foreign invader or fighting a civil war often involving third parties; and counterinsurgencies, requiring adaptability to each unique insurgency. Much like any war, no insurgencies are ever the same but British colonial officer Charles Callwell saw colonial warfare in three distinct classes: ‘campaigns of conquest or annexation, campaigns for the suppression of insurrections or lawlessness or for the settlement of conquered or annexed territory, and campaigns undertaken to wipe out an insult, to avenge a wrong, or to overthrow a dangerous enemy’.[10] The first campaign is directed against tangible centers of gravity, the second campaign of pacification is waged against an indeterminate force that entails ‘the crushing of a populace in arms and the stamping out of widespread disaffection by military methods.’[11] Callwell’s campaigns, exemplified by the latter, were primarily punitive expeditions against savage enemies.

British colonial-era Gatling machine-guns

Colonial warfare on the whole was attritional because of its asymmetry. Few indigenous societies withstood an outright military debacle.[12]  Insurgencies promised survival. Colonial soldiering required ‘imagination, judgement, and special skills, not stiff obedience or Prussian formations’.[13] Mobile forces, lightly armed in smaller columns, instead of divisions with all their accompanying logistical trains, required freedom from European doctrine. Indigenous forces who sought to modernize suffered because of changes brought about in the political and social realms. Native governments may have had a weak central authority or were politically fragmented.[14] An increase in modernization often led to financial ruin forcing the rulers to join the Europeans thus creating additional upheaval.[15] Therefore, low technology insurgencies dominated colonial warfare.

Few theoreticians thought of guerrilla warfare as part of a revolutionary effort until the Irish Republican Party used guerrilla tactics for political ends from 1919 to 1921.[16] Their impact on other revolutionary movements was later seen in Burma, India and Palestine.[17] Politically grounded insurgencies emerged after the Second World War with the rise of nationalism and communism. Whereas in pre-modern war and colonial warfare the goal was to return to the status quo, the era after witnessed revolutionary warfare intending to create a new political order.[18]

Counterinsurgency tactics involved outright killing, deportations, and scorched earth policies. French operations in the 19th century in North Africa, including the use of punitive raids and the wholesale murder of families, were brutal and despite the adjustment to mobile columns less than successful. Part of colonial warfare included the attempt to win over the local population in an effort to suffocate their support for the insurgents – the carrot and stick doctrine or the hearts and minds campaigns. Building infrastructure, endeavoring to create a better educational and health care system were accompanied by harsh methods including mass arrests and wholesale population relocation. One such an example can be found in the unsuccessful oil-spot strategy in French Indochina.[19] The carrot and stick approach sometimes yielded results but winning the hearts and minds of the natives was grounded in common butcher and bolt raids using indiscriminate violence.[20] Success came by the sword.

Unlike in European wars, counterinsurgencies were racist and used excessive force despite contrary claims that minimal force was used while conducting hearts and minds campaigns.[21] Force was driven by racist ideologies prevalent during its time. Although dehumanization is common in war, it took on racial overtones with the sentiment of Europeans civilizing the overseas savages and that the civilized would prevail.[22] Colonial warfare was cruel and brutal outside of what would have been acceptable in European conventional warfare. Indiscriminate slaughter and the use of experimental weapons, such as the exploding Dum-Dum bullet, were used against the so-called savages but were outlawed in Europe.[23] German tactics included the wholesale murder of the Herrero and Nama and by driving survivors into the desert to die of thirst.[24] The troublesome Boer insurgents and civilians were also labeled as criminal or less than white, allowing for their incarceration and wholesale destruction in concentration camps.[25]

COpyright: http://peacehistory-usfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/imperial-middleeast-Copy.jpg

Another difference to European warfare was that indigenous forces held the strategic advantage because of their lack of centers of gravity which were present in European conventional war.[26] The tactical advantage lay with the colonial armies because of their discipline, organization, technological superiority and firepower.[27] Population removal, absence of legal systems, lack of oversight from their own governments, fortification systems to stem raids, concentration camps, mobile columns, raids, and the carrot-stick approach of building houses and infrastructure became the counterinsurgents’ tools. But unrestrained force by the counterinsurgents was the true driving force in colonial warfare.

Colonialism died a slow death after World War Two but the cultural imprint of the colonialists remains imbedded in the former colonies. German, French and English languages and institutions exist in their former colonies. Winning the hearts and minds of the natives through the carrot and stick approach, or through excellent governance as Thomas Mockatitis sees the hearts and minds campaigns, are irrelevant because fundamentally a superior foreign country is in power, using brutal means of oppression to achieve its goals.[28]Excesses committed in colonies against savages would not have been tolerated in a European conventional war during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Drawing lessons from colonial insurgencies and counterinsurgencies, asymmetric warfare, for modern use are illusionary.[29] Although there are historical differences between European conventional warfare and colonial asymmetric warfare, it remains that war is war, each unique, each an act of violence to impose one’s will over the opponent. [30]

Bibliography

BOOKS

Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age 1986., edited by Gordon A. Craig, Peter Paret, Felix Gilbert and Gordon A. A. Craig. Princeton: Princeton University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=5614083.

Understanding Counterinsurgency : Doctrine, Operations, and Challenges 2010., edited by Thomas Rid, Thomas Keaney. London: Routledge. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=515345.

Beckett, Ian and Ian F. Beckett. 2001. Modern Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies: Guerrillas and their Opponents since 1750. London: Routledge. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=178848.

Callwell, Colonel C. E. 1996. Small Wars. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.

Newsinger, John. 2015. British Counterinsurgency. 2nd edition. ed. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Porch, Douglas. 2013. Counterinsurgency: Exposing the Myths of the New Way of WarCambridge: Cambridge University Press.

von Clausewitz, Karl. 1943. On War. Translated by O. J. Matthijs Jolles. New York: The Modern Library.

Walter, Dierk. 2017. Colonial Violence. Translated by Peter Lewis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

JOURNALS

Desai, Raj and Harry Eckstein. 1990. "Insurgency: The Transformation of Peasant Rebellion." World Politics 42 (4): 441-465. doi:10.2307/2010510. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010510.

Mockaitis, Thomas R. 2012. "The Minimum Force Debate: Contemporary Sensibilities Meet Imperial Practice." Small Wars & Insurgencies 23 (4-5): 762-780. doi:10.1080/09592318.2012.709766. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2012.709766.

Scheipers, Sibylle. 2015. "The use of Camps in Colonial Warfare." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 43 (4): 678-698. doi:10.1080/03086534.2015.1083230. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2015.1083230.

Selth, Andrew. 1991. "Ireland and Insurgency: The Lessons of History." Small Wars & Insurgencies 2 (2): 299-322. Doi:10.1080/09592319108422983. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592319108422983.

Steinmetz, George. 2005. The First Genocide of the 20th Century and its Postcolonial Afterlives: Germany and the Namibian Ovaherero. Vol. 12. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jii/4750978.0012.201/--first-genocide-of-the-20th-century-and-its-postcolonial?rgn=main;view=fulltext.

Wagner, Kim A. 2018. "Savage Warfare: Violence and the Rule of Colonial Difference in Early British Counterinsurgency." History Workshop Journal 85 (1): 217-237. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/691159/summary.

Whittingham, Daniel. 2012. "‘Savage Warfare’: C.E. Callwell, the Roots of Counter-Insurgency, and the Nineteenth Century Context." Small Wars & Insurgencies 23 (4-5): 591-607. doi:10.1080/09592318.2012.709769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2012.709769.

MULTIMEDIA

"Grievances and Demands – the Twelve Articles of the Swabian Peasants (February 27-March 1, 1525)" German History in Documents and Images., accessed May 9, 2019, http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=4323.

"Wars & Conflict: 1916 Easter Rising - Aftermath: The Anglo-Irish War.” BBC.,
accessed May 3, 2019, https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/aftermath/af04.shtml.

Browne, O'B. "Creating Chaos: Lawrence of Arabia and the 1916 Arab Revolt.”, http://www.historynet.com/creating-chaos-lawrence-of-arabia-and-the-1916-arab-revolt.htm.

[1] Mockaitis (2012) p.776 for contemporary racism

[2] Porch (1996) p.v

[3] Porch (1986) p.406

[4] Beckett (2001) p.12

[5] Wagner (2018) pp.227-9

[6] Browne (2010)

[7] Beckett (2001) p.20 

[8] Rid (2010) p.11

[9] Porch (2013) p.32, p.404, Rid (2010) p.13p

[10] Callwell (1996) p.25

[11] Callwell (1996) p.26

[12] Porch (1996) p.xv

[13] Porch (1986) p.404

[14] Walter (2017) pp.264-5

[15] Porch (1996) p.xvi

[16] Seith (1991) p. 301, BBC (2014)

[17] Seith (1991) pp. 302-5

[18] Desai (1990) pp.446-7, Lotzer (1525)

[19] Porch (2013) p.168

[20] Whittingham (2012) p.592

[21] Porch (2013), Newsinger (2015), Wagner (2018) p.221

[22] Whittingham (2012) p.592

[23] Wagner (2018) pp.223-30

[24] Steinmetz (2005) p.3

[25] Beckett (2001) pp.38-40, Scheipers (2015) p.679

[26] Clausewitz (1943) 4.9 

[27] Beckett (2001) p.33

[28] Mockaitis (2012) p.777

[29] Mockaitis (2012) p.777

[30] Clausewitz (1943) 1.1

On Writing on the battle of Zama - the most decisive battle of the Second Punic War and why losing sucks

The battle of Zama, fought in North Africa around 202 BC, was the defining battle of the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) – it ended the war leaving Carthage defeated and destitute because of egregious Roman war reparation. Hannibal and his mostly inexperienced and undertrained army was defeated by a well-drilled Roman army under Scipio, along with large numbers of local Numidian horsemen seeking independence from Carthage, who proved crucial toward the end of the battle. I suggested that the Numidians may very well have been the reason Rome won the battle. But the battle was a close-run thing and could have been won by Hannibal were it not for the timely arrival of the Roman allied Numidian horsemen in the back of Hannibal’s last and most experienced veteran line. The Romans nearly broke again to the genius of the great Carthaginian. But alas not this time. The Roman war machine marched on for centuries… 

I had stopped writing books around 2008 or 2009 and focused on scripts… there were some mild successes but nothing that garnered a sale or an agent – no surprise there. My wife in the meanwhile started her career and excelled at it, allowing me the luxury to return to non-fiction writing. 

Around 2015, I approached Marcus Cowper who had returned to Osprey Publishing and he approved a Campaign Series book on Zama – that was my first book after about six to seven years. Nikolai Bogdanovic was my editor and it was a happy reunion – at least for me – ha! Marcus also picked the magnificent artist Peter Dennis to illustrate the book with three amazing color plates spread throughout https://peterspaperboys.com/pages/about . Zama became a 96-page monograph with about 40K words of original work and rewrites – Nikolai did a fine job and it ended with around 31-33K words for the final text.

The great little book I wrote in 2016 COpyright: Osprey Publishing

Additionally, I had to secure image rights and present Peter Dennis all the art references – although he really did not need them since he is a world class military artist - but importantly, I had to articulate what I wanted the paintings to show. I was so happy with Peter’s work that I asked my wife to buy all three originals which now adorn my small office. They are great. I stare at them daily, imaging, perhaps even reliving, the great tragedy unfolding in those lovely three prints. The fear, the sweat, toil, blood and horror of ancient butchery – man-on-man… the killing and maiming of elephants and horses… terrible to ponder really.

I am including the image of the opening sequence of the battle, the Carthaginian far right looking at the far left Roman line, in which young and untrained Carthaginian elephants (one of the greatest cruelties inflicted by man on animal) are turned back onto their own lines. Significantly, it shows the Roman lines forming tunnels, instead of checkerboard pattern always associated with Republican Legions, to make the elephants run through a gauntlet of Roman troops intend on killing them, thereby negating a possible collision with the small-sized elephants. 

Additionally, I had to secure image rights and present Peter Dennis all the art references – although he really did not need them since he is a world class military artist - but importantly, I had to articulate what I wanted the paintings to show. I was so happy with Peter’s work that I asked my wife to buy all three originals which now adorn my small office. They are great. I stare at them daily, imaging, perhaps even reliving, the great tragedy unfolding in those three prints. The fear, the sweat, toil, blood and horror of ancient butchery – man-on-man… the killing and maiming of elephants and horses… terrible to ponder really.

I am including the image of the opening sequence of the battle, the Carthaginian far right looking at the far left Roman line, in which young and untrained Carthaginian elephants (one of the greatest cruelties inflicted by man on animal) are turned back onto their own lines. Significantly, it shows the Roman lines forming tunnels, instead of checkerboard pattern always associated with Republican Legions, to force the elephants through a gauntlet of Roman light troops intend on killing them, thereby negating collisions with the small elephants. 

Opening of the battle. Copyright: Osprey Publishing Artist: Peter Dennis

The North African forest elephant was rather small actually but is often shown as one of those great Indian elephants carrying towers on their backs. Arguably the greatest (and saddest) scene ever in film is captured in Oliver Stone’s Alexander – an incredible, and coincidental simultaneous rearing of Alexander’s horse and the Indian King Porus’s elephant. I believe the Indian elephant used in the film was killed by a poacher a few years ago. Typical.

The image shows the four distinct Roman units – velites (light skirmishers) who usually initiate battle but are in this case retreating and reforming along the backs of the now front-rank line troops called hastati (meaning spearmen even though they use pila) as they harass, capture or kill the elephants through the tunnels.  Behind the hastati are more seasoned troops named principes, and the final line is composed of veteran and heavily armored troops, the triarii, armed with long, classical spears instead of pila. These four types composed the manipular legion. A maniple is a tactical unit. Each legion was, on paper, composed of 1,200 men each except for the last line of veterans who were half that size. Roman cavalry was virtually non-existent, about 300 per legion, hence the crucial need to ally with the greatest horsemen of their time the Numidian light cavalry. Peter Dennis captures the moment when the Roman and allied cavalry will exploit the elephants turning into their own cavalry and foot. We see just the beginning of it. Despite this early set back the Romans were almost annihilated by Hannibal’s three lines facing Scipio’s army. 

Another point of note is that in my opinion and as depicted here - and there is no proof of how the maniples actually deployed forward into battle other than the checkerboard pattern before battle ensued, called the triple acies – the Romans are deploying forward and outward from a maniple formation to fill in the gaps between each maniple in a fan-like manner. Kind of like from a fist (the maniple) to a spread-out hand with the front growing in width with each maniple covering half of the gap between the standard deployment of the maniples. 

There were three great wars. Ultimately Rome prevailed and ‘canceled’ out the great culture and civilization of Carthage. Something like 50,000 survivors out of maybe 250,000-300,000 were sold into slavery, the rest killed and the city of Carthage was laid to waste – a Roman city was built in its stead.

Overall, I think Zama turned out to be a great little book on the decisive battle of the Second Punic War. Buy the book it is a very good primer on the conflict and provides a detailed account of the armies and battle - and no I do not make royalties from it - work-for-hire. So it is not a shameless plug – this time. https://ospreypublishing.com/zama-202-bc

Algerian artist Hocine Ziani’s magnificent painting of a Numidian cavalryman captures the essence of the ancient North African horsemen. I originally believed this to have been a representation of Hannibal but Hocine clarified that it was indeed a Numidian horseman. For more wonderful art see his website https://www.ziani.eu/en-gb/galerie Copyright: Hocine Ziani

On Cancel Culture – it does not exist – it is called accountability.

On Cancel Culture. It does not exist – it’s called accountability. 

If you are one of those jerks who feels that being a racist and/or being an idiot, like self-proclaimed contrarians, is okay – well then, you do have a right to say what you want.  But you also should be prepared for being held accountable for what you’ve said. If you create a toxic work place, for example, you should be fired. It is simple, really. Of course it is imperfect, but the rule is very simple – treat people properly, with respect (dare I say, even kindness). You don’t have to be a dick. 

Accountability is largely absent within our society – injustices occur daily and we are at an inflection point where justice appears to be on the verge of total collapse. Case in point, all of Trump’s felon associates – most of whom have escaped genuine justice. The most notable is Trump himself, who has never been held accountable in his life. Multiple bankruptcies, lots of money received from the Feds, Trump is a real piece of the work who represents the worst of America and capitalism…

Let’s take a look at recently released animal rights activist Walter Bond who served 10 years for property damage. “I was arrested in 2010 for a string of arsons spanning Colorado and Utah which I did commit under the moniker ALF (Animal Liberation Front) ‘Lone Wolf’… I have never been allowed a visit in all my time in prison.” Shocking really, 10 years for property damage! (http://supportwalter.org)

Now let us take a look at a couple of other cases – Roger Stone was found guilty of seven felonies, including witness tampering and lying to federal investigators. His punishment was a paltry 40 months, the prosecutors assigned to the case sought 7-9 years, but even this light sentence was commuted by his beneficiaries and fellow crooks, Donald Trump and William Barr. Stone is also friendly with the Proud Boys and seemingly loves Putin, a conspiracy theorist and probably a racist. Never mind his crimes or lack of any moral compass - no justice here. But 10 years for Walter Bond for doing right by animals, motivated by his moral beliefs.

I’m not beating up on the morally-bankrupt Republican Toxic Party only – we can also find an example of failure to hold the powerful accountable in looking at Diane Feinstein, supposedly a Democrat and senator from California. Billions of dollars were awarded to her husband, Richard Blum (Perini Corp, URS), in military appropriations in an apparent conflict of interest by the sub-committee she served on for years and sometimes headed. 

During Feinstein’s service as a member of the United States Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON), as reported by Peter Byrne and covered in Businesswire:

• From 1997 through the end of 2005, with Feinstein’s knowledge, her husband’s group held a majority interest in two defense contractors active in Iraq and U.S. military bases.

• While setting MILCON agendas, Feinstein supervised her own staff of military construction experts and lobbied Pentagon officials in public hearings.

• From 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by MILCON; Perini secured $759 million from MILCON projects.

SF Gate reported on federal contracts worth potentially billions awarded to Blum’s company – in just the period of February through April 2003 - for troop mobilization, weapons systems training, and anti-terrorism efforts.

And so what happened when these unchecked conflicts of interest of committee member Feinstein were revealed? Not too much. Never mind her recent stock sales – after Congress was briefed but ahead of the American public being informed of the full extent anticipated from the arrival of Covid19 to the U.S. Again, no justice. Instead, Feinstein continues to wield power to the detriment of American citizens (including sponsoring the 2005 Patriot Act and the 2007 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the basis for Bond’s ten-year sentence). 

Former opinionist Barri Weiss recently made a stink as she left her position with the NY Times, publishing a carefully-written resignation letter that described feeling bullied by left-wing colleagues and perceived restrictions on her right to free speech. The resignation letter she posted did not reference her own long-term attacks on viewpoints she disagreed with. In 2018, Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Intercept:

I’ve watched as Weiss has become celebrated in right-wing circles as some sort of paragon of free expression and academic freedom, and mourned by centrists as the tragic victim of online PC mob silencing campaigns (imagine being a columnist and editor at the New York Times — with full access to the most influential media platform in the world — and seeing yourself as the victim of silencing and censorship), even though her entire career is grounded in precisely the viewpoint suppression, vilification, and censorship campaigns she now depicts herself as loathing.

Never mind the rest of her ilk – the propagandists employed by Fox Fake News like Hannity and Carlson. If there is a cancel culture, how could they still be on the air?

A group of distinguished writers and scholars recently lamented the stifling of free speech (https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ ). Some of the signatories are notably guilty of their own suppression of opposing viewpoints – yet they have the luxury of doing so from their privileged position as established writers.  Ironic. It’s as if they view the audacity of criticizing their arguments as an attack on society at large.  While the internet has enabled too many trolls, to paint a broad brush against all critics of your values and arguments as a threat “cancelling” you, is disingenuous at best. 

How to debate when the other party does not care to engage in good faith? If no matter how much talking is done – at every turn they don’t care, dispute facts. and deny science (for example), and will never yield? What then is the point? We are not talking about international relations – we are talking about American discourse or the lack thereof. How do you debate a fanatic?

Accountability of those in power is the most important tool in a democracy (and Republics, for those seeing the USA as such). We need to hold people, especially those in positions of influence, accountable for what they say and advocate. That is the only way to actually ensure freedom of speech and debate and Justice.

No Justice – No Peace. 

PS On the other hand, Norman Finkelstein did get academically destroyed by Jeffrey Epstein’s defense attorney Alan Dershowitz after Norman exposed plagiarism in Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel - there is a lot of stink coming out of Harvard - see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz–Finkelstein_affair . So some good people do get the ax because they have integrity - let’s not forget them during this hysteria brought forth by the right-wing extremists. But that’s another story.

On RIP - the great Ranger Indoctrination Program and that's why Rangers Lead The Way!

Rangers Lead the Way!

“You smell that, son? Nothing in the world smells like that. I love the smell of Georgian red clay in the morning - it smells of victory.”

Sometimes I miss the stench of Georgia’s red clay, bug juice, chiggers and gun stuff... Georgia is the home of Army Ranger training.

THE ABRAMS CHARTER created early in 1974 by the god-father of modern Rangers (post-Vietnam) General Creighton Williams Abrams Jr (1914-1974) set the foundation of the then new Ranger Battalions:

The battalion is to be an elite, light and the most proficient infantry battalion in the world. 

A battalion that can do things with its hands and weapons better than anyone. 

The battalion will contain no “hoodlums or brigands” and if the battalion is formed from such persons it will be disbanded. (NAVSPECWAR take a hint)

Wherever the battalion goes, it must be apparent that it is the best.

One of the reasons the 75th Ranger Regiment is arguably the second best American military unit, top slot goes to Delta, is because of the Charter and its rigid adherence to it – well at least 99% of the time because nothing is perfect – except maybe Rangers and Delta. SEALs come a distant third because of their rather terrible behaviour over the last couple of decades – not all of them of course but enough of them to besmirch their otherwise good reputation. Perhaps even fourth because the US Army Green Berets aren’t too bad – Delta and Green Berets have a ton of Rangers in their respective units. The 75th Ranger Regiment is well-led, well-trained, and superior in all aspects except for Delta. There is a reason why we say “high-speed, low-drag.” We are also Airborne School graduates.

Rangers - Even Navy SEALs need heroes too. Source: Nicholas Moore

There is also such a thing called the Ranger Standard and it actually has stuck in my head ever since those long-lost or foggy memories of being young, dumb and full of cum when standards were hammered into my brain – sometimes painfully, but they were always entertaining. Koalifying was one such thing, Ranger Push-ups another, low-crawling and the endless push-ups, flutter kicks, running and road-marching… oh the joy of it all… if interested check out a small book I wrote called US Army Ranger 1983-2002: Sua Sponte – Of Their Own Accord published in 2003. https://ospreypublishing.com/us-army-ranger-1983-2002 - no royalties, work-for-hire.

The Pit where my teeth lost their virginity. Source: Mir

The Ranger Indoctrination Program (RIP) was three weeks long and conducted after Airborne School which was down the road in much spiffier barracks. The standards were high with the RIP Cadre – most of them were absolute professional, hard-core Rangers, demanding an excellent effort from the volunteers. They also had fun, often at our expense but it was also fun but challenging. The Cadre would kick your ass. “WTF? Bahmanyar, get the fuck up and start again.” I had stopped low crawling one foot or maybe six inches before the finish line – hahahaha. Fun crap. I also had my teeth kicked in during hand-to-hand combat in the PIT – but that’s another story. Some of us participated in nightly barracks horse-with-rider races across not so decent wooden floor planks. Others were allowed to low-crawl for their mail… sweet stuff. We ran everywhere and also conducted a ton of valuable training and more parachute jumps to a Ranger Standard.

Back in the day they had converted the old WW2 Airborne barracks near Cardiac Hill at Fort Benning, Georgia. It had the best accommodations and training facilities of all time – you think I am kidding? They were run down, had more bugs on the floors of the showers than soldiers on post, no toilet stalls whatsoever, and when someone says cold showers… often we’d grab the single hose and quickly rinse ourselves off while others preferred the company of bugs and warm showers… the obstacle courses could have been built in WW2 but I am kidding… we did almost no barracks maintenance – our purpose was to train, not to clean! 

You can chat up your buddies. Source: Mir

I don’t remember exact numbers but we had something like 60-68 RIP students and I think about 14 graduated after half re-took a grueling 12-miler. I am fairly certain seven of us made it the first time around (maybe 10?). In any event, it was a tough course as the numbers bear out – most washed out and stayed on for another entire RIP course while others moved on to meet the needs of the army – no shame in that. There are some great dog soldiers out there. I should mention I broke my ankle in my first RIP class during a parachute jump. And those bastards gave me a two-day notice that I was to start another RIP class – I was not in good shape. Hahaha. We also had Rangers returning to the Regiment from other duty stations and they too had to go through a three-week program called ROP – Ranger Orientation Program? for NCOs and Officers.

You also learned the Ranger Creed:

Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of the Rangers (we used to say my Battalion I seem to recall).

Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one-hundred-percent and then some.

Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well-trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.

Rangers Lead The Way!!!

Mir is the second team leader from the left. I think five or six graduates were from ROP. One of the smallest number of RIP graduates - of all time??? Source: Mir

The Ranger Standard has helped me for better or for worse throughout my life. The good thing is that I have maintained a healthy respect for individuals – you never knew who would drop out or make it. We had some physical studs who quit because they could not handle the harsh training methods and some of the weakest looking dudes would finish even though their rucks looked twice their size. Don’t judge a volunteer by his (and now her) appearance. 

After graduating, you’d be sent to one of the battalions or Regimental Headquarters. Most ended up at the dreaded 3rd Ranger Battalion, right next to HQ and who wanted that? HQ pumped out nothing but new Ranger manuals and so on… phew… anyhow once at a Battalion you might spent one to two years before attending Ranger School. And after completion you kind of had a year left on your contract and many left the military. 

Justice was harsh and swift at the Battalion - if a Ranger did not conduct himself properly, he’d leave the battalion the same day his offence was discovered. Down the street to another unit in the army. The Rangers did have a few malcontents such as bank robbers, or drug abusers and so on but the Battalion took care of the offenders in no uncertain terms. The 75th Ranger Regiment excels because of its adherence to the Abrams Charter and the Ranger Creed.

The strength of the Regiment lies in its privates – it forces the veteran Rangers to maintain high training standards for the new Rangers. Its basics are arguably the best in the military. You know that each Ranger from private to Sergeant-Major knows his Ranger fundamentals.

If you want to read about modern Rangers pick up 2/75 Nicholas Moore’s book, co-written by moi, called Run to the Sound of the Guns. It is excellent – straightforward – no BS - no chest thumping. Published in 2018 – and we get royalties. https://ospreypublishing.com/run-to-the-sound-of-the-guns 

On WW2 Darby Ranger James Altieri and his great book the Spearheaders

The Spearheaders: A Personal History of Darby's Rangers by James J. Altieri with a new introduction by MIr Bahmanyar and Colonel (retired) Mike Kershaw - Naval Institute Press with a release date of October 15, 2014

I had met Jim quite a few times at WW2 Ranger reunions and at his home in Newport Beach. I met him through Phil Stern – a famous Hollywood and Jazz photographer and I will write on Phil in a subsequent post. There is a lot to tell.

Jim was a great old school patriot – well he was old – ha! But we hit it off because of our mutual love for all things Ranger. When Jim passed his storage locker was surreptitiously confiscated and his collection was sold piece by piece on eBay. Eventually a good friend of his hunted me down and I drove south, I was living in LA at the time, and was handed a couple of boxes of his leftover collection. Really sad. But in any event, I dug through it all and still have it now in my basement. I did donate his onionskins of his great book to the curator at the Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland Ranger Museum (I’ll write about my trip there and the great people preserving our Ranger history). It was in Carrickfergus that the original American commandos were founded – the First Ranger Battalion. A bunch of hard charging soldiers of the highest order - superior to Ultramarines if you are a 40K fan.. They were trained by British commandos and participated in a ton of campaigns – Dieppe, North Africa, Sicily, and main land Italy. Eventually they were wiped out near Anzio, Italy. They basically led the way fighting Vichy French, Germans including the Afrika Korps, Italians and more Germans. Some of the survivors joined another elite outfit the Canadian-American First Special Service Force. Jim never revelled in the wartime actions. The battle where his men got wiped out near Anzio is barely covered in his book and neither are the details revealed of the gruesome hand-to-hand combat against Italians in North Africa. That is something to think about. https://www.midandeastantrim.gov.uk/things-to-do/museums-arts/andrew-jackson-cottage/

Jim did a great deal to preserve WW2 Ranger history. I managed to get his old book reprinted by the very kind and professional Susan Brook at the Naval Institute Press. I also found another manuscript on the 6th Ranger Battalion’s raid in 1945 on the POW camp at Cabanatuan, the Philippines. It is missing the first couple of pages but…

 Here is Jim’s bio I wrote for his new/old book released in 2014.

Captain James Altieri. You can see his Ranger BN combat scroll on his shoulder. Source: Mir

James J. Altieri was born in Philadelphia, PA on March 4, 1920 and passed away on April 18, 2008 in Newport Beach, CA. A former steelworker at Lukens Steel Company near Philadelphia, he enlisted on October 8, 1941 and joined the 68th Field Artillery of the First Armored Division. While serving with the 1st AD in Northern Ireland, he volunteered for the 1st Ranger Battalion, which had been officially activated on June 19, 1942. 

Altieri was promoted from First Sergeant to Second Lieutenant with the 4th Ranger Battalion on November 21, 1943 and to First Lieutenant on February 25, 1944. He participated in six campaigns, 17 battles and four assault landings through North Africa, Sicily and Italy and was wounded twice during the Volturno-Venafro Campaign.  The 4th Ranger Battalion was deactivated in October 1944 at Camp Buckner, North Carolina. He was the recipient of the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster and the Combat Infantryman’s Badge. Jim Altieri also served as a Public Relations Officer for the Tennessee Military Authority.  He was honorably discharged in 1946 as a Captain.

After the Second World War Jim ran an unsuccessful campaign as the independent Democratic candidate for Mayor in Philadelphia. 

Jim stayed in touch with many Darby veterans and he even managed to seal the records of the criminal trial in Los Angeles County of Ranger Captain Charles M. “Chuck” Shunstrom who had brazenly robbed a gas station at gunpoint in 1946.

Recalled to active duty in 1951 Jim served with the Army’s Office of Information coordinating the production of Hollywood movies. In this position he supervised the feature long color documentary, This is Your Army.  He was promoted to Major.

After his service Jim continued his career as an author, having written Darby’s Rangers (1945) which inspired the 1958 Warner Brothers film Darby’s Rangers starring the iconic actor James Garner, with his subsequent memoir The Spearheaders (1960) and several screenplays. He served as military technical advisor on films such as Force of Arm (1951) and Darby’s Rangers (1958).  

Jim continued his service to the Ranger community as a civilian, becoming President and Chairman of numerous WWII Ranger associations.  Jim spearheaded the creation of the WWII Ranger Monument at Fort Benning, Georgia. 

From the 1960 edition:

The outlook for a victory of the Allied Powers was dim in the spring of 1942. Britain was being unmercifully bombed and threatened with invasion. Rommel's forces were rampaging across North Africa toward Alexandria. Only two American divisions had arrived in the European theatre. Stationed in Ireland, they were green, untested troops, their combat deployment a matter of speculation even to the high command.

It was then that General Lucien K. Truscott conceived the plan of organizing an American commando unit to be known as the "Rangers," a name made famous in American history. "On every frontier the name has been one of hope for those who required protection; of fear, for those who have lived outside the law."

Major William O. Darby was placed in command of the first Ranger Battalion. Darby proved himself an officer of such extraordinary powers of leadership that his unit was forever after known as "Darby's Rangers." This was the organization destined to be the first American ground forces to battle the Germans in Africa and Europe in World War II.

The Spearheaders is an account from an enlisted man's point of view of the intensely dramatic career of the Rangers from their beginnings as soldiers in Ireland, through their grueling training in Scotland, to their role in the bloody fighting in North Africa, Sicily and Italy.

First Lieutenant James Altieri - note Ranger unit patch on left shoulder. Source: Mir

This is a story of war as intimate and individual as the diaries, letters and memories on which it is based. Here are the courage, determination, hope and occasional moments of weakness of gallant American boys from the "next doors" of Maine and California, Oregon and Florida. Here, too, are unforgettable pictures of the grandeur and misery of war, bawdiness and bloodshed, its triumphs ultimate futilities.

Dominating the aggregation of his startlingly individualized subordinates is the commanding figure of Major Darby himself. Like Caesar he could call each of his men by name, congratulate them: "A helluva shoot . . . every company came through ... a beautiful job… now we got to get our tails out of here"; inspire them: "The outfit that can slip up the enemy and stun him with shock and surprise - that is the outfit that will win battles, and that is the outfit I want"; console them: "I'm sorry . . . damned sorry . . . I knew you would put on a good show."

The Spearheaders is no ordinary war history. In line with present Army doctrine, it demonstrates the value of tough, resourceful, hard-trained troops, capable of swift dispersal and penetration instead of massed movement susceptible to atomic blasts. Its vivid writing, its empathy with those who served, its appreciation of the Ranger spirit more than the Ranger achievements, make it rekindle in the hearts and minds of all Americans the great heritage, proud history and high ideals of their nation.

On Clausewitz - though I hardly grasp the brilliance of On War

former home and now museum at Burg. Source: Mir

Couple or so years ago I traveled to Germany - it may have been to watch a Rammstein concert or ten - but I made a stop at Burg by Magdeburg in Germany. This was the home of the great Prussian war philosopher General Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), who by-the-by served with the Russian army once he became disgruntled with Prussia’s leadership. He returned to Prussian service toward the end of the Napoleonic Wars. He is best known for a series of books on various campaigns but his greatest work was On War which was edited and published by his very brilliant wife Marie (1779-1836). What inspired me to make this sojourn was the excellent book on her written by Vanya Eftimova Bellinger called Marie von Clausewitz: The Woman Behind the Making of On War. I rarely get excited by books nowadays but this one was inspirational and I used it as a guide to not only Burg but also to the church where the Clausewitzs were married in Berlin.

The East German version of Carl. Source: Mir

I am fortunate that I am fluent in German and it served me very well when out of the blue I called the number for the Clausewitz museum in Burg which is housed in his birth home. I met two gentleman but sadly I have forgotten the name of one, the other is the curator Klaus Möbius - well it is probably in a notebook buried in my basement. Nonetheless they were exceptional hosts. I spent two hours listening to them share their knowledge and passion with me. My wife spoke no German and they spoke no English so I translated just the bare bones minimum before her eyes glazed over completely and she drifted off to ancient Egypt no doubt.

In any event, one of them even drove me to the cemetery which was beyond nice and he also stunned me with a gift - an old East German Clausewitz library book, Selected Letters to Marie, that included a coin of Clausewitz - it is one of my most prized positions along with a lovely bronze sculpture of Napoleon that I had inherited from my father. 

Karl - the awesome curator who was looking at retiring - maybe he has by now? Source: Mir

I have read On War in German as well as in English (two translations) and I also wrote about his work way back when at Cal (UC Berkeley) for former Reagan speech writer and neo-conservative Paul Seabury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Seabury) before Cal became tainted with the hiring of torture lawyer and anti-constitutionalist John Yoo. I also wrote about Clausewitz at King’s College London on a course on Strategy taught by Marcus Faulkner. So it has been a subject of interest for decades. 

Perhaps if our civilian and military leadership had actually read On War we might have avoided the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq - but no doubt the neo-cons/military imperialists are better read in Leo Strauss’ work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) and our military leadership was probably too excited about going to war and looking for an increase in their already bloated budget. Plus shiny new medals probably did not hurt either – maybe there were some who actually thought that war in both of those places was the only answer for the loss of 3,000 human beings and counting – let’s not forget the first responders dying of cancer (https://www.firehouse.com/safety-health/news/21084354/firefighters-thank-teary-jon-stewart-before-911-hearing) . The things we could have done for our citizenry and first responders with that money. 

What’s in the book? A coin. I forgot this gentleman’s name. Source: Mir

 It was however a great thing for the 75th Ranger Regiment as it transitioned from an elite light infantry regiment to a unit capable of conduction Tier 1 operations with greater discipline and impact than for example the Navy SEALs. Anyway, that’s a whole other story… 

I thought I’d put some pictures up and if anyone can remember the name of the other passionate Clausewitizian please let me know.

Also some links:

http://www.clausewitz.com

Carl and Marie. Source: Mir

http://clausewitz.com/blogs/VBellinger/2013/08/01/the-clausewitz-museum-in-burg/

https://www.clausewitzstudies.org/mobile/cwzbiblgerman.htm

and a German language one https://www.clausewitz-gesellschaft.de

On Iran - Is Iran a better strategic partner than Saudi Arabia? Yes! To what extent has Iran been a destabilising force in the Middle East since 1989?

The death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 heralded a new era of politics in Iran.[1] One less grounded in its revolutionary fervor. Yet, Iran is seen as a destabilizing force in the Middle East by the United States and its regional allies Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States because, they argue, it seeks to export its revolution through the overthrow of Arab oil monarchies, its support of international terrorism, its anti-Israeli rhetoric and stance, and, lastly, its desire to acquire nuclear technology. Iran sees its actions as defensive for its own security and to redress the balance of power against the destabilizing forces of the United States, its allies and Sunni extremists. Iran’s grand strategy is more nuanced than acknowledged by its opponents. 

Iran’s foreign policy is rooted not only in its revolution but firmly in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) when it was opportunistically invaded by Saddam Hussein. Iran views the support given by the United States and Saudi Arabia to Iraq as a permanent mark on their relationships.[2] Saudi Arabia financed the Iraqi military while the United States provided intelligence which was also used in deadly chemical attacks on Iranian troops without condemnation from the international community. The United States actively engaged Iran ensuring the uninterrupted flow of oil, but it also resulted in the downing of an Iranian civilian airliner. By the end of the war, and its million dead, Iran was strategically isolated as the United States permanently allied with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.[3] Iran viewed the United States as a potential existential threat until the rise of the Islamic State in the aftermath of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq.[4] Iran sees itself fighting not a crusade, but occupation forces since 1979.[5]

            The collapse of the Soviet Union (1991), with the simultaneous rise of a hostile United States to unipolar power, meant Iran had to recover economically and militarily without foreign assistance. Its isolation led to self-sufficiency and an imperial design to secure oil trade routes for greater economic growth and power projection.[6] Therefore, Iran needed stability in the region for its own security. On its way, it has become a superpower despite efforts to contain and alter its political behavior.[7]

Iran stands accused of spreading its revolutionary ideals throughout the Shiite populations in the region, seeking to topple Sunni-controlled Arab oil monarchies. Shia Iran, under Ayatollah Khomeini, wanted to export its revolution and not just to Shiites throughout the Gulf states but also to the Palestinian cause and Hamas in 1987. An important message from Iran was that the oil-rich Arabs are self-indulgent, spoiled and weak whereas Iran expelled the Americans and beat back the powerful Iraqi army. 

Iran’s support of Shia Hezbollah and Sunni Palestinian Hamas is a destabilizing factor. During the war with Iraq, Iran expanded into Lebanon and Syria by supporting Hezbollah in 1982 when for first time in the modern era an Arab city was destroyed by a foreign invader, Israel. By 2000, and again in 2006, Israel was forced to retreat and important lessons were learned by the Iranians - it transitioned from conventional warfighting to its ascendancy in asymmetric war. Iran’s military innovation is as crucial as the machinegun was to the Great War (1914-18).[8] Its experiences in Lebanon shaped Iran’s political and military strategy. Using proxy forces avoided direct confrontations and conventional wars which Iran would most likely lose against the superior forces of the United States and Israel. And Iran proved more adept at using proxies than its enemies.[9] Asymmetric warfare allowed Iran to spend far less. In 2006, Iran spent 2.5 percent of its gross domestic product compared to Saudi Arabia’s 10 percent.[10] None of this would have been possible without the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Although Iran has committed acts of terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s, it has successfully transitioned to asymmetric warfare. Some of Iran’s previous acts of terrorism were in response to the assassination of Hezbollah general secretary Abbas Moussawi by Israel in 1992, and the downing of an Iranian civilian airliner by the Americans during the Iran-Iraq War.[11] Robert Baer argues that by the 1990s Iran was less looking like an exporter of its revolution and more like a universal, all-encompassing anti-colonialist strategic partner. And that the attacks on civilians on September 11, 2001, made Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabians look morally bankrupt and Iran was beginning to act and look more like a statesman.[12]

Iran is a threat to Israel because of its asymmetric warfare power and its rhetoric against Israel has enforced this threat but the rhetoric no worse than what Arab states have been saying since Israel’s founding in 1948. The anti-Iranian rhetoric is equally visceral. Iran’s support of Lebanese and Palestinian fighters destabilizes the security of Israel.

Iran’s drive for dual-purpose nuclear technology is considered another threat to regional stability. Since 1989, Iran’s push for this technology is also driven by Sunni Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and Saddam’s quest and use of weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, Iran’s strategy does not rely on nuclear weapons as has been confirmed by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which states that Iran did not restart its nuclear weapons program.[13] This did not stop Israel and the United States from exploring attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.[14] Israel, however, is an unmonitored nuclear power and a threat to Iran. In 2015, Iran and the United States signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the Iran nuclear deal – which, in 2017, the Trump Administration withdrew from, insisting on unrealistic demands.[15] Iran’s military strength and threat rests on a world-class asymmetrical warfighting ability, a pool of disaffected fighters throughout the region, and its strict anti-colonial message.[16]

In the 2000s, Iran exploited American missteps especially after the United States made its grave strategic mistakes by invading Iran’s neighbors, Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). The invasions were a threat to the security of Iran.[17] The Americans did not help themselves by pursuing punishing policies with Iran since 1979 instead of seeking nuanced diplomatic relations.[18] This included funding of dissident Iranian groups, some of whom committed terrorist acts against Iranians, as the US sought regime change.[19] Iran ably exploited every misstep without resorting to direct military confrontations by supporting regional states and by engaging and organizing popular forces.[20] Iran is not an existential threat to the United States.[21] And yet, Iranian successes led the Commander of the United States Central Command to say, in 2017, that Iran is ‘the single greatest long-term threat to stability in this part of the world’.[22] In 2019, the United States named Iran’s military branch, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a terrorist organization.

Iran wants to control oil and gas trade routes. It has an understanding with Iraq, Syria, Kurdish-held areas as well as an oil partnership with Turkey.[23] This mutual understanding and Iran’s capability to shut down the Straits of Hormuz through military means make it a threat to the world’s oil supply. This threat was validated in the 2002 Millennium Challenge, an American wargame, which pitted a fictional commander of an unknown Middle Eastern country (Iran) against the newly-transformed network-centric American military. Using asymmetric warfare, it destroyed the attacking force.[24] Arguments have been made by senior American officers that there is no military solution in dealing with Iran because of its asymmetric counterstrike capabilities and its hardened underground bunker systems.[25] Iran has proven to be militarily successful, unlike its Arab neighbors, and its success must be attributed to its ascendancy in asymmetric warfare guided by a clear grand strategy.

Iran’s strategic ideological framework rests on the enhancement of its regional role and influence, and to safeguard the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty.[26] As such it will not accept another hostile Iraqi government. It repudiates a hostile unipolar United States which Tehran seeks to counterbalance with its biggest trading partner China.[27] Iran supposedly has desires to co-control of Islam’s holy sites of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia where Shiites are being discriminated against. [28] But this may no longer hold true as sectarian violence has spread throughout the region after the 2003 Iraqi invasion and the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq, and its offspring the Islamic State (IS), rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS). Saudi Arabia’s support of Iraq during the war with Iran, and its desire to become the regional superpower, is a threat to Iran’s security. Iran has extended its influence since 1989 in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf states and Gaza, in effect creating a buffer zone, but strategically Iran will not tolerate the dismantling of any country along religious lines as it creates instability. 

In 2015, Ian Dudgeon visited Iran and met with Iranian officials and think-tanks. He notes that Iran views the Islamic State, Israel, and Saudi Arabia along with the other Gulf States to be Iran’s greatest threats.[29]The US was not mentioned as Iran seeks to avoid any direct confrontation. Furthermore, it has no desire to annex any of its neighbors or near-neighbor territories. Instead, Iran worked successfully with its neighbors to combat extremist enemies and drug trafficking. It cooperates with India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asian Republics, Russia, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Oman as well as other countries including the European Union, notably Turkey. [30] Iran has emerged from its isolation and saw it work directly with Russia and indirectly with the United States in their efforts to establish regional stability.[31]

The Islamic State is the single greatest threat to regional stability. Its goal is to create an extremist caliphate, to eradicate moderate Sunnis, and to wage war against Shiites. Most troubling is its ability to exploit any power vacuums created by military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria. The direct threat to Tehran is the Islamic State supporting, recruiting and radicalizing Iranian Sunnis as well as the one million refugees within Iran’s border. At its height, IS (ISIS) had the ability to control neighboring countries, thereby weakening Iranian influence. These actions were sponsored by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States of Qatar, UAE and Bahrain. The US and Turkey also provided material support to terrorist organizations including ISIS and various Syrian anti-Assad militias. Iran used its military and proxies effectively but the Tehran government recognizes the need to have moderate religious leaders involved in political solutions.[32]

Saudi Arabia and its allies have taken actions to secure their own regional position and to weaken Iran by funding Wahhabi extremists and other Sunni militias. Saudi Arabia and the United States stand accused by Iran of supporting terrorist attacks on its soldiers and civilians.[33] Furthermore, Dudgeon notes, Iran reiterates that it does not seek a sectarian war.[34] It accepts Wahhabism as Saudi Arabia’s state’s religion and believes the majority of followers and clerics do not support the extremist elements. But Iran wants the Saudi government to reign in and distance itself from Wahhabism. 

Iran witnessed Iraq implode into an insurgency and then a sectarian civil war. This was primarily caused by poor post-war planning which included the de-Ba’athification of the government and the army. Al Qaeda, and especially the Islamic state, exploited the chaos which threatened to engulf the entire region. Because Iraq is a neighboring country and the Iraqi population is 65 percent Shiites, Iran intervened and believed its involvement created stability and prevented extremist spill-over into Iran. Iranian military operations were in support of the elected Iraqi Shiite government and executed in conjunction with the Iraqi military. Iranian military planners also deconflicted with the United States military. Iranian officials argue that their military operations are consistent with that of the Americans – to defeat extremists and bring stability to Iraq and the region.[35]

Regional instability is the complex relationships involving Syria, Turkey, the Kurds throughout the region, as well as the interference by the United States and its allies. Syria has supported Iran since the 1979 revolution and this can be attributed to the minority Alawite-Shiite government of the Assads. Iran’s assistance was requested by the legitimate government during the civil war. The instability is a product of American and Turkish support of largely unknown opposition forces. Iran seeks to avoid more political chaos in Syria, as had previously happened in Iraq. A dissolution of the Assad government could also lead to new concerns about a Kurdish homeland potentially involving Iran’s significant Kurdish population nearing seven percent resulting in internal instability. The crisis in Syria requires a political solution and needs to involve the Syrian government, along with stakeholders such as Iran and Russia with its historical ties in the region and its desire to retain its only naval presence in the Mediterranean in Syria.[36]

 Viewed from 2019, Iran’s 2015 analysis of Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu seems grounded in realpolitik and not in revolutionary fervor.[37] It sees the Netanyahu government does not intend to resolve the Palestinian issue. Israel is not interested in any settlement involving the return to pre-1967 borders. That instead it will hold onto, and expand, all its settlements for territorial retention. Iran views Israel as a crucial destabilizing factor in the Middle East. The founding of Hamas and Hizbollah was in direct response to Israeli aggression in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. In 2015, Iran’s support for the democratically elected Hamas is minimal[38] and Hezbollah’s focus is on supporting Assad and defeating the Islamic State. Iran blames the US for its failure in the peace process. 

Other Iranian concerns include Israel’s behavior by Netanyahu addressing the United States Congress directly in violation of American protocol, involving himself in American elections, circumventing the White House and insulting President Barack Obama in the process.[39] The American approach in the Middle East favors Israel despite its aggression and possession of nuclear weapons. Iran, on the other hand, receives sanctions because of its nuclear program. Robert Pollack notes a seemingly more hysterical commentary then proper discussions when it comes to nuclear technology and Iran.[40]

By 2019, anti-Iranian rhetoric has reached a fever pitch.[41] Political agenda drives the polemics on Iran that it ‘implicitly or implicitly associated with terrorism and fanaticism.[42] Charges that Iran is anti-Semitic are incorrect according to government officials who point out that Iran has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel in the Middle East. Iran claims to accept Israel as a state but not on the territories it acquired during the 1967 Six-Day War. Iran’s policy is anti-Zionist, but it would recognize Israel. It supports a two-state solution with other regional partners. However, American participation is required.[43]

Iran needs to disassociate from its negative image as a terrorist sponsor and the troublesome anti-Israeli rhetoric of its former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-2013). Iran wants to be seen as a responsible partner in creating a peaceful, stabilized region which is achieved by seeking the middle ground with moderate partners. Something that seems distant given President Donald’s Trump’s neoconservative policies of supporting Israel outside of accepted international rules and not honoring the nuclear agreement with Iran. 

The Arab-axis, its American and Israeli allies view Iran as aggressors seeking to impose its revolutionary ideals. Iran, they argue, supports terrorist organizations including the Houthis in Yemen. They are concerned with potential Iranian territorial expansion. The Arab monarchs worry about Iran’s meddling in their internal affairs especially its support of the anti-western Muslim Brotherhood.[44] Iran’s support for attacks on Israel is another Arab concern. They argue that such attacks offer Israel an excuse not to pursue settlement negotiations. The Arabs see Iran waging wars through the use of proxies which is reciprocal, although the Arab allies deny supporting extremists. However, both have extremists on their side. Iran as well as the Arab allies view the Islamic State as a fundamental threat to regional stability. Additionally, they seek a resolution to the conflict in Syria. The Sunni-Shiite divide, according to the Arab point of view, emerged after the 1979 Revolution and that moderating forces are required to mitigate the situation. In the meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is but a few months away from completing its first nuclear reactor with the support of the Trump administration.[45]

Since 1989 Iran’s strategy is no longer rooted in Khomeini’s revolutionary ideals but has transformed into a nuanced, long-term effort for security and hegemony. It has morphed from an exporter of terrorism and revolutionary fervor into a regional superpower whose involvement in regional and international affairs can be seen as intimidating as that of any powerful state.  Farideh Farhi’s conclusion is that ‘overall Iran remains committed to the state and nonstate alliances it has laboriously created in order to project power and protect itself’.[46] Iran is among the most stable countries in the Middle East.[47] Its influence has expanded with the focus remaining on the integrity of its state by securing regional stability and not just by its revolutionary zeal. Its power is felt throughout the Middle East.

Bibliography

BOOKS

Ansari, Ali M. 2006. Confronting Iran. New York: Basic Books.

Axworthy, Michael. 2017. Iran: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bacevich, Andrew J. 2016. America's War for the Greater Middle East. First edition ed. New York: Random House. 

Baer, Robert. 2008. The Devil we Know. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Burns, William J. 2019. The Back Channel. New York: Random House.

Crist, David. 2012. The Twilight War. New York: The Penguin Press.

Freedman, Lawrence. 2009. A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East. Paperback ed. ed. London: Phoenix.

Hirst, David. 2010. Beware of Small States. 2010: Nation Books.

Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. 2008. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Toronto: Penguin Canada.

Parsi, Trita. 2008. Treacherous Alliance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Phillips, Christopher. 2018. The Battle for Syria. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pollack, Kenneth M. 2013. Unthinkable. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Shehadeh, Raja and Penny Johnson. 2016. Shifting Sands. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.

JOURNALS

Chubin, Shahram. 2009. "Iran's Power in Context." Survival 51 (1): 165-190. doi:10.1080/00396330902749772. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396330902749772.

MULTIMEDIA

"China Remains Iran’s Top Trade Partner." 2018. Financial Tribune, Apr 14. https://financialtribune.com/articles/economy-domestic-economy/84584/china-remains-iran-s-top-trade-partner.

Frontline: Bitter Rivals: Iran and Saudi Arabia. DVD. PBS, 2018.

Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. 2007. http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA501008.

Alsis, Peter, Anthony H. Cordesman, Adam Mausner, and Charles Loi. 2011. The Outcome of Invasion: US and Iranian Strategic Competition in Iraq. https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/111128_Iran_Chapter_6_Iraq.pdf.

Ayoob, Mohammed. "The Regional Factors Bringing Turkey and Iran Together." The Strategist., last modified Dec 12, accessed Apr 1, 2019, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-regional-factors-bringing-turkey-and-iran-together/.

Borger, Julian. 2019. "Saudi Arabia's First Nuclear Reactor nearly Finished, Sparking Fears Over Safeguards." The Guardian, Apr 4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/04/saudi-arabias-first-nuclear-reactor-nearly-finished-sparking-fears-over-safeguards.

———. 2002. "Wake-Up Call." The Guardian, Sep 6. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq.

Burchfield, Emily. "Iran’s Security Strategy, Forty Years After the Islamic Revolution." Georgetown Security Studies Review., last modified Feb 15, accessed Apr 1, 2019, http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/02/15/irans-security-strategy-forty-years-after-the-islamic-revolution/.

Cordesman, Anthony H. and Abdullah Toukan. 2012. Analyzing the Impact of Preventive Strikes Against Iran's Nuclear Facilities. Washington D.C. https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/120906_Iran_US_Preventive_Strikes.pdf.

David Andrew Weinberg. 2012. "What Netanyahu's Meddling in US Election Means for Obama, Romney, and Diplomacy." The Christian Science Monitor, Sep 27. https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0927/What-Netanyahu-s-meddling-in-US-election-means-for-Obama-Romney-and-diplomacy.

Dilleen, Connor. "America’s History of Covert Action in Iran: Is Tehran Right to be Paranoid?" The Strategist., last modified Sep 26, accessed Apr 2, 2019, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/americas-history-of-covert-action-in-iran-is-tehran-right-to-be-paranoid/.

Dudgeon, Ian. 2015. Iran: Regional Threats and Shiite-Sunni Challenges. https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Iran-Regional-Threats-and-Shiite-Sunni-Challenges-Ian-Dudgeon-December-2015.pdf.

———. "Reviewing Australian Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal: Principles and Trust." The Strategist., last modified Dec 6, accessed Apr 5, 2019, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/reviewing-australian-support-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-principles-and-trust/.

Farhi, Faradeh. 2017. Iranian Power Projection Strategy and Goals. https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/170421_Farhi_Iranian_Power_Projection.pdf.

Garamone, Jim. "CENTCOM Commander Briefs Congress on Regional Threats." U.S. Central Command., last modified Mar 29, accessed Apr 2, 2019, https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/News-Article-View/Article/1134069/centcom-commander-briefs-congress-on-regional-threats/.

Kaplan, Rebcca, Miller, Jake, Amling, Alicia, Nolen, John and Portnoy, Steven. "5 Things to Know about Netanyahu's Speech to Congress." CBS News., last modified Mar 3, accessed Apr 2, 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/five-things-netanyahu-speech-congress/.

Katzman, Kenneth. 2019. Iran: Internal Politics and U.S. Policy and Options. CRS Report: Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32048.pdf.

Long, William R. 1992. "Islamic Jihad Says it Bombed Embassy; Toll 21." Los Angeles Times, Mar 19. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-03-19-mn-5905-story.html.

Mousavian, Seyed H. "How US, Iranian Regional Security Strategies Diverge." Al-Monitor., last modified Mar 22, accessed Mar 23, 2019, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/03/iran-us-regional-security-strategies-pmud-basij-syria-iraq.html.

Noack, Rick. 2018. "China’s New Train Line to Iran Sends Message to Trump: We’ll Keep Trading Anyway." The Washington Post, May 11. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/05/11/chinas-new-train-line-to-iran-sends-message-to-trump-well-keep-trading-anyway/?utm_term=.8cd7d4f16646.

Pargoo, Mahmoud. "Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood: Frenemies?" Lobe Log., last modified Jul 12, accessed Apr 2, 2019, https://lobelog.com/iran-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-frenemies/.

Pecquet, Julian. "Israelis Favor Romney Over Obama by Wide Margin in Latest Poll." The Hill., last modified Oct 29, accessed Apr 2, 2019, https://thehill.com/policy/international/264609-romney-polls-far-ahead-of-obama-in-israel.

Perl Finkel, Gal. 2019. "The IDF that Eisenkot Leaves Behind is Ready." The Jerusalem Post, Jan 1. https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-IDF-that-Eisenkot-leaves-behind-is-ready-575993.

Tajbakhsh, Kian. "Getting Real about Iran." Foreign Affairs., last modified Mar 19, accessed Mar 21, 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2019-03-19/getting-real-about-iran.

Weiss, Philip. "Netanyahu’s Lecturing Obama Ad Drives a Wedge Pelosi Says Doesn’t Exist." Mondoweiss., last modified Mar 29, accessed Apr 2, 2019, https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/netanyahus-lecturing-drives/.

[1] Phillips (2016) p.18

[2] PBS Frontline Bitter Rivals 1:19:00

[3] Farhi (2017) p.2

[4] Chubin (2009) p.1 

[5] Baer (2008) p.77

[6] Baer (2008) p.242

[7] Congressional Research Service  (March 6, 2019)

[8] Baer (2008) p.96

[9] Phillips (2016) p.166

[10] Baer (2008) p.100

[11] Boyd (March 19, 1992) 

[12] Baer (2008) p.202

[13] National Intelligence Estimate (October 31, 2007) 

[14] Cordesman (2012) p.4

[15] Dudgeon (2018) p.3 

[16] Baer (2008) p.111

[17] Hirst (2010) p.379

[18] Freedman (2008) p.511 for the American involvement in the Middle East and Burns (2019) p.285 

[19] Mearsheimer (2008) p.294

[20] Mousavian (2019) p.4 

[21] Tajbakhsh (2019) p.1

[22] Garamone (2017) 

[23] Ayoob (2018) p.1

[24] Finkel (2019) for an Israeli view on this exercise and the IDF’s recent failure in Lebanon and Borger (2002) article

[25] Hirst (2010) p.325 and Parsi (2007) p. 278

[26] Farhi (2017) pp.2-3

[27] Financial Tribune (2018) for China as trading partner and Noack (201) for rail development 

[28] Baer (2008) pp. 242-6

[29] Australian Institute of International Affairs (2017) on Dudgeon’s trip to Iran and Dudgeon (2015) p.2 

[30] Dudgeon (2015) p.2-3 

[31] Farhi (2017) p.3

[32] Dudgeon (2015) p.6

[33] Crist (2012) p.563 and Dilleen (2018) p.1 

[34] Dudgeon (2015) p.5

[35] See Cordesman (2012) and Dudgeon (2015) pp.6-7

[36] Dudgeon (2015) p.5

[37] Dudgeon (2015) pp.7-8

[38] Axworthy (2017) p.135

[39] Bacevich (2016) pp.352-3 and articles on US-Israeli discourse by Weiss (2018), Weinberg (2012), CBSNEWS (2015) and Pecquet (2012) 

[40] Pollack (2013) p.419

[41] Burchfield (2019) p.1 

[42] Ansari (2006) p.239

[43] Baer (2008) p.180, p.248

[44] Pargoo (2017) article

[45] Borger (2019) article

[46] Farhi (2017) p. 6 

[47] Shehadeh (2016) p.124

On Accountability - why law enforcement and the military need budget cuts and civilian oversight

I have written on modern special operations for nearly two decades. I know spec ops personnel including some high-speed Canadians. I also know a bunch of cops in the US and Canada. Most of them are prior-service. A few are my friends, others – I would not want them watering my plants, never mind having a dog. A weapon? Fuggedaboutit! Are you even serious?

There is an ever-increasing number of shitbags in spec ops (I cannot speak for the regular services) - I forget now who, but some SEAL’s book (Watson’s Point Man?) mentioned that elite units have the 10% shit factor – people who should not have made it, but somehow did.  I think that number has grown, notably because of the toxicity brought about by far-right extremists in politics and media (I am looking at you Fox Fake News). And Republicans and Libertarians (the latter isn’t even a proper political philosophy). It doesn’t help that Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they don’t tell women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and they don’t leave nooses hanging around or fly the traitor’s flag – the Stars and Bars.

Whatever happened to those SEALs flying a Trump flag on their Humvee? What about the murders committed by SEALs in the Forever Wars (The Intercept reported on this)? Or the murder of Green Beret SSG (Staff Sergeant) Logan Melgarby members of SEAL TEAM 6 and marines? Or the SEALs busted on drug trafficking and so on – just do some research and you will be shocked. 

This is not isolated to the US – Germany recently disbanded an entire company of its Navy SEALs (Kampfschwimmer) because of links to right wing extremism as well as the theft of war materiel. But the US has these problems on a far greater scale because we spent fortunes funding the the Pentagon, and with SOCOM (notably NAVSPECWAR) seemingly going rogue, and cops thinking they are warriors, it has become an overwhelming problem.... What must it be like in the regular services or police departments, given what we are seeing in SOCOM? White domestic terrorists are a real danger - not protesters. And no, ANTIFA is not a terrorist organization or even an organization. I am happy we have ANTIFA youth that is willing to take on shitbags on the streets. But I digress.

The Pentagon cannot account for 25% of its budget. And Congress is a willing accomplice in this – no doubt their buddies and families make fortunes off us taxpayers (Feinstein is just one of the many). And then there are the mercs – I cannot think of too many worse things that have happened in our military than the move to privatization.  I know a bunch of mercs as well – some I even like. Erik Prince, a former SEAL, is just one of many making fortunes and increasing his reach and power. All of it stinks of corruption and a complete loss of a moral compass. But that’s what you get without accountability. The budgets of police are astronomical. Cops committing with egregious conduct are suspended with pay – are you kidding me?

We have a problem.

The more you know about special ops, the more you see a lack of accountability because of weak leadership and a total lack of respect for legal and civilian authority. This has clearly been brought forward and enflamed by Trump. He is not a ‘law and order’ president - he is not presidential by any measure. Of course, not everything is his fault - his predecessors also allowed for the degeneration of the moral and ethical core of our fighting forces - extra-judicial murders of American citizens and suspected enemy personnel leading to innocent civilian deaths are part of this shocking decline of morality. Drone warfare leads to even greater moral decay and adds allies to the enemy. Never mind that Big Brother is actually watching us (thank you congress) and genuine patriots like Snowden get slammed.

And now we have militarized police, in camouflage uniforms and hiding their identities like cowards, abducting civilians clandestinely on the streets of Portland and who knows where else. You are not waging Hybrid Warfare on American streets – get a grip – you can and must disobey illegal orders. Are we in Russia or China? I know Trump loves Putin. There are a great many loud-mouths in his administration screeching all sorts of paeans – war songs about crushing, destroying, annihilating the evil leftist-socialist-seniors-communist-foreign-democrat-hippie-poor-minority destroyers of wonderful Rockwellian America as long as the Rockwellians make money for the few on top – I am reminded of the great Belgian artist Ensor work called Doctrinal Nourishment.

The murder of citizens by law enforcement is now being well documented. It too is the outcome of an underlying lack of respect certain police give to civilians. The entire “I am the law” bullshit (you are not Judge Dredd) and the false warrior ethos amongst cops is pathetic. You are not a warrior, you are there to protect and serve your fellow citizens – your neighbors. If you want to be a warrior, join the military – you can legally murder brown and black people overseas. Stop living in white enclaves like Simi Valley, CA, making 200K annually with OT, and then go to work elsewhere where people eke out a living at $10-15 an hour - if that - and you harass them because they are poor. Live in the neighborhoods you patrol – see what it is like to be poor. Over 100 million Americans do not have clean water and children are food insecure – think about that. Are you even serious? Police unions have contributed to the divide between the citizens and law enforcement by closing ranks against any kind of accountability or attempts at reform. As such they must be dismantled. Standards in recruitment, training and leadership must be low because of the way law enforcement conducts itself on our streets. What are they being taught? That we are the enemy – “us” versus “them”? Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six – and don’t worry, cops are never prosecuted anyway? 

As long as the military and law enforcement do not “police” themselves with proper accountability, civilians must step up by any means necessary? to redress the imbalance. Change comes from non-violent direct action they say, but what they forget is that change requires the threat of violence to move meaningful legislation ahead. The civil rights marches also featured the Black Panthers. Peace demonstrations during Vietnam also included violence – the National Guard infamously murdered students at Kent State. LGTBQ+ changes came about because of violence. Injustice means no peace. A lack of justice is moral bankruptcy. You know, like all the felons from the Trump administration, to name but a few crooks – the Democrats have theirs too.

Eventually it will be the civilians who will impose draconian changes that are necessary because neither law enforcement nor the military seeks to hold itself to a proper standard and accountability to the citizens they are supposed to serve. The military/law enforcement, the people and the government are intertwined – there is an interplay between the three components and you don’t need to know your Clausewitz to understand that. When the police and military or Congress become so corrupted by power that they threaten to destroy society, then society will inevitably destroy the military/police and the government. Read some history - and don’t buy it from Amazon if you don’t have to…

So clean your houses before it is done for you through the very painful way of cutting your budgets and firing and charging the worst offenders. Some of you soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, marines, and guards as well as law enforcement are contributing to the decline of America by your illegal and immoral actions. You are ruining it all, including for the men and women in uniform who actually do good work for us – it’s our society. 

Most of the people I know are good humans and professionals but there is an ever increasing number of shitbags. But I think that number has grown, notably so because of the toxic far right extremists in politics and media. The more you know about special ops the more you see a lack of accountability and a total lack of respect for legal authority. This has clearly been supported by Trump. He is not a law and order president - he is not presidential by any measure. Of course not everything is his fault - his predecessors also allowed for the degeneration of the moral and ethical core of our fighting forces - extra-judical murders of American citizens and SUSPECTED enemy personnel leading to innocent civilian deaths are part of this shocking decline of morality.

On Writing - or how the no-bullshit book Run to the Sound of the Guns came about

How did you meet? (From 2018)

Mir:  My great friend and Hollywood actor Tim Abell (2nd Ranger Battalion) made the introduction to Nicholas Moore on August 20, 2015 – over three years ago! Nicholas served in the 2nd Ranger Battalion, as did I. So it’s kind of like the three Rangerteers, or maybe like the three blind mice. In any event, I was looking at getting back into writing after a hiatus of about seven years. I also found out that Marcus Cowper was back at Osprey and I proposed a Campaign Series book, Zama 202 BC (2016), which helped me transition to the far more difficult writing required for Run to the Sound of the Guns.

Nicholas:  Like Mir said, this whole thing came about from our friend Tim Abell over three years ago. Tim asked me if I would be willing to talk to Mir (who is a published author), saying “I think you really have a story that people will want to read,” to which I said yes, then I googled Mir. We talked a few times, but honestly, I wasn’t really sure if we could actually get anyone to bite on this.

I vacillated about doing this at all; it was with the support of my wife that I really committed to wanting to tell this story.

I did stress to Mir that although profanity was used through the course of my career, if we had to write it into the book to make it “good,” we probably shouldn’t write it, because I feel that it is overused in military books, which makes me not want to read them. We also discussed how to approach the book so as to not make me out to be the “greatest thing since sliced bread,” which I am not, but I wanted to highlight the achievements of everyone, and it takes everyone for the unit to function at the level that it does.

What is the book about?

Mir:  Nicholas and I talked for a while about his background and experiences on the leading edge of the Global War on Terrorism. We needed a good story – something important and different to the typical chest-thumping, back-slapping books that have inundated the marketplace and Hollywood. And I needed a good guy who honored his word. Both of these triggers were met.

Although the perspective is Nicholas’s, it is about the Rangers who helped transform the 75th Ranger Regiment from the best elite light infantry unit in the world to a unit capable of executing the same special missions as the top Army and Navy special mission units. In a nutshell, it is the story of the change from the founding doctrine of the 75th Infantry (Ranger), the Abrams Charter (1974), which required experienced Rangers to leave the unit and spread their expertise throughout the regular army, to a flexible, ever-evolving special missions unit of the 75th Ranger Regiment where Rangers could actually serve their entire career. This transition happened quickly over a few years after 9/11 and it is evident throughout the book as we see Rangers conducting strenuous training exercise, then combat deployments, and adapting to new requirements in the ever-changing fields of battle. The strength of Run to the Sound of the Guns comes from this. It is not one of those one-battle or one-deployment books that are typically packed with mostly biographical filler. For us, it was important to show the true life of Rangering from training to combat, and we therefore cut all biographical material. In fact, we probably could have or maybe even should have expounded on some of the engagements, because there is so much present in Nick’s career from private to platoon sergeant.

Nicholas:  This is about my career as a US Army Ranger, and about the Rangers I had the honor to serve with. I had the privilege to serve in 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment before the events of September 11 and through to its initial deployments into Afghanistan and Iraq. To be a part of the Regiment’s transformation from its initial charter to an agile and elite Special Operations strike force. Although, at the time, during all of this transformation, we were not thinking of that, but just of how we could adapt to the fight at hand and stay relevant to the operational tempo we were faced with.

Through the years I have been a part of several missions that are now well-known operations.

I am sure there is so much more we probably could have added, but these are the highs and lows of what I experienced which I wanted to share. Not everything is great. There are exceptionally proud moments, but also moments of hurt and sorrow (the loss of friends in training and combat).

How did the book come about?

Mir:  Once Nicholas and I had an idea about the book, like Rangers it was ever-evolving, and we diligently created a book proposal and submitted it to a couple of publishers. Marcus came back with an offer which also secured us an excellent agent, Alec Shane of Writers House, who handled difficult and stubborn Rangers like us – well, me - very well.

Nicholas:  Mir and I generated an outline: mostly it was just a chronological timeline of my service and key events in the outline. I still at this point wasn’t even sure there was anyone willing to bite, as I don’t have “Navy SEAL” in my title. But once Mir sent the proposal out, I think Osprey sent a response within a few hours. I was actually shocked that someone thought we had a great story to tell.

How did you write the book?

Mir:  When the contract was signed Nick and I spent way too many hours on the phone, which I recorded, while typing notes simultaneously. This was a long and drawn-out process and we would go over the material a great many times. There was truly a lot of back and forth about clarifications, operational security, and privacy concerns for the Rangers in the book and so forth. Once the manuscript was in shape Nick sent it to the Pentagon for clearance. Ten weeks was promised and passed, and finally, after eight months, at the end of February 2017, we received clearance. What a great day. There were no redactions per se, but we had to remove the names of certain units, which we did. Unfortunately, this delay had pushed the publication date back several times. But ultimately, this was great, because we were lucky to have retired Ranger Colonel Mike Kershaw review the manuscript several times and provide us with some very excellent advice, concerns and suggestions – I think we met most but not all – we are Rangers after all and have strong opinions! While we were rewriting to clarify certain passages, Mike sent the cleared manuscript to retired Ranger General Stan McChrystal for review. He was exceptionally kind in reading it very quickly. Between Mike, Stan, and other Rangers who provided us with endorsements, we felt we had done some justice to the modern Rangers of the 75th Ranger Regiment.

The manuscript went through a number of editorial passes by Marcus and especially Kate Moore, and the production moved through the professional hands of Gemma Gardner, who had to pull off some minor miracles, especially when it came to finalizing the photograph section last minute. I am particularly pleased with the maps detailing operations and am well pleased by the dynamic, perhaps even haunting, cover art. In my opinion we had a great team producing an excellent and very important book in the history of modern Special Operations.

Nicholas:  Mir and I spent several weeks on the phone, with him recording our conversations as I detailed the events of my career, although at first I’m sure that, for Mir, it was like pulling teeth to get me to open up.  We went through several drafts and I think we were at three months to get to this point, and then we sent the manuscript to the Department of Defense for their security review, which was quoted to take no longer than 10 weeks. Eight months later they returned it with a few minor redactions. Then it was through to Marcus Cowper and his staff of great people at Osprey, Kate Moore, Gemma Gardner, and several others, to get our finished product. Even though we missed our original release date by about a year, I think what we ended up with is an outstanding product to give the reader a peek into the Ranger World.

During all of this Mir kept mentioning the “next steps” of someone to write the foreword. He kept circling back to General (Ret.) Stan McChrystal after he had sent it to Colonel (Ret.) Mike Kershaw, and we had got an overall positive from him about what we had put together, but like all things Ranger, Colonel Kershaw did offer constructive criticism, which I greatly appreciate. I was feeling better about letting it be seen by General McChrystal. After General McChrystal had given us a thumbs-up, I felt really good about what we had written. Rangers are ALWAYS the hardest critics of Rangers.