Trump’s Civil War Battle

In military terms, President Trump walked into an ambush yesterday when his Administration announced that it will “not even consider” renaming military bases that were named in honor of Confederate soldiers from the Civil War or, as we sometimes call it in the South, “the War Against Northern Aggression” or the “War Between the States.” The move will be popular among many in Trump’s base but there is a definite downside as well.

In a series of tweets, the president noted that bases such as Fort Benning, Fort Hood, and Fort Bragg have a long and distinguished history as the launching points for armies that helped to win two world wars. In his concluding tweet, Trump said, “Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!”

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

 · Jun 10, 2020

It has been suggested that we should rename as many as 10 of our Legendary Military Bases, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Benning in Georgia, etc. These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a...

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

...history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations...

117K

2:40 PM - Jun 10, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

32.4K people are talking about this

That’s a reasonable argument that appeals to a lot of people, particularly those with a nostalgia for Civil War and WWII history. That’s a group that includes me.

As I’ve written before, I come from a family that has been in the South since at least the early 1800s and I had several ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. My great-grandfather was a prisoner of the federal government at the notorious POW camp in Elmira, New York after the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864. Although I didn’t know it at the time, I was among the first integrated elementary school classes in my county in the early 1970s. When I attended the University of Georgia, I frequently drove past a historical marker near Athens memorializing the murder of Col. Lemuel Penn, a black army officer, by local Ku Klux Klan members in 1964. I currently live only a few miles away from Fort Benning.

When Gov. Zell Miller removed the Confederate emblem from the Georgia flag in 2001, I was against the move. At the time, I thought that it was mere historical reminder. Since then, I’ve changed my mind.

The flag that Miller changed in 2001 only dated back to 1956. The Confederate emblem was added that year to protest the sweeping civil rights advances. Rather than a nod to state history, the 1956 flag was a spiteful insult to a large share of Georgia’s population. As it turns out, a lot of the Confederate memorials date back to the Civil Rights era.

I still respect and admire many Confederates, imperfect as they were. Some were good men but they made the decision to support a cause that was evil. Although many argue that the war was about state’s rights, reading the Declarations of Causes for secession by the Southern states makes it apparent very quickly that the state right in question was “the subject of African slavery” as the document passed by Georgia stated.

What changed my mind on the issue was putting myself in the shoes of people on the other side of the argument. Not only is it understandable that black citizens would object to Confederate emblems and memorials, but a lot of whites do as well. There has been a lot of population shifting since 1865 or even 1956. A great many white residents of Southern states are just as offended by Confederate tributes as minorities are. My remembrance of my Southern heritage is not as important as national racial unity.

Enter Donald Trump.

President Trump’s tweets were in response to a statement by an army spokesman earlier this week that “The secretary of Defense and secretary of the Army are open to a bipartisan discussion on the topic.” In other words, no one was forcing the army to rename its bases. The army was voluntarily offering to do so. That is almost certainly a hint that the army prefers to change the names.

A better move by President Trump would have been to take a big swing at the fat, lazy curveball that the army pitched right across the center of the plate, by saying something along the lines of, “I call on Congress to rename bases that are named in the memory of Confederate soldiers. In light of our changing national culture on race, I feel that it is appropriate to rededicate these facilities to the memory of our great military leaders who helped lead our nation to victory in more recent wars.”

Instead the president whiffed at the pitch and got a strike.

While there are many passengers on the Trump train who will be elated to see that the base names will remain unchanged, Trump’s stance won’t endear him to black voters, moderates, or swing state voters outside the South. The move won’t even necessarily help a lot in Southern states where many white Republicans and conservatives are embarrassed by our Confederate history.

Trump already has the Southern states (minus Florida) locked up. Defending Confederate names won’t help him there but a Nixon-goes-to-China moment in which President Trump called for respectfully setting aside Confederate emblems would have been a boon outside of the deep-red states.

Instead, the president chose to deepen the racial divide. A great many Americans already view the Republican Party as racist and defending the honor of long dead Confederates is going to confirm that stereotype.

Likewise, the army had several good reasons for its readiness to change the names. For one thing, many soldiers serving on those bases are minorities and may have ancestors that people like Henry Benning, Braxton Bragg, and John Bell Hood fought to keep enslaved. Black soldiers make up 21 percent of army personnel, even though only 13 percent of the US population is black. It is not unreasonable that the army wants minority recruits to feel welcome.

Further, while the president notes that our military heritage is one of winning, the Confederates did not win. That was bad news for my ancestors who lived the war and then the post-war era, but it’s good news for me. I would not want to live in a Confederate States of America where, if slavery didn’t still exist, something along the lines of Jim Crow or Apartheid probably would. People who say that Confederate memorials are participation trophies are not totally wrong.

Finally, it is ironic that so many big military bases are named for people who became famous as rebels who tried to rip the United States apart. People who say that the United States is the only country that celebrates people who unsuccessfully committed treason are also not wrong.

So what to do about the situation? In my opinion, the fate of local memorials should be decided locally. Let people vote on whether to remove them. Some will go and some will stay, but honor the wishes of the local citizens.

National military bases are a different problem. Military bases in the South are not the property of the states in which they exist. They are the property of American citizens from all over the country. These bases represent the country as a whole and really should be renamed.

There is no shortage of victorious heroes to name them after. Fort Benning could be renamed after George S. Patton, the famous (and infamous) armor general of WWII. Patton actually lived on Fort Benning in 1941 and 1942 while he commanded the 2nd Armored Division there. A good namesake for Fort Bragg, a special operations mecca and home of the 82nd Airborne Division, would be Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, who led the 82nd in the first large-scale airborne assault in US Army history, the 1943 invasion of Sicily.

Renaming the bases could have been a moment when Trump called the country to national unity in putting aside the vestiges of a time when we were even more divided as a nation than we are today. Trump’s intransigence means a deeper racial divide, however, as the president forsakes the opinions of a majority of Americans to pander after the votes of a shrinking number of Confederate-Americans.

Originally published on The Resurgent 

US military rated 'marginal' to 'weak'

Wikimedia Commons

The Heritage Foundation has released its 2017 Index of US Military Strength, an objective survey of US military infrastructure, its ability to operate in different regions of the world and an assessment of threats currently faced by the US. This year Heritage found that threats to the US were high while the ability of the US to meet them was “marginal” to “weak.”

Heritage notes that the military is assessed on the basis of being able to accomplish three core missions: Defense of the homeland, successful conclusion of a major regional war and protection of freedom of movement through areas in sea, air, space and cyberspace in which the world conducts business. Since WWII, US leaders have consistently worked to maintain a military size that could fight two major regional contingencies (MRCs) at the same time.

The different branches of the US military were rated on capability, capacity and readiness. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and nuclear forces were rated as “marginal” by Heritage while the Army was rated as “weak.” Heritage notes that the Navy is deferring maintenance and facing delays in modernization. The Air Force has a fleet of 1,159 tactical fighters, but lacks the ability to fly all of them due to shortages of pilots and experienced maintenance personnel. Current operations and shortage of funds for the Marine Corps mean that the USMC has only two-thirds of the units that it needs. US nuclear forces depend on older weapons systems while competitor countries are upgrading and expanding.

The Army’s weak rating is the result of trading strength and modernization for the current readiness. Even so, Heritage says that only one-third of army units are at acceptable readiness levels. Budget cuts have forced the Army to increase its reliance on contract maintenance. Brigade combat teams and combat aviation brigades have been reduced by about a third due to budget shortfalls. Heritage says, “The Army is smaller, older, and weaker, a condition that is unlikely to change in the near future.”

In the index, Heritage also rates the threats that the US military is likely to face.  There are six threats that Heritage considers “high” risks. Russia and China are both expanding their militaries and acting aggressively. North Korea reportedly has a missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the US and is also working on submarine-launched missile technology that would allow it to park missiles off the shores of American cities. Iran is another potential nuclear threat in spite of President Obama’s deal. Terrorism in the Middle East and in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region round out the largest potential threats.

The bright spot in the Heritage assessment is America’s ability to operate around the world. A strong network of allies in Europe and Asia bolsters US capabilities. These regions are rated as “favorable” to US operations. The Middle East is rated as “moderate” where US advantages are being offset by unstable governments and a reduced presence due to the withdrawal from Iraq.

The change of course signaled by the recent presidential elections may provide a boost to US military budgets. Nevertheless, National Defense Magazine notes that, because of the debt crisis, any increase in military spending will likely be small without entitlement reforms. Such reforms would be fought by the Democrats and possibly by Donald Trump as well. As a candidate, Trump opposed conservative plans to restructure entitlement programs.

In summary, the world is a dangerous place with maturing threats from a number of different countries and terrorist groups. Budget cuts have forced the US military to trade modernization to meet future threats for the ability to maintain current readiness. The Republican victories this year may provide an opportunity to get military readiness back on track.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Jade Helm is not precursor to martial law

Jade Helm 15, an upcoming military exercise in the southwestern United States is the latest example of alarmism by conspiracy mongers. Once again, conspiracy buffs are predicting the impending imposition of martial law in the United States. Once again, as a service to readers, I don my tinfoil hat to investigate the claims that Jade Helm 15 is part of sinister plot by mysterious forces.

Jade Helm 15 is a large, multistate special operations exercise that will take place from July 15 through September 15, 2015. A map showing the location of the exercise includes the states of Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California. A small notation on the map, which was part of a slideshow by the US Army Special Operations Command detailing the exercise, is the source of much of the alarm over Jade Helm. The southwestern states are divided into “permissive,” “uncertain,” and “hostile” regions. Texas and Utah, two of the very reddest states in elections, are labeled as “hostile” red regions for the exercise.

The logical leap that Utah and Texas are hostile and will be invaded is nonsensical when viewed in the context of the rest of the map. Conservative Arizona is labeled as “leaning friendly” while liberal New Mexico is considered to be “leaning hostile.” Colorado, which just sent a new Republican senator to Washington is called “permissive” (friendly). The southern tip of blue California is red and marked as an “insurgent pocket.” There have been no actual reports of insurgent activity in the San Diego area.

Why is Texas singled out as hostile by the military planners of the exercise? The army slideshow (available in full on Gawker) provides an answer. “The United States Special Operations Command,” the slide reads, “has conducted numerous exercises in Texas, because Texans are historically supportive of efforts to prepare our soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors to fight the enemies of the United States.” In other words, the army is training in Texas because Texans are loyal supporters of the military in real life, the polar opposite of their role in the Jade Helm exercise.

The slideshow goes on to explain that Texas’ “large areas of undeveloped land with low population densities with access to towns” make an ideal training environment. It also cites the ability to have soldiers operate “outside normal support mechanisms,” adapt to “unfamiliar terrain, social and economic conditions,” operate “in and around communities where anything out of the ordinary will be spotted and reported” and “the opportunity to work with civilians to gain their trust and an understanding of the issues.”

The Fifth Column blog points out other flaws with the conspiracy theories surrounding Jade Helm such as that the other notes on the map refer to training organizations. “JOAX” is a joint operations access exercise.” “NSWTU” refers to a naval special warfare training unit. In an actual military operation, a NSWTU would be replaced by a Seal Team, designated as an “ST.”

Other unit designations refer to special operations units, which are not used for invasion and occupation roles. An “MSOT” is a Marine special operations team such as a Force Recon. ODAs are US Army Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha teams, also known as “A-Teams.” ODH and ODG are presumably Special Forces operational detachments as well.

The Fifth Column speculates that the exercise will be related to SERE training for survival, evasion, resistance and escape. This scenario might put special operations forces down behind “enemy” lines and have them attempt to make their way to friendly territory. Along the way, other units taking part in the exercise might attempt to capture and interrogate the special operations soldiers.

This idea is supported by other parts of the slideshow which note that “some individuals may conduct suspicious activities.” The army also says that “some participants will be wearing civilian attire and driving civilian vehicles.” The total local force will be approximately 60 people.

What of the seemingly sinister slogan on the Jade Helm logo, “master the human domain?” Many conspiracy theorists hold that this is a hint at Jade Helm’s true purpose, to psychologically condition Americans to accept the presence of military forces in preparation for the eventual implementation of martial law. The not-so-sinister answer can be found in an unclassified report by the US Army War College from 2013. The report, part of the civilian research project “Mastering the Human Domain,” details lessons from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on how special operations troops and conventional forces can better work together to gain support of the local population.

This concept of “winning hearts and minds” dates back to the Vietnam War and was instrumental in Iraq’s “Anbar Awakening,” in which the local population of Anbar province came to support the Coalition Forces and turn against the al Qaeda insurgents.

Further, the charge that the exercise is supposed to condition Americans to the acceptance of a large military presence makes no sense when the actual army statements are considered. With many participants in civilian clothes and vehicles, they would be indistinguishable from real civilians. Second, 60 soldiers is not a large force.

The military answered many of the conspiracy charges in a Stars and Stripes article. Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria of the US Army Special Operations Command said that Jade Helm was similar to past exercises. The primary difference, he said, was “the use of new challenging terrain,” which is similar to the regions where the special operations forces have been fighting. Presumably, this is a reference to Afghanistan and Iraq.

When asked about the idea that the exercise was a cover for a military takeover, Lt. Col. Lastoria answered, “That notion was proposed by a few individuals who are unfamiliar with how and why USASOC (US Army Special Operations Command) conducts training exercises. This exercise is routine training to maintain a high level of readiness for Army Special Operations Forces because they must be ready to support potential missions anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.” Translated from military jargon, the colonel said that the conspiracy theorists don’t know what they are talking about.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

DeWitt Rucker: Buffalo Soldier of the M.P.E.

It was around Memorial Day 2011 that a high school friend posted a message on her Facebook page. In my hometown, there was a display on the town square honoring the veterans from Hart County who were killed in action. Predictably, there were veterans from the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, but one memorial was a mystery.

This memorial honored Private DeWitt Rucker. The conflict listed under his name was simply “M.P.E.” Since the memorial did not give the date of Pvt. Rucker’s death, my friend wondered what conflict the M.P.E was. After trying unsuccessfully to determine how and when Rucker died, she described the experience on Facebook to see if anyone else knew. Searches of the military and history websites for some clue to Rucker’s story yielded nothing. Googling “M.P.E.” did not turn up any relevant results. Eventually, with a handful of people scouring the internet, some details of how DeWitt Rucker died for his country became known.

The break came when Pvt. Rucker’s name was found listed on a memorial to Buffalo Soldiers at Ft. Bliss, Tx. The Buffalo Soldiers were black soldiers in the U.S. Army. The nickname was acquired during the Indian Wars, but all-black units of Buffalo Soldiers fought in several American wars until the armed forces were desegregated.

The key to decoding the “M.P.E.” reference was also on the website describing the Buffalo Soldiers memorial. Pvt. Rucker was among the casualties of the Battle of Carrizal, Mexico on June 21, 1916. The battle was part of a campaign known as the Mexico Punitive Expedition, the M.P.E.

The adventure into Mexico began on March 9, 1916 when Mexican bandits under Francisco “Pancho” Villa, who led one of the factions vying for control of Mexico, raided the border town of Columbus, N.M. according to the National Archives. The raid killed 10 American soldiers and eight civilians with another seven soldiers and two civilians wounded. An estimated 100 bandits were killed, seven wounded, and one captured before the remainder escaped back into Mexico. The Americans pursued the bandits several miles into Mexico, but were forced to turn back due to a shortage of ammunition and supplies.

As a result of the raid, President Woodrow Wilson, apparently without congressional authorization, ordered a U.S. force that eventually numbered 11,000 men under Gen. John “Black Jack” Pershing to capture Villa. With tacit approval, but very little in the way of cooperation, from Mexican president Venustiano Carranza, the U.S. Army set out into the Mexican state of Chihuahua, south of New Mexico and west Texas. For the first time, trucks and airplanes were used in a military expedition (with less than stellar results).

Pancho Villa and his men retreated before the American onslaught, hiding in the rugged mountains of Mexico. Although the local Mexicans hated Villa, they like the Americans even less and offered little help. There were a few skirmishes with Villa’s men, but the bandit chief eluded capture.

To make matters worse, there were also skirmishes with the Mexican army. On April 13, 1916, the Mexican army attacked Americans of the 13^th Cavalry at Parral. One American was killed and one was wounded, while the Mexicans lost at least 14 men.

Other skirmishes were fought against the bandits as well. Dozens of bandit were killed or captured with few American losses, but Villa remained at large. At the same time, Mexican raiders continued to raid border towns in Texas. In May and June 1916, Congress approved activation of National Guard units to patrol the U.S. side of the border.

On June 21, American soldiers again clashed with the Mexican army at Carrizal. Acting on intelligence that Pancho Villa was in the town, Pershing dispatched the Buffalo Soldiers of C and K Troops of the 10^th Cavalry under Capt. Charles Boyd with orders “to avoid a fight if possible.” Instead of Villa, the cavalrymen ran into Mexican government soldiers who were guarding the town. Max Boot describes what happened next in his excellent book, “The Savage Wars of Peace:”

There was no good reason not to bypass the town, and that is precisely what Boyd’s civilian guides advised, but for some mysterious reason Boyd insisted on going through with it. He was not deterred even when the Mexican general commanding the Carrizal garrison informed him that if he advanced “he would have to walk over the dead bodies of Mexican soldiers.” Boyd was said to have instructed a messenger, “Tell the son of a bitch that we’re going through!” Boyd dismounted his cavalry and ordered them to advance across a grassy field toward an irrigation ditch where the vastly superior Mexican force was dug in. When the Americans were about 250 yards from their position, the Carrancistas opened fire with rifles and machine gun. Nearly all the men in Troop C were wounded. The Buffalo Soldiers fought bravely, but with bullets “falling like rain,” and their own ammunition running out, they had no chance of prevailing. All the officers, including Captain Boyd, were killed quickly. The troopers, left leaderless, were routed by Mexican cavalry. Twelve Americans were killed that day, 10 wounded, and 24 captured. The rest ran away. The Mexicans lost more men – at least 30 killed, 40 wounded – but the battle of Carrizal was an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. Army.

Pvt. DeWitt Rucker, native of Hart County and U.S. Army Buffalo Soldier, was among the dead. It was rumored that Pancho Villa watched with amusement from a hideout in the mountains as his two enemies battled, but in reality he is believed to have been wounded at the time.

At this point, the U.S. and Mexico were on the brink of war. Leaders of both countries paused. Carranza agreed to release the U.S. prisoners who had survived the battle. According to Boot, these men blamed Boyd for provoking the battle in violation of his orders from Pershing, which helped calm the situation. Eventually, the U.S. agreed to withdraw its forces from Mexico if Carranza could control Villa. The American forces in Mexico began to return home in January 1917. The conflict officially ended on February 5. The National Guard was demobilized and the troops returned home.
Army units remained along the border to protect against further raids.

In spite of the failure to capture Pancho Villa, the expedition was officially considered a success. The National Archives records the words of Secretary of War Newton Baker: “[the] objective, of course was the capture of Villa, if that could be accomplished, but its real purpose was a display of the power of the United States into a country disturbed beyond control of the constituted authorities of the Republic of Mexico as a means of controlling lawless aggregations of bandits and preventing attacks by them across the international frontier.  This purpose is fully and finally accomplished."

Only a few months after the end of the American incursion into Mexico, President Wilson and General Pershing were fighting a new enemy as the United States entered WWI. Memory of the Mexico Punitive Expedition was overshadowed by the epic struggle against the Kaiser in Europe. A 1917 silent movie, “A Trooper of Troop K,” was based on Buffalo Soldiers at the Battle of Carrizal.

Fighting continued in Mexico as it had before the Americans had arrived. Carranza fought for control of Mexico against Villa and Emiliano Zapata. Carranza was assassinated in 1920 while fleeing a coup attempt. Pancho Villa was given amnesty by the new government, but was assassinated himself in 1923. Another rumor has him saying as he died, “Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something.” In reality, he is reported to have died instantly.

There are many similarities between current Mexican-American relations those of 100 years ago. Violence along the border is increasing and threatens to spill over into the United States. The National Guard has been called upon to patrol border areas. Tensions are running high between the two nations over illegal immigration and the Obama Administration’s policy of allowing guns to be smuggled to Mexican drug cartels. Perhaps, the lessons of the past can teach us to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Originally published on Examiner.com":
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/dewitt-rucker-buffalo-soldier-of-the-m-p-e

The US Military and Relief Efforts

The primary mission of the United States armed forces is to defend the security and interests of the United States around the world. Since its inception, the US Army, followed by the Navy, Marines, and Air Force have fought for freedom around the world. Hundreds of thousands of American men and boys have died in remote corners of the world to defend their homes and the freedom of people that they have never seen.

The capabilities of the military do not end with searching out and destroying the enemies of freedom and justice, however. The same dedication and skill combined with state of the art military hardware make the military a valuable resource when it comes to aiding people in need, regardless of whether their crisis is the result of a natural disaster or a war.

In our own country, the National Guard has long been a valuable resource in domestic natural disasters. Countless victims of hurricanes and tornados have received assistance from the National Guard. It is not unusual to see National Guardsmen stacking sandbags along swollen creeks and rivers as floodwaters rise. Guard helicopters pluck survivors from the ocean and stranded hikers from backcountry trails. The National Guard has become so synonymous with disaster relief that many seem to have forgotten that it is primarily a part of the armed forces and not a charity group.

Around the world, the US military has aided numerous nations following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and famines. US Air Force cargo planes routinely airlift relief supplies and food around the world on short notice. One of the largest and most famous instances of US military humanitarian assistance is the Indonesian tsunami of 2004. Countries around the world contributed to the relief efforts, but only the US military had the ships, airplanes, and helicopters available to actually go to areas where virtually all infrastructure was destroyed.

The US military can also be effective in assisting countries recovering from war. US forces under the Marshall Plan were largely responsible for rebuilding the parts of the world devastated by World War II. This included aiding millions of people displaced and left homeless by the war.

Relief efforts can be done by the military itself or with the help of nonmilitary relief agencies. Many of these areas are still somewhat dangerous and relief agencies often rely on the military for security. Additionally, the military has the manpower and equipment to finish construction projects rapidly. US military efforts to rebuild and improve Iraqi schools and hospitals have been largely ignored by the media. A major problem in the past has been that insurgent and militia groups moved in behind US forces and often destroyed their work.

The US strategy in Iraq under General Petraeus is one of working with the Iraqi civilians. US forces now clear terrorists from an area and then stay there to keep them away. This strategy can work easily alongside aid groups who want to help Iraqi civilians as well. Aid groups and armies have worked together in the past in war torn countries such as Bosnia and Kosovo.

When considering US military assistance to war torn countries, it must be remembered that the top priority of the US military must remain the national security of the United States. The United States does not have the resources to help victims of every war and disaster around the world. The US must target its efforts to areas of greatest need and areas of its national interest.

To truly help the people of war torn countries, the most important thing is to stop the fighting. We must also remember that true peace is not merely the absence of fighting, but requires freedom and justice. The best way to ensure that the people can get the help they need is to defeat forces that thrive on terror, hunger, fear, and intimidation. When that happens, relief agencies will be able to work without fear of attack by terrorists and insurgents, and the US military will be able to devote more resources to rebuilding, rather than hunting terrorists.