Saturday, December 31, 2016

Global War

The First Global War: Britain, France, and the Fate of North America, 1756-1775. Seven Years' War (1756-1763) The third war between Austria and a rising Prussia for control over Silesia, the culmination of the long Anglo-French struggle for colonial supremacy, and the last major conflict before the French Revolution to involve all the traditional great powers of Europe. There were three principal theaters of this war. Great Britain helped support Frederick of Prussia in battling Austria, France, and Russia and their allies: British finances helped purchase mercenary troops to augment Prussia's army. The British navy battled the French navy in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans as well as the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas. Finally, augmented by colonial militia, the British made a determined and ultimately successful effort to destroy French power in North America. When the Seven Years' War ended, Frederick gained Silesia, though with significant manpower losses; the British gained territory in India and all of French Canada (save for tiny St. Pierre and Miquelon Islands off the Newfoundland coast).

First World War known as the Great War. Some 65 million men from all four corners of the globe packed their kit and marched off to war, from teenagers to grandfathers in their sixties. The fighting started in Europe, but the rest of the world soon got dragged in, including some 2 million Africans. Another 3 million from the far-flung British Empire answered the call to arms, shipped from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India. And, for the first time, the United States got its hands dirty in Europe. In all, 28 countries were involved, making this the first truly global war. Even Japan hopped on the bandwagon, hoping to grab German islands in the Pacific when no-one was looking, while the Thais sneakily snatched twelve German ships when their king, Rama VI, boldly declared war on Germany in July 1917.

World War II (1939-45) was the most terrible war ever fought. It not only killed 17 million soldiers - compared to 10 million in World War I - but also twice as many civilians, through starvation, bombings and massacres. It was the first truly global war - fought on the plains of Europe, in the jungles of Southeast Asia, on the deserts of Africa, among the islands of the Pacific, on (and under) the Atlantic Ocean, and in many other places.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Kagohl 3

From the day Belgium was invaded, the idea was that the German Army would simply occupy sufficient territory from which air raids with conventional machines could be made and, in anticipation, one Major Wilhelm Siegert was placed in command of a new force called Fliegerkorps der OHL, (OberstenHeersLeitung). Code named the Brieftauben Abteilung or ‘Carrier Pigeon Squadron’, it was supplied with thirty-six B-Type aeroplanes and divided into two Wings. Posted to the airfield at Ghistelles, a small village near Ostend in Belgium, it was, according to one of its officers, Major C C Neumann, composed of ‘the best and most experienced pilots from every branch of the Air Force’. To increase their mobility they were quartered in railway sleeping carriages and carried out their first raids on Dunkirk and other objectives behind the enemy Fourth Army Front. The onus was now on the Army to capture the requisite territory from which Siegert could operate.

The man charged with this task was General Erich Von Falkenhayn. In what was to become known as ‘The Race to the Sea’, he attempted to penetrate the Allied lines at Ypres on 14 October 1914, using the Fourth and Sixth Armies, but nine days later they were still being held at bay and, despite horrific casualties – the Germans alone suffering 130,000 – the offensive had petered out by 11 November resulting in stalemate. With both sides digging in for the winter, Siegert’s plans were looking forlorn. In the meantime the nascent squadron was employed in operations behind the enemy lines against Dunkirk, Furnes and La Panne, giving it plenty of practice whilst it anticipated being able to fulfil its actual role.

The spring of 1915 saw a reorganization of the force. The Fliegerkorps was divided into four units: the ‘Carrier Pigeon Squadron’ was transferred to Galicia to carry out operations against the Russians on the Eastern Front and a second squadron was formed at Metz near Nancy. Two reconnaissance Squadrons, A66 and A69, were also established. Neumann tells us:

Shortly after our Army broke through to Gotlitz, the Ostend Carrier Pigeon Squadron returned to the Western Front, having been equipped in the meantime with a newly designed 150 or 160hp C-Type machine in which the pilot sat in front with the observer behind. However, even with this type of aircraft it was not possible to attack England.

Their return to the west was timely, as the airships had by late 1915 proven not to be the war-winners it had been hoped they might be. Their eventual arrival also gave the airship mechanics a new use for their skills, serving as ground crew for the bombers. On 1 January 1916, the ‘Ostend Carrier Pigeon Squadron’ was given a somewhat more prestigious title in line with the greater kudos now attached to its intended role. It was henceforth known as No.1 Battle Squadron, or Kagohl 1, and divided into six flights. They were employed once more in a support role against enemy rear areas, and Neumann reports that these Fliegertruppes (Aviation Troops) were, ...employed with excellent results in every undertaking of any importance and in various districts on the Western Front during 1916.

The prospect of capturing the necessary ground still eluded the Germans. Consequently a number of German aircraft construction companies had to be approached, and the practicality of constructing aircraft capable of reaching Britain from the territory currently held was discussed.

The firms consulted included Flugzeugbau Fredrichshafen Gmbh; Allgemeine Elektrizitäts Gesellschaft (AEG); and Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG (Gotha), and it was the latter which won the main contract to construct the aircraft. It called its prototype the Gotha ‘Ursinus’ G-I, equipped with two 160hp Mercedes engines. It first flew in 1915, and was followed by the G-II with its two 220hp engines. A number were provided to the squadron after further reorganization in September 1916. At this time one Hauptmann Gaede was given command of Halbgeschwader (Half-Squadron) No.1, which comprised Staffeln 1, 4 and 6. Halbgeschwader No.2 was allotted Staffeln 2, 3 and 5 and was dispatched to Bulgaria, and then to the Macedonian Front until May 1917 when it returned to duties in Belgium.

The Gotha G-IV had been developed by this stage, and large-scale production was to proceed at the Gotha, LVG and Siemens-Schuckert factories. On 25 November 1916 the Kommandierender General Der Luftstreitkrafte – Kogenluft – was established as a separate entity from the Army under the command of General Ernst Hoeppner. Upon assuming command he issued the first policy document which outlined the functions expected the squadron in its operations against the United Kingdom:

Since an airship raid against London has become impossible, the Air Service is required to carry out a raid with aeroplanes as soon as possible. The undertaking will be carried out in accordance with two entirely different schemes:

Bombing squadrons equipped with G (Large) Aeroplanes... ...Scheme 1 will be carried out by Half-Squadron No.1 using Gotha G-IV aeroplanes. The requisite number of thirty aeroplanes will be ready by February 1 1917.
By despatching eighteen aeroplanes, each carrying a load of 300kg of bombs, 5,400kg could be dropped on London, the same amount as would be carried by three airships, and so far three airships have never reached London simultaneously.

Scheme 1 can only succeed provided every detail is carefully prepared, the crews are practised in long-distance overseas flight, and the squadron is made up of specially good aeroplane crews. Any negligence and undue haste will only entail heavy losses for us, and defeat our ends.

The project was code named Turkenkreuz, - Turks’ Cross, and the squadron would be called the Englandgeschwader, or ‘England Squadron’. It had four airfields allocated to it; Mariakerke, Melle-Gontrode, Ostacker and St Denis-Westrem, all sited around Gent about, forty miles behind German lines.

It was now that the full implications of the aircraft’s change in centre of gravity after losing its bombs and fuel, was fully appreciated. None of the airfields were anything like flat and level enough to accommodate a returning bomber and land it with much chance of it not crashing. As a result, the respective airfields would have to be made as flat as possible to reduce the possibility of this happening and this meant shifting tons of earth around to smooth and level them. Melle-Gontrode and St Denis-Westrem would not be ready until April, Mariakerke and Ostacker until July, so Ghistelles was to be used until then to house the aircraft, sharing facilities with Half-Squadron No.1. The force was to consist of six staffeln,each of six machines, and in theory a total of thirty-six bombers were to attack London in the forthcoming operation.

One vital element which an undertaking of this scale and magnitude needed was also in short supply by this stage in the war; first rate leadership. However, luckily for the squadron, one man would enter, stage left, to fill this void in the person of thirty-four year-old Hauptmann Ernst Brandenburg.

He had found his way into the Air Force like many of his colleagues, after being wounded in the trenches and subsequently assigned to what were considered lighter duties as an observer in a two-seater reconnaissance aircraft. He would prove to be the perfect candidate for the demanding assignment, to mould a cohesive unit practically from scratch, capable of launching the first-ever daylight strategic bomber raid. Such were the qualities of this man, that despite the punishing regime and unremitting requirements of the endless training, he would be able to earn the respect and admiration of officers and men alike, leading by example in his quiet, unassuming way.

It would be a task completely different to that which his colleagues in the airship service would have faced. There, the mighty vessels operated largely alone, with all the component parts, namely the crews, in one place; the bombs would be dropped from a single platform; there were none of the completely new skills that Brandenburg and his men would need to master. Almost forty different machines, untested in the kind of warfare upon which they were about to embark, would have to rise and fly in formation, keep together over featureless seas, and then, above hostile territory, finally unload their bombs in a tight pattern in order to gain the maximum results. Keeping in formation they would then attempt the perilous journey back to their airfields, expecting to be harassed all the way by enemy fighters baying for their blood.

Organization, training and tactics – all completely new and untried – General Staff maps of the North Sea and Dover Straits were studied intensely, while the flight path over Ostend and then Foulness, on towards the capital from the north-east (with Epping Forest serving as their marker) had to be rehearsed again and again. Just as important for the crews was to know the way back to base, along the north side of the Thames to the Estuary.

One of his first decisions was to form Staffeln 16, and place it under the command of Oberleutnant von Seydlitz-Kurzbach, by drafting in personnel from the Luftstreitkrafte; Staffeln 17 and 18 would follow in July. There were to be seven headquarters staff, Brandenburg, Adjutant Gerlicht and five officers whose responsibilities ranged from intelligence, reconnaissance photography, motor transport and administration. Three bombers were allocated to headquarters staff. So he could be identified easily by his men in flight and his instructions conveyed, the fuselage of Brandenburg’s machine was painted red.

In April 1917, Kagohl 3 was ready to move from Ghistelles to Melle-Gontrode and St Denis-Westrem. Despite this, things were not going well. As we have seen, examination of a wrecked German aircraft by the Allies exposed the sub-standard nature of much of the materials used in their manufacture and as a result the standard of construction of the engines left a lot to be desired and extensive modifications were required on the pipe work installed in earlier models. This rework alone took up most of the month.

By the middle of May both the aircraft and crew were as ready as they would ever be. Morale was boosted by visits from such dignitaries as Hoeppner and later by General Hindenburg, both of whom had bold words of encouragement for the crews, words which they were all too keen to justify.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Operation Downfall — The Campaign to Conquer Japan Would Have Dwarfed the D-Day Landings

Operation Downfall - The Campaign to Conquer Japan Would Have Dwarfed the D-Day Landings

IT COULD BE called the world's greatest battle... that never happened. Operation Downfall, the codename for the U.S.-led mission to capture the Japanese homeland in 1945 and 1946 never did take place.

Wild Rides – Seven of the Strangest Bomber Raids of WW2

Wild Rides - Seven of the Strangest Bomber Raids of WW2

IT HAD ONLY been 132 days since the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor when the United States brought the war to Emperor Hirohito's doorstep. On April 18, 1942, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers took off from the carrier as the vessel and a small escort fleet, codenamed Task Force 16, secretly steamed to within 650 miles of the Japanese home islands.

Friday, March 11, 2016

Ost 1942 Command Failure

At senior command level, trends at OKW and OKH ran counter to those at STAVKA. Where Stalin began to appreciate the limitations of his military expertise, Hitler, from an initial position of mere arbiter of strategy, became increasingly involved in tactical decision-making. From his order of December 1941 for Army Group Centre to stand fast, and his decision to dismiss `defeatist’ commanders, he concluded that he above all had the wisdom and the will to force a final victory. From his decision that II Corps should hold fast at Demyansk, and the subsequent successful defence of the pocket, he concluded that large formations of encircled German troops could be adequately supplied by the Luftwaffe while continuing to pose a significant threat to the enemy rear. After the resignation of Brauchitsch on 19 December 1941 Hitler assumed the post of Commander in Chief OKH thereby eliminating the army’s last vestige of service independence. Thereafter he began to appoint politically loyal generals to senior command positions, and increasingly he began to micromanage combat operations. In doing so he undermined one of the strengths of the German army, the delegated authority of commanders on the battlefield to make independent command decisions and their ability to respond flexibly to changes in operational circumstances.

Having anticipated a conflict of around eight weeks duration, prior to 1942 there had been little planning by the German High Command for a prolonged conflict. Weapon development projects during 1941 had been scaled back or cancelled and virtually no preparation had been made for the possibility of the conflict continuing into the depths of a Russian winter. Yet having faced a larger, better-equipped and more resilient foe than it had anticipated, as the winter of 1941 approached OKH found that it was facing an enemy whose morale was still unbroken, that was, unlike the Ostheer, fully equipped for winter fighting, and that was adapting its tactics in light of bitter experience. An example of evolving Soviet tactics was the clash that took place between Eberbach’s 5 Pz Bgd and Katukov’s 4 Tank Bgd southwest of Mtsensk in October 1941. Katukov concentrated his force and used advantages of surprise, terrain and armament range to good effect. Clashes of this sort prompted the Wehrmacht to revive pre-war plans for the development of a heavy tank, and for the development of a new medium tank that could emulate the combat capability of the T34. Until such new weapons could be both developed and produced in quantity, the Ostheer would be left to fight using tanks designed in the 1930s.

Fortunately for Germany, in the PzKpfw Mk IV it had a machine that was capable of extensive development in its power train, its armament and its armour. During its development the Mk IV became the backbone of the panzer forces, and for a time gave the Ostheer a renewed qualitative edge. The Mk III was too small and too light for such major upgrading, but there remained an urgent requirement for thicker armour and an improved gun. The most immediate improvement to the Mk III and the Mk IV was a doubling of their armour protection through the fitting of face-hardened spaced plates, and the acceptance of a consequent reduction in their mobility. The Mk IV was up gunned through the replacement of its short-barrelled 7.5cm infantry support weapon with a highly effective 43-calibre variant of the new 7.5cm anti-tank gun. The Mk III was not capable of taking the 7.5cm anti-tank gun, but its armament was improved somewhat by the replacement of its 42-calibre 5cm gun with a variant of the long-barrelled (60-calibre) 5cm Pak 38 (L/60) anti-tank gun that was being issued to the infantry. The deficiencies of the infantry’s standard 3.7cm anti-tank gun had been recognised since 1940. Though light and manoeuvrable, it was almost useless in dealing with the T34 and KV1 and was a factor in the rout of 112 Inf Div by part of 32 Tank Bgd supported by 239 Rifle Div southeast of Tula in November 1941. In response, the process, begun in 1940, of replacing the infantry’s 3.7cm gun with the Pak 38 (L/60) was accelerated. Also available was a variant of the 7.5cm anti-tank gun developed for infantry use (the Pak 40). Although the 7.5cm was an effective weapon it was too heavy to be manoeuvred manually and had to be towed into position by motorised transport, severely limiting its operational flexibility. The highly effective 8.8cm dual-purpose anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun was even more unwieldy, and at 4.4 tonnes was nearly ten times the weight of the early 3.7cm gun. In 1940 the Wehrmacht had begun the development of the self-propelled gun, a turretless armoured fighting vehicle based on the chassis of a tank with a gun fitted to a fixed casement. Such weapons generally had a lower profile than a tank, were easier and cheaper to manufacture and, depending on their configuration, could be used as mobile indirect fire artillery, as direct fire infantry support weapons, or as `tank-killers’. In the direct fire infantry support assault gun role, Germany developed in 1940 the StuG III based on the PzKpfw Mk III chassis and armed with the short-barrelled 7.5cm infantry support gun. In the same year the Panzerjäger I, the first `tank-killer’ self-propelled gun, was developed based on the PzKpfw Mk I tank chassis and armed with a 4.7cm Pak(t) gun. These weapons were the first of a range of increasingly powerful self-propelled guns developed by Germany during the course of the war.

The main weapons of the German artillery arm were developed in the early 1930s. At regimental level, two infantry support guns predominated – the short-barrelled 7.5cm leIG18 and the somewhat cumbersome 15cm sIG33. At divisional level, artillery support was based primarily on the 10.5cm sK18 field gun, the 10.5cm leFH18 howitzer and the 15cm sFH18 heavy howitzer. In the early period of the war these artillery pieces, used in conjunction with the German army’s efficient and effective fire control system, proved to be eminently fit for purpose, and they were subject to little further development. The leFH18 was upgraded in 1941 to achieve a modest increase in range, and to improve the range of the sFH18, the ammunition for the gun was modified to provide a rocket propulsion element to the shell’s propellant system. The German army had a range of larger calibre artillery pieces (15cm and above), and significant use was made of captured guns, but the mainstay of the artillery arm remained the regimental and divisional artillery weapons with which Germany went to war in 1939.

As a means of countering the improved armour protection of tanks, in conjunction with the introduction of faster and heavier anti-tank projectiles, considerable development went into the design of the projectiles. The first improvement from the simple solid shot was the addition of a softer metallic cap to prevent the break-up of the armour penetrating component on impact. Further improvements were achieved by the use of tungsten carbide in the main shot, and the streamlining of the shot to achieve higher muzzle velocities by the fitting of a ballistic cap to the impact cap. Such developments were pursued by both sides during the early period of the war and the result of this work had a considerable impact on force structure and tactics as the war progressed.

In the air, both sides strove to improve the performance of their aircraft, neither side gaining a distinct technological advantage. The Red Army took some time to recover from the devastating aircraft losses of the first few days of the war, but in a combat zone as large as the Eastern Front neither side would ever achieve true air superiority. All that could be achieved was local and often merely temporary advantage on a particular strategic axis.

Special Forces Post-WWII

On the other side of the world, France and then the United States were fighting a war of attrition in Indochina. The French wanted to restore their pre-war colonial rule. The U.S. was persuaded by George Kennan and John Foster Dulles to adopt a policy of containment to rein in international communism. The locals wanted self-determination and were willing to take help from any quarter, as they had done during the Second World War. Step by reluctant step, the U.S. entered the Vietnam quagmire, unsupported, for once, by the U.K. Like Afghanistan today, it was a conflict fought against a guerrilla army, one in which the occupation of minds counted for more than the control of territory. It saw the emergence of strategic hamlets and free-fire zones (based on British experience in Malaya); civic action teams; recruitment of aboriginal tribes; and a steady buildup of Special Forces such as the Mobile Guerrilla Force and including, from 1962, the creation of Navy SEALs (described by their Vietcong adversary as “devils with green faces”) on the orders of President Kennedy. The same themes resonated in Afghanistan, but as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out: “Apart from Special Forces and a few dissident colonels there has been no strong, deeply rooted constituency inside the Pentagon or elsewhere for institutionalizing the capabilities necessary to wage asymmetric or irregular conflict.”14 By 1970, as U.S. planes began bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail and American combat troops invaded Cambodia, the British SAS focused on another Communist threat: the potential loss of Oman, gateway to the Gulf, as a result of the despotic, medieval regime of the Ruler, Sheik bin Taimur, a British client. A coup d’etat was engineered by SIS in which the Ruler was replaced by his son, Qaboos, then under house arrest. The first problem was to open a line of contact with Britain’s chosen Ruler-in-waiting, Qaboos. His father grudgingly allowed him to receive cassette tapes of music. Qaboos, as a result of his service with the British army in Germany, liked Scottish marches, with bagpipe accompaniment. The tapes, purchased at Harrods store in London, were doctored so as to interrupt the music and relay voice messages from a friend who had shared his room at Sandhurst military college.

After a brief exchange of fire during which Bin Taimur shot himself through the foot, the deposed leader was spirited away by the Royal Air Force to live out his final years in London. The SAS then moved stealthily into Oman with a strategy that placed as much emphasis on winning hearts and minds as war-fighting. It included the extraordinary gamble of persuading the untamed hill tribes of Dhofar to change sides by arming them with the latest British rifles, and paying them. A similar strategy saved Western policy in Iraq in 2006 with the difference that in Oman, SAS officers and sergeants worked in isolation with these “turned” enemy, at great personal risk. The Oman Cocktail—a blend of bribes, development, and firepower—became a signature tactic of the SAS, out of sight of the British public in a six-year war without limits that ended in 1976. This SAS victory had momentous implications. It ensured Allied control of the gateway to the Hormuz Strait, the Gulf, and its oilfields for decades.

The SAS phenomenon spread to postwar U.S. Special Forces thanks to Charlie Beckwith, a young American officer attached to 22 SAS from 1961 to 1963, during which time he took part in jungle operations in Malaya. The informal structure and idiosyncratic discipline of the SAS that paid little heed to rank, only quality, puzzled and fascinated him. He wrote later: “I couldn’t make heads or tails of this situation. The officers were so professional, so well read, so articulate, so experienced. Why were they serving within this organization of non-regimental and apparently poorly disciplined troops? The troops resembled no military organization I had ever known…. Everything I’d been taught about soldiering, been trained to believe, was turned upside down.”

In 1977, having survived an apparently fatal gunshot wound in the abdomen in Vietnam, “Chargin’ Charlie” set up an elite Special Forces known as Delta, carefully modeled on the SAS. Its first major test, Operation Eagle Claw—an attempt to rescue U.S. diplomat-hostages in Iran in 1980—was a fiasco caused by poor air support and a top-heavy command structure. Beckwith’s ironic verdict, in a message to his British buddies, was: “You can’t make chicken chowmein out of chickenshit.” Delta survived that disaster to become the cutting edge of U.S. unconventional warfare in Iraq from 2003 and Afghanistan after campaigns in Mogadishu, 1993, Central and South America. When the going got tough in Congress, ingenious spirits in Washington such as Marine Colonel Oliver North recruited plausibly deniable ex-SAS British mercenaries and others to operate in Nicaragua. They included Major David Walker, formerly of the SAS and later head of the enigmatic private military company KMS.

The creation of Delta Force was followed in 1979 during the Iran crisis by the Foreign Operating Group (later redesignated the Intelligence Support Activity, aka “The Activity”). In 1981 the ISA ran signals intelligence that led to the rescue of U.S. General James Lee Dozier, a prisoner of Italian Red Brigade terrorists for forty-two days, as well as the 1984 attempted liberation of Bill Buckley, the CIA station chief held captive, then murdered, in Beirut; and operations in Panama, Colombia, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Like Britain’s Special Reconnaissance Regiment, a unit with roots in the Irish conflict, the ISA also acts as the eyes and ears of an SF strike force such as Delta.

By the time the Soviet empire collapsed in 1989, Special Forces had emerged as the means to resolve political conflict without the penalties that would accompany the use of conventional armies. It was even, as M. R. D. Foot argued, a political safety-valve, a useful alternative to the mutually assured destruction of nuclear war. This history examines the validity of that novel proposition, and much else, including the extent to which the SF phenomenon licenses its operators, notably deniable warriors in the private sector, to enter a legal gray area where others dare not go, boldly or otherwise. In practice it uniquely inhabits an ambiguous zone between the politically acceptable and the officially deniable. Success comes at a cost, usually in civil liberties. Population control methods employed in the conflicts of Malaya, Vietnam, Kenya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and internment without trial in Northern Ireland were all case studies in misapplied social engineering.

But in an age of asymmetric warfare, the techniques developed by Special Forces represent the future. The economic crash of 2008 forced the Obama regime to take a long, hard look at the Pentagon’s spending. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Secretary of State, espoused instead Professor Joseph Nye’s concept of “smart power,” acknowledging that “most of the conflicts we are facing and will face rarely have a military solution.” It was probably no coincidence that in the final months of the Bush presidency, after prolonged campaigns that ended in stalemate, at best, a blueprint for a new military strategy emerged from the Pentagon. Dated September 2008, the 280-page document is Field Manual 3-05.130, entitled Army Special Operations Forces—Unconventional Warfare. It defines the Bush administration’s foreign policy aims as “furthering capitalism to foster economic growth…and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers” accompanied by such strategic tools as “global freedom of action” and “full spectrum dominance.”

To create a new world order, after the American model, the authors concede, will be the work of generations. While orthodox military dominance, worldwide, is a given, the main thrust of policy is the use of Unconventional Warfare, “working by, with or through irregular surrogates in a clandestine and/or covert manner against opposing actors.” It is also “a fundamentally indirect application of power that leverages human groups to act in concert with U.S. national objectives.” That means training and supporting surrogates in “the full range of human motivation beyond narrowly defined actual or threatened physical coercion.”

It is, essentially, war on the mind, manipulating public opinion. “The objective of Unconventional Warfare (UW) is always inherently political…. Some of the best weapons do not shoot.”

Furthermore, “A fundamental military objective in Unconventional Warfare (UW) is the deliberate involvement and leveraging of civilian interference in the unconventional warfare operational area…. Actors engaged in supporting elements in the Unconventional Warfare Operational Area may rely on criminal activities, such as smuggling, narcotics or human trafficking…. The methods and networks of real or perceived criminal entities can be useful as supporting elements of a U.S.-sponsored UW effort.”

The foot soldiers in the new model army of irregulars will be “unconstrained by sovereign nation legalities and boundaries. These forces may include, but are not limited to, specific paramilitary forces, contractors, individuals, businesses…black marketers and other social or political ‘undesirables’.” The new doctrine also proposes a license to kill opponents pre-emptively, “against non-state actors operating within or behind the laws of nonbelligerent states with which the United States is not at war…or within a hostile state that harbors, either wittingly or unwittingly, these nonstate actors within its borders.”

There is more of the same. The new doctrine also synthesizes the darker history of Special Forces: the ruthless use of surrogates including civilians, involvement in the international drug trade, compulsory relocation of civilian populations, the redirection of aid programs for political purposes, and the subversion of unfriendly governments lubricated by the dollar (as in Iran in 1951). It is a pragmatic handbook for illegal military activity to “ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade.” Its attraction to increasingly hard-up military planners facing an open-ended Global War On Terror, could be irresistible unless the Obama administration puts its foot on the ethical brake. Whatever the outcome, we cannot understand the complexities of modern, asymmetric warfare without an awareness of the sophisticated, multi-layered organism that we loosely describe as “Special Forces.”

What began as Irish and American resistance to British rule, mutating into organized guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and propaganda-by-deed along the way, has now become a military discipline in its own right. It does not discard the old skills such as, for example, the British commando raid on the Bruneval radar station in 1942 to snatch enemy secrets. But it has matured into a matrix of intelligenceled military and non-military techniques requiring skills beyond the reach of the most talented conventional soldier including public relations, deception operations, undetectable burglary, and esoteric foreign languages—alongside, of course, high-altitude freefall parachuting, scuba diving, and a voluminous knowledge of exotic weapons. There is much more. SF medical specialists learn field surgery by practicing on anaesthetized, live animals freshly wounded by gunshot to ensure realistic blood pressure levels as the medics try to revive them.

The SF military agenda is now expected to include unconventional military operations as part of a conventional campaign (see Britain’s amphibious South Atlantic War, 1982); counterinsurgency (Iraq, Afghanistan); combat rescue (Entebbe 1976); peacekeeping including weapons verification (Balkans); snatch operations to arrest wanted war criminals; rescuing allied pilots from enemy territory; and surrogate warfare using deniable paramilitaries. As an IRA joke about the SAS ran: “An SAS man is one who can speak half a dozen different languages while disguised as a bottle of Guinness.”

Yet during the decades since 1945, Special Forces have won acceptance among governments at the pace of a funeral march and are sometimes—as in Yemen in the sixties—dependent on private funding. Official caution is understandable. Elements of the British Army in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, operating as armed men in civilian clothes, came chillingly close to resembling the death squads of South America. If democratic governments have a nightmare about their armed forces, it is that some adventurous spirits will act as a law unto themselves.

As we have seen, the SAS was officially reinvented with the inauguration of a reserve unit, 21 SAS (the Artists’ Rifles) in 1947 and its merger with an ad hoc formation, the Malayan Scouts (SAS) in 1951. With the end of the Malayan Emergency, two of the regiment’s four squadrons were axed. They were restored in the 1960s, following the regiment’s successful cross-border secret war in Indonesia. Yet it was not until the regiment’s unique skills were demonstrated during the Iranian Embassy siege in London in 1980—when what started as a terrorist “spectacular” became a British government “spectacular”—that it was accepted as a national institution. What little was published about the SAS until then, in postwar years, was almost universally hostile, the work of left-wing journalists.

American Special Forces, in spite of their many successes in defending a political lost cause in Vietnam, were also slow to win permanent status in America’s order of battle. This time the leading opponents of Special Forces were the military top brass. “These [Special Forces] units,” writes Colonel John T. Carney, one of their pioneers, “had been virtual pariahs within their own armed services…in the late 1970s” after Vietnam. “In the aftermath of post-Vietnam down-sizing, funding for special operations forces had been cut by 95 per cent. Reaching a low point in 1975, special operations forces constituted only one-tenth of one per cent of the entire defense budget.”16 No official U.S. document even dared mention Special Operations Forces as such until 1981, when a Defense Guidance from the Pentagon directed all the armed services to develop an SOF capability.

Five years later, Senators Sam Nunn and William S. Cohen persuaded Congress to legislate for an independent U.S. Special Operations Command, to ensure that never again would “ad hoc rescue forces have to be cobbled together to meet the kind of time-urgent crisis that the Son Tay and Iranian rescue missions represented.” Another year passed before Special Operations Command could begin work as the lead agency against terrorism, just in time for Afghanistan, America’s first major Special Forces conflict since Vietnam. SF soldiers do not give up easily. As Colonel Bill Cowan USMC, one of the pioneers of the reborn Special Forces, told the author: “Following my retirement I went to serve as an aide on Capitol Hill. I got the last laugh with the bureaucracy. I was one of five key staffers who wrote the legislation which created the Special Operations Command in Tampa. The Pentagon and the White House fought the legislation tenaciously. But they lost and the command was formed, leading to Spec Ops being at the forefront as they are today.”

The story of the CIA’s paramilitary Special Operations Group followed a similar pattern. Following many misadventures involving coups and assassinations in the 1980s, the Agency retreated to intelligence analysis allied to satellite surveillance. The SOG “knuckle-draggers” were moribund. George Tenet, CIA Director, started the SOG renaissance in 1998. The process accelerated rapidly after 9/11. The budget grew by millions of dollars, equipment including jet aircraft, cargo planes reminiscent of Air America and Vietnam, speedboats, and Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles.

Their remit, handed down by President George W. Bush, was to use “all necessary means” to track down and kill Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. Not everyone—notably Defense Secretary Rumsfeld—was happy about the duplication of effort that SOG—though tiny compared with SOCOM—represented. In 2005 he unveiled yet another weapon to be added to SOCOM’s armory.

The Marines had landed, in the form of 2,500 Leathernecks and sailors, to form an entity known as MarSOC (U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command). The Corps was not happy, for it creamed off some of its best reconnaissance talent. It was also to lead to one of the most disputed firefights of the Afghanistan campaign, and an equally controversial court of inquiry that exonerated two officers.

The CIA, meanwhile, continued to recruit experienced Special Forces officers, training some of them for a year in spycraft, before sending them back to the Agency’s preferred form of low-profile warfare, working through proxies. For a time after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, a symbiosis of CIA and SOCOM functioned well enough. But the two have continued to work in parallel, rather than together, with mixed results. Should President Barack Obama conclude some time in the future that U.S. strategy requires a change of emphasis, away from hearts-and-minds toward Howard Hart’s nostrum (“Cut a deal with the Taliban”) and Senator Biden’s wish to concentrate America’s fire on al Qaeda, it suggests a bigger role for the CIA’s Special Operations Group. The McChrystal formula, publicly endorsed by the president at West Point on 2 December 2009 to safeguard civilians in the most populous areas of Afghanistan (and, by extension, Pakistan), will be a task that emphasizes the role of SOCOM, as well as the poor bloody infantry.
But we should note that Obama, a cautious cat, hedged his bets. He said: “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan…. Unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies. So as a result…we will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold—whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere—they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.” Note the language. For “nimble and precise,” read “Special Operations Forces.” At the military level, the symbiosis of CIA paramilitary and intelligence combined with Special Operations Forces was the future war-fighting model beyond the time-limited commitment to Karzai’s Afghanistan.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

World War I: Africa and Asia (1914–1918)

A total of 36 nations fought in World War I, and combat extended to the colonial possessions of the principal powers-although on a small scale compared with the titanic struggle in Europe. The great powers fought on the peripheral fronts hoping to shorten the war and gain territory. In fact, the peripheral action probably served only to prolong the war, by drawing troops and materiel away from the major theaters. 

As formidable as Germany's European-based army was, its ability to defend most of its colonial possessions was limited. The British planned to capture all of the German colonies throughout the world, ostensibly with the objectives of preventing German warships from gaining access to ports and of protecting Allied colonies from German aggression, but also of reaping the rewards of imperial expansion at the expense of Germany. In Africa, German colonies included Togoland, Cameroons, and German Southwest Africa on the continent's west coast, and German East Africa on the east.
On August 7, three days after England declared war, four companies of British-led native troops from the Gold Coast (Ghana) and a unit of French-led native troops from Dahomey (Benin) invaded Togoland on their own initiative. After 20 days of sporadic combat, German colonial officials surrendered the colony. The immediate dividend of this victory was the capture of wireless (radio) stations that regulated the operation of German surface vessels raiding in African waters. 

A combination of French, British, and Belgian colonial troops invaded Cameroons on August 20, 1914, from the south, the east, and the northwest. By sea, they also attacked in the west. German resistance was more formidable than it had been in Togoland. The German Cameroonian Army was a small but capable force of 12 companies. It withdrew to a stronghold at Mora and held out there against repeated attacks through February 18, 1916. With its defeat, Cameroons fell to the Allies. 

British regulars were withdrawn from South Africa for western front duty on August 10, 1914. To take their place, the white civilian residents of South Africa formed four irregular units and invaded German South West Africa (Namibia), beginning in September 1914. The British irregulars enjoyed a superiority of numbers that enabled them to gain control of all major ports; however, invasion of the interior was delayed by an uprising of pro- German South Africans, who had fought against the British during the Second (Great) BOER WAR (1899- 1902). It was not until January 1915, by which time the ranks of the British irregulars had grown to 50,000, that an offensive was launched to put down the rebellion. It was quelled by February-except in Cameroons, where many Germans continued to fight a guerrilla war of sporadic skirmishes. The Germans in South Africa surrendered on July 9, 1915. 

By the beginning of the 20th century, Germany had made a few colonial inroads into China and among the Pacific islands. These holdings included Qingdao (Tsingtao), a harbor town in the Chinese province of Guizhou (Kweichow); the Marianas, the Caroline Islands, and the Marshall Islands in the North Pacific; and Western Samoa, Neu-Pommern (New Britain), and a portion of New Guinea in the South Pacific. Japan entered the war at the end of August 1914, honoring an alliance with Britain. Beginning in September, it launched an attack on Qingdao, eventually with the support of Allied warships. The port fell on November 7. Simultaneously with the attack on Qingdao, Japanese forces invaded the Marianas, the Caroline Islands, and the Marshalls, all of which fell by October.

The German colony of Western Samoa yielded to a force of New Zealanders, supported by Australian, British, and French warships, at the end of August 1914 without having offered any resistance. In September 1914, Australian troops invaded Neu-Pommern and took over all of German New Guinea in a matter of weeks. 

Territory consisting of present-day Rwanda, Burundi, and continental Tanzania constituted German East Africa. In contrast to Germany's other colonial holdings, it was defended not only ably but also with genius and determination, by Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (1870-1964). This officer possessed great skill in guerrilla warfare and commanded a force of askaris, superb European-trained native African troops. Lieutenant Colonel Lettow-Vorbeck was dispatched to German East Africa early in 1914. With limited supplies and a small army equipped with outmoded weapons, Lettow- Vorbeck nevertheless resolved to strike preemptively. As soon as war was declared in Europe, he staged a series of raids against the British railway in Kenya. Next, he attempted to capture Mombasa. 

Although he was driven back by September 1914, he successfully defended against a British amphibious attack on the port town of Tanga in northeastern Tanzania (then called Tanganyika) during November 2-3, 1914. Lettow-Vorbeck inflicted heavy losses on the British and also captured a large cache of badly needed arms and ammunition. He forced the British, themselves poorly supplied, into a defensive posture, which tied up a disproportionate number of men. Even after the Royal Navy sank in the Rufiji-River Delta the German cruiser Königsberg-the vessel on which Lettow- Vorbeck depended heavily for support-the German commander refused to give up. He put his men to work salvaging most of the stricken vessel's guns and even commandeered the Königsberg's crew as land troops. 

To deal with Lettow-Vorbeck, the British put a large force of British and colonial troops under the command of South African general Jan Christian Smuts (1870-1950). The operations of this invasion army were coordinated with those of a Belgian invasion from the west and with those of an independent British invasion from Nyasaland in the south. Hopelessly outnumbered, Lettow-Vorbeck met this formidable threat with cool patience, employing delaying tactics to keep the invaders exposed to the merciless jungle. He made an ally of a hostile climate and terrain; in the end, tropical diseases caused far more Allied casualties than German bullets. Lettow-Vorbeck's askaris were accustomed to the climate and therefore less vulnerable to regional disease. 

Their losses notwithstanding, the British continued to pour men and resources into the invasion. Lettow-
Vorbeck slowly yielded to the advance, ensuring that the invaders paid dearly for every mile they claimed. At frequent intervals, he turned on his pursuers with surprise counterattacks carried out with lightning speed. At Mahiwa, during October 15-18, 1917, although outnumbered four to one, he inflicted 1,500 casualties on the British, sustaining no more than 100 himself. Nevertheless, it was clear to Lettow-Vorbeck that the superior numbers of the British would ultimately drive him out of German East Africa. He decided not to make a useless stand in defense of a lost cause but instead invaded the Portuguese colony of Mozambique in December 1917. By looting Portuguese garrisons, Lettow-Vorbeck was able to supply his 4,000-man army sufficiently to enable him to raid as far south as Quelimane on the coast during July 1-3, 1918. Here, he turned back north and reentered German East Africa during September and October. By this time the war was all but over in Europe, but Lettow-Vorbeck, out of communication and isolated, had no knowledge of the fate of his countrymen on the western front. He launched an invasion of British-held Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and took the principal city of Kasama (in modern Zambia) on November 13, 1918-fully two days after the Armistice had officially ended the war.

After taking Kasama, Lettow-Vorbeck began to hear and heed rumors of the German surrender in Europe. He opened negotiations with the British, and on November 23, 1918, Lettow-Vorbeck surrendered his undefeated army at Abercorn (Mbala, Zambia). His was the last German force to lay down its arms in World War I. On the day of his surrender, Lettow-Vorbeck's entire army consisted of 155 Europeans, 1,168 African askari troops, and 3,000 other Africans. 

Further reading: Justin J. Corfield, Bibliography of the First World War in the Far East and Southeast Asia (Lewiston, N. Y.: Edwin Mellen, 2003); Hermann J. Hiery, The Neglected War: The German South Pacific and the Influence of World War I (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995); Melvin E. Page, ed., Africa and the First World War (New York: St. Martin's, 1988); Helmuth Stoecker, ed., German Imperialism in Africa: From the Beginnings until the Second World War (Leiden, Neth.: Brill Academic, 1987).