Quantrill's Raiders, Baghdad and asymmetrical warfare. . .

I'm going to go back to Kansas-Missouri border war that inspired the name of this blog. As noted before, Kansas, pre-civil war and during the war, was an abolitionist state--meaning that it did not support slavery, slavery was outlawed in Kansas, and that it provided a "safe haven" for slaves who ran away from as far as Arkansas and Alabama. But it was initially the slaves in Missouri that sparked the border war, which was arguably more vicious than the civil war itself, since it mostly involved attacks on civilians.

The "Red Legs" (because of the red stockings they wore) or "Jayhawkers" were militias from Kansas that raided across the border in western Missouri ostensibly for the purpose of "freeing slaves," but more often for the purpose of lining their own pockets. The raiders included a lot of backwater farmers, but also physicians and a state senator. Missouri was not officially a part of the confederacy, but it allowed slavery--but less than 10% of Missourians owned slaves. Missourians were mostly immigrants from Germany, Scandinavia and other European nations that had come to what was then the western frontier for the homesteading act, which allotted them land if they farmed it. Many of the Germans that lived in Missouri, especially around St. Louis, were also virulent abolitionists.

When the "Red Legs/Jayhawkers" started burning down homesteads, rustling cattle and other livestock and "liberating" farmers of all their possessions, a large militia was formed in Missouri that consisted of both Missourians and some former (AWOL) confederate soldiers: it was headed by William Quantrill, thought to be one of the best guerilla fighters and strategists in American history, second only to maybe Crazy Horse. He organized a raid on Lawrence Kansas (where the University of Kansas is located) which was a "liberal and abolitionist stronghold" and slaughtered around 200 people and burned the town to the ground in retaliation for Jayhawkers' transgressions in Missouri, but also because he perceived Kansans to be unionists. Later, while on the run from federal/Union soldiers, he and "Bloody Bill" Anderson split the militia of over 400 horsemen into smaller units and melted into the woods and thickets of Missouri. From there, they ambushed Union soldiers and used unconventional means of warfare. Riding with Anderson were the Younger boys and Jesse and Frank James--later all famous outlaws. As noted before, to stop the border raids on both sides, General Ewing required anyone within 30 miles of the Missouri border (and notably this did not include Kansans) to move within 3 months, and then he burned a 30 mile wide and 150 mile long swath so that soldiers could see anyone riding over what was effectively a "desert." Read about William Clark Quantrill and the "burnt district" here.

Quantrill's raids were notoriously violent: essentially no male was safe, including adolescent boys. And he instilled such fear in Kansans that there were often reports of his raiders being sighted in up to ten different cities simultaneously. He was truly an American Terrorist. His raiders often took human "trophies" such as ears, and even the confederacy, which supported him, was fearful of his men.

This brings me to my observation and a question. Quantrill waged classic, asymmetrical warfare--namely his insurgents raised hell and inspired such terror that no Missourian dared say "no" to any of Quantrill's requests for shelter, horses, and food--even if it meant starvation for the provider. He did not fight conventionally, face-to-face with his enemy, and relied on the terrified Missouri citizenry to feed and house his men. Not to say he didn't have true supporters in Missouri who gladly and freely provided him with provisions.

In Baghdad we see much of type of warfare. Do we demand too much of Iraqi citizens to turn down insurgents or report them if they know it will definitely result in their deaths and/or the deaths of their families? And does dealing with insurgencies and internecine battles between militias demand an "Order 11" General Ewing type of action on the American forces/government of Iraq's part? Which essentially means bulldozing a line around the city and in violent, insurgent-saturated neighborhoods like Sadr city to keep the peace. Or would this cause even more resentment and provide an incentive for young unemployed men to join militias?

An interesting piece in the NY Times today. Although Iran is theocracy, and intolerant one at that, the interviewee brings up interesting and salient points about Iran under the Shah, whom the US, propped up until the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which was in response to the Shah's hardball tactics like the ones that he describes. I worked with an Iranian in Texas during this turbulent time, and the Shah had executed my Iranian friend's father. He was itching to get back to Tehran and participate in the overthrow of the Shah's government--who could blame him? But for many Iranians, the revolution didn't turn out like they planned: it was taken over by hardliner Islamists who eventually took the US embassy staff hostage for more than a year. Thus began our long and painful "coldwar" with Iran. We actually helped Saddam Hussein in the early eighties by supplying him with weapons because he was fighting Iran over disputed territory. Wars make for strange bedfellows.

Now we are concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran states that it wants to use uranium enrichment for nuclear power stations, not weapons. The US and much of Europe does not believe this. There is talk of sanctions against Iran, but China and Russia will not support this as Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Also if sanctions go through, we can expect to see oil hit over $100 a barrel--about 4 or 5 dollars a gallon at the pump. The president of Iran, whom another blogger described aptly as a "millenarian moonbat" has written an 18 page letter to President Bush and is now offering to "debate President Bush" on national TV to prove "to the American people" that he wants peace and good relations. Obviously this "debate" is not going to happen, and there was no official response to the letter. The Iranian president has made absolutely hideous remarks about Israel, saying that "the Zionists should be wiped off the map." When Mike Wallace, in a 60 Minutes (TV program) interview confronted him on this remark, he demurred--stating that he "just wanted the Palestinians to be treated fairly." But he had also said in the past that Israel should be relocated to Europe or Canada or Texas. Obviously the man is a loose and vicious cannon.

Bush, in response to today's announcement that Iran wouldn't stop enrichment of uranium, stated that if the security council, which includes China and Russia, wouldn't vote for sanctions, we, the US, along with "like-minded countries" (unnamed) may pursue "other methods." Most military experts and political/military think tanks read this as military intervention. So we would have three fronts: Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Should we attempt better diplomacy with Iran? Should we ignore the President of Iran (who a lot of Iranians despise) and negotiate with those who may be a bit more reasonable and less rabid in their rhetoric? Obviously Iran wants to talk to us, but our diplomacy has been limited and mostly done through European proxies. What do you think? Can the US afford another war? Or cannot it not afford not to have a war?

NOTE: the highlighted words, except for the NY Times article, are definitions of words and world events--mostly for my students' sakes. And if you, as a student, participate in discussion on this blog, you receive "participation credit."

WELCOME STUDENTS!

I am going to use this post to welcome aboard my students. I hope your summer went well and that you are getting settled into your new (or old) digs. It has been a gloomy welcome week as the weather has been dank and cool, but aside from that I'm really excited about this coming semester and meeting all of you.

As you can see, this blog has many links to bloggers around the world--mostly in the states and in the middle east. As the world seems convulsed by conflict and strife, the blogosphere has been both a reflection of these conflicts and also refutation of them as well. You will meet interesting men and women who will challenge the way you think, and perhaps even change your mind about some things (and that's OK). I ask you to participate in this blog (and yes, you can use "pen names" such as mine, Mariestaad, in fact I encourage you to do so--do not reveal your full name).

I am also reaching out to bloggers such as Bad Vilbel, Trevor, and Treasure of Baghdad, to, if you have time, write about your experience and your perceptions of what is happening in Iraq and Lebanon. If you email me a short essay or post about what you believe the one thing my students should know about the middle east, I will post it. You are eloquent writers! In fact, I'm encouraging any blogger who has insight to write. It doesn't matter where you live.

So, to my students, explore the blogosphere, post questions opinions, but always, always be respectful. Don't be a "troll"--someone who is rude, crude, and cares not for meaningful dialogue.

Of the blogosphere, news and trolls. . .


I've been reading misneach's, Bad Vilbel's, and Treasure of Baghdad's blogs for news about their respective concerns in the ME. Also have frequented "will to exist," which is some American soldiers' blog (each soldier has a distinct voice and POV) as well as "an unsealed room," which is an Israeli blog.

My question to fellow bloggers, experienced and non-experienced, is this: how much of the news you read comes from blogs as opposed to conventional sources, such as newspapers and television? Even media sites, such as CNN, have correspondent bloggers. Do you find that the news from blogs is "less reliable" because it is often more subjective. Or is media "objectivity" an illusion? Or is the subjectivity of blogs the attraction?

And finally, what of the ever-present trolls (several who have seemed to have taken up lodging at poor Allison's site of late)? Do you avoid blogs with a large troll contingent? Have you ever seen a troll "flipped"? Change his or her mind about a topic? Who are the trolls? Where do most of them come from?

I haven't been on task here. I haven't posted anything really about Iraq, and I frequent the Iraqi blogs listed as links often.

Michael Gordon, author of "Cobra II," wrote a very interesting piece about the Iraqi soldiers fighting with the Americans in very dangerous and insurgent-infested areas. Gordon wrote this for the New York Times, and it paints a poignant and somewhat depressing portrait of the Iraqi army. He points out that many Iraqi soldiers have not been paid for months, and that the bureucracy in the various ministries, which Gordon notes are corrupt, often don't send wages, and when they do, the Americans have to dole them out everyone gets paid fairly. He also notes that the Iraqi soldiers often receive spoiled meat and vegetables from the ministries' vendors. Medical care is provided by the Americans because, again, there is little provided by the state.

My question is this. In order to recruit and retain Iraqi soldiers, should America take over from the ministries the job of taking care of the army--for now? Is it too much to try to train a crack Iraqi army and at the same time expect the fledgling ministries to run smoothly and compentently? Would it violate soverignty if Americans provided food, medical care and wages to the Iraqi army?

I was listening, the other day, to a report about the shutdown of a Seattle port because of some "suspicious freight" from Pakistan. Apparently the cargo triggered two bomb dogs to react. So federal authorities, along with a bomb squad, tore the shipping containers open and found what was on the cargo manifest: oily rags from Pakistan. There were no explosives. Apparently, these rags are used in "industry" (sorry, no details on how or what for provided).

In the U.S., the majority of our goods are imported, and a lot of our labor outsourced, but this particular imported item beats all I've heard of--dirty, oily rags? C'mon America, certainly you can manufacture your own dirty, oily rags! In fact, I'm willing to donate a box full of dirty, oily rags from my basement to the cause. One has to draw a line in the sand somewhere! I think we, as citizens, should write our respective congressperson and insist No more dirty oily rags from Pakistan--Buy American!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

This debate has been taking place on "an unsealed room," but I thought I'd post something here. Bad Vilbel, and a few others, including me, were debating what the fate of Hezbollah will be, or should be. (Perhaps two completely different states of being or not being.) Hezbollah has a political branch, but unfortunately its armed branch seems to be controlling the discourse. How does one disarm Hezbollah? Can Lebanon approach this like the British with the IRA--who also had no other vision than British out of Ireland, and Northern Island being reunited with Ireland proper. Sinn Fein is the political branch of the IRA, and it is and has been negotiating a disarming of the military branch of the iRA. Of course not all arms will be turned over--the caches will dot Derry and Ulster--but at least the politcal wing has become more powerful and relevant than the armed wing. Is this possible in Lebanon, or is the comparison between Lebanon and Northern Ireland a bad analogy?

This post is a little different. A break from current events.

I was thinking about what I needed in order to post or respond to a post on another blog. And the list was revealing. First, I need my trusty iBook. I am a Mac person, have been since 1984. This says something about me, of course, because only 13 % of the American population use Macs. Also, I need a very strong cup of coffee--spoon-stands-up-in-it strong, with real cream & sweetener. Usually a Sumatra brew. My grandfather was a Swede, and he thought coffee was the elixer of life. He gave me coffee for breakfast when I was a child, (it was mostly milk) so I was hooked. I can't imagine life without coffee. Usually 2 or 3 cups while writing will do.

I listen to music, sometimes, while posting. I am very eclectic--love about anything. I am the progeny of two professors of music, so classical music was the soundtrack of my childhood. But I ventured outside that rarified world. Love radiohead. Love Johnny Cash. Love Elbow. Love Nada Surf. Love Pink Floyd and Cuban music, Emmy Lou Harris and Rufus Wainwright Tricky and Massive Attack, Mozart and Sibelius. Love Radio Paradise, which you can find on the iTunes radio list under "Alternative." It plays everything from Beethoven to Camper Van Beethoven. Presently listening to this station, and a string quintet is playing Metallica, suitably weird. It is listener supported--no commercials.

The location I write in the sun porch of my 100 year-old house, at least during the summer. During the rest of the year, I write in my subterranean office at the university, where the only natural light is through a narrow transom near the ceiling. But the porch is on the second story in the back, and is high enough that I can use a small telescope and see Mars, Venus and sometimes Saturn, and of course the moon. The porch has eight windows, and yet it is only about 10' by 5'. I write while sitting on a wicker chase lounge. Earlier in the summer, I had to listen to blue jays battle each other over my mulberry tree--which is now completely denuded of berries. Glad that period has passed as these birds eardrum-splittingly raucus. Sometimes I listen to a baseball game (Detroit Tigers), or a hockey game (Toronto Maple Leafs) during the fall, winter, and spring. I tend to kind of tune games out until I hear the play-by-play guy's voice rising a few octaves, and know a big play is at hand.

So what do you need to blog or respond to blogs? And what are your surroundings like? Are you at work? At home? What do you listen to while blogging, if anything?

I got this from YouTube after seeing it on a Lebanese blog. I think it is absolutely hilarious. But that being noted, it brings up a valid point--are most Americans just concerned with the impact that both active conflicts in the middle east has on their wallets? What amount of "wallet trauma" do you think it will take before Americans start turning their attention to current affairs and demanding accountability from their government, and more comprehensive foreign policy? I'm saying 6 dollars a gallon, which is incredibly cheap compared to Europe, where I paid nearly this amount in 1985. Also, if the world turns its focus to alternative energy sources, do you think a lesser world-wide demand for fossil fuels would have much of an impact on the problems in the middle east?


WHOOPS, MY YOU-TUBE HTML VANISHED! 8/13/06

I read on AP wire that Israel has accepted a cease-fire. Here is a podcast of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. on the aims of the Israeli war with Hezbollah (I have seen 7 spellings of this in English--anyone with an idea what the definitive spelling is, or is there even a definitive spelling?) If you listen to the podcast, let me know what you think. I think he has some good points--that Hezbollah is largely aided by other countries with eyes on Lebanon for their own political purposes. But I also think, like U.S. governmental officials (on both sides of the house), he seems to be talking from a script that includes the completely-pounded-into- inanity-by-the-assumption your audience members are cretins buzzwords like "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Nuclear Ambitions" (the one I fancy the most--I wish I had nuclear ambition! Presently, my ambition is hamster-powered). And on that note--as a good English teacher who preaches that cliches show a distinct lack of critical thinking--if I hear the phrase "We don't want to go back to the status quo ante one more time, then my hamster will go all 3-mile-island. Say it in English. In Hebrew. In Arabic. In Farsi, Pashtun, Dari/Urdu/Gaelic/Ice Landic, but please, please, don't turn a dead language into a mind-numbing poli-zombie. The Ambassador does not, thank God, say this phrase in the podcast, but every American policy-maker has adopted this phrase as his or her media mantra.

Here is the link to the podcast. . .I haven't a clue how to html embed podcasts/Mp3s. Someone wanna tell me?

That brings me to my question for those who don't have time to/don't want to listen to the podcast. How do you think the blogosphere has changed the face of conflicts? I think it is so interesting to see the war carried on line with parrying between parties involved, if by proxy, in Israeli and Lebanon, and the U.S. and Iraq. I have also seen olive branches offered--people trying to rationally discuss the conflicts and work toward a better understanding of other communities. Are you hopeful or pessimistic about the ability of blogs to alter the reality of war? The media in Vietnam radically altered America's view of the war, and thus the war itself--no media had covered a war like that before--at least in the states. Hope I get at least one answer on this!

Wolf Blitzer interviewing the Foreign Minister of Qatar on CNN: “Will the Arab League guarantee that Hezbollah will cease raining missiles down on Israel?”

The Foreign Minister from Qatar stated (I’m paraphrasing here: I typed as he spoke) that this conflict cannot be solved by military action. Qatar is trying to intervene with Hezbollah, but the Minister states that continued military action could collapse the fragile Lebanese government. He said that both sides want to show that they can stand up to each other, and they both need to back down. They cannot fight until “they completely break each others’ bones.” He also stated this war is a much more complicated issue than the UN and the West acknowledges—that this conflict involves many parties and countries. He feels that the United States and the West in general has not appreciated the complexity of the war. He also says that violence just encourages other militant groups to express their political complaints through even more violent means. He would like to see real dialogue, not just military posturing by Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel.

Do you think his observation is valid? Also how should America intervene in this conflict? What incentives could it offer to both parties? Israel is presently launching a large ground offensive further into Lebanon and is encountering fierce resistance, and many soldiers are reported dead (on both sides). Israel claims that it has killed Iranian Revolutionary Guards (this is not confirmed by CNN, AP or Reuters), which could bolster the theory that Iran is fighting this war by proxy and is contributing forces. news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060809/ts_nm/mideast_lebanon_iranians_dc_2 Some military observers say that Israel will be bogged down in south Lebanon, like the U.S. is bogged down Iraq. If you could be Condi Rice for a day, how would you effect a cease fire? Seriously, I want opinions! Or do you think this war is spiraling out of anybody's control?

(On a lighter note, Wolf is interviewing Pat Robertson, the American Evangelist who said that Ariel Sharon deserved his stroke for “giving away Gaza”—he is apparently waiting for the End Days in Jerusalem. See “an unsealed room’s” blog for John Stewart’s take on Armageddon and network news. It’s hilarious. I can’t believe that Blitzer is interviewing this man as a serious source. Yikes!)

Well, the idea for the question for tomorrow (or today for some) is taken from the 18th century French political theorist, Jean-Jacques Rousseau--this is an excerpt from "The Origin of Civil Society."

"War, therefore, is something that occurs not between man and man, but between States. The individuals who become involved in it are enemies only by accident. They fight not as men or even citizens, but as soliders: not members of this or that national group, but as its defenders. A State can have as its enemies only others States, no men at all, seeing that there can be no true relationship between things of a different nature."

What does this quote mean to you? Do you think this true? What about the last sentence? Is this applicable now? I was quite struck by this excerpt and thought it quite relevant. (If you have suggestions for other applicable excerpts/quotes, please email me them!)

I have started this blog in hopes that it can provoke an exchange of ideas between all. The only thing I ask of contributors is that you post real arguments or observations, and not indulge in blatant stereotyping, ugly remarks, and racist comments. This may be wishful thinking, but I am putting on my optimist's cap.

Where did the title of this blog come from? It seems so at odds with what this blog is about, right? Actually this is a Kansas slogan from the American Civil War period, during the bloodiest, most horrible war within a war between the border states of Kansas and Missouri. Kansas was an anti-slavery state, and Missouri was a "not for or against slavery state" (in other words you could have slaves, but it was not a part of the Confederacy, at least officially).

The war between these two states started because of
militias on both sides, who committed atrocities that would make your hair stand on end (beheadings, castrations, trophy-taking, such as stringing "kills'" ears and testicles on their bridles). It is a little known conflict, even in America, and is a all-to-typical example of factional feuding that punishes those who are just going about their business. It was tit-for-tat for five mean years. Eventually, a Federal General, Thomas Ewing, did create "desert" between the two states. He burned a 30 mile wide swath that was over 150 miles long on the border between the two states. It was known as the "burnt district" He did this so his troops could spot militias trying to cross over into enemy territory.

Obviously, this is not the way to endear either side, or engage "hearts and minds." This is what we should avoid at all costs, anywhere. It took decades for people on both sides to get over Ewing's no-holds-barred way of enforcing order. Hundreds lost their homesteads and fields--permanently. If citizens lived witin the General's "burnt district," they had to move. These citizens were never compensated for loss of their property.

FYI: I'm not an idealist. I'm pragmatic. Think about it. . .even Machiavelli was ultimately a pragmatist. And the only way people can enact change is to start talking to one another. Again, light a single candle. . .

The first question I will throw out is this. . .King Abdullah of Jordan announced today, according to Reuters, that the U.S., Europe, and Israel have no comprehensive strategy in the Middle East. . ."The United States, Britain and the European countries as well as Israel have got to listen to what we are saying," [King Abdullah] said. How could a more comprehensive strategy be organized? What would it entail?