On Egypt and news media

.

I watch some foreign TV news stations, and am increasingly appalled by how conceited some people/nationalities are. The Egyptian crisis is about Egypt and at most other Arab countries, not about any Western country. We're pretty unimportant bystanders, all of us Westerners.

The most ridiculous thing I heard was the assertion that Egyptians are waiting for "leadership" by a certain Western country. Seriously, they probably waited for leadership by El Baradei, but certainly not by some distant and not exactly decisively influential country! It might be news to some, but that country ain't the only democracy, and Egypt and the Arab world are quite likely to watch to European countries like France or the UK for examples of democracy. Both have a long track record of developing and living in democracy (even though they call it constitutional monarchy and republic) and both have historical ties with the Arab world.

Almost as appalling is the behaviour of some Westerners who treat the Egyptian crisis selfishly as an event which will affect primarily us. To overthrow Mubarak is in their opinion a bad thing if that means the slightest disadvantage or even only uncertainty to us. Despicable pundits, fear-mongers.

Finally the third appalling thing about "news" about Egypt; the assertion that the revolution in Egypt is going towards an Iranian model (and will probably breed terror against us, although that is not exactly how the Iranian revolution played out).

It's in theory an acceptable idea, but the facts (as publicly known) simply point at an entirely different direction and it's simply appalling that people earn money by spouting such horror scenarios on global TV.

The Muslim Brotherhood was not involved in the early protests overtly - the beginning of the protest  movement was the achievement of the hopeless youth of Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organisation. It is not connected to AQ in Egypt. It does not endorse violence. It did even join the protests against the anti-Christian violence a few weeks ago. It's the Egyptian version of a conservative party. Guess what? German conservatives call their parties "Christian [...]" and still aren't the Spanish inquisition.

Nevertheless, some pundits are moronic enough to just read "Muslim" and think "AQ-like". Yes, the state of some mass media outlets is that sad. It's even worse, for I watched an international TV news station which has a better reputation for its programming than its national brethren.

S O

.

Native American shields

.

I did recently compile a list of infantry innovations of the inter-war and WW2 period and came up with the idea of creating a complete list, spanning the whole documented history of at least Europe.

Minutes later I gave up, for that's a subject for a doctoral thesis - not for a private project.

It did nevertheless remind me of how poorly we are informed about  Europe's pre-historic period. The equipment of the Alps glacier mummy "Ötzi" came as a huge surprise to modern people when it was discovered a few years ago. He carried no dedicated warrior equipment, though (copper-bladed axe, dagger, longbow, quiver and arrows came close, but were still dual-use items).

The best look into stone-age warfare is probably a look at what we know about native Americans from both Americas in the 16th to 19th century. Much of their equipment was organic and will thus decay just like almost all stone-age equipment in Europe already did. The Maori/Polynesians, Australian Aborigines and Micronesians/Melanesians are also excellent sources.

Native American shields are of especially high interest to me, not the least because I don't know about stone age shields in Europe (the oldest ones I know about are examples from bronze age Greece and the rather ceremonial Northern European Yetholm-type shields.

Native American war shields were both a warrior's (dubious) protection and a very spiritual thing. 

Such an item could change the whole idea of how pre-historic combat looked like in Europe. Shields would make less sense if the dominant weapon were javelins, while they would make perfect sense if bows or melee weapons were dominant, for example.

S O

edit 2015: To clarify: The Native American war shield was for protection, while the medicine shield (we'd call it "ceremonial shield" in Europe) was or is about spiritual affairs.

more info: http://www.snowwowl.com/naartshields.html  http://www.snowwowl.com/histplainsindianshields3.html 

.

Historical speed of advance in offensives

.

Blitzkrieg: The Myth of Blitz

by Captain Thomas T. Smith

I believe he missed some more extreme examples*, but this old (1990) Infantry Magazine article of 1990 is nevertheless worthy of a recommendation.

*: From June 22nd to 26th, von Manstein advanced over 320km with his 56. Panzer Korps in order to capture important Duna river bridges. Several Soviet divisions were overwhelmed in the process.

S O
.

Australia's Fighting Dogs

.
Photo essay "Australia's Fighting Dogs".



S O
.

Will Egyptian M1 Abrams tanks roll over demonstrators?

.

Germany was 'not amused' when news surfaced in the 90's that the Turkish army was using former East German military equipment (including APCs) against Kurds in its civil war.

The reason was that Germany largely prohibits arms exports into crisis regions (with few cabinet-level waivers). We still manage to export a huge load of arms every year, of course.

The U.S. could 'potentially' become embarrassed by seeing Egyptian M1 Abrams tanks or their predecessors, the M60 Patton tank (both of U.S. origin)  rolling over demonstrators in Cairo very soon.

The M1 and the M60 are the most numerous and afaik also the best-maintained main battle tanks of the Egyptian army, after all.

This could produce a lot of ugly pictures and could raise additional eyebrows over the Western policy towards Arab autocrats.

The good thing about it is that this event is rather unlikely, since many army 4x4 APC crews have already shown solidarity with the demonstrators, yelling "We are all brothers!". The Egyptian army's loyalty to the Mubarak regime seems to be questionable at the junior leadership levels right now.

S O

edit: I saw already a press photo of an abandoned M60 (in the streets of either Suez or Cairo).

edit2: I saw a first photo of a column of M1s in the streets, but apparently again not opposing the crowd as most likely intended by Mubarak.
.

Foreign policy and autocrats

.

If we bet on the stability of authoritarian states, we will be right most of the time, but wrong at the crucial time.

History is made when the weather suddenly changes -- by deviations from the normal course of events. The challenge for American diplomacy is not to wait for shifts in favor of human rights and democracy before scrambling to appear to support them. It is not to wait until a dictator is half-way out the door before you condemn his abuses, freeze his assets, and demand free elections. It is to promote change in repressive states before it appears inevitable. If you think there is only a 10 percent chance that Egypt's post-Mubarak transition will usher in a government that answers to its people, or that in the next few years the Burmese military junta might compromise with the democratic opposition, or that a popular movement might successfully challenge political repression in Iran, then why not do what you can to help raise the odds to 20 or 30 percent?

Whispering at Autocrats

By Tom Malinowski, Foreign Policy, January 25, 2011

German foreign policy seems to have an erratic behaviour in regard to demanding better governance and/or democracy in public. Sometimes delegations travel to a dictatorship and say nothing, sometimes they demand/propose democracy.

It looks to me as if the system behind it is actually bartering, as if German foreign politicians barter for the permission to criticize the host - and as if they don't criticize without such a permission.

The German foreign policy does certainly not make the impression of a crusade for democracy and freedom. It creates in regard to democracy/freedom rather the impression of a PR stunt series for the domestic voters.

That's odd, for in most cases the only risk is the risk to damage German business interests. Such a trade-off between pushing for freedom and domestic business interests seems only ethical if - and only if - there's really almost nothing to be gained. A predictably ineffective push for freedom (it might even be counter-productive) weights indeed lightly enough to be outweighed by business interests.

The article "Whispering at Autocrats" makes the point that this expectation of ineffectiveness is probably wrong if a country is ripe for revolution or if an autocratic government is dependent on foreign powers playing along.

Both the U.S. and individual European countries have likely most often not enough weight to topple distant autocratic regimes through mere critique, but the potential is still there.

  

 

A united EU could push an autocratic regime off balance at times - especially if the ties are rather close (or short).

The U.S. - entangled in much of the world as it is - has probably created enough connections to be able to deal decisive blows to autocratic some regimes through soft power as well.

The current events should kick off a reappraisal of our foreign policy in regard to autocratic regimes.

A democratic world is no safer world and thus no national security policy achievement, but it's a better world.

S O

.

Trajan on the revolts in Tunisia (?)

.
An excerpt from the letters of Pliny ( a correspondence between magistrate Pliny the Younger and the Roman emperor Trajan):

To the emperor Trajan

Pliny the Younger (?)

While I was making a progress in a different part of the province, a most destructive fire broke out at Nicomedia, which not only consumed several private houses, but also two public buildings; the town-house and the temple of Isis, though they stood on contrary sides of the street. The occasion of its spreading thus wide, was partly owing to the violence of the wind, and partly to the indolence of the people, who, it appears, stood fixed and idle spectators of this terrible calamity. The truth is, the city was not furnished with either engines, buckets, or any single instrument proper to extinguish fires: which I have now, however, given directions to be provided. You will consider, Sir, whether it may not be advisable to form a company of firemen, consisting only of one hundred and fifty members. I will take care none but firemen shall be admitted into it; and that the privileges granted them shall not be extended to any other purpose. As this corporate body will be restricted to so small a number of members, it will be easy to keep them under proper regulation.

Trajan to Pliny

You are of opinion it would be proper to establish a company of firemen in Nicomedia, agreeably to what has been practiced in several other cities. But it is to be remembered, that societies of this sort have greatly disturbed the peace of the province in general, and of those cities in particular. Whatever name we give them, and for whatever purpose they may be instituted, they will not fail to form themselves soon into political clubs. It will, therefore, be safer, to provide such equipment as is of service in extinguishing fires, enjoining the owners of houses to assist in preventing the mischief from spreading; and if it should be necessary, to call in the aid of the populace.

(my emphasis)

Many authors in newspapers, blogs and journals have linked the Arab revolts to social media services in the internet. The Egyptian government seems to agree so far as to cut the internet completely in Egypt yesterday. I'm a bit sceptical and see such services as mere and substitutable tools, but it reminded me of the above quoted ancient letter.

Maybe all forms of organisation - even online friends networks and the like - have an inherent potential for political purposes. Maybe modern dictatorships really need to suppress even such forms of organisations / "societies". This might put them at an even greater systemic disadvantage in comparison to open societies than otherwise.

On the other hand, the very same networks could prove to contribute to open society instability as well.

 
S O
.

In the news: Wulff in Auschwitz

.

The German Federal president Wulff has held a speech in Auschwitz, Poland, and he did the usual thing: Remind us about what happened and the necessity to remember it and avoid anything similar in the future.

I have to credit him for not falling overtly into the stupid trap of collective guilt, theory but his speech can nevertheless be interpreted as if he did.

The speech was therefore largely a wasted opportunity.

Germans are not significantly different than humans of other nationality by being born as Germans. There's no reason why history should mean a special responsibility for later generations of only one of few nations instead of for all later generations of all nations: The responsibility to learn and adapt.

What that happened in the Third Reich are least likely to be repeated similarly in Germany. A repetition in other countries is much, much more likely. West Germans have spent the 60s and 70s in an effort to immunize themselves against repeating old mistakes, and the late 40's constitution of West Germany contributed to this with a legal basis which was largely defined in order to avoid earlier mistakes.

The efforts went so far that today's youth is already somewhat annoyed by the often-repeated history lessons. If there's any one country that is immune against repeating the old Nazi crap, then it's Germany.

So yes, we have a responsibility. That can and probably should be said. What should be said is that this "we" means mankind. All nationalities have the very same responsibility; they need to see the necessity to avoid such mistakes. Every nation should learn lessons from the global history of mankind, not just from its own history.

The idea that certain problems are somehow nation-specific is foolish - as foolish as a belief in the exceptionalism of the own country, a belief that the own country could not repeat certain mistakes of others. We're all just humans and all human-devised systems can err.

It's utterly self-evident for academics that an experiment or empiric data from one country is relevant world-wide. An economic crash in Malaysia feeds into economic research just as one in the U.S., for example. 

The nationalist view that people are vastly different because of different passports or ancestors and the past of one country should be more important than the past of another one is misleading. Those who restrict their learning from the past to learning about the history of the own country neglect the vast majority of available lessons.

- - - - -

Wulff should have exploited the opportunity and should have spoken to the whole world, making clear that the lesson of Auschwitz is a lesson for everyone. His "wir" (we) was too ambiguous.

Germans typically fail to learn much from other countries' history. The hyperinflation of 1923 is ingrained into our society's memory, but the modern hyperinflation in Zimbabwe is being ignored. Auschwitz is known by pretty much every adult German, but Pol Pot isn't.

Likewise, it's astonishing how much German military doctrine and thought (the latter behind closed doors) is very specifically and typically "German". This includes myself. I am still utterly unable to disguise as a Commonwealth guy or an American or a Japanese or even as a Russian in discussions about military history or doctrine. I am certainly well-read on the doctrines of half a dozen countries and the military history and past doctrines of more than a dozen countries. I'm still easily identified as one who has been coined by German military thought tradition.

I wonder how much potential for learning is being wasted by this nation-centric view on things.

S O

P.S.: I wrote quite the same in one of the very first blog posts, but readership has multiplied by hundred since then. A repetition won't hurt.

.

Army postal service scandal

.

There's currently a set of Bundeswehr scandals. The most outrageous accusation is about soldier's mail from Afghanistan that reached relatives either opened or opened AND emptied.

News is not exactly my focus, so I just provide a link to one of the very few German MilBlogs: The Afghanistan-Blog. This one is being maintained by a journalist. Journalists and politicians dominate the tiny German MilBlog scene, especially if we define the latter loosely.

Skandal: Bundeswehr öffnet Feldpostbriefe?

19/01/2011

By Boris Barschow

Germany had several small scandals concerning the postal and telecommunications secrecy, including one that engulfed the major telecommunications corporation. Maybe the accusations regarding the soldiers' mail is not accurate, but it won't hurt to push the awareness for the topic.

S O
.

Bacevich's takedown of the military spending craze with Ike's help

.

Andrew J. Bacevich is apparently a sane conservative and one thing is for sure: He dislikes imperial foreign policy and wars of choice.

"The Tyranny of Defense Inc."

Atlantic Magazine

Jan/Feb 2011

Excerpt:

Largely overlooked by most commentators was a second theme that Eisenhower had woven into his text. The essence of this theme was simplicity itself: spending on arms and armies is inherently undesirable. Even when seemingly necessary, it constitutes a misappropriation of scarce resources. By diverting social capital from productive to destructive purposes, war and the preparation for war deplete, rather than enhance, a nation’s strength. And while assertions of military necessity might camouflage the costs entailed, they can never negate them altogether.

I took me until a few years ago to recognize that anyone could seriously think otherwise. There are indeed people who believe that military spending boosts the economy overall. That is safely beyond the reach of my imagination - I had to encounter such people to consider the possibility that they may exist.

The whole idea of military spending = boosting the economy is outrageously illogical. Military spending does at the very best crowd out private consumption and reduces ceteris paribus the supply of qualified labour (especially engineers) for civilian products industries.

S O
.