The tangled web of the middle east

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive!

                      - Marmion by Sir Walter Scott

All is not what it seems in the Byzantine history of the middle east. The gang of thugs in ISIS make front page news every day for another heinous act. Republicans call on a "do nothing" President to yet again send American youth into battle and eliminate this latest scourge. While some would have  America spend its blood and treasure on another middle eastern war the key question is why the well armed Arab countries stand by the side or do very little about ISIS while they showed great alacrity in bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen and are preparing for an invasion of that country. The answer is a tangled web of history and religion.

The two most important countries in the Arab world are - 1) Egypt which has the largest (mostly Islamic) population the Arab world along with major institutions of learning such as Al Azhar University and 2) Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam and the country with the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

The key Arab kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a family dictatorship of the Al Saud clan. In the 21st century this country is an anomaly in that it is a personal property of the King and his extended Al Saud clan where they can pretty much do anything they please. Their first priority is safeguarding their position (monarchy protection) as the rulers of this country as well as being the guardians of the holy sites of Islam in Mecca and Medina. The Saudis are predominantly Sunni. The Syrian regime of Bashar Al Asad (initially established by his father Hafez Al Asad) is controlled by Bashar's Alawite sect which is a form of Shia Islam. Hence the Syrians since the time of Hafez Al Asad have been sworn enemies of the Saudis. The Syrians in turn established close ties with Iran the major Shiite power.

Iran is not an Arabic country. Anyone calling an Iranian an Arab does so at his own peril. The Iranians or Persians were initially for the most part Zoroastrians before they were converted to the Shia sect of Islam. The Iranians have their own rich culture inherited from thousands of years of the Persian civilization. While Iran is the major supporter of Shia movements across the middle east, the Arab shia have little in common with Iran except for religion.

Since the Iranians are Shia, they are the sworn enemies of the Saudis. Iran has courted and supported Shia minorities across the Arab world. The majority Shia of Iraq were suppressed and controlled by the Sunni minority led by erstwhile dictator Saddam Hussein. Iran remained a historical supporter of the Iraqi Shia and maintained various training camps for Shia rebels. Shia clergy also lived and studied in Iran's holy cities like Qom. When Saddam launched the Iran-Iraq war which lasted 10 years, he was tacitly backed by Iran's arch enemy the Saudis as well as the other Sunni Arab countries like Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. After the end of the pointless war where many lives were lost to little gain on either side, Saddam required his Sunni allies to pay their dues in the form of monies to reimburse the depleted Iraqi treasury. When they refused, it led to Saddam invading Kuwait and the first Gulf War. It must also be noted that Iraq also claimed Kuwait as its own since the latter never existed in the erstwhile Ottoman province from which the British carved out Iraq after World War I. The second Gulf War and US invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein was a godsend for the Iranians. Nervous at having US troops on both their eastern (Afghanistan) and western (Iraq) frontiers, they armed and trained Shia militia to fight against the American occupiers eventually forcing their depature. Their Shia allies are now in power and the Shia dominions had extended their reach meeting up with the Alawite/Shia ruled Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Shia now spanned an arc from the Mediterranean to the straits of Hormuz.

Amazed at the arrogance, naivety and ignorance of their strong ("you are with us or against us") US allies squandering blood and treasure to strengthen the hand of their Iranian Shia enemy, the Saudis looked for every opportunity to fight them. The Sunni tribes in Iraq received Saudi money and weapons. When the Shia majority in Bahrain rebelled (backed by Iran) against their minority Sunni rulers, Saudi troops backed by the UAE rolled into Bahrain to suppress the uprising. When the Syrian version of the Arab spring happened, Saudi money and arms flowed to the predominantly Sunni opposition fighting Bashar Al Asad's Alawite led regime. This collection of tribes, gangs and Islamic fundamentalists later morphed into today's ISIS, an extreme Sunni force. Rumor has it that Saudi monies and arms still flow to ISIS. Why would the Saudis fight their own kind? The Iraqi army and Shia militias fighting ISIS are actually supported and armed by Iran. ISIS however has grandiose ambitions of forming an Islamic caliphate stretching across all the Islamic world. Now that is a threat to the Al Saud rule and their role as the protectors of the holy sites of Islam. Therefore, ISIS fighting the Shia is fine but they cant be allowed to become victorious and endanger the Al Saud.

While ISIS bleeds the Shia in Iraq, the Saudis are embarked on air strikes and a possible invasion of their southern neighbor Yemen. This is because the Houthis who occupy Aden and other key towns in Yemen today are a Shia tribe and are supposedly backed by Iran. Anxious to protect their southern underbelly, the Saudis are embarked on yet another religious fight against their Shia enemy.

The predominantly Jewish state of Israel views Iran and its aspirations for nuclear weapons as an existential threat. The irony of the Saudi - Iran faceoff is that it has drawn Israel and the Saudis closer since their common enemy is Iran.

One might think that the Sunni Arabs would be one consolidated power bloc. However, not all is well between the Sunni Arabs either. The Saudis' neighbor to the northwest is the tiny monarchy of Jordan, yet another artificial construct based on lines drawn on maps by Winston Churchill when he was the colonial secretary of Great Britain after the first world war. The King of Jordan belongs to the Hashemite clan. They claim to be direct descendants of the Prophet Mohammad and initially ruled the territory known as the Hejaz before it was conquered by the Al Saud. The Hashemites briefly ruled in Syria and Iraq and currently King Abdullah rules the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The King while well educated and polished is nevertheless a close to absolute monarch of his kingdom which was initially supported by Britain and now the United States. There is tension between the Saudis and Jordan since the Hashemites have historical claims that may threaten the current Saudi role as the protectors of the holy sites of Islam. History might have been very different if the British had picked the Hashemites to rule Arabia instead of the Al Saud.

The Saudis have played a careful balancing act for decades. Blessed with abundant oil wealth, they have sponsored regimes all over the Arab world from Egypt to Lebanon to keep the Shia at bay, cozied up to Wahabi Imams within their country to gain their support to the regime and based on a compact with the US for protection in return for low cost oil. They have extensively supported Pakistan in return for the support of the Pakistani army should they ever need it. It is rumored that they financed the Pakistani nuclear weapons program in order to gain access to an Islamic bomb should they need it (against Iran). In 1987-88 the Saudis acquired more than 100  Chinese DF-3 (CSS-2, Dongfeng) missiles, IRBMs with a range of 2800 Kilometers and based around the capital of Riyadh. Their target is easy to guess.

The Saudis and Iranians hate each other and seek to destabilize each other. The Syrians and Saudis hate each other. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shia in Iraq cant get along with each other. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE kingdoms dread the influence of Iran as they seek to preserve their regimes. Egypt is in a fight between dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism. Israel is fighting Iranian and Arab backed terrorists (or revolutionaries depending on your viewpoint) while it cozies up to the Jordanians and the Saudis. The Saudis have to fight Iran even as they keep in check their Arab comrades, Israel and ambitious US politicians who think they have answers to these problems. Nothing is what it seems in the middle east. The world of Arabia is very different from the straight talk of America and the west. Into this tangled web, some would have gullible and naive (relatively speaking) Americans ride in with their high tech weapons and restore the peace.

While other religions have had schisms, the Sunni - Shia one has become a deadly source of tension in the Islamic world and has been radiating danger to all parts of the planet. It is not helped by the fact that Pakistan, an epicenter of Islamic terrorism is an economic basket case and has nuclear weapons. External meddling by the west initially by the British and French drawing random lines on maps and then the US after World War II has only made things worse and made America a target for their ire as well. This is an Arab and Islamic problem that can only be solved by them.  They need to champion a reformation of Islam and a rapprochement much like the Catholic church and the Protestants. The west must observe and support under the aegis of international organizations but not interfere for it will only make it worse. 

On socialism

This was posted by one of my friends on Facebook. What do you think?

An economics professor at a local University made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "Okay, we will have an experiment in this class on the socialism principles. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.

After the FIRST TEST were averaged, everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were HAPPY.

As the SECOND TEST rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied much lesser than before.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the THIRD TEST rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED. The professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed - could not be any simpler than that.

These are possibly the five best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Give em hell Harry

Harry S Truman was the 33rd President of the United States.  Truman by David McCullough is the fantastic story of this very ordinary man who in very extra-ordinary times became the President of the most powerful country in the world.

This biography of Truman by David McCullough won him a Pulitzer prize and it is not hard to see why. McCullough provides a bystander's picture of Truman's ancestors and their migration to the frontier in Missouri,  his unremarkable childhood and youth, the coming of age during the first world war, into politics, the presidency and the tumultuous years hence. The story is unbiased and based on detailed analysis including the innumerable letters that Truman the prolific writer wrote to his family, friends and connections.

Truman is descended from Scottish-Irish immigrants who carve out a life for themselves out of the westward migration and life on the frontier. These chapters are full of the hardy life of these pioneers who carved a nation out of the western wilderness. After a pretty average childhood and youth growing up in Independence, MIssouri Truman in his thirties discovers his capabilities for leadership when leading aa artillery battery with the 35th division in the Ardennes during World War I.  He gains valuable insights into his own character, lessons in leadership and builds lasting friendships that stand him in good stead.

McCullough deals honestly and in detail with Harry's relationship and backing from the Penderghast political machine in Kansas City. With their support and becoming a judge, Harry proves to be a uniquely straight and incorruptible politician focused on building roads and balancing the budget of his county. This is but the start of a political career where Harry is the epitome of a scrupulous, incorruptible man with a firm belief in serving the people who elected him instead of enriching himself. By twists and turns of fate, Harry wins the senate seat for Missouri.

Derisively called the "Senator from Penderghast", Harry fights to even gain basic respect in a senate populated by elitist politicians with the "right breeding", from political families or educated in a top University (Harry could not go to college since he couldn't afford to). Here we have a picture of a very ordinary man in the top political circles of the country. The country is in the third Roosevelt presidential term and in the midst of the "New Deal" attempting to bring the country out of the great depression. Harry can hardly get the ear of the whitehouse or the President and does not participate in any major legislation. He gains recognition when he gets to lead the "Truman committee" which is investigating defense spending during the chaotic first years of the second world war.

Running for reelection for a second term, Harry has no support from the white house or major politicians. He shows his innate American grit and determination when he goes on a hectic tour of his state meeting with farmers and city folk saying "I wanted to meet with you so you can see I dont have horns". Written off by pretty much everyone, Harry wins the election for a second term. This is a recurrent theme of his life where nobody gives him any chance of success, including many times himself. Harry however digs deep within himself and like America itself finds it in himself to be successful.

 David McCullough does a fantastic job recounting the lead up to the Democratic party convention for Roosevelt's fourth term where Harry finally gets nominated for the vice presidency. We feel like we are watching the scenes unfold on CNN when he takes us into the smoke filled rooms where the movers and shakers of the party maneuver and make decisions.

When the Roosevelt - Truman ticket is elected, Roosevelt is a very sick man. The allies are winning the war against Hitler's Germany and the empire of Japan. The post war big three conferences such as Yalta are designed to establish spheres of influence, sharing of power and establishing institutions to govern the peace. When Roosevelt dies and Truman is sworn in as President, he is viewed by everyone in Washington and around the country as effete and incapable of stepping into Roosevelt's shoes. Truman himself has self doubts and throughout his presidency comes across as a man who truly does not want the job.

The first term is one of tremendous changes around the world and tumultuous events that no other President has faced before or ever since. Truman, the ordinary man in an extraordinary situation is faced with

• Russian intimidation and Stalin's aggressive ambitions to control post war Europe and possibly the world
• The political and moral decision to drop the A-bomb on Japan to end the war
• Setting up the United Nations
• The Big 3 Potsdam conference and facing down Stalin
• Facing down massive strikes by organized labor, traditionally a democrat base
• Establishing the National Security Act of 1947 and the post war national security architecture
• Establishing a Dept. of Defense to establish firm civilian control over the armed forces
• Launching the "Fair Deal" his version of the New Deal
• Recognition of Israel to much opposition from Britain and other allies
• The start of the cold war
• The Berlin airlift - when Stalin cuts off access to Berlin
• Cutting back on runaway defense spending so social programs and job creation programs can be launched

This list is enough to take anyone's breath away. A Roosevelt, experienced with three Presidential terms under his belt and coming from an elite background might have found these challenges tough to face, leave alone an ordinary man from an ordinary Missouri farming family. Yet Truman comes out in flying colors earning the respect of friends and foes alike.

With labor and economic troubles, Truman faces the 1948 election campaign again facing much sceptisism and  derision from politicians and journalists alike. Yet with dogged frontier American determination Truman launches an aggressive whistle stop tour across the country to win the election against the Republican Dewey. His strategy was to "Give em hell" and not spare his Republican detractors. The crowds loved it at every stop shouting " Give em hell Harry".

Newspapers had already written him off as witnessed by a premature newspaper headline "Dewey beats Truman" that Truman enjoyed showing people from his train.

His second term is almost as eventful as the first with the Cold War in full swing. The second Truman presidential term included

• The launching of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
• The red scare, MacCarthyism and even attacks against Truman himself
• The Korean war
• The firing of MacArthur and establishing the supremacy of civilian leadership over the military
• Trouble in Indo-China (which would later lead to the Vietnam war)
• Renovation of a White House that was literally falling down

After his second term, Truman decides not to run for a third term even though he could have, saying who would want this job any way. Returning home to Independence, Missouri Truman never forgot who he was or where he came from (in his own words). He never enriched himself during all his years as a politician and was close to broke returning to Missouri. Later, Congress granted retired Presidents a modest pension and with some proceeds from his book writing, Truman is able to make ends meet.

Truman is a true American story of a very humble, straightforward, simple and unassuming man of whom much was asked and much was delivered and David McCullough's narrative is outstanding and inspiring. In today's atmosphere of gridlock and partisan bickering in Washington DC, the politicians, current and future occupants of the white house can gain some valuable insights from this great American's story.

The Crimean War: A History

Recounting the major events of the last two hundred years of human history, the Crimean war often merits a minor mention. Most people remember the "lady of the lamp", Florence Nightingale and Lord Tennyson's immortal poem "The charge of the light brigade".

To retell a few lines of that great poem

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'

Was there a man dismay'd ?

Not tho' the soldier knew

Some one had blunder'd:

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do & die,

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them

Volley'd & thunder'd;

Storm'd at with shot and shell,

Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,

Into the mouth of Hell

Rode the six hundred. 

Read the full poem The Charge of the Light Brigade. These words symbolized in many ways the character of the Crimean war.

Lasting from 1854 to 1856, the Crimean War was not just big power rivalry but was also a result of religious conflict, personal egos of the leaders, much bravery on the part of the soldiers and completely ineffective leadership. It was also a war where modern technologies like the telegraph, new rifles, trench warfare and railways were the harbinger of much worse to come in World War I, just 58 years later. The seeds of that horrible war were laid down in the Crimea during these fateful years. This is the thesis of the magnificent book "The Crimean War: A History" by historian Orlando Figes.

In the late 18th century and leading into the 19th century, the steady decline of the Ottoman Empire gave it the moniker the "Sick man of Europe". Once stretching into the Balkans and Southeastern Europe, enveloping the Black Sea, Asia minor, Palestine, much of the present day Arab middle east, Egypt and north Africa, the Ottoman empire steadily devolved into a series of satrapies lead by local viceroys and "Beys" who became more independent of the emperor and Caliph in Istanbul. European rebellions among the Christian slavic nations and the Greeks whittled away at Ottoman power. Leading up to the Crimean war, the major powers in Europe that maintained some level of equilibrium were the British under Queen Victoria, France under Napolean III, Austria under the Habsburgs and Russia under Nicholas I. All of these powers sought to share in the spoils from the impending demise of the Ottoman empire without strengthening any of the others. The stage is set for war as follows:

RUSSIA has been steadily expanding its southern and Asian borders since Empress Catherine the Great. She now sees herself as the leader of the Orthodox churches (Russian, Byzantine, Greek and Slavic) that stretch in a wide arc from the border of Austria Hungary into the holy lands. The Russian Czar Nicholas I assumes the self defined role of guarantor of the rights of millions of Orthodox Christians within the boundaries of the Ottoman empire ranging from the Christian nations under the Ottoman heel in Europe to the holy land itself. Geographically, the Russians have been seeking to expand their influence around all of the Black Sea and control the Bosporus and Dardanelles thereby securing their entry and trade routes into the Mediterranean sea. Nicholas I therefore covets Constantinople, the historic seat of the Orthodox church. Leading up to war, he seeks Austrian neutrality to secure his western flanks. The Russians are also basking in the aftermath of their famous defeat of Napolean's Grande Armee in 1812 which ultimately lead to his defeat at Waterloo. Nicholas I believes that Russia and his armies are unstoppable.

AUSTRIA or the Habsburg empire of Austria - Hungary is uneasy about possible rebellion within its polyglot empire that rules over modern day Austria, Hungary, parts of Poland, Balkan nations and northern Italy. This is an empire of multiple ethnic groups held together by the Habsburg monarchy. With a teenage emperor Franz Joseph on the throne, Austria fears its large and aggressive neighbor Russia and eventually joins Britain and France during the war. Czar Nicholas I feels that he has been stabbed in the back.

FRANCE after Napolean Bonaparte has been a republic for some years and is now again a monarchy under Napolean III (who was also a president of the French republic). Napolean is under pressure to deliver glory and fame to his people and cement his position as their emperor a position he has attained by an army backed coup d'etat. France's historically close ties to the Roman Catholic church and its strong role in the crusades and Christian affairs in the Holy land brings it into conflict with the Orthodox church and its Russian backers. Figes talks about the riots between the Orthodox and Catholic priests in the running of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem with vivid detail.

BRITAIN has successfully come out of the Napoleanic wars with major gains and has been enjoying an expansion of empire, trade and power. The British are worried about the expansion of the Russian empire in Southern Europe towards Istanbul, Iran and the threat to their Indian empire. They also seek to establish a political and economic protectorate over the declining Ottoman empire and contend that Russia must be stopped at all costs.

Orlando Figes draws a well narrated picture of the lead up to war and the commencement of hostilities on the Danube front when Russian troops move south along the western (Bessarabian) coast of the Black sea. Once Austria enters the war on the side of the allies, the focus of war shifts to the Crimea. Despite it being the Crimean war, this is truly a war of global proportion with naval action in the Baltic, fighting in the Caucasus and along the Pacific coast of the Russian empire.

The famous historical battles of Alba, Balaclava, Inkerman and the seige of Sevastopol are ably recounted by Figes at the human level. The stories are told not just through the eyes of the generals but also the infantrymen, hussars and the junior officers. The technological superiority of the Franco-British forces is very apparent starting with their Minie rifles. This rifle fires a streamlined Minie bullet accurate to ranges up to 1000 yards while the Russian muskets barely reach 200 yards. The British and French soon learn to not charge the Russians but stand and fire from a distance killing Russians in the hundreds much before the Russian muskets have any effect. The telegraph makes it possible for news to reach home capitals in hours - both official dispatches as well as newspaper accounts. The public in France and Britain get detailed accounts of victories, defeats and the horrible living conditions of their troops with journalists freely roaming the front lines with pens and cameras.

Orlando Figes does a great job explaining the incredible bravery of troops on both sides under extremely poor generalship. Lord Raglan, the British commander is shown as a bumbling and ineffective commander who comes by his role only because he is an aristocrat. A confusing order from him leads to the famous and futile charge of the light brigade into the mouth of the Russian guns. The light brigade known as the finest cavalry in the world charges into the field of fire of multiple Russian gun batteries and suffers 278 casualties and 335 horses killed (and an unspecified number taken prisoner) and achieving nothing. This is but one battle among many such futile battles with no clear outcomes or strategic reasons. The French generals are too cautious though they take better care of their men with field kitchens, better tents, winter uniforms and field hospitals - all areas where the British were poor or plainly lacked. The Russian serf army fights incredibly bravely dying in their thousands defending their Rodina (the motherland) under criminally negligent generals. Nothing exemplifies it better than the siege of Sevastopol where the Russians stood firm bombed, shelled and battered by hundreds of allied cannon and thousands of Franco - British soldiers that outnumbered them. This is reminiscent of the Russian soldier many decades hence at Stalingrad, Leningrad and many an other bloody battlefield.

Casualties numbered 20,000 for the British (out of 100,000), more than 100,000 for the French (out of a force of 300,000) and almost a million Russian troops. Battle, disease and harsh winter were equally contributing factors for these deaths not to mention wounded casualties which were more numerous. Inadequate medical care (which is where Florence Nightingale played a role), lead to many deaths that were otherwise preventable.

Orlando Figes ends with a good telling of the impacts of the war and its consequences over the next many decades. Major reformations in the British army (including officer commissions that had to be earned and couldn't be purchased), care for the fighting man, the Victoria cross (first medal for the humble soldier) and accountability for politicians and leaders in the course and outcomes of a conflict were just some of the social outcomes. Though Russia was thwarted on its southern front for now, it was a Pyrrhic victory for the allies. Just a couple of decades hence, Russia would go to war again with Turkey and make major gains.

More importantly, this war sowed the seeds of discord in Europe and the Balkans which would then lead to World War I where millions would die using weapons and tactics evolved from the Crimean War. Overall, "The Crimean War: A History" by Orlando Figes is a fantastic read for anybody with a deep interest in history, geo-politics and war.

First Battle of Manassas / Bull Run - Reenactment 150 years later

Fifteen decades ago, a young country had serious differences within its civic dialog to resolve - about what kind of nation they were building. With the secession of the southern states and the formation of the confederacy, they decided to sort it out violently in war. The first battle took place on gently sloping grasslands near Manassas, Virginia about 30 miles west of Washington DC. The two sides did not even agree on what the battle would be called. The Union named their battles after the nearest river or stream, the Confederates named their battles after the nearest town. This battle therefore was called the First Battle of Manassas by the Confederacy and the First Battle of Bull Run by the Union, Bull Run being a small tributary of the Potomac. This was the first battle because just a few months later they would fight again on the same battlefield.

Virginia, where I live was home to 3 out of 5 Civil War battles. As they drive around the Metropolitan DC area, most Americans zip by signs advertising different battlefields, part of a war where almost 600,000 Americans laid down their lives. Though it was south of the Mason-Dixon line, the citizens of Virginia were split, some siding with the union and a majority fighting with the Confederacy.

As a historian and military buff, on July 23rd 2011 it was my privilege and honor to be a spectator watching the reenactment of the First Battle of Manassas on its 150th anniversary. The reenactment was staged on grass lands adjacent to the actual battlefield and inside the national park that now envelopes that field of war. The battle was staged by 8000 reenactors, historians all dressed in authentic clothing, firing actual civil war muskets and supported by replicas of civil war cannons. We the spectators played an authentic part of the reenactment too, for in the original battle about 1000 spectators rode out to the battlefield from Washington DC to watch the might of the Union army smash the confederates and quickly end the secession. They rode out on horses and carriages, sporting picnic hampers and glasses to watch the battle much as we did sitting in the bleachers and on the edges of the battlefield.

This first battle was fought by two very green and amateur armies. The soldiers were citizens who were farmers, stable hands, blacksmiths and tradesmen taking up arms for their cause. Most of the officers had never seen battle before. They say the battlefield is smoke, noise and confusion and the amateur soldiers added their own confusion to the melee. The confederates initially lost ground to the Union advance but were rallied on the lee slope of Henry Hill and stood firm around General Jackson's brigade (where he earned the moniker "Stonewall"). They then advanced and pushed the Union into retreat all the way back to DC. This was just the beginning of four years of war, death, destruction and the final victory for emancipation, liberty and freedom.

Here are some photos of the re-enactment which was staged in the middle of a heat wave. We the spectators baked and sweated in 100 degrees plus heat and humidity. Hats off to the reenactors who did the real work in full uniforms, regalia and amidst the smoke, bugle calls, clamor and cannon fire.

If you would like to see all the 100+ photos I took of the reenactment click here

Union cavalry man, what a fine horse

Union cavalry officers

Union cavalry demonstrate a charge

J E B Stuart's confederate cavalry

The Virginians

Union's 1st Minnesotans

Confederate casualties - tough act lying in the hot sun

Confederates fire volleys, by company

US Marines protecting the Union artillery's right flank

Union battery firing on the confederates. Unfortunately, their rifled barrels threw the shot high over the enemy.

Smoke and thunder of cannon fire

Colonel Jackson's Virginia brigade. They stood and fought like a "Stone Wall"

The 69th New York fought bravely for the Union

Confederate volley fire

Confederate flag, one of many versions. The Dixie had not been created yet.

Confederate cavalry

The 69th New Yorkers fight the rear guard action covering Union retreat

Parrot gun (working replica)

End of empire, managing decline - Part 1

At the peak of it's power during the 19th century Britain's Royal Navy had over 1,000 ships of the line patrolling the world's oceans. In 1898, the British Parliament passed a law that the Royal Navy should be twice the size of the second biggest naval power. Yet, just a few decades hence in the 1920s Britain had consented to the US naval fleet being the same size as the Royal Navy. This was the Washington conference of great powers post world war 1. Some might think that was the beginning of decline for the British empire, however that decline had started much earlier.

Some historians think that British power peaked around 1840 which might surprise most people. The fact is that Britain's empire grew too much and by that time made no economic sense. Controlling, managing and guarding a far flung empire took immense resources and the balance sheet was just too lopsided with costs compared to the gains from owning vast tracts of land and islands in every ocean. Even as successive British Governments expended vast sums of money and resources to build and maintain the empire, the gains and wealth accrued to a small portion of the British population namely it's aristocracy and landed gentry - the ruling classes. The working classes toiled in factories, on farms and serving as cannon fodder for the imperial armies and the navy.

As Britain entered the 20th century, the US, Germany and Japan were fast rising economic and military powers. Britain then embarked on it's Boer wars to quell rebellion and expand it's South African colony. The war was fueled by imperial greed led by the likes of Cecil Rhodes and avarice (vast diamond fields had just been discovered). Apart from numerous atrocities committed in the name of empire (the concentration camp was invented here by the British, not the Nazis) this war sucked in up to half a million troops and cost the empire more than £200 million, the costliest British war prior to world war 1. The war also lead to populist and social policies including national free healthcare, the union movement, housing, pension and vast social programs, all measures that would finally reward and mollify the working classes for their empire. This however had to be borne by a depleting treasury and a balance sheet skewed with cost.

The devastation of World War 1 followed shortly thereafter with more than 1 million casualties for the empire and an entire generation of young men lost on the bloody battlefields of Europe. Old and out of touch generals fought 20th century technology with 19th century tactics while Britain borrowed money from the US and food from it's colonies. The end of the war cemented the position of the US as the next world power economically and militarily.

The second world war was the epitaph of the empire that beggared Britain and reduced it to a second rate power. At the "Big three" power conferences in reality there were just two, the US and Russia. Britain hung in there primarily due to the powerful personality of Winston Churchill. The decline was complete with the breakup of empire (forced in part by the US), deep in debt to the US and British colonies, with a battered nation and dispirited people.

Fast forward six decades hence, the American empire is in decline. Many years from now historians might say that the US peaked late in the 20th century or at the beginning of this one. There seem to be many eerie parallels to the decline of the British empire. Out of control Government spending by the so called small Government Republicans of the Bush II administration sent the country deep into debt when they actually inherited a surplus from the previous Clinton administration. A needless and unjustified war in Iraq has wasted more than a trillion dollars of money (borrowed) with no tangible returns. Avarice and greed on wall street led to financial disaster and what seems like a very long recession. Personal greed and lack of financial discipline have led many Americans to lose their homes and livelihoods while still being deep in hock.

The US military is larger than the next 13 world powers, 11 of these being allies or partners. US forces are based on more than 600 bases in every continent. Some might disagree that history ever repeats itself. As an amateur historian I like to think that history echoes itself. This seems to me like the over extended British empire on which the sun never set. Today the sun always shines on some US base, ship, airplane or multibillion dollar satellite at any given moment. Some might wonder if the Iraq disaster was our Boer war. Personally, I think it was even worse.

Deep in debt, we have some who want to spend money we don't have on grandiose social programs and raise taxes on an already weary populace. Others would reduce taxes but cut no spending sending us deeper into debt. This sounds eerily like early 19th century Britain which had still not woken up to decline.

In 1956, Britain, France and Israel colluded to attack Egypt without informing the US. The stated objective was to secure the Suez canal which President Nasser had just nationalized. President Eisenhower was furious and forced all three nations to stop and pull back. He didn't do this by dispatching a US fleet but just by threatening to call in the huge war debts of the UK and France. It was the last attempt by Britain to act like a great power.

Imagine some time in the near future when US forces intervene to protect Taiwan from a Chinese invasion or South Korea from an invasion by China's North Korean proxy. It is not unforeseeable that China might threaten to call in it's huge loans to the US, especially as the Chinese economy becomes more independent of the US.

Almost a couple of millennia earlier, another great empire of the Romans perished to tumultuous applause from the crowds at the Circus Maximus in the Colosseum. As the empire declined successive emperors needed to organize these grand spectacles to keep the populace in check so they didnt revolt. When I read about the grandiose new stadium built by the Dallas Cowboys with its 60-foot television screen, I couldn't but help wonder if it was an eerie modern-day parallel.

The leaders of both parties in the US would be wise to heed the echoes of history and begin to work together for the good of the nation and gracefully manage decline. So is it all doom and gloom? Most certainly not. We are living in a fast globalizing world with shorter cycles of booms and declines.

We just have to learn to manage decline from it's peak and learn to co-exist in a globally interdependent world. How? is fodder for my next article.

Chile miner rescue - all round success story

The rescue of the Chilean miners is an unprecedented, historic, and stupendous success story on multiple levels.
Government: The Chilean government showed that it cared and would do whatever it took to rescue these miners alive.
Rescuers: Showed discipline and a highly process driven approach to the rescue.
NASA for sharing its experience in outer space and applying it to inner space.
The US technical experts who helped drill the escape tunnel.
The miners: Who showed resilience, strength and moral character through 69 days of being buried alive. They maintained social discipline, maintained order and inspired each other to survive. They are the true success of this miracle story.

Rumbles in Iran

More than half of Iran's population is under 28 years old. This means that those in this demographic were born after the Islamic revolution in 1979 which was a disruptive moment in Iran's history. These youth have been chafing under the strict Islamic grip of the revolution. Iran both in pre-Islamic and post-Islamic times has been more liberal minded with a long and rich history of refined culture, excellence in the arts, architecture and discourse. The youth of this country are more pro-western than the revolution's founders. They sought to take their country back in this recent election voting for candidates they perceived as bringing reform after the rigid, extremist rule of Ahmadinijad and his backers. They may have succeeded but for the perfidy of the Islamic establishment. The hardliners may have under estimated the extent of dissatisfaction and frustration among this generation and the impact of stealing the election.

The seemingly blatant vote rigging and alteration of vote tallies seems to indicate that Ayatollah Khamenei (the supreme leader) and his coterie might have miscalculated. The continuing demonstrations on the streets and the support from various sections of what could be considered the "establishment" indicates that there are deeper fissures within the Iranian polity. Khamenei may be sitting on a volcano that is beginning to rumble.

Interestingly Moussavi, the so called reformer was the prime minister at the beginning of the revolution under Ayatollah Khomeini. He presided over a regime that executed thousands of people including the youth of Iran. How much of a moderate he might really be is open to question. Anyone I suppose might be better than Ahmadinijad.

The situation might swing either way and the Obama administration has been wise to express support while not seeming to denounce or interfere in what is going on in Iran right now. If the hardliners prevail, they will still have to be brought to the negotiating table. If the liberals are allowed to claim their right, it may be the start of a new beginning. The US should try to express solidarity and support on a low or covert level as it has been doing through Voice of America and the internet engines such as Twitter. Non Governmental foundations and organizations might also be useful interlocutors in this process.

Iran is an ancient, proud and civilized culture. Hopefully, its young will be able to take their country back and establish genuine freedom, liberty and democratic principles within their cultural and religious boundaries. We wish them the very best and stand by their struggle.