An Antiwar Polemic Against America's Wars

Commenter James Schipper makes the following comments, first about the US war against Japan in World War 2, and then about all US wars since the War of 1812, which he regards as a necessary war of self-defense. Schipper is a Canadian.

My perspective is different. I did support the war against the Axis in World War 2. My feelings are much more mixed on World War 1. The Spanish-American War and the Mexican War were obviously wars of imperialism. The Civil War may have been justified, if only to free the slaves. My relatives fought on both sides of the War Between the States. Of course, I supported the Union in that war.

I'm agnostic on the Revolutionary War, though cynically I would argue that we have been an imperial power ever since, and seem to have opposed every single anti-colonial war since our own Revolution! Disgusting!

The interventions in Central America and the Caribbean were sheer imperialism. The Wars on Panama and Grenada were preposterous. Iraq War 1 may have been justified to get rid of Saddam. I supported the war against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosova. The intervention in Somalia was well-intentioned.

The latest Iraq War was one of the most criminal undertakings since the Spanish-American War. The war in Afghanistan may have been justified. Even though I'm a Marxist, the Korean War may have been justified since North Korea did invade South Korea. The Vietnam War and resulting wars in Laos and Cambodia were unnecessary.

Anyway, I thought I would give some space to an anti-war and anti-imperialist point of view. I do support the anti-imperialist argument. Pace Frantz Fanon, imperial powers never relinquish empire until they spill a lot of blood. Sad but true.


James Schipper:

First, Pearl Harbor didn't come as a bolt from the blue. It followed American economic sanctions against Japan and failed attempts at negotiations. The Roosevelt government had put the knife at Japan's throat. The Japanese had two options left: go to war or renounce their emperor. Predictably, they chose the first.

What is amazing in all this is how important American leaders considered access to the pitifully small Chinese market to be. From 1949 to 1975, the Chinese market was hermetically closed to the US, without noticeable ill effects on the American economy.

Second, Japan behaved in exactly the same way with Russia in 1905. After negotiations had broken down, Japan carried out a surprise attack on the Russian fleet in Vladivostok and sank it. Somehow it is not remembered as the Day of Infamy.

Third, American wars since the War of Secession have not been very bloody because they were fought far away from American territory. In the War of Secession, about 2% of the American population perished. Proportionally, that would be 6 million today.

Fourth, every war which the US fought since 1812 was a war of choice. There was no immediate threat to the US and certainly no attack on American territory. It wasn't as if the US had its back to the wall and had to choose between fighting or being overrun.

Fifth, when the aim of war becomes unconditional surrender, the Clausewitzian dictum that war is the continuation of politics by other means is inverted and politics becomes the continuation of war by other means.

Sixth, the aim of war should not be victory but a better peace. Victory in war is rather ambiguous. It is much more useful to think in terms of costs and benefits. The expected benefits of war should exceed the probable costs. If the costs of war exceed the benefits, victory is pointless. It is like recovering a debt of $2000 through a lawsuit that costs $5000.

Seventh, one of my pet distinctions is between a national defeat and an imperial defeat. A national defeat involves having to accept undesirable terms from the enemy. An imperial defeat means a failure to impose one's will on the enemy without having to accept his terms. For instance, in 1940 the French suffered a national defeat. In 1954 they suffered an imperial defeat in Vietnam. Which was worse?

Imperial defeat is a blessing in disguise. It means that the imperial power, whose security is not threatened by the enemy, can go home. What harm did the Americans suffer from their imperial defeat in Vietnam, the French from their imperial in Vietnam or Algeria, the Dutch from theirs in Indonesia, the Portuguese from theirs in Angola in Mozambique?

In all those cases, the imperial power only benefited from the end of the war. It meant the end of loss of life and waste of money.

Down with imperialism.

More on Wanat and the Waygal Valley

Updated August 23:

US forces abandoned their post at Wanat in the Waygal Valley of Nuristan after the major attack over the weekend in which the base was nearly overrun and 9 US troops were killed and 15 more were wounded.

The town's name is actually Want, according to Richard Strand, an anthropologist and linguist who has done a lot of work in the area.

Here is a blog full of excellent pictures of the area in question. It's written by Joel Bashore, a US Navy Physician's Assistant working with the troops in that part of Afghanistan. The town of Want is not shown in the photos, but Firebase Bela is. Firebase Bela is about 5 miles north of Want on the Waygal River where it meets with a tributary coming from the Aranas area.

This Youtube video made by US soldiers is all about Camp Bela and the 173rd Airborne Brigade, US Army. A soldier interviewed in the video, Team Leader Sergeant Jeffery Mersman, was killed along with five other troops in an ambush last year on 11-9-2007 in this very area. US forces also had a base at Aranas.

Here is an interesting description by Bashore of his trip from Camp Blessing at Nangalam up the Waygal Valley, fording the Waygal at Camp Bela, and on foot to FOB Aranas.

There have been a number of deadly attacks against US forces in this part of Afghanistan. The guerrillas here are some of the best in Afghanistan. I think they are protecting Osama bin Laden, because I think he hides in Nuristan at least part of the time. Clearly there are top-notch Al Qaeda fighters up here.

A map of Wanat is available on this blog ( map of Nuristan). The map also shows the Waygal Valley, Waygal River, Nangalam (where Camp Blessing is located), the location of Firebase Bela and Aranas. All are located in or near the Waygal District on the map.

In the past two years, there have been some major attacks in the Waygal Valley:

August 2006: Three US soldiers killed in an ambush between Aranas and Bella.

October 2006: Three soldiers killed by an IED between Want and Bella.

June 2007: The police station at Want was attacked and overrun by insurgents. At least one policeman was killed.

August 2007: Two ANA soldiers killed, 11 US wounded when insurgents entered the FOB at Aranas disguised as ANA soldiers.

November 9, 2007: Six US soldiers killed, eight more wounded in an ambush between Bella and Aranas. 11 Afghan soldiers were also wounded. All told, there were 6 Coalition forces killed and 19 wounded in this major attack. The video shows the troops being medevac'd out after the attack. This operation took 31 hours in all. The troops were being picked right off the edges of cliffs.

The FOB at Aranas has been eliminated.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Afghan Guerrillas Kill 9 US Troops, Wound 15

A large force of Afghan guerrillas, numbering 400-500, penetrated a remote US combat outpost (COP) base in the remote town of Want.

Want is properly transcribed, Wâ˜t, or Wãt - the "a" is the "a" sound in "father", but it is nasalized, or said through the nose. There is no "n" sound in "Want". The "n" is written in the word because the nasalization of the "a" makes it appear that an "n" follows. Want is mistakenly identified as "Wanat" in press reports.

Want is located in the Waygal* Valley north of the Pech River in the Waygal District of Nuristan Province (mistakenly identified as the Pech District of Kunar Province) in the northeast of the country near the Afghan border.

The Nuristani tribe that traditionally lived in the area is called the Wãtä (the final "a" is the "a" sound in "bad"). But their traditional enemies, the Safi Pashtuns, have been moving up the Waygal Valley all the way to Want in recent years, and the situation has become pretty tense. The Wãtä speak a Nuristani language called Waigali, an unwritten language that has only 1,500 speakers.

The corrections are from David Strand, who has done excellent linguistic and anthropological work in the are. His homepage is fascinating.

The attack reportedly began late Friday night on July 12 and continued until mid-afternoon on July 13. It was the biggest battles of the war so far. Attackers used small arms, machine guns, mortars and RPG's during the battle.

They nearly overran the base, killing 9 US troops and wounding 15 more in a battle that began at dawn and raged until early afternoon. US forces called in planes and helicopters for air support and the attackers were eventually repelled.

The guerrillas lost about 40 men in the audacious attack, and another 60 were wounded. 4 Afghan troops were also wounded. The base had a force of 70, 45 US troops and 25 Afghan forces, so US forces suffered about a 55% casualty rate, and 20% of them were killed.

The base had been built only 3 days prior. The attackers were able to inflict such high casualties because they penetrated the base. Once inside, hand to hand combat ensued.

The attackers first warned villagers to leave the area, and about 20 families left, but many men stayed behind to fight with the guerrillas. Then they took up positions in homes, stores and a mosque. At dawn, they launched the attack on the base from all sides using automatic weapons. The area is very mountainous and forested. In many places, access is only by foot or mule. US forces actually travel by mule in this area.

US forces had launched an air strike on a caravan of vehicles in the area of this assault on July 4 that locals claimed killed 17 civilians. The US military said that they attacked insurgent vehicles, but locals said that the vehicles contained civilians.

That followed another airstrike that reportedly killed quite a few civilians in Nangarhar Province.

Tamim Nuristani was formerly the governor of Nuristan, but was just fired last week after criticizing the raid that killed civilians on July 4.

He said that the attackers were a mix of Pakistanis and Afghans, and that the Afghans had come from not just Nuristan, but also other provinces. They are angry at the Karzai government and upset over these latest instances where US forces killed civilians. Some are just locals, not even official members of armed groups.

Although US forces said the attack took place in Kunar, Afghan officials said it happened in the Waygal District of Nuristan. At any rate, Want is only 2 miles south of Nuristan on the maps that the government uses.

A Google Maps map of the area shows that the base is surrounded by peaks that tower 1000 feet above the base, at 4,200 feet, on three sides.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was briefed early July 13 on the assault, reflecting its serious nature.

Only five days before, guerrillas had attacked US forces at the Want District Center with small arms, machine guns and RPG's, but they were repelled. The base had just been constructed. The other base had been across the border in Nuristan Province and US forces had abandoned that one to move across the border into Kunar and set up a new base.

This is part of a new strategy of setting up small bases in small villages so that US troops can be closer to the villagers. It looks like these small bases also run the risk of being overrun.

About 500 guerrillas were seen crossing the border from Chitral in Pakistan into Nuristan and Kunar just recently.

It was the worst loss of US life in Afghanistan since 16 soldiers died, also in Kunar, when their Chinook helicopter was shot down. It were shot down in Chichal, 9 miles to the south, also in the Pech River Valley.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami has a major presence around Want, and in addition to a large Taliban presence, there are many Arab, Chechen and Pakistani fighters in the area. Arab and Chechen fighters in that part of the world means Al Qaeda. I also think that Uighur and Uzbek Al Qaeda fighters are in the area.

Indeed, Kunar, and the Pech River Valley in particular, is a major base for Al Qaeda in the region. In my opinion, both Osama bin Laden and Hekmatyar are based across the Pakistani border in Dir Province. Hekmatyar probably moves back and forth into Afghanistan also, and I think he stays in the Pech River Valley a lot.

Bin Laden is also probably in Kunar at times, but is more likely to be found in Nuristan Province. In summers, I think he takes off deep inside Pakistan into caves in very high and remote areas. In wintertime, he comes back down to the Dir - Nuristan area.

A September 8, 2003 Newsweek Magazine article said that bin Laden was hiding in the area of this attack. The reporter interviewed an Afghan man who in the Pech River Valley whose daughter was married to an Algerian in bin Laden's praetorian guard, or Black Guard. He pointed north of the Pech Valley to where he said bin Laden was. The Algerian would come down from time to time to visit his wife.

Hezb-i-Islami Khalis, which is Yunus Khalis' guerrilla front, and Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Shia-hating, Al Qaeda-allied Pakistani group that fights in Kashmir, also have a presence in the area. A new group called Sword of Islam (Saif al Islam) also operates in that area.

You can download a superb map of Kunar Province on this blog here. Find the Pech District at the north center portion of the map. Look north along the Pech River tributary that flows into the Pech at Mano Gai. It's not marked on the map, but it's called the Waygal River or the Waygal Valley.

Follow the Waygal all the way up to near the Nuristan border and you will see the town of Want (mistakenly identified as Wanat) about 1 mile south of the Nuristan border.

Actually, the map is wrong and Want is actually in Nuristan Province.

I also have lots of other excellent maps of other Afghan provinces, and I also have lots of good maps of Afghan districts. Just follow the links to the posts.

Photos of the Pech River are here. There are plenty of pics of the general Kunar and Nuristan area along with lots of good data here if you look around a bit.

*Also known as Waygul, Vaigal, Wâigal or Väigal.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

How To Kill An Abrams Tank

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

The original version of this video is here.

The much-vaunted US Abrams tank is said to be the best tank in the world. US forces brag that they cannot even kill one with US anti-tank weapons. Indeed, the Abrams may be the best tank in the world. However, that does not make it indestructible, as this video shows.

The weapons used here were probably large anti-tank mines (up to 1000 pounds), anti-tank missiles, RPG's and roadside bombs. The Abrams seen in 2:35 in the video was killed north of Baghdad near Duluiyah a couple of years ago; 2 US soldiers were killed and 1 more was terribly wounded.

The weapon was three 150-pound anti-tank mines laid on top of each other and all detonated at once. Despite the seemingly terrible toll on the tanks in this video, it is probable that few crew members were killed in these attacks.

The notation at one point in the video about the "Sabot" round is probably incorrect - that is quite possibly NOT a Sabot round in that photo. A sabot round is fired from a gun or possibly another tank. It travels at about 1 mile/second and often uses a depleted uranium tip to penetrate the tank.

It is a truly nasty round that once it gets inside tends to spray shrapnel everywhere and scramble most material inside the tank, including the tank's most sensitive inner workings. It is dubious that the Iraqi guerrillas have any DU rounds.

A sabot round in action. It doesn't appear to be much but the thing in the center is a depleted uranium round that is capable of causing an awful lot of damage. Believe it or not, that round probably sounds like a freight train going by if it's fired anywhere in your direction.

****

The bottom and top of the Abrams are not nearly as armored as the sides. The rear is also vulnerable as this is where the engine is. The engine can be taken out with a good shot to the rear, even with a lowly RPG-7. A few of the photos appear to show Abrams that have fallen off the road into ditches or sunk in the mud. See 1:52 in the video.

Despite its excellence, the Abrams has been around for some time now. Work on it began in the 1970's and the first one came online in 1980. It has been upgraded several times since then. Each Abrams costs $2.3-4.3 million. The latest is the M1A2, with a 120mm smooth-bore turret that fires its own sabot rounds.

A 500-1000 pound "gravity bomb" will blow an Abrams to smithereens. The US has been dropping a lot of bombs on Iraq these days and surely not all of them are exploding. The Iraqi guerrillas may be finding these bombs on the ground and fashioning them into anti-tank devices.

The things on the sides of the tank at 1:23 in the video that look like tiles are reactive armor. Reactive armor actually explodes much weaponry that attacks it. That is, the weapon hits the reactive armor, and the reactive armor detonates the weapon on the armor, so the weapon cannot penetrate inside the tank.

Reactive armor on a tank. The panels above the tank are panels of reactive armor. Reactive armor is capable of defeating a shaped charge. A shaped charge sends out a warhead of molten magma that is not really a formed object. This magma can usually get only partway through the reactive armor before the reactive armor detonates, reducing much of the impact of the shaped charge.

The explosive force penetrator described below is more worrisome because it is an actual metal object that become warped into a shaped charge. This object is somehow able to make its way through the reactive armor without the reactive armor detonating it.

****

However, a 2-stage device can defeat reactive armor. The device initially detonates on the armor, and then a secondary shaped charge detonates that is capable of penetrating the armor. The newer anti-tank weapons, especially the Russian weapons used by Hezbollah in the Lebanon War, can definitely defeat reactive armor. Such weapons include the Russian AT-7 Saxhorn, the Italian MILAN and the Russian RPG-29.

The reactive armor on the Abrams may be up to one foot thick. The reactive armor itself is made of U-235, or depleted uranium. When an Abrams tank starts burning, it will give off DU in its smoke, which is very toxic. Also, the Abrams itself fires DU in its rounds.

The US media is making much of the supposedly Iranian explosive force penetrator bombs that according to the US military itself can destroy an Abrams tank. It's similar to a shaped charge.

In general, the Abrams, like the similar Israeli tank called the Merkava, is best suited to the plains of Europe or open deserts in set piece battles with other tanks and armor. In close quarters fighting, such as Israel was doing in Lebanon and the US is doing in Iraq, tanks do not work so well.

In particular, in such situations it is necessary to support the tanks with a lot of infantry, something that Israel was not doing in the Lebanon war, probably because they wished to minimize losses to their infantry. And the infantry should be with the tanks - having tanks moving in front of infantry makes tanks vulnerable.

In short, in today's urban guerrilla conflicts against foes hiding in populated, built-up areas with plenty of cover to conceal themselves, and without proper support for the tanks, tanks are a diminishing military asset, even the best tank in the world, the Abrams tank.

Especially regarding the Lebanon War, it seems that we are back to World War 2, where tanks must be supported by infantry teams and other arms in order to take out anti-tank squads. Tanks are simply not meant to be used in close quarters fighting against infantry, and this is how Israel used them in the Lebanon War. In part this is due to their limited visibility, a real problem in urban combat.

Dug-in/underground/camouflaged anti-tank teams need to be taken out with infantry, not the tanks that they are attacking. One possibly way to defeat this would be for anti-tank teams to hide while they are overrun and then attack the second-wave armor from behind. However, it is possible that the teams may die with such near-suicidal tactics. Remote-controlled anti-tank mines will always be a danger for any tank.

We should note, though, that the Merkava has significantly inferior armor compared to the Abrams, though the Merkava is also a superb tank. The armor on the Abrams is referred to as Chobham armor. The original US Chobham armor has been upgraded to where the new Chobham armor is significantly better than the original Chobham armor.

The Merkava was probably based on the US M60 design. During the 1973 war, against strong Congressional opposition, the US, namely Henry Kissinger, rushed replacement M60 US tanks to the Israelis. The Israelis probably up-engineer a number of M60's until they eventually developed the Merkava.

The Merkava is not an M60 knockoff, however, since it differs in some important ways, in particular, in having a troop-carrying compartment at the back of the vehicle.

In the Lebanon War, Hezbollah used a variety of anti-tank weapons, in particular the Russian-made 9M113 Konkurs. This weapon has the US military very worried. An excellent overview of the Spandrel is here. The Spandrel is the equivalent of the US TOW missile (linked below), considered to be one of the best anti-tank guns around. It can hit a target at an incredible 2 1/2 miles.

Hezbollah may have also used some of the newer Kornets or others in the AT-series, including Chinese variants.

An AT-3 Sagger would probably need to hit a Merkava right on top to take it out. The newer anti-tank weapons such as the AT-14 Kornet (reportedly re-engineered by the Iranians), the TOW-3 and the Javelin are designed for top attack. Hezbollah may also have used the Milan anti-tank weapon, an excellent weapon that Croatia used to great effect during the Balkan Wars.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.