Showing posts with label little wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label little wars. Show all posts

Friday, May 30, 2025

Just for fun - Friday palate cleanser

Given the dire and dreary doings of the Second Fraudulency Administration, I've been trying to actively avoid all their bullshit in the news - it just makes be want to kill people and break shit, which at this point is still somewhere between "treason" and revolution" - and instead I've been trying to find things to enjoy.

Like this; "The Logistics of Road War in the Wasteland" from Bret Devereaux's wonderful A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry blog.  


Besides the pure entertainment value of a serious discussion of the mechanized combat of the "Mad Max" world (and related/similar movies or video games) it introduced me to this insane IRL thing; the "Toyota War" in Chad.

Now there's a fun subject for a "battles" piece! Toyota Hilux versus T-55! I could see doing either the January 1987 Battle of Fada, or the larger and more critical engagement where the Chadians took the Libyan post at Ouadi Doum in March...any interest in either or both? 

What's not to like?

I think I need to get my hands on a copy of Ken Pollack's Armies of Sand first, though. It's supposed to have the best account of the Toyota War, and I'll take a look and see.

But if you've got a moment or two, go read up on Devereaux's take on the Road Warriors:

"All of that is a kind of warfare that actually supports the fractionalization of power, producing the sort of smaller-scale warlordism that the fiction tends to want in these settings. But rather than display their power with massive (but very vulnerable) war rigs, such warlords would likely attempt to overawe foes with impressive displays of their large stock of technicals. And, this being a Mad Max themed setting, by large spikes placed on everything."

Make sure you read the footnote that I've omitted from the end of the final sentence in the above quote to learn more about the "armored codpiece". 

Which reminds me of...


..."Ironlily's" cute take on 14th Century religious orders of knighthood, girly Gothic armor (including armored codpieces) and (okay, yeah, a lot of...) cartoon cheesecake in general. 

Nothing serious, but kind of adorable (in a sort of smutty way...)

OTOH here's cartoon "adorable" without the smutty: Carol Cao and her delightful "little life in the woods" artwork:

(I apologize for the Muskrat link, but Cao doesn't seem to be posting anywhere else...). I love both the sweet feeling of her art and the attention to detail of the things like the rebounding raindrops on the little temple roof, or the suggestion of the kitty hanboks.

I've also been trying to find kind, soothing, happy reads. These have included the very "cozy" little adventure story The Teller of Small Fortunes by Julie Leong as well as several more chapters in Kashiki Takuo's series ハクメイとミコチ, Hakumei to Mikochi. 

Not all of this effort has been successful; I'm presently struggling with Axie Oh's The Floating World

I love the idea - Korean folklore meets science-fantasy (think a sort of Ghibli-world-building only without the aircraft...) and hero's quest fiction - but the writing just plods. It's not gross or face-smacking, it's a slow drip of little stuff, like this:

"...they waited for the guards to pass, their bright lanterns giving away their positions."

I don't know any other kind of lanterns, do you? I mean, if the guards had something dim, something like little chemlights, that only hinted at their passage, sure, that would be worth detailing. But "bright" is kind of a default "lantern", innit?

Or this, just a couple of sentences later, when one of these random NPC guards stumbles into our heroes:

"Sighting Sunho, he lashed out at him with a concealed dagger."

Not really "concealed", is it now, seeing as how the guy "lashed out" with it? And how do you "lash" with a dagger? Did the author mean "slashed"? Then why not say that? Mind you, slashing with a dagger - unless it's made on the lines of a full-size bowie or a pesh-kabz (a "Khyber knife" for you Great Game/Kipling fans...) is kind of a mug's game, especially given that the Macguffin of this part of the story is that these aren't random rent-a-cops but "Sareniyan soldiers", the regular army of the Evil Warlord dude of the story.

I mean, I get what the author was trying to say; this troop pops out of a door and immediately attacks our heroes who are very obviously not supposed to be where he finds them. Presumably because he's not on guard at the moment he lacks his issue weapon - probably a spear or sword, based on the worldbuilding - so he whips out his sidearm knife to take them out.

So that seems pretty easy to me:

"They stared at the guard and the guard stared back - for only a moment before drawing his belt knife and stabbing (slashing?) at Sunho, the closest of the three intruders."

Fixed.

I've got a couple of almost-sure-winners on hold at the library; Chris Moore's Anima Rising, more inspired wierdness from the Dirty Jobs guy, and a local author (Mark Pomeroy)'s Tigers of Lents, a semifictional story about soccer and our local Felony Flats, the southeast Portland neighborhood once famed for the New Copper Penny and now the home of the ridiculous Portland Pickles amateur baseball outfit.


Portland being Portland you knew there'd be a homegrown reaction to the feeling of being mulcted by big-time pro sports outfits like the Trailblazers and Timbers. This "Pickles" ballclub is one.

(The other is a nonleague soccer team run by the Pickles people called the "Bangers".

I've never seen the Bangers but if the Pickles level of play is anything to go by, well... let's say that I was a Cubs fan back in the day so I've seen some pretty bad baseball, but...

Then you realize that these are college dudes who aren't getting paid, so. 

 One last "fun thing" - Adult High School.

 This little chanbara/bad girl/school comic is just 100%, no-holds-barred, pure fun.

 

 Like BIG fun.

 


If you have a moment and a spare dime. go kick Alexis Flower a buck or three.

That's all I got. 

Friday, August 12, 2016

More rubble = more trouble

Interesting study (Dell and Querubin, 2016) released this summer on some effects of "kinetic warfare" (i.e. bombing, shelling, and strafing) in the RVN in 1969.

The study's conclusion should surprise none of us who have watched the "more rubble, less trouble" approach to the Middle Eastern problems over the last two decades or more:
"While U.S.intervention aimed to build a strong state that would provide a bulwark against communism after U.S. withdrawal, bombing instead weakened local government and non-communist civic society. Moving from no to sample mean bombing reduced the probability that the village committee positions were filled by 21 percentage points and reduced the probability that the local government collected taxes by 25 percentage points. The village committee was responsible for providing public goods. Bombing also decreased access to primary school by 16 percentage points and reduced participation in civic organizations by 13 percentage points."
In other words; bombing the living shit out of people pisses them off and makes them LESS likely to go along with whatever cunning plans you have for winning their hearts and minds, or grabbing their balls, for that matter.

How well this study conflates with the current enthusiasm for various Western polities' for bombing the shit out of the Middle East is difficult to assess. But it certainly does seem to suggest that John Paul Vann may or may not have been right about the best weapon for suppressing rebellions but he seems to have been absolutely correct about the WORST.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Any Bonds Today?

Thinking about the whole business of "wars on terror" and wars in general led me to a couple of separate posts that generated this one.

First, over at MilPub P.F. Khans had a rumination about the recent graduation of several female Ranger students. In one of his comments that extended the discussion, he said:
"We are at war and we are doing quite poorly in all of those wars and its worth asking why "equality of opportunity" matters more than winning wars. I suspect that we exist in a state where winning and losing wars looks basically the same for most Americans. This is bad. There are people in this world who actually know how to win and we won't like losing in the future."
The same day I ran across a post at David Axe's War is Boring site that said pretty much the same thing:
"...we are a nation at war. In the past 15 years, American troops have fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Syria."
All of this talk of war made me think about "war"; what it is, what "we" (as in "We the People") think it is, and what the institutions that direct it and conduct it think it is.

I think that what's crucial about understanding what's going on - why there are American wars but not wartime in America - is understanding the physical reality of the United States in 2015 versus the rhetorical, intellectual, and emotional picture of the United States that most US citizens carry around in their heads.

The reality is that the US is a de facto imperial Great Power in the military sense. U.S. armed forces are busy around the globe doing the sorts of things that the European powers used to do in the global hustings back in the colonial era; "advising", training, and supplying client rulers, suppressing bush rebellions, spying and gathering information, patrolling the "commons" - sea lanes and land corridors.

Some of these missions involve combat, and for those engaged in the fighting these little wars are just that; wars. It's disingenuous to call them something else. If I'm getting shot at I can tell you damn straight I'm in a fucking war.

But...the U.S. and most U.S. citizens has a difficult time with the term "war". For it, and most of us, a "war" is one where people you know go to fight and some never come back except in a bag, where the news is full of battles and foreign adventures, where there are maps and pictures in the papers, where Bugs Bunny sells War Bonds. We have never been good at reconciling the "savage wars of peace" with what we think of as War with a capital "w".

So for most Americans - even the ones that really do buy the formulation of a "war on terror" - I don't think that the notion that "we are at war" is a reality.

(Which, in a sense, is a GOOD thing. Nations and peoples do some pretty terrible and stupid things to themselves when they are "at war". Wars tend to empower the worst, stupidest, and most shortsighted elements in a society, and the sorts of expedients required of nations in wars - however essential those expedients may be to surviving and winning that war - are not really good for the nations or the people that take them.)

And this whole business of female Ranger School grads is a good indication of the fact that even the U.S. Army is not "at war". When TRADOC is "at war" - as it was in the Forties, early Fifties, and Sixties - it tends to get very focused on cranking out new meat for the meatgrinder. My old Reserve unit (104th Division (Training)) had that as its entire mission; the idea was that when the balloon went up in Korea, say, we'd mobilize to Ft. Lewis and reopen the old Vietnam-era Infantry OSUT, crank out 3-4 divisions worth of replacements and then ruck up and go to war with the last cycle through. There were something like 5-6 similar "training divisions" in the USAR with similar missions in various parts of the country.

What I find very interesting is that in the past decade the USAR has drastically downsized or eliminated these units. The 104th is pretty much gone; its mission has been turned around to running ROTC summer camps. The 91st (which was the other West Coast training division) is doing something called "operational" training. The old 78th Division now is the mobilization evaluation outfit for USAR units called up for deployment...

What that, and TRADOC's willingness to push the USAIS into putting female troops in the Ranger course, tells me is that the U.S. Army has abandoned the notion that there will EVER be a situation similar to WW2, Korea, or Vietnam where the training establishment will have to be ramped up to crank out masses of 11-series bodies...which, in turn, makes me think that the U.S. Army has moved fully over to thinking like the old British Army of 1890; that it is a largely constabulary and expeditionary organization that will never have to field a WW2-style mass Army again...

Meaning that the Army thinks that what the U.S. public thinks as "war" will never occur within the foreseeable future, and that what we have now - these low-level brushfire and colonial-type "wars" - are the new normal.

Whether the public will ever "get" that - or whether the various organizations and factions that concentrate power in the United States WANT them to "get it" and will work actively to ensure they don't - remains to be seen.

Out of all of this, however, I think We the People need to have several discussions with and amongst ourselves.

We need to decide whether we're good with being an imperial power, first of all. Because imperial powers fight imperial wars - that is, "little wars" that don't need, and, indeed, pretty much require a fairly hight level of disinterest within the imperial citizenry.

And if we don't...we need to decided what level of these brushfire wars we ARE good with and how much we need to, as a citizenry, get involved in debating and overseeing them.

Will we do this?

I'm fairly confident that we won't.

The individual wars themselves and the general level of civic engagement needed to learn about and make intelligent decisions regarding them is just too high. We prefer our wars as we prefer everything else about our self-government; simple, easy, and, preferably, done by someone else.

Friday, February 28, 2014

Into the Crimea again...

I've been fascinated and sort of apalled watching the southeastern Ukraine delaminate and the Russian Federation do...well...something. With marines. Or soldiers. Or both. Somewhere.

The whole thing reminds me of the sorts of bizarre wars the South American countries used to fight, where armies would just disappear into the Atacama or the Chaco or some other damn place and the New York Times would print some sort of vague description two months later full of errors and guesses and the whole business would eventually be described in histories as something completely different.


I honestly have no idea what the hell is going on in the Crimea, but whatever it is it does not appear to be a Good Thing. Another reminder of the immense pile of clusterfuck that was Russia and then the Soviet Union and then Russia again. Whatever else the place has or is - and it has been and is many wonderful and admirable human things - what is has never had and does not have now is a decent form of government. Neither does Ukraine, for that matter. Or a hell of a lot of the rest of the world. My country is no prize, but, fuck, we're better off at the moment that these poor bastards.

Mind you, Teabaggery could still change that.

Still. Troops are matching through the Crimea. Again. Some places seem to attract history like a pretty girl on a barstool late on Friday night.


Crimea seems to be one of them.

Friday, November 08, 2013

The Army I Knew: Grenada 3, or, Into the Wild

You may remember than when last seen, Doc Chief and his pal Woodus were out in Area J playing field medic as the United States began its first foreign military adventure since the end of the Vietnam war some eight years earlier.


Little did we know that while we were trying to pound our ears in the piney woods a composite unit of the then-two battalions of the U.S. Army's 75th Infantry Regiment (Airborne) (Ranger) was staging in the Caribbean to parachute onto the runway at Point Salines.

What should have given us a clue that the something that the U.S. had decided to do about those pesky Grenadian Commies included the 82nd Airborne Division was the constant uproar in Area J that night.

No sooner had we snuck back into our hootch from the billets after the platoon beer-and-pizza-night than a whining deuce-and-a-half rolled up and some knucklehead roared out "First Three-two-Five! Third Three-Two-Five! Alpha Three-Oh-Seventh Med! Get on the truck!"

This was greeted with the U.S. soldier's traditional enthusiastic obedience to orders:

"Fuck off, you! Tryin' to sleep here!"

"Who died and left you in charge, asshole?"

"What kind of clusterfuck IS this?"


But the roarer kept on roaring, and Woodus and I - who, like sensible GIs, kept our heads down; nobody had called OUR unit - heard the sounds of scuffling and dragging all around us, thumping and banging, and then the deuce engine whined and spun up and the headlights strobed away and the forest was dark again.

For probably a couple of hours.

Then the whole thing repeated itself; the farting and whining of a truck engine, another set of bellowed unit numbers - First Five-Oh-Fourth, Second Five-Oh-Fourth, Three-Twentieth FA, First Five-Oh-Eighth - and more scuffling, thumping, banging, and then silence.

The hell with it. Wasn't OUR problem. We went back to sleep.

The morning of Tuesday, 25 OCT 1983, was cool and clear. I remember waking slowly, and wondering why if it was light out that nobody had come around with first call earlier. Soldiers never wake up in daylight. I rolled out of my poncho liner and wriggled around to stick my head out of my end of the hootch.

So. First, you have to picture the little encampment as it had looked at nightfall the previous evening.

The EFMB cadre had set up a regular little field bivouac in Area J. Neat rows of two-man shelter halves (cretinous pigs that we were it was just us threw up a poncho hootch; they made us go all the way down to the end of the rank of little pup tents like the inbred relatives at the kids' table for Thanksgiving), a couple of big rectangular GP Medium tents for classrooms and even a ginormous GP Large for the mess tent.


A cook tent complete with immersion heaters for dishwashing, motor pool set aside for the quarter-ton M151 jeeps (Oh, alright "MUTTs", like anyone ever actually called them that...), CUCVs, and deuces.

But when I looked around our hootch that morning?

Nothing.

And I mean nothing. No tents. No vehicles. Not so much as a cardboard C-rat box.

Nothing.

"Woodus..." I said, "...I think we might be in a little bit of trouble."


When we burst into the billets twenty minutes later nobody even bothered to lock our heels.

"Where the fuck have you two idiots been?" Monty Harder, my section sergeant, didn't even look up from packing his rucksack. "Never mind. Get your DRF shit together. We're going into DRF1."

At this point I want to turn you over to someone else who had a better view of what happened next.

Well, sort of.

The someone else is him - twenty-six-year-old Doc Chief, the me that hurried into my barracks room that morning struggling to find all my TA-50 and assorted kit to pack in preparation for - I thought - going on duty as the Division's "Ready Battalion", the unit that was supposed to be capable of emplaneing within two hours, the United States on-call Army.

I wrote this in a letter to my parents about two weeks later from where my infantry platoon was loafing around a deserted police station outside Pearls (I think). It isn't great literature by any means, but it has the cardinal virtue of being the actual eyewitness account, undimmed by time and without the additions and subtractions that reflection makes to memory.


I'll comment on it when it's clear that I didn't explain something well, or another issue demands explication, but otherwise I'll try and let my younger self speak. From here on the block quotes are the voice of SP4 Chief, platoon medic for 3rd Platoon, A Company, 1/505 Infantry (Airborne) (Light).

"That morning (when I called) we returned to find the battalion preparing for DRF. This was no surprise, since the 2nd Brigade had been called out (we didn't know where and rather assumed that had gone to the wargames in Georgia). So we pallatized our vehicles and packed, still unsure of whether we would go.

At noon the speakers in the phones were removed, and we were sent down to draw our .45's."
(This was the Big Tell, by the way. First, remember that this was the pre-cell-phone Eighties. The old black AT&T pay phones in the barracks hallways were the only way for a regular grunt to call out, and as many times as we had been the Ready Battalion we'd never had a time when the Charge of Quarters came around and unscrewed the speaker from the handsets. That, and the medics and assistant machinegunners never took our pistols to field problems.


They were useless for playing soldier - no blank rounds or muzzle adapters - and our commanders had a justifiable paranoia about some idiot joe dropping his hogleg in a hole or down a shitter or just losing it out in the woods. Drawing the service pistols meant that Shit Was Real, or as real as it could get for a peacetime Army...)
"By 1600 we knew that the 2nd Brigade was on the ground in Grenada and (we) were becoming more sure that we would go. We moved in the night, all of us, loaded with rucksacks, duffle bags, weapons and harness on the silversided 80-pax trucks down to LACC.

Our lock-up, or LACC, is in the old wooden barracks on the north end of post. They are fenced and wired, patrolled by guards. There we grabbed a hasty meal and were sent down to our companies.

Third platoon, A Company, was loaded with munitions and abuzz with rumors. Anything seemed possible in the sickly glow of the streetlamps. Twice we filed through a gap in the fence under the hooded eyes of the MPs. First we drew such things as jungle boots, canteens, meals, and sundries. Then we passed heaps of ammunition and, for the first time, I really believed. The fear in my gut weighed as much as the 50 rounds of .45 caliber ammo in my hands."
(Looking over my old letter I really didn't manage to convey how freakish the supply and ammo draw was. It was, and here's why: for my entire Army career it had been hammered into me how precious and special Army equipment was. Everything we were issued had to be accounted for, receipted, cared for, carefully managed and returned in equal or better condition than it was provided.

Not that night.

The supply guys literally threw stuff at us. "Jungle boots. Poncho liner. You need two? Fine. That looks worn, here, take this new one. Go, go, move it, here, put this in a waterproof bag. Move out, troop." As much as the live ammunition this carelessness was so uncharacteristic as to be genuinely frightening. If the supply pukes were in that kind of hurry, I thought, what the hell was going out outside the wire?
"Wednesday morning we moved in a long, straggling column down to Pope AFB and waited until noon at Green Ramp for the aircraft. A C-141 lifted us off and for five hours we were locked inside (with) our own private fears before touchdown - 1636 Wednesday, 26 October."
(We didn't know it but by the time we landed what little genuine fighting there would be was all but over.

The Ranger battalions had parachuted onto the airfield the previous morning, seizing it and going through the raggedy-ass little Cuban detachment like a dose of salts. A "counterattack" by the shambolic Grenadian "Army" - which consisted of a couple of wheeled BTR-60 armored personnel carriers had been shot up with 90mm recoilless rifle rounds and routed. What was left was a bunch of random characters with an AK-47 or three who felt like taking a slap at GIs; there was no "defense" of the island in any real sense of the word.


The other thing we didn't know - and that I want to go into more in the next installment - is how badly we, all the various branches of the U.S. armed forces managed to screw up and get people killed in what was really nothing more than a one-sided beatdown of a tiny opponent barely capable of defending itself from a troop of angry Boy Scouts.

We hadn't been to war in almost a decade, and it showed.

But that's for next time.
Next: Grenada 4, or, What If They Gave A War And Nobody Knew How To Fight It?

Thursday, October 31, 2013

The Army I Knew; Grenada 1, or, How Jody Got His Groove Back

It seems appropriate to begin this part of the "Army I Knew" series on Hallowe'en. Because it was thirty years ago this week that then-Doc Lawes and about 10,000 other Yanks got dressed up like soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines and went looking to play tricks and - hopefully - get treats on a hitherto-little-known flyspeck in the southeastern Caribbean in the delightfully named "Operation Urgent Fury".

This farrago was touted as the official announcement of the Rebirth of the U.S. Military supposedly through the good offices of President Ronald Reagan after having spent the previous decade all hungdown and brung-down because of Vietnam and hippies or something.


Looking back both the military part of the business as well as the public fuss and nonsense that surrounded it seem more than a little quaint, even embarrassing.

The United States has since spent the better part of a decade with its soldiers, ships, and aircraft fighting somewhere, everywhere, and these little wars have become a sort of background noise in American public life. It seems difficult to remember a time when a mere couple of thousand troopers descending on a backwater island was shattering front-page news, when the idea of U.S. soldiers actually shooting live joes at someone was shocking...but there it was.


I don't know if we were simpler then, or whether we're just more jaded and cynical today.

We were certainly more innocent, many of us who walked the roads and trails of the Spice Island back in October and November of 1983. I know that at least I was. I cannot tell the story of the whole of that time and place, but I can tell mine, and I will.

Tuesday, March 05, 2013

Ten Years After

Can it be that it's been almost a decade since the first day of the Third Gulf War, the Cheneyan Mess-o-potamia?

Yep.



A good place to begin is here: with James Fallows. In it Fallows makes the point which I consider the most essential one that we as We the People should be contemplating:
"For a decade or more after the Vietnam war, the people who had guided the U.S. to disaster decently shrank from the public stage. Robert McNamara did worthy penance at the World Bank. Rusk, Rostow, Westmoreland were not declaiming on what the U.S. should and should not do.

After Iraq, there has been a weird amnesty and amnesia about people's misjudgment on the most consequential decision of our times. Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 primary race largely because she had been "wrong" on Iraq and Barack Obama had been "right." But Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Rice, McCain, Abrams, and others including the pro-war press claque are still offering their judgments unfazed. In his post-presidential reticence George W. Bush has been an honorable exception.

I don't say these people should never again weigh in. But there should be an asterisk on their views, like the fine print about side effects in pharmaceutical ads."
I read the article Fallows refers to in the spring of 2003 and remember thinking "Yep. Yep. This is gonna suck." It prompted me to do something I'd promised myself I'd never do; march in a "peace protest". And, yes, it was as fucking worthless as the rest of them. All I got was the fucking T-shirt, and the caissons went rolling along.

But to me, the real damage we have done to ourselves over this has nothing to do with blood or treasure, but the formal codification of the Washington Rule that says you can harm your nation and your nation's People deliberately, intentionally, with greed and self-interest aforethought and pay no price - not a fucking penny or a moment of your liberty or even your social standing - for it.



We'll talk some more here about this when the anniversary arrives.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

The Generals (Ricks 2012)

I just finished Tom Ricks' The Generals, a work I've been meaning to review for some time.

Summary: Ricks conducts an analysis is U.S. Army generalship - specifically the selection, management, and retention of general officers - between WW2 and today and what he believes to have been a clear deterioration of the quality of these commanders and a failure of the U.S. Army's command management process over that time.

Contents: The volume is a fairly clear display of Ricks' strengths and weaknesses, but in my opinions his conclusions are less well-drawn, less useful for the civilian reader, and less practical as a plan for military reform.

For a work of nonfiction The Generals is quite readable; Ricks is a good writer of general military history. It contains some brief but well-drawn portraits and summaries of the careers of the general officers from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the "War on Terror" periods, including Marshall, Mark Clark, Patton, and Terry Allen from WW2; O.P Smith, MacArthur, and Ridgeway from Korea; Taylor, Westmoreland, and DePuy from Vietnam; and Powell, Schwartzkopf, Franks, Sanchez, and Petraeus from the past two decades. In each section Ricks uses the officers he profiles to illustrate what he considers the characteristics of flag officer policy in each period and the results in terms of combat effectiveness or the lack of same.

To summarize his overall thesis, he begins by positing that GEN Marshall crafted a system of flag officer selection and employment during the opening years of WW2 that was characterized by idiosyncratic promotion and placement of officers in command slots based on a rather personal assessment of their potential for command.

Of necessity this meant that Marshall and his subordinate theater commanders made some mistakes, and so the other essential component of this system was the early and ruthless relief of officers who were, or appeared to be, not competent at that level of command.

But because of the very nature of the appointments these reliefs were not particularly prejudicial (unless the general officer involved was clearly criminally incompetent or personally troubled) and involved at least one second chance for the officer relieved. Ricks takes the time to point out several men who were relieved, reassigned, and subsequently worked their way back up to command positions.

So by the end of WW2 the "Marshall System" consisted of a linked system of appointment-relief-reassignment conducted as a public process. Relief was - at least according to Ricks - not associated with punishment, not hidden from sight, and not considered a failure of either the individual or the system but rather the understanding that command was a privilege and the critical function of command was the efficient use of (and, where possible, preservation of) U.S. soldier lives.

Ricks then documents the transition from this to what he describes as the current system of U.S. GO management in which reliefs are almost impossible, intimately associated with failure both of the system and the relieved officer, and, consequently, problematic in that incompetent commanders are not quickly removed from the system.

This, in Ricks' view, is directly responsible for problems that the U.S. Army encountered in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

The work is well constructed, and arguments made with care, and in general I have no problem with Ricks' historical examples. The body of the work makes a good case for Ricks' thesis that the Marshall System has broken down and has been effectively replaced with a dysfunctional GO management process that promotes and places in command officers with severe military and geopolitical flaws.

However, I believe that The Generals also features a number of Ricks' weaknesses on prominent display as well.

He provides absolutely no context for his thesis; no other general officer systems outside the U.S. Army are detailed. He briefly discusses what he considers the differences between the U.S., British, and German armies of WW2 as organizations without any comparison between their differing methods of handling command assignments - which I assume there were. Such a comparison might be very useful.

He is inordinately impressed with the U.S. Army as an organization (which, while an opinion I share as a former GI, is not one that would seem helpful in the author of a work questioning Army policy). His intense focus on the Army, I think, also tends to minimize the role other institutions and branches of the U.S. Government and branches played in the evolution of the role of Army general officers and weakens his analysis.

As just a single example that occurred to me as I was reading his account of the increasing difficulty and complexity of the civil-military relationship during the Fifties (which he lays primarily at the feet of the "atomic military" and the problems the Army had with its role in the early nuclear age); he never once brings up the creation of the National Security Advisor position that effectively superseded the role GEN Marshall had played in WW2.

Certainly the interposition of a civilian appointee tasked with determining the scope, and even the details, or "national security" must have had some impact on the role of the Joint Chiefs, of the Army chief, and the commanders of Army theater-level organizations. But what that impact was, or whether there was any at all? Ricks has nothing to say on the subject.

Ricks doesn't deeply examine the role of military professionals in the pre-war debates leading to the the run-up to the post-WW2 interventions. He mentions, for example, that there might have been (and are) some teensy weensie problems with getting the citizens of a democratic republic to enthusiastically support a series of complex cabinet wars with difficult-to-articulate (at least if the speakers were being honest) objectives without discussing the effect this might have on the role, or ability, of general officers to influence the approach to or conduct of such wars.

Conclusions: Rick's draws the following conclusions:

1. That the current general officer corps of the U.S. Army has been crafted to be technically and tactically competent but is hopeless at anything more complex, being both too intimately entwined with civilian politics while at the same time poorly trained and educated about strategic and geopolitical issues and the current methods of training, promoting, and retaining generals should be changed.

2. That the civil-military relationship is deeply flawed, with both too much and too little interplay between the elected officials and the generals, and that a change in general officer management will improve this.

3. That the U.S. Army is, as a result, a superb instrument at the tactical-to-operational levels but deeply flawed for anything above that; i.e. that the U.S. Army can win battles but not wars, and that a change in GO management will improve this as well.

Recommendations: So far, so unexceptional. His final chapter containing the recommandations, however, sort of throws up its hands at ways to address this.

First, he recommends a return to the Marshall-style early relief-but-without-prejudice system. He then admits that in the small, insular world of the post-draft U.S. Army that this might not be possible, although he posits some potential moves to make this happen. My assessment would be even less optimistic. Ricks doesn't provide anything remotely like a way to develop a constituency inside or outside the Army that would drive this process. Marshall's revolution occurred at a unique moment in U.S. Army history. A revolution of similar magnitude - and that is what this would be - would need a similar setting.

Some of his other, relatively innocuous suggestions include personnel management changes such as the "360 review" concept (including juniors' as well as seniors' assessments in an officer evaluation report), extending the retirement age for senior officers (which is interesting, given Ricks' extensive documentation of Marshall's removal of an entire generation of senior officers in 1941 and '42 for being too elderly to command in the rapid pace of mechanized war), and revising officer education to produce general officers with the skills to think and plan strategically and improvise tactically in unexpected geopolitical situations. All worthy discussion-starting points in my opinion.

I consider that perhaps his least practical recommendation is his suggestion that unit rotations be halted or severely limited in counterinsurgency situations.

Given that this implies that U.S. soldiers would likely be locked into fighting against foreign rebellions for years the notion is beyond impossible both militarily (the probability of running out of troops is not inconceivable) and politically.

More troubling to me is Ricks practice throughout the work of avoiding questioning the usefulness of, or the role of the general officers in pointing out the likelihood of problems to, Great Power intervention in Third World rebellion suppression, more of which below.

Assessment: As a historical review and a potential discussion-starter I can cautiously recommend The Generals. It is eminently readable, and Ricks' work is not without value on the history of the U.S. Army's general officer policies and procedures.

As an actual prescription for constructive change in the U.S. Army, however, I consider this work severely limited.

First, it accepts without demur the formulation that an "increasingly chaotic" uni- or multi-polar world implies the need for U.S. military adventures in foreign domestic insurrections, rebellions, and disturbances.

Second, it implies that "better generals" can improve the likelihood that U.S. forces can successfully intervene in such conflicts. For example, although in his section on the Vietnam War Ricks mentions that the post-Tet success in counterinsurgency came largely as the result of the combination of the decimation of the COSVN guerrillas and the improvement of the ARVN - instead of any particular change in U.S. officer competence, and his section on Iraq specifies the employment of bribery of the Sunni muj and the success of Shia ethnic cleansing as the reason that the U.S. occupation "succeeded", he still considers these to have been be amenable to "better" U.S. generalship, a conclusion that I consider tenuous at best and unsupported at worst.

His formulation also elides the problem of the larger, mainly civilian/political formulations of "more rubble/less trouble" and "Muslims = terrorists" that seems to drive these open-ended interventions. Ricks seems as bound as his troubled generals to the tactical aspects of geopolitics, unwilling to accept that many foreign troubles contain too many unknown - and unknowable - strategic aspects for even the most widely read and deep-thinking general officer will be unable to predict.

Who, for example, would have been able to foresee that providing Western military aid to rebels against the Algerian, Tunisian, and Libyan dictatorships would have helped foment a rebellion in Mali that Western military assets are presently fighting? And would a U.S. general- even a well-informed strategic thinker - genuinely be willing to suggest that since the West has a great deal to actually create the conditions for this revolt that that the best response might be to wait and watch, doing as little as possible beyond providing whatever the local proxies might need to limit the success of most anti-Western of the rebels?

So while Ricks' The Generals suggests a link between in improvement in U.S. general officer policies and improved success in the "little wars" the U.S. has been fighting since the early Nineties, my thought would be - I wonder...if such improvement, had it been in place before Vietnam, before Iraq, today...have resulted in fewer such wars, instead?

The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, by Thomas Ricks (Penguin Books, 2012) ISBN-10: 1594204047 20.22 HC at Amazon.com

Friday, January 04, 2013

Hoarse Whisperer


A former head of the CIA is said to have believed that U.S. diplomatic signals may have helped kick off the 1982 Falklands War:
"Mr William Casey, the head of the CIA, who was closely concerned in Cabinet discussion on this subject, has implied to us privately that he thinks the Argentinians may well have been led up the wrong path.

'They may have believed that their support for the US in covert operations in Central America was more important to the US than in fact it was, and could be expected to earn them American acquiescence in forward policy elsewhere.'

Sir Nicholas also recalled handing US Secretary of State Alexander Haig a piece of paper detailing British evidence of Argentina's intention to invade on April 2, 1982.

He said: 'Mr Haig's reaction to the information I had given him was electric.'

Sir Nicholas added: 'He wanted us to win and would have been horrified if the Argentinians had got away with it."
Hardly solid evidence, but intriguing nontheless. Particularly when you think of this in the context of the supposed July 1990 meeting between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein which may (or may not, or might have have been even more complex effect) have had the result of greenlighting the Kuwait coup in the mind of the Butcher of Baghdad.

That, and looking back at the history of "foreign relations" these sorts of very-human fuckups seem remarkably common. People screw up, and diplomacy seems as screwable as anything else.

In this case I'm not sure whether to put a tremendous amount of credence in what appears to be the simple opinion of one man, albeit one that was a very experienced observer of the foreign policies of his time. And the internal politics of the Argentina of 1982 make it fairly clear that the junta was already deeply committed to the idea of using force to claim the "Malvinas".

But what this odd historical footnote does seem to point out is that for all that we often like to think of "geopolitics" and "strategy" as sciences, as matters that people and nations can make into tools to use for their interests and both study and train on to improve they are often laden with what another U.S. recent foreign policy thinker used to call "unknown unknowns"; complexities and unintended consequences that even the sharpest wit and the most diligent student cannot anticipate.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

For This Relief

I would like to claim that I have not been posting much because it's been too fucking hot to sit over a whirring hard-disk fan.

Or because I've been up before dawn and often home after dark.

I've had a month of those, yes.

But that isn't why I haven't been posting.



It's because every so often I look outside my little world; my home, my work, my immediate friends and family, and see what my country has become and I'm just dog-sick and tired.

I just don't have anything decent to say, I don't have anything at all to say other than a long string of expletives, and even though I'm proud of my gift for bad language I'm not sure you really come here for that.

For example, just this week I happened across a couple of news items - one local, the other national - that made me want to throw something heavy and breakable, like a coffee cup, against the wall.

One was the ridiculous tizzy over the whole "legitimate rape" statement of the GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate in Missouri.
And my furor was probably not about what you'd think.

Of COURSE Todd Akin doesn't really think that there's a magical "off" switch in your uterus that locks out rapist sperm but lets in sweet-lovin'-baby-makin'-daddy sperm.

Todd Akin thinks that every damn sperm is sacred.

Which makes him no different that forty zillion other Republican douchenozzles that have nothing better to do than blabber on to everyone within earshot about what happens north of women's labia minora as if it's their own personal safety deposit box and Christmas present.

Todd Akin is a Christopathic bag of wind.

That's NOT the problem.

No. The problem is - what the FUCK are we doing talking about rape and pregnancy in the first place?

Or abortion?

Or anything ELSE having to do with "who puts what where" during an election for the U.S. Senate?

Is rape, pregnancy, or abortion now a Federal crime?

Did someone make Senators obstetrician/gynecologists by fiat when I wasn't looking?

Is the World's Supposedly Greatest Deliberative Body now also running a 24-hour-rape-crisis-hotline-and-VD-clinic?

I don't think so.

So...what in the thrice-damned name of Sumner Brooks are we talking about this crap for?

Why would any sane American, let alone a sane American who aspired to membership in the nation's senior legislative body, want to have anyfuckingthing to do with legislating what happens inside a woman's womb?

Are we fucking mad?

Until fetal viability what happens there, frankly, in my opinion, is between the woman and her conscience. Or the woman and her partner. Or her family. Or whoever else she chooses to involve.

The rest of us - as people, as her neighbors, as her fellow citizens, can drink a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up and let her get on with what she needs to do. If she's a competent adult, that's both her privilege and her right.

But...this isn't about private citizenry.

This is about a goddamn election for the U.S. Senate, at a time when that body is confronted with a five-year Depression, a runaway financial industry, rising long-term joblessness, a declining manufacturing base, multiple undeclared foreign wars, secret prisons, who-the-hell-knows-what-covert-nonsense-all-over-the-globe, along with a grab-bag of other assorted idiocies like corkscrewing over "Second Amendment Rights", immigration nuts, Kenyan socialism, death panels, Medicare-vouchers, deficit tomfoolery, and the popularity of pseudo-science or flat-out weapons-grade moron-"science" like anti-vaccination hysteria and young-Earth creationism.

Jesus fucking wept, people! And you have time to natter on about "legitimate rape" and this idiot's ideas of magical contraception?

And - worse - you STILL want to vote for this fucking idiot?

So that was the national story.




And then there was the local story: "...the 34th local family to have a son die in Afghanistan since the war began."

I could barely hold onto the World's Worst Newspaper as I read this, a public keening for the young trooper from Tigard, Oregon, killed on some sort of what-the-fuck mission ("a 48-hour mission to secure an observation post") in Charkh, a part of Logar Province that is described in its Wiki entry as the "Bab al-Jihad" or "Gates of Holy War" dfor the ferocity of the region's religious nuts during the Soviet years.
And let me note that - as a purely personal military observation - what the fuck does "securing an observation post" mean?

An OP is an outpost for a larger defensive position; it helps provide security for that position and, as such, is not generally intended to be secure, defensible or defended, much less fought to establish. If you're fighting to set out a fucking OP, what the hell does that tell you about the security of your main perimeter?

It surprises me not a bit that later in the article the author admits that "...Andrew's unit was pulled off that hill in Charkh after his death because it was deemed too risky for anyone to be there."

Damn.
But what really got to me was the writer's conclusion:

"I stood in his family's home watching as they wrestled with their son's brave desire to serve his country and their gut-twisting grief. I kept coming back to that flight before boot camp. I hope the passenger sitting beside Andrew in Row 17 turned and thanked him.

I hope someone thanked him for us all."


And it made me want to vomit bile and flame.

It made me want to find my oldest pair of field boots (the ones with all the black worn off to the point where they look almost like the ones the young men like this young man wear walking the barbarous land down to their graves) and find this writer who thinks that the casually meaningless thanks of strangers will return the heart ripped out by grief to the chests of the fathers and mothers, the sisters, and the lovers, and stomp the living shit out of him so he can feel a tiny particle of the pain of those thus bereft by another mite added to the heap of death that is central Asia.

I don't hope someone had thanked this poor bastard.

I wish the hell that someone had grabbed him by the arm and pulled him off of that damn 80-pax on the way down to the departure airfield.

I wish like a sunofabitch that all the precious political savants and military geniuses that thought that it was a good idea to send young men from the suburbs of Portland to fight a goddamn war of imperial pacification in one of the most turbulent and unruly parts of the world were airdropped naked into the hills of Logar Province with a charred Koran shackled around their necks and the words "Fuck You Allah!" pained in Pashto on their asses.

I wish that there was some way to take the round that tore apart the universe that lived inside this young guy's skull and hammer it point-first, misshapen and clotted with the blood and brains of his last moments of life, into the goddamn forehead of every parlor patriot and bumper-sticker Rambo and gung-ho Congresscritter that every talked about "sacrifice" and "heroism".

I wish young Andy was home right now in Tigard, fooling his young life away texting bullshit to his bros, fishing all day, and screwing his pretty fiancee' giddy all night.
I wish a lot of things. I wish my country was smarter, braver, more decent, less greedy and stupid. I wish that I didn't look ten and twenty years into the future and see a harder, meaner, bleaker, stupider United States and feel comforted by the fact that I will likely be too dead to loathe it.

But right now I really wish that I didn't have to think about those things.

So for the next three days I am going away with my family. To a little cottage in an old coastal fort, whose warring days are long past. We will listen to the wind in the shore pines, and the sound of the seabirds crying, and the boom and rush of the surf at night. We will play silly games, and comb the beach for shells.

My daughter is obsessed with going to "Agate Beach", and so - since there are no agates on the beaches of southwestern Washington - I have slunk away to the rock shop and purchased a small bag of "genuine Oregon beach agates" to salt the sands for her to find some treasures.

I will read, and sleep, and laze about. I will make love to my bride, and cook and eat whatever I please and not worry about my diet. I will, I hope, find a still, silent place within to armor myself against my next rude encounter with the rough beastliness of my nation and the large number of its people who seem to want to make it a place I would not choose to inhabit were it my choice to make.
And for this relief, much thanks, for it is bitter cold, and I am sick at heart.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Battles That Changed History: Second Guangzhou (Canton) 1841

Second Canton (Guangzhou, 广州) Dates: 23-30 MAY 1841
Forces Engaged: Great Britain (Government and Honorable East India Company [HEIC]) - Naval Forces:
HMS Algerine - Flush Decked Brig (Cherokee Class) crew 50, 10 guns, (2 x 6lb cannon, 8 x 18lb carronades*)
HMS Alligator - Sloop 6th Rate (Atholl Class) crew 140, 28 guns. (20 x 32lb carronades, 6 x 18lb carronades, 2 x 9lb cannon) - on loan to HEIC
HMS Conway - 6th Rate (Tyne Class) crew 175, 28 guns, (20 x 32lb carronades, 6 x 18lb carronades, 2 x 9lb cannon)
HMS Calliope - 6th Rate. (Calliope Class) crew 231, 28 guns, (28 x "Dixon's 25 cwt" 32lb cannon)
HMS Herald - Sloop 6th Rate (Atholl Class) crew 175, 28 guns, (20 x 32lb carronades, 6 x 18lb carronades, 2 x 9lb cannon) - on loan to HEIC
HMS Modeste - Flush Decked Ship Sloop/Corvette (Modeste Class) crew 120, 18 guns, (2 x 32lb cannon, 16 x 32lb carronades.)
HMS Pylades - Sloop - Corvette (Pylades Class) crew 125, 18 guns, (2 x 9lb cannon, 12 x 32lb carronades.)
HEICS Nemesis - paddle frigate (single-ship class) crew 90, 4-6 guns (2 x 32lb cannon, 2-4 6lb cannon), rocket launcher++
HEICS Madagascar - I have been unable to locate any details for this East India Company warship; it is likely that she was similar to an armed merchantman, with 15-20 12lb to 32lb cannon or carronades)
The naval force also included three "tenders": (the Starling, Hebe, and the cutter Louisa)

An additional nine vessels were involved in operations on the Pearl River on May, 1841, but do not appear to have been in position close to Guangzhou for the assault. These vessels did contribute sailors to the "Naval Brigade", however, and were mentioned by the British accounts of the engagement.
The naval forces appear to have been roughly 20 vessels, commanded by one CAPT Sir H. Le Fleming Senhouse, RN.
*(Note 1 - Carronades: the British Navy of the mid-19th Century was in transition. In the 1830s it was virtually indistinguishable from Nelson's Navy of the Napoleonic Wars. By the 1860s the first ironclads, rifled naval guns, and reliable explosive shells had appeared and the foundations of the steel navies of the 20th Century had been laid.

One of the real hangovers of the Nelson Touch was the "smasher", the carronade. These short-barreled, short-ranged artillery pieces fit the Nelsonian tradition of "close action". A British captain was expected to lay his ship alongside an enemy and hammer her hull until she sank, or until the frightening ripsaw of wooden splinter and iron shards created by the massive weight of metal thrown out by these guns reduced so many of her crew to bloody rags that she was unfightable.
Look through the list above and note how many carronades each ship carried compared to cannon; by the middle of the century the "culture of the carronade" ruled supreme in the Royal Navy. A captain was expected to get stuck into his enemy and pound him senseless. There was to be none of this Continental capering about or aiming for masts and whatnot. Grab the belt and pound away; that was the ticket.

Although technically a warship armed principally with carronades was vulnerable to well-aimed fire from a well-handled cannon- (or "long gun") armed vessel, in practice the British relied on a combination of better seamanship and aggressive tactics to negate any such advantages and, in practice, they were correct.

We'll talk more about this is just a moment, but one thing worth noting is that it was a longstanding tradition to "loan" entire military units, both land and naval, to the East India Company. This benefited both parties. John Company got damn fine troops, while the British Government saved the expense of paying and maintaining them. This tradition of "Queen's" (or King's) units versus "Company" units remained until the Government of India Act of 1858 transferred all the Company troops to Crown control.)

++ (Note 2 - The Nemesis: This little vessel is one of the most fascinating tales of the entire story. She was a steamship, and seems to have been the first of what would become a long tradition of European messing around in boats on foreign rivers - the first true "river gunboat".

She only drew six feet and she was said to be dreadfully underpowered and so hard to keep to weather that she went sideways as easily as forwards. She carried only two heavy cannon. But she wasn't meant to fight enemy warships. She was a genuine invention; a purpose-built instrument designed to beat up on lightly armed Chinese junks and enforce John Company's will on shallow, bar-ridden Chinese rivers.
When she sailed from Liverpool her mission was supposed to be a deep dark secret - she was supposed to be a private vessel bound for Odessa on the Black Sea, but "It is said that this vessel is provided with an Admiralty letter of license or letter of marque. If so, it can only be against the Chinese; and for the purpose of smuggling opium she is admirably adapted." the Times of London reported on 30 MAR 1840.
- Ground Forces: the British land assault force was, like the navy, divided between Royal and Company units. The infantry included three Queen's units:the 18th (Royal Irish), 26th (Cameronians), and 49th (Hertfordshire) Regiments of Foot, ranging in strength from the 311 all ranks of the 49th to the massively overstrength 26th at nearly 1,000.
The Honorable East India Company provided roughly six companies of infantry; 230 all ranks of the 37th Madras Native Infantry (or “M.N.I.”) and about two companies of “Bombay Volunteers”. The Company also provided combat engineers in the form of a company of Madras Sappers and Miners.

The artillery was also largely provided by the Company; 230 gunners of the Madras Artillery. A small battery of the 3rd Royal Artillery represented the only imperial cannoneers. Altogether, the British fielded 11 light smoothbore field guns - none heavier than 12 pound howitzers - and three 5" mortars.

The Guangzhou assault force also included what was something of a British imperial tradition; a landing force of the Royal Navy. This included about 430 seamen from two vessels; HMS Wellesley and HMS Nimrod, and a separate composite Royal Marine battalion of about 380 for a total of nearly 800 or so.

The ground assault force is listed as roughly 2,300 troops all arms, and the entire British naval and land expedition is described in the dispatch as “not have been more than 6,000 persons of all ages, and all classes”, under MG Sir Hugh Gough.

That's old "Paddy" Gough over there, by the way, about nine years later. Isn't that a great Victorian face? He is said to have commanded in more actions than any British senior officer outside Arthur Wellesley, and is also said to have been a brutal hacker who won as often as not by dint of sheer hammering and at a hell of a cost in lives. This was the Big Barbarian who intended to beat the damn Chinks into obedience. His overall superior, it's worth noting, was a former Royal Navy officer then working in the Foreign Office, Charles Elliot; we'll hear more of him later.

Imperial Chinese – Qing Dynasty Imperial Troops As always with imperial wars we have a problem with numbers of “natives”. In this case it is insanely frustrating because we are not talking about innumerate tribesmen but soldiers of one of the most degenerately civilized empires in the world.

There is no doubt that the Qing magistrates, imperial commanders, accountants and official functionaries in both Guangzhou and Beijing knew exactly how many troops were stationed in the Guangzhou garrison in May of 1841.
Unfortunately, we have no idea what those people knew. The records they surely meticulously kept have been lost, or destroyed, or are buried in a lost cellar somewhere in China. Right now all we know is that the British naval commander, Senhouse, states that in his opinion the British ground assault faced “amounting, at a medium calculation, to about 30 or 40,000 men”.

Elsewhere in the account in the Qing troops are described as armed with “jingals” as well as some sort of cannon, although based on pictures these appear to have been much cruder than Western artillery – almost the lineal descendents of the medieval bombard. The Qing troops, however, would also have been armed with a wide variety of antique steel weapons including polearms, bows, and swords.

The basic military structure of the Qing armies was twofold.

The “Eight Banner Armies”, a Manchu organization, was the supposed elite, descended from the wild Manchu and Mongol steppe riders that conquered Han China at Shanghaiguan in 1644, A “banner soldier” was supposed to be a professional military man, but one of the revelations of the First Opium War was how badly atrophied the military skills of the bannermen had become.

The Mongol “Tartar” cavalry was said to have been disciplined and armed with bow, spear, and sword, but their tendency to charge sword-in-hand against unshaken foreign infantry produced nothing but dead Tartars.

The Banner infantry - either Han Chinese, Manchu, or Mongol, was less organized and tended to masses of close-combat sword-and buckler or spearmen, as useless in the 19th Century as a stone axe. What firearms the Qing infantry had tended to be ginormous "jingal" matchlocks; ridiculous two-man punt guns, slow as dirt and about as accurate, or flintlocks similar to those used in European war a century earlier.

There is no record of any Banner infantryman armed with the bayonet, which must have put the Banner troops at an immense disadvantage in melee combat.
More numerous, and more worthless, as the so-called "Green Banner Army" of Han Chinese conscripts.

These poor bastards were typically posted away from their home province, as they were expected to be useless in their law enforcement, constabulary, or garrison duties is surrounded by their friends and relatives who could be relied upon to use their nepotism ruthlessly. Their officers were rotated as well, to prevent them from forming coteries among their troops that might have encouraged rebellion against the Manchu overlords.

The Green Standard troops were considered something of a rabble both by Westerners and their own Qing rulers; it's worth noting, however, than this militia played something of a role on the events of May 1841 that had some big implications for the future.

So, probably between 30,000 and 40,000 banner and Han militia soldiers in the Guangzhou garrison, under generalissimo Aisin-Gioro Yishan (愛新覺羅•奕山) and one "Atsinga", garrison commander, as well as some undetermined number of local Green Army or militia levies in the vicinity of the city.

The Sources: Again, we're talking about colonial war, so, again, we're looking at a very one-sided selection of primary sources. Almost everything available to an English-only speaker is culled from British primary sources and must, therefore, be handled with care.

A tremendous volume of British first-person accounts are available on-line. These include:

John Ouchterlony's 1844 The Chinese War: an Account of all the Operations of the British Forces from the Commencement to the Treaty of Nanking, in Google PDF scan form here; the account of a junior officer in the Madras Army told with the bounce and tigger you'd expect of a young lieutenant. Although I haven't included links to these others, they should be easy enough to find if you copy and paste the titles; we just don't name things anymore the way the Victorians did.

Keith Stewart Mackenzie, Narrative of the Second Campaign in China (1842)

John Elliot Bingham, Narrative of the Expedition to China, from the Commencement of the War to its Termination in 1842, with Sketches of the Manners and Customs of that Singular and Hitherto Almost Unknown Country (1843)

Edward Belcher, Narrative of a Voyage Round the World, Performed in Her Majesty’s Ship Sulphur, During the Years 1836-1842, Including Details of the Naval Operations in China, from Dec. 1840, to Nov. 1841 (vol. II, 1843)

Robert Montgomery Martin, China; Political, Commercial, and Social; in an official Report to Her Majesty’s Government (1847)

Alexander Murray, Doings in China, being the Personal Narrative of an Officer Engaged in the Late Chinese Expedition, from the Recapture of Chusan in 1841, to the Peace of Nankin in 1842 (1843)

Of particular interest are the writings of one Edward Hodges Cree, The Cree Journals: The Voyages of Edward H. Cree, Surgeon R.N., as Related in His Private Journals, 1837-1856, edited and with and Introduction by Michael Levien.

Reissued in 1982 under the title Naval Surgeon, it is not accessible in full online. The hard copy includes extensive color reproductions of Cree’s watercolor sketches; and the man was a formidable artist both for his honesty and his expressiveness. Here's his rendition of the human disaster that was the result of the taking of Chinkiang in 1842:
Perhaps the most concise (and yet comprehensive) on-line source for the purely military operations of the engagement is a Google digitized copy of The Colonial Magazine and Commercial-Maritime Journal (Robert Montgomery Martin, ed), Volume 6 (September-December 1841). A collection of dispatches from CAPT Senhouse and MG Gough are found from pages 346 to 363, all containing masses of useful detail about the events of May, 1841, ranging from tides to topography, from the course of the fighting to the names of those officers killed and injured, and all the way down to tale of some abstemious troopers of the Hertfordshire Regiment, "finding a quantity of sham-shu* in the village they had so gallantly taken, without order or previous knowledge of their officers, brought the jars containing this pernicious liquor, and broke them in front of their corps..."
(*Note 3 - Sham-shu: I have looked all over to try and find out what the hell this stuff could have been. The most likely candidate seems to be this stuff: 黄酒 huáng jiǔ - "yellow liquor", a fermented rice, wheat, or barley wine. The pronunciation in south China might well have been something like "hwang zhu" that an Englishman might have heard as "zham zhu" or sham-shu". I had a bottle of this stuff in a Chinese joint in London and it truly was awful, combining the taste of raw spirits with the heady nose of paint thinner; no surprise Gough, Irishman that he was, called it "pernicious").
The Wiki entry is sparse, contains some obvious errors, omits a great deal of otherwise readily available information, and is poorly written, to boot. Worthwhile only as a starting point.

Victorianweb has a nice little article on the background and contemporary observations of the Opium Wars.

There's a very accessible and well-crafted on-line essay in the Visualizing Cultures series by Peter Perdue of MIT located here; it has a wealth of primary sources (many of the sources from the above list came from this source) as well as a thoroughgoing analysis of the causes, conduct, and impact of the First Opium War.

Many secondary sources are extant for the First Opium War, although I am not familiar with any that deal specifically with Second Canton. Sources for the British and East India Company military are fairly common, although I retain a special fondness for Byron Farewell's Queen Victoria's Little Wars, both for the author's knowledge of the period as for his style.

Qing military sources are both difficult to find and - possibly because the Qing military system of the 19th Century was itself in generally poor shape - often confusing because of their insularity. Because of the difficulty in hiding the actual conduct and losses of the Opium Wars from a Qing bureaucracy that refused to believe in foreign capabilities the resulting Chinese imperial records are problematic, to say the least...

The Campaign: Before we get started, let me preface my summary of the events leading up to Second Canton by saying plainly; of all the causes for which humans have killed other humans, the desire to push addictive narcotics has to rank right up there with slavery and Nazism as the worst in history.

And to give credit where it was due; many Britons of the time agreed. The future Prime Minister William Gladstone rose against the expedition in Parliament, saying that to use British military power to force opium on China would "cover this country with permanent disgrace". In March, 1840, the Commons voted to send the expedition, but with only 271 in favor with 262 in opposition. Almost half the representatives of the people of Britain wanted nothing to do with, in effect, acting as a drug pusher's hired muscle. But, as we will see, the toxic combination of national pride, imperial gain, outright racism, and commercial greed served to produce a war nonetheless.

So how did we get to the point where some 6,000 British troops are preparing to storm a city of over a million, defended by a military force (if a fairly incompetent one) over five times the size of the assault element?
Well, like any good story, it begins with greed and an astrolabe.

First, the Ming Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, 朱元璋, way back in the 1300s, decided to cut China off from the nasty pestiferous foreigners messing around in boats. He enacted something called the 海禁 - the Hǎi Jìn or "sea ban". In effect, it meant that no Chinese private vessel could venture further than the mouths of China's rivers.

Crazy, hunh? For one thing, this effectively ended Chinese overseas commerce as well as pretty much decimating it's navy and isolating China from the West - since no sane person wanted to do a Marco Polo and hump all the way across central Asia just to trade - just as the West was getting all Revolutionary and Industrial. So when the two blocs reconnected - later in the "Age of Exploration" - the Chinese, who had been blowing shit up with explosives and writing poetry whilst the average Briton was painting himself blue and banging stones together, were far, far behind the power curve militarily and politically.

But the two sides DID hook up, the Chinese reluctantly, the Westerners, greedily. Because then, as now, the West saw China as one ginormous Market; all those millions of little Chinese consumers aching to buy Auntie Suzie's Secret Soy Sauce and the Grillmaster.

But this wasn't what the Qing were after; they'd revived the "sea ban" in the middle 1600s and kept it in place for thirty years. When the Qing did reopen ocean trade, it was under tremendously restricted conditions. Under the so-called "Canton System", all outside trade had to go through the "Thirteen Hongs" - trading firms with permanent facilities or "factories" in Canton (Guangzhou). The reach of the white men ended there; no foreign devils were allowed to travel outside Shamian Dao, Shamian Island in Guangzhou where the factories were located. So all the profits beyond the seawall of Shamian Dao went to the tricksy heathen Chinee, a situation designed to purely piss off any red-bloodedly greedy British merchant.
(This guy, by the way, was 秉鑒, Wǔ Bǐngjiàn, called "Howqua" by the white boys who couldn't pronounce his actual name. He was the big boss of the "Ewo Hong" (怡和行 - it's actually pronounced Yíhé Háng) and in the 1840s his worth - estimated at 26 million Mexican silver dollars - made him perhaps the richest man in the world. Frankly, he looks to me like a man who wants a drink. But, there...)

The British tried everything they could think of short of force, at first. They connived with Chinese bureaucrats and merchants and usually came off the worse; it's hard to cheat a South China job-creator, one of the most enterprising and daring scoundrels in history.

They tried diplomacy; in 1793 King George III sent one George Macartney to suggest that Britain receive "...a permanent embassy in Beijing, possession of "a small unfortified island near Chusan for the residence of British traders, storage of goods, and outfitting of ships", and reduced tariffs on traders in Guangzhou."
This didn't go well, not (as many contemporary and later accounts suggest) because Macartney refused to "kow-tow" - perform a full-length prostration - to the Qianlong Emperor, or the fact that he presented the Emperor with fairly useless and unimpressive gifts (such as an old-style astrolabe)
(Though the caption that accompanied the above cartoon of the embassage does put forward the suggestion that all of those played into the failure: "A caricature on Lord Macartney's Embassy to China and on the little which the Ambassador and his government are presumed to have known of the manners and tastes of the people they wanted to conciliate. Chinese etiquette is, that extreme prostrations should be made before the Emperor, which it was intimated Lord Macartney would not conform to. The whole contour of the Emperor is indicative of cunning and contempt and his indifference to the numerous gifts displaying the skill of British manufacturing, is evident. The German face bringing in the cage is Mr Huttner of the Foreign Office, who acted as an interpreter and published his own account of the visit. As soon as Lord Macartney had declined to make the required prostrations, only going down on one knee, he was dismissed from the presence of the Emperor. He was later ordered to quit Peking within two days and was given a letter addressed to George III wherein the Emperor states that,'As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures'. An attache, Aeneas Anderson, later recalled that "we entered Pekin like Paupers, remained in it like Prisoners and departed from it like Vagrants".)
but, as the Wiki entry states, because of
"...a result of competing world views which were uncomprehending and to some extent incompatible. After the conclusion of the embassy, Qianlong sent a letter to King George III, explaining in greater depth the reasons for his refusal to grant the several requests presented to the Chinese emperor by Macartney. In it, the continuing references to all Europeans as "Barbarians", the emperor's assumption of all nations of the earth as being tributary to China, and his final words commanding King George III to "...tremblingly obey and show no negligence!"
Telling a foreign king to "tremblingly obey"? A foreign king with a modern army and navy? Gives you a good idea of the vast gulf between the way the Europeans looked at China and the way China looked back.

The next action the Qianlong Emperor took, though, was a real pisser.

He decreed that all Chinese products were to be bought with silver - that is, not traded for other goods. This was bad for the British firms like the East India Company, that had made it's nut selling cheap British crap to Indians in return for specie and valuable commodities.

And, by the way, you might want to revisit our discussion of the Battle of Plassey to remind yourself what the deal was with "John Company" and it's doin's in the East. Go ahead. I'll wait.

OK, so are we there yet? Good. So John Company was trying to do what colonial companies often do; make money by shiking the darkies.

Then the next thing that barged in was that veddy British drink, tea.
In the 18th and 19th Century the Brits sopped up lakes of the stuff. And there's a reason for the expression "all the tea in China" - that's where the best stuff grows. And since to get the tea on the tea clippers and from thence onto English breakfast tables and tea trays a man of business had to lay out hard cold silver this produced what we here in the U.S. circa 2012 know all too well; "large continuous trade deficits."

Chinese tea (and other, particularly luxury items such as silk cloth and porcelain) went to Britain; British silver went to China. And, since the Brits had been on a gold standard since the 18th century, they had to spend MORE money to purchase silver from Germany, Russia, Austria, and Mexico.

Needless to say, this fairly chapped the British.

But in the early years of the 19th Century, they hit on what Blackadder would call a plan as cunning as a cunning fox elected Dean of Cunning at Cunning University.

They would run opium into China.
Opium was produced in several places in the HEIC domains; largely in the Bengal Presidency as well as in the allied princely state of Malwa. These places had been cotton producing regions, but imperial contacts with Egypt (and the American South, probably) brought in cheap cotton cloth to India that bankrupted the cotton farmers in Malwa and Bengal.

Who turned to growing poppy.

Opium - largely as edible paste - had been used in China as early as the Tang dynasty of the 600-900s, but it was limited both by the low-grade buzz it created when snarfed as well as some pretty savage laws. In addition, the Manchu Qings didn't really mind of their Han subjects got all toasted; it kept them quiet and was a sort of indirect tax on them. No worries, Ping.

But. In about the 1820s to 1830s some smart guy figured out that if you combined opium and tobacco you got one bad weed; smoked opium kicked you in the head like a hammer - it fucked your shit up.
(This, by the way, is a "ball" of opium and tobacco from some time in the 19th Century; just the sort of dope shipped to China in bulk)

Now, suddenly, opium smoking became a serious problem in China...

...just as,

- Tea plantations in India and Africa came on line, cutting the tea revenue, and
- Cheap, nasty Turkish opium showed up (sold by good old Yankee Doodle Yanks, mostly) and started a price war, driving the cost of getting bombed down and driving the numbers of the bombed up, and
- In 1834 Parliament broke the HEIC monopoly on dope; now all you needed was a fast ship, a star to steer her by, and a couple of hundred chests of the finest black tar chandoo

Not shockingly, this pretty much honked off the Daoguang Emperor. In 1839 he put a gentleman named 林则徐, Lin Zexu, in charge of Guangzhou with the brief to stop the opium trade. He arrived in March with some big iron on his Confucian hip.

First he banned the sale and use of opium.

He demanded that the traders, both foreign and domestic, pledge a no-opium bond which carried the death penalty for arrest.

He also ordered the Qing military to close the Pearl River between Guangzhou and Hong Kong, effectively taking the foreign merchants hostage for their pal's good no-opium-smuggling behavior.

And in May, 1839, he demanded all the opium in Guangzhou.

Every. Single. Fucking. Chest.

Many of the Europeans wanted to fight right then. For one thing, they wanted the money - opium was cash on hand, and they were damed if they'd give up hard cash to some damn Chink, even if he did claim to be "governor" of the damn town. Second, they were terrified of falling afoul of the Qing "legal system", a feeling I have to admit I would have shared. The Chinese judiciary wasn't particularly interested in actual guilt (a continuing issue in China today); the Prime Directive was order; they were and are like U.S. Republicans in that respect.

To be arrested was pretty much to be convicted. Torture was commonly used to encourage a positive civic attitude, and, needless to say, a foreign devil had less of a chance than even a poor Chinese laborer.

The then-British Superintendent of Trade in China, Charles Elliot (told you we'd get to him again, didn't I?) convinced the British opium dealers to give up their dope by promising to make it good from Government monies, though the whole business was more complex than that. Here's how Perdue (2011) describes it:
"This seemingly magnanimous gesture (the surrender of the opium) was, as one Western China merchant phrased it, a clever “snare,” for it made the Chinese “directly liable to the British Crown.” In short time, the British government would trip this snare and demand compensation for the opium that was handed over.

All told, Elliot delivered 21,306 chests of the drug to the Chinese. This was an enormous amount: at roughly 140 pounds per chest, Lin suddenly found himself with three-million pounds of opium on his hands. This was destroyed over a period of 23 days in June 1839, at Chuanbi by the bay at Canton. The process required the labor of around 500 workers and involved three huge trenches (150 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 7 feet deep) lined with stone and timber and filled with approximately two feet of water from a nearby creek. The opium balls were broken into pieces, dumped into the trenches, and stirred until dissolved, after which salt and lime were added, creating noxious clouds of smoke. The “foreign mud” was then diverted to the creek and washed out to sea.
Lin and around 60 Chinese officials, together with foreign spectators, observed the destruction from an elaborately decorated pavilion erected nearby. In a little known coda to this famous event, Lin also offered prayers to the spirit of the Southern Sea, apologizing for poisoning its domain with these impurities and advising the deity (as the historian Jonathan Spence has recorded) “to tell the creatures of the water to move away for a time, to avoid being contaminated.”
The fallout from Lin's goin' all Elliot Ness on Charles Elliot and the British was predictable; an uproar to give the damn Chinamen a good thrashing. The Foreign Secretary in 1839 - another future PM, Palmerston (aided by the tai-pan of the still-extant firm of Jardine, Matheson & Co, William Jardine, whose possibly critical role in pushing Britain towards war with Qing China is well discussed here) -

...intoned that China itself had created the demand for opium, and its people were merely “disposed to buy what other people were disposed to sell them.”

After more incidents, including a drunken brawl in July in which British sailors killed a Chinese man (for which Commissioner Lin demanded the men for trial and the British authorities in Hong Kong refused under the not unreasonable suspicion that the swabs would be tortured into confessing and executed to satisfy their victim's family) and a retaliatory blockade of Hong Kong.

In September gunfire was exchanged - which is really not correct; what happened is that two British vessels pounded the living hell out of a trio of Qing armed junks - and the war had officially begun.

In November HMS Volage and HMS Hyacinth fought 16 more armed junks (along with some "fireboats", incendiary craft designed to burn wooden warships), destroyed several and killed about 15 Qing sailors for the loss of one man. Commissioner Lin’s report this as a victory; as yet the Imperial Throne had no idea how bad things were going for its forces in South China.

Charles Elliot, the civilian authority, request reinforcements, which arrived in the summer of 1840, and through the autumn the British forces pretty much pimpslapped the Qing military at will. The force of roughly 4,000 troops and some 48 vessels under an ADM Elliot forced the Yangtze River and were approaching the Imperial capital by August. A series of one-sided British military successes larded with Chinese diplomatic maneuvers ensued; the results were:

- In August Commissioner Lin was sacked - the Emperor had discovered that the foreign devils had NOT been defeated, were, instead, threatening his very palace, and was furious; “You are just making excuses with empty words. Nothing has been accomplished but many troubles have been created. Thinking of these things, I cannot contain my rage.” Lin was sacked, and replaced with Aisin-Gioro Yishan. Lin, by the way, is still remembered as a hero in China, and his statues tend to pop up in all sorts of places - this one's in New York City.
- Yishan tried to sweet talk the Elliots, promising that if they returned to Guangzhou that he would negotiate, so the British pulled back down the Yangtze to Macao by November and were in Guangzhou by December, talking away with Charles Elliot as chief negotiator. He was instructed to demand: the opening of Guangzhou, Amoy, Fuzhou, Ningbo, and Shanghai; cession of an island; and cash payments for both the destroyed opium and military force needed to beat all this stuff out of the Chinese.

- Yishan offered a small payment without telling the Imperial court.

So in January 1841 the British attacked the forts where the first fighting had occurred back in 1839, at Chuanbi. Two fortified batteries were taken with a loss of probably 500 of the two Qing garrisons killed and wounded; the Nemesis, rather spectacularly, blew up an armed junk with a Congreve rocket. The British had about 40 men injured.
I like the above picture because it does a nice job of quickly summing up the immense divide between the two forces. It is a contemporary painting of HEICS Nemesis and another British warship, along with a description of the action by the Chinese artist. While the image is fairly correct, the poem is a ridiculous fantasy of Chinese triumph, that explains
"...how the gods intervened to drive the English warships aground in a storm, after which “the foreign devils in hundreds then were put to death,” while others “fell sick by fierce disease” and perished. The closing lines are devoted to the “fire ship” encased in iron with a wheel on each side “which is moved by the use of burning coal and turns around like a galloping horse.” The poet acknowledges that “Its shape and fashion astonish mankind”; but, like all the other enemy ships, the gods drove it onto the rocks." (Perdue, 2011)
The reality - in which the gods were silent and the British killed Chinese and destroyed at will - produced concessions; Commissioner Yishan offered formal cessation of Hong Kong, six million dollars cash, official diplomatic relations between China and Britain as equals, and reopening of the Guangzhou trade.
(Here's the British version of the Nemesis, by the way, just for comparison)

This Convention of Chuanbi drove the Daoguang Emperor nuts; he arrested Yishan, confiscated his entire family property, eventually commuted his death-sentence but sent him over the Amur River in the far north. The man was seriously pissed.

Showing that fate has a nasty sense of humor Charles Elliot was reprimanded and replaced by the Foreign Office for having settled for the “lowest” possible terms. He was canned for not insisting on full value for the Lin-destroyed dope, for agreeing to evacuate Chusan Island, and for accepting a lease rather than outright possession of Hong Kong. Mind you, the reprimand and the replacement both arrived in July, long after our engagement, so in May Elliot was still technically in charge.

Chinese delays convinced Elliot that the Convention of Chuanbi would be a dead-letter; he then began maneuvering up the Pearl River towards Guangzhou. Three engagements in late February and early March; the so-called Battle of the Bogue (or Battle of Bocca Tigris), Battle of the First Bar, and Battle of Whampoa established British naval control over the lower Pearl River and brought the ground troops within strking distance of the city.
In the Pearl River engagements the pattern is the same; a single British sailor or two are killed (usually by a weapon malfunction or simple bad luck) while several hundred Qing soldiers or sailors are blown to hell with their vessels or forts.

It sucked to be a Green Banner soldier in the winter of 1841, no error.

By early May the British forces were in position around Guangzhou. Elliot and Gough planned to take the city by storm, and they made their dispositions accordingly. On the morning of 24 MAY the British moved in to assault.

The Engagement: Preliminaries - 18 to 24 MAY 1841

The dispatches from Gough and Senhouse are pretty clear on the timing of the coup de main against Guangzhou; the navy delivered the first troops to shore after midday on the 24th, that noteworthy fighting occurred on the 25 and 30 MAY, and the entire force re-embarked in 1 JUN.

There is, however, a curious entry in the Wiki entry that states "On May 21 Chinese forces tried a night ambush on the British positions, but they were repelled." But in the Gough dispatch quoted in the Colonial Magazine mentioned in Sources (above), the Army commander states "...the fleet...was prepared to sail on the 18th, but in consequence of light and variable winds the whole did not get under weigh until the 19th...but the whole of the force was not assembled until the morning of the 23rd..." There is no mention of a night attack, and based on the Gough dispatch it appears that almost all of the ground troops were embarked during the nights of the 20/21 and 21/22 MAY.

However, Senhouse, in his diepatch, reports that on the night of the 21st "an attempt was made by fire-rafts to burn the advanced vessels" as well as attacks (whether ground troops or vessels are not specified) on the Shamian battery, on HMS Alligator "off Howqua's fort"
(which is the tall thing in the middle of Whampoa Island), and more fireship attacks on the transports and merchant ships also lying at Whampoa.

Where, or whether, this ambush occurred, must be left to the reader to consider, but it appears that some degree of planning went into a naval assault on the British flotilla. As always, though, the Chinese defenders were repelled, and their vessels and fireships destroyed, without reported loss.

Movement to Contact - 24 MAY 1841

The documentary evidence continues by reporting that the British assault began on the morning of 24 MAY 1841. Gough's plan was to secure the "factories" on Shamian Island using small force that would, presumably, draw the attention of the defenders while masking the main force movement past the city.
The so-called "Right Column", consisting of the 26th Regiment of infantry supported by a single gun and a mortar of the Madras Artillery and a sapper platoon, would land on the riverwall at Shamian Dao; they did this and secured the island and its factories by 1700 on 24 MAY.

The Left Column - which, in fact, contained the remainder of the ground troops - bypassed the city and landed at or near the village of Tsinghae (or "Tsingpoo") "at dusk", presumably several hours later. The troops were unable to disembark in the gathering dark, although Gough did land the 49th Regiment to perform a reconnaissance and place listening posts (or "pickets" in the term of the day).

Gough reports that his troops were undisturbed by Chinese action, although Senhouse mentions that "...some detached parties of Chinese soldiers came around us...but they never came to the attack," Although he notes that these night ramblers succeeded in "cutting off a poor camp-follower, who struggled a little, taking off his head, and leaving both head and body on the ground." the night was otherwise quiet. The artillery was transferred ashore during the night, and the remainder of the infantry landed the following morning.

Taking the Outworks - 25 MAY 1841

With the factories secured and a lodgement firmly established northwest of Guangzhou, the next step was to reduce the forward Chinese positions. You can see from the map below that although the main defense of Guangzhou was the old stone city wall, some Qing officer - perhaps "Atsinga", the supposed commander of the garrison - had learned enough about modern warfare to understand that allowing 19th Century European artillery to roll up within direct fire range of a masonry wall was the military equivalent of lying on a cement pad and asking your enemy to drop a heavy object on your head; regardless of how hard your head, the result was likely to be unpleasant.

Several smallish "forts" (although the British commanders do not describe these outworks in detail, so we have no idea how formidable they were or how constructed) had been placed on a range of hills north and northwest of the city walls. The first task of the British landing force was to take these positions, in order to threaten the city walls directly.
This was done before noon; two assault columns simply rolled up to the base of the hills, scrambled up the slopes supported by their field artillery, scaled or broke into the fortified positions, and killed or drove off the defenders within half a hour, whose numbers we are not detailed other than as "numerous". The Chinese casualties are also not reported, although Gough notes that "The well-directed fire of the artillery...did great execution."

The Qing garrison does not appear to have been helpless; Gough reports that "(d)uring the whole of the advance my right had been threatened by a large body of the enemy...and just as I was about to commence the attack a report was made that heavy columns were advancing on the right." The Royal Marine battalion was pivoted to the southwest to act as a covering/blocking force and the Qing sortie appears to have dissolved some time later in the day.

After the outworks on the heights had been secured, Gough turned his attention to what he described as "A strongly intrenched camp...occupied apparently by about 4,000 men" located outside the northeast city walls. This strongpoint was some nuisance; "frequent attacks" on the British left flank units sortied from it all morning. When Gough observed "some mandarins of consequence" (and, presumably, their fighting tails) moving into this work - as well as a strong enough sortie to take and hold a "village in rear of my left" - he concluded that enough was enough.

The Hertfordshire Regiment was dispatched to clean the Chinese troops out of the village, and then the 49th, the 18th Royal Irish, and one company of marines, were sent barreling down a narrow causeway to take this "strongly intrenched" camp.

It was taken, burnt, and then, it's military value negated, the attackers retreated to the heights.

The British commander had now seen the Guangzhou city wall and intended to take it by assault. But the northern hills being rugged, the "roads" narrow, and much of the terrain between the landing beach and the city wet lowland or paddy fields, the artillery he needed to shoot his men onto the top of the wall was not in battery by nightfall. Paddy Gough and his troopers would have to spend a sweaty night in the open outside Guangzhou before they could knock on the neighbor's door.

Preparations for Assault - 26/27 MAY 1841

Before we go on, it's worth sitting back for a moment and contemplating the enormous inertia of military siege tactics spanning the history between the rise of Sumer and the First Opium War of 1841.

Because one of the first things civilization - that is, the organization of human beings into congeries that produced enough goodies to be worth stealing or killing for - did was produce walled cities.

And a wall, whether a wattle of brush, a wooden palisade, a dirt berm, or a masonry curtain, is perhaps the simplest, and most basic, implement of military defense.

If it is too tall to leap, too smooth to climb, too dense to topple, and too fireproof to burn, for the first Sumerian to confront one the possibilities must have been pretty immediately obvious; you had to go under, through, or over the damn thing.
And that stayed pretty much the standard of military practice for, what, about 5,000 years?

You could dig under the wall; that was called "mining", and could involve everything from a simple tunnel into a rathole opening within the palisade to a complex gallery dug under a heavy masonry wall that would be collapsed. Before gunpowder this was typically done by erecting a complex forest of wooden posts within a large open excavation. Then the posts would be set afire, and when the posts collapsed the cavern would cave in, undermining the wall above.

You could also beat the wall down and go through the hole. This was a bit beyond the Sumerians, but once a smart guy or three got to thinking about it the catapult, the onager, the ballista, and (especially) the trebuchet were invented, the idea being to huck a great big fucking rock at the wall; hit it enough times, the thinking went, and it'd fall down.
The above, by the way, is unlikely to make anything fall. Down, that is.

Apparently it's something called a Siege Weapon of Love, and I found it google-searching for some images to use here and, well, frankly, why not? If you don't know what a trebuchet looks like, google it for christssake; I'm not your search engine. Besides, the pink penis bombard is a hell of a lot funnier. Why are you looking at me that way?

Ahem.

Sorry.

To continue.

Gunpowder, surprisingly, didn't really do much to change this. Sure, cannon could throw a bigger "rock" (usually a metal ball) harder and farther. But the process was pretty much the same; huck a rock, huck a rock, wash, rinse repeat until the wall fell down or someone came along and broke your trebuchet, or your cannon.

The other way to go "through" a wall was to pick at the weak point - the gates. These could be hammered open with a big ol' log, or burned since they were usually wooden. Because of this the gates usually came in sets, with inner gates inside the outer gates, and the wall defenses were usually particularly murderous around the gates. But it could be done, if you were lucky and smart.

But all this hucking and digging took time. Conventional sieges, almost inevitable when the two sides' technological, tactical, and economic capabilities were similar, could take weeks, months, even years, and were nasty, costly (and, particularly, before field sanitation was enforced) dangerous; the hell with scaling the wall - sitting in your filth outside an enemy town was a damn fine way to die from typhus, dysentery, cholera, the Black Plague and God alone knew what else.

But the big problem was time. Going under or through took lots of troops, and lots of equipment, and lots of time.

And Hugh Gough and his boys didn't have time. They needed a quick win for the visitors, so the only real way for them to go was over.

Now the term they would have used for going over a defended fortress wall would have been escalade. Let's face it; that sounds more tactical (and shorter) than "Propping a home-made ladder up against the wall and climbing up, hoping that some dirty bastard doesn't shoot or stab me, or drop a ginormous rock on my head, or parboil me with boiling water". But non-tactical or not, the long version was pretty much what "escalade" entailed.
And always had. The only real difference between the ancient siege escalades like Alesia in 52BC and Jerusalem in 1099, and those of the early Industrial Era, is that cannon had made the huge creaking "siege towers" obsolete; the bastards couldn't dodge, were too huge to miss, and too fragile to withstand the impact of an explosive-propelled projectile (it should be noted that trebuchets were hard on them, too, but the trebuchets were much harder to aim and slower to fire). But the good old-fashioned ladder, lashed and nailed together from some local wood, was still popular.

So the plan was to "prep" the fighting platforms on the curtain walls (the long straight bits between the towers) and towers with musket fire and artillery to keep the defenders' heads down, rush the ladders to the base of the walls, up you go, Jock, and hopefully one or two scaling parties would gain a foothold at the top for the files milling about smartly at the base of the wall to expand.

And the thing to remember is that against decent troops, escalade was always chancy and usually a complete and utter disaster. Trying to take a walled fortification by escalade was a long-shot, a no-hoper, something you tried when you had no other option but to give up and go away.

Even when they worked, many escalades that succeeded did so by pure luck, like Wellington's success at Badajoz in 1812, where the supposed assault force was shot-, burned-, and squashed-by-big-rocks-to-death but a diversion that was ignored managed to get atop the wall and took the victorious defenders like the pervert took his neighbor's wife - by surprise and from behind.

Oh, and I should add that there was another way inside a walled fortification;

Treachery. Probably as many fortresses in history were taken by some treacherous SOB opening a postern gate as the other methods combined, but there was no glory in that so nobody liked to talk about it.

No treachery here, then. For the British dope peddlers' hard boys thrashing at the south China mosquitoes through the sultry night, the next day promised to bring all the nasty bits escalading brought with it.

I'll bet it was a restless night out there.

Suspense, Suspicion, and Submission - 26-28 MAY 1841

Gough's assault plan was, like a fair number of his plans, pretty straightforward.

The artillery would begin pounding the walls at first light. As soon as practical - that is, when the effect of the heavy weapons was becoming visible but before ammunition supply became perilous - the infantry assault teams would double-time to the wall and attempt to scale it.

Assuming that their covering fire was effective and their willingness to climb a rickety ladder some three stories did not desert them the attackers could hope to arrive at the fighting platform atop the wall alive. There they would defeat the remaining defenders and form a perimeter that would expand in either direction, clearing more of the wall for more attackers to scale.

Eventually there would be enough attackers inside the wall to negate its military value, and then the defenders would either surrender, or die; a trooper who had been forced to scale a defended wall and survived was unlikely to spare the man who had put him through such an unpleasant morning.

Gough's plan was based on a four-element assault on the northwestern and northern wall of Guangzhou.
On the British right the Royal Marines were tasked with attacking the main northern city gate (it's a weak point, remember?); if they could they would blow it with satchel charges, if not, they would attempt to scale a "circular work" Gough describes as a "secondary defense" for the gate - I'm not sure what that means.

The center-right column was the Naval Brigade; they were supposed to attack the other side of this "circular defense, where the wall appeared comparatively low...".
The center-left column was composed of the 18th (Royal Irish) regiment, with the Bengal Volunteers and a company of the 37th M.N.I providing covering fire; they were to escalade a wall behind a five-story pagoda "which was not flanked, except by one gun" (which was important; a section of wall that was "flanked" had a cannon pointed parallel to the face of the wall - the flanking gun could vomit out man-killing canister or grapeshot projectiles that would have a perfect target in the unarmored men at the base of the open wall. Brrrr; scares me just thinking about it...)

(By the way, this "five-story pagoda" is still in existence.
Here it is. It's real name is 镇海楼, Zhènhǎi Lóu or "Zhenhai Tower", it was already almost five hundred years old in 1841, and it now houses the city museum in central Guangzhou.)

The left column was for the 49th (Hertfordshire) regiment supported by two companies of the 37th M.N.I., their target a "bastion" that was overlooked by the central southern fort captured on the 25th; Gough believed that small-arms fire from this fort, which overlooked the fighting platform along the wall at this point, would kill or drive away the Chinese fortress gunners from their cannon.

But with all this in preparation, the morning of the 26th dawned very still; the city walls bore few defenders, and at 1000 hrs a white flag appeared.

A Chinese emissary, described by Gough as "a mandarin", appeared and stated that the Qing authorities wanted to make peace. Gough's reply is a delightful example of Victorian imperialism; "I had it explained (to the "mandarin" by the interpreter) that...we came to Canton much against the wishes of the British nation, but that repeated insults and breaches of faith had compelled us to make the present movement, and that I would cease from hostilities for two hours..."

Gough and Senhouse apparently waited for the Chinese "general" they were promised from 1200 hrs until 1600; no body showed up. At four Gough took down his white flag, observing that while the Chinese did not it enabled him to finish his preparations without coming under fire.

The assault was set for the nest day, 27 MAY, with the artillery prep beginning at 0700 and the infantry assault at 0800.

Dawnlight on 27 MAY revealed the Qing truce flags still in place, but Gough had had enough. Let's let him describe what happened next:
"...at a quarter past six I was at the point of sending the interpreter to explain that I could not respect such a display...and should at once resume hostilities. At this moment an officer of the royal navy, who had been traveling all night, having missed his way, handed me the accompanying letter from Her Majesty's plenipotentiary. (N.B. - this was the Foreign Office representative, Charles Elliot) Whatever might be my sentiments, it was my duty to acquiesce; the attack, which was to have commenced in 45 minutes, was countermanded, and the feelings of the Chinese were spared."
The British troops stood down, Gough and Senhouse had a preliminary meeting with "Yang, a Tartar general" at 1000, and then, as Gough drily notes, "At twelve, Captain Elliot arrived in camp, and all further active operations ceased."
Over the next thirty-six hours Elliot and Yishan hammered out the details of the capitulation.

The Qing garrison was allowed to evacuate with their weapons and baggage, though they could not wave their flags or toot their tootlers (or whatever Qing marching bands carried to toot on...). Five million of the required six million dollar indemnity was collected, and the sixth million taken in securities. In return the British forces would withdraw to Hong Kong and reopen the Pearl River to trade.

I want to take a moment to think about Charles Elliot, a man whose humanity and common sense won him nothing but the enmity of his contemporaries; "...as whimsical as a shuttlecock," was one of Gough's opinions, and one of the mildest.
Looks a bit gloomy, but perhaps its just the whiskers. Poor dear man; if he wasn't he had a right to be.

For one thing, the man was a genuine diplomat, and I mean that as a compliment. He continued, throughout his tenure in China, to find some way for the Britain and John Company to get as much as they could of what they wanted without making those wants onerous for the Chinese people.

But he was stuck between a bunch of greedy merchants on the one side, wog-bashing imperial land-grabbers on another, and a wretchedly incompetent, purblind, deteriorating Qing bureaucracy on the third. People like Gough and Jardine wanted everything, people like Lin, Yishang, and the Daoguang Emperor wanted everything - they all wanted everything, they all despised their enemies, it was impossible to find a middle ground, and so Elliot discovered.
At least he had a pretty wife; that's Clara Elliot, above. Lovely little mover, isn't she, in the high Victorian style? One hopes that she was there to console her helpmeet, because given his reputation for a talky Chink-lover he wasn't going to get much from anywhere else in his command.

But for all that, he managed some sort of an accommodation at Guangzhou on 27 MAY 1841.

The following day the garrison began to evacuate, and it looked like the crisis would be resolved peaceably from that point on. But not before one of the oddest, and most intriguing, incidents in the entire engagement occurred.

Sanyuanli, or, The Peasants Are Revolting - 29-30 MAY 1841

So the British troops are lolling about on a warm May day when at noon reports begin to come in that there's something nasty in the woodshed.

Hugh Gough described this as: "...numbers of men, apparently irregulars, and armed for the most part with long spears, shields, and swords, collecting upon the heights, three or four miles to my rear." This group was largely local civilians (but probably included some Green Banner Army detachments as well) led by the small-time officials from the villages to the north of Guangzhou.

Gough describes what amounted to him as nothing more than a nasty little skirmish. He collected a scratch force of the 26th Cameronian Regiment (which he had recovered from Shamian Dao once the capitulation was signed), three companies of the 49th Hertfordshire, and the 37th Madras N.I., with Bombay Volunteers and some marines in reserve.

The British pretty much flayed these medieval levies at will, but they were persistent, and Gough observes that
"Within two hours, however, from 7,000 to 8,00 men had collected, and displayed numerous banners...(t)he Chinese advanced in great force...as the approach of a thunder-storm was evident, I became anxious, before it broke, to disperse this assemblage, whose approach bespoke more determination than I had previously witnessed."
Gough chose the 37th M.N.I. and the Bengal Volunteers for this task and yoicked them forward, stating that "...the enemy were driven in at all points."

In the process, the commander of the 37th, which was advancing to contact along the British center and right, threw out a company to make contact with the Cameronians to the left. This company, probably about 30-40 Indian troops under an English lieutenant named Hadfield, was then left behind when, as the rainstorm made operation of the British muskets impossible, the main British force retired.

Gough observes that the downpour "...emboldened the Chinese, who, in many instances, attacked our men hand-to-hand..." but that this melee combat was not particularly dangerous. However between the rain and the lopsided numbers the entire operation was becoming chancy, and not particularly promising, so Gough directed his Company troops to continue to retire.

Here occurred one of those things that often happen to soldiers under stress; several people assumed things that weren't true.

The commander of the 37th M.N.I. assumed that his detached company was safely with the Cameronians, the commander of that unit had apparently never been informed that he was supposed to be looking for a bunch of wandering Madrassis and never reported linking up with them, while the force commander didn't check to find out who, if anyone, was right.

After the storm passed and Gough and the company infantry advanced back to where the 26th regiment was posted - forward of the 37th but south of the location of the main engagement - Gough discovered ("...was exceedingly annoyed to find..." is the way he puts it) that the missing company was not with the Cameronians at all and never had been.

There's nothing like losing thirty soldiers in the middle of a hostile countryside in a battle in the piss-pouring rain to motivate military leaders. Gough immediately dispatched two companies of Royal Marines armed with percussion muskets (unlike flintlocks relatively impervious to the wet) to find LT Hadfield and his missing sepoys.

They were located a little after nightfall, in a square defensive formation surrounded by "several thousand" local Chinese levies and their powder and weapons still completely soaked and useless except as clubs or spears.

The relieving Marine companies used their functional weapons to shoot up the Chinese who "dispersed...with great loss". The entire British force then retired to its camp again; Gough does not record whether or how many of the sepoys were killed or wounded in this little standoff, observing only that the junior British officer of the unit was badly wounded. Perdue (2011) says that one trooper was killed and 15 wounded. Whatever the total, it was small.

Casualties among the Chinese militia are not detailed in any account I can find.

At first the following day, 30 MAY, seemed to promise more of the same. The local volunteers appeared on the hills to the north, again, in mass, and made it clear that they weren't ready to go away without having a go at these foreign devils. This time, however, Gough keeps the troops in reserve and sends to the head Qing official (which he calls the "Kwang-chow-Foo"; I am guessing that this was the provincial governor of Guangdong, a place that Gough commonly spells Kwang-chow, but the actual name of this person in Gough's account is unclear. In his summary of the capitulation agreement Gough lists several Qing officials but doesn't identify any one of them as this particular officer. I have encountered the name She Baoshun in another account, but I am not sure if this is correct).

Gough warns this individual, whoever he is, that if something isn't done about all these revolting peasants the white flag comes down and then it's going to be hell to pay in Guangzhou Saturday. The Kwang-chow-Foo hurriedly insists that he has nothing to do with this unseemly mob, which, he says, "...was without the knowledge and against the wishes of the Chinese authorities; that there were no mandarins with this militia in our rear; that it had assembled to protect the villages in the the plain; and that he would immediately send off a mandarin of rank...with orders for its immediate dispersion." The mandarin (and a British officer) were saddled up, rode out to wave their arms and bellow "Disperse, ye rebels, ye villains, disperse!", and the villagers did so.

And that was 三元里事件, the "San Yuan Li Incident".

The reality was, as reality often is, less than dramatic. It is with the retelling that this bizarre little engagement becomes important, as we shall see.

Captains and the Kings Depart - 1 JUN 1841

So the Qing troops marched away, the British force stowed away a tidy five million in silver, and Gough writes "I acceded to the wish of H.M.'s plenipotentiary to embark the troops." The Qing authorities helpfully supplied some 800 laborers to hump the British artillery and ammunition back to Tsinghae, the units formed up, boarded the ship's boats and then the ships themselves, and bid what was probably a fairly profane farewell to scenic south China and the Guangzhou region. The entire mob was afloat by 1500 hrs and back to the main anchorage downriver of Guangzhou by nightfall.

It is nowhere recorded what observations on the manners and methods of the recent visitors and their own rulers the battered citizens of Guangzhou made from the events of the final week of of the fourth month of the 21st year of the Daoguang Reign.

I suspect they were not particularly philosophical or pleasant.

I wonder what they would have added had they known that the site of the foreign factories and the cause of so much misery that May would one day become Ground Zero for wealthy Westerners swooping in to snatch up Chinese babies?
The Outcome: Grand tactical British/HEIC victory

The Impact: The actual military impact of Second Guangzhou was pretty negligible. The First Opium War continued for another year and a half, ending up with the British expeditionary force dictating a victor's peace before Nanjing in August, 1842.
Elliot's withdrawal was as much because of the uselessness of southern China as a strategic lever to affect the Qing as a dislike of useless bloodshed. The entire campaign appears to have convinced him - and his plan was carred forward by his successor, Pottinger - to try gunboat diplomacy on the Yangtze again.

So in August 1841 the British were back at Amoy, took Chusan, and then Ningpo in October, with a bloody (for the Chinese troops alone, of course) defeat at Chinhai between. The British wintered around Ningpo, and then in March 1842 beat hell out of several Qing attacks, including one inside Ningpo itself which included a frantic and pointless street fight on 10 MAR in which an assault column of bannermen attempted to bull through a firing line of British infantry supported by a howitzer. LT Ouchterlony of the Company's Army called it a “merciless horror in the street,”;
“The corpses of the slain lay heaped across the narrow street for a distance of many yards, and after the fight had terminated, a pony, which had been ridden by a mandarin, was extricated unhurt from the ghastly mass in which it had been entombed so completely as to have at first escaped observation.”
Five days later the Qing troops were butchered again at Segaon outside Ningpo.

Now reinforced to a total of 12,000 ground troops, the British moved north up the Yangtze first to Hangchow (which was surrounded by mudflats and inaccessible to the warships) and then, bypassing Hangchow, to Chapu on the coast between Hangchow and Shanghai.

Chapu was a so-called “Tartar” city intended as a centre of Manchu military power; most of the residents were families and servants of banner troops, and were steeped in the win-or-die tradition of the Manchu.

The combat itself was the usual lopsided victory, and after the fighting petered out the invaders found a dead city; the grannies, wives, and children of the banner troops had killed themselves, either with poisons, or worse - been strangled or butchered by their own parents or children.

Shanghai - then a relatively small town - was taken in June, and then Zhenjiang - important both for it's walled strength and its location at the confluence of the Yangtze and the Grand Canal - in late July.

This was the "last stand" of the banner army. Outnumbered and outgunned, thousands of the garrison were killed, and then the usual human disaster of suicide, plundering and burning - much of it by Han Chinese peasants and local badmashes. Of the fight at Zhenjiang, Edward Cree wrote in his journal: “Our loss in killed is estimated at 200, but I never knew of so many deaths from sunstroke in one day. The enemy’s loss is reckoned at 2,000 out of 5,000 said to have been engaged.”
By early August, the British expeditionary force invested Nanjing. The game was over. Unable to pretend they were winning anything, the Qing government signed the Treaty of Nanjing on 29 AUG 1842. This treaty opened the five ports, cost China 20 million silver dollars, abolish the Cohongs, and set a fixed, low schedule of customs duties.
And Britain got Hong Kong. Forever.

Not bad for a bit of rough drug dealing.

For Britain and John Company, the whole business was just another day at the office. They would be at it for another hundred years.

For China, it was the beginnings of a century of utter misery.
Beyond Guangzhou, the Opium War had several damaging effects on China as a whole.

The most immediate was purely physical; destruction of several cities, and damage to several critical areas in south China and the Yangtze valley, along with the deaths of certainly thousands and probably tens of thousands of Chinese either directly at the hands of others (whether British or Chinese) or through disease, starvation, and exposure.

Political consequences included a steepening of the decline of the Qing government, and (something we'll talk about a bit later in depth) a widening of the gulf between the rulers and the ruled. The Qing had developed a reputation for incompetent brutality already; now not only could they not rule others effectively, they couldn't even defend themselves.

But the events of May 1841 are likely to have had some very specific effects on south China.

Because for the first time in a long time, the autocratic, top-down leadership that had characterized China since, well, since it had become China was turned upside down.

And the place it turned was San Yuan Li.

It's hard to overestimate the importance of this ridiculous little skirmish in the eventual overthrow of the autocratic governments of China, both the imperial and, later, the Kuomindang.

Because the legend of the defeat of the hated foreign devils grew in the telling like a G.I.'s tale of improbable barstool romance. Instead of a nasty, pointless bit of slashing in the rainy dusk the story goes around China that heroic Chinese, just ordinary people, armed with spears and knives and bits of wood, butchered scores of the foreign devils, setting them to panicked flight. The entire idiotic little flurry becomes a combination of the Fall of the Bastille, Bunker Hill and the Storming of the Winter Palace.

In his work Modern Chinese Warfare 1795-1989, Bruce Elleman says;
"The Sanyuanli Incident seems to prove (to the Chinese people) that Chinese militia could face and defeat a modern foe. Instead of giving proper credit to the advanced weaponry and training of the foreign forces that allowed it to repel a force ten times its size, Chinese heard exaggerated reports of the "victory" and wrongly believed it confirmed the validity of their own methods."
The Qing military never did improve; the forces that met and were similarly butchered by the British in 1860 and an international Western force in 1900 were practically identical to the sad bastards who were so badly hammered at Guangzhou in May 1841. The legend of San Yuan Li was the rapturous poison of the Sirens, leading generations of Chinese, soldiers and civilians both, to death and misery by convincing them that spears and swords could defeat rifles and breech-loading artillery.

And the other impact of Second Guangzhou is the impact it didn't have; the effect on the Qing government itself.

Another government might have looked at the fall of Guangzhou as an exclamation point to the warning that the events leading from the Macartney meeting were telling them in letters of flame on the battered walls of Canton that their system wasn't working against the foreigner invaders.

Another government might have taken the opportunity to reform the many places that corruption and maladministration had nearly destroyed the bond between the people and their rulers.

The Qing bureaucracy did no such thing.

And that failing combined with the legend of San Yuan Li may have played a critical part in spawning one of history's most horrific events;
The Taiping Rebellion.

If there's one most terrible tale that runs through the threads of China's history that includes the mess at Guangzhou in 1841, it seems to be to be the one of awful governance.

When you think about it, China has never really had a "good" government in the sense of having one that was or is designed to work well, and benefit the mass of Chinese, consistently. Where the ruler has been beneficent if has been by his own individual virtue, and as we know, personal virtue is as rare among humans as personal probity or fidelity. Most people, especially when given unchecked power, are bastards. And so history has proved in China again and again.
In this case, the failings of the Qing were matched with the brutal greed of the opium sellers, and the brutal pride of the British adventurers, and between them they meant a great deal of misery for the poor sods who were merely trying to live their lives along the broad plains of the Pearl River that spring so many years ago.

There really are no heroes here, just another sorry fight in another sorry war for some of the sorriest reasons one group of people ever took up arms against another, between a merciless invader and a thuggish defender, and all so that fifty years later a native of Shanghai could not walk in a park under trees growing from the earth of their home city and their own country.

The legacy of the Opium Wars was a century of Westerners rubbing Chinese noses in the fact that these upstart "barbarians" considered them roughly on the level of talking animals, to be used as needed and ignored or butchered when not, or when they got uppity. It's important not to forget how much this still subtly poisons the relationship between China and the West.

Because sometimes even generations aren't enough to rub out the memory of being a despised outsider in one's own country.
So, should you should ever wonder why they hate our freedoms...