Historical Precedents: The War on Terrorism Does Echo WW2

[hist2004]

by Clifford D. May

June 10, 2004

The 60th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy gave President Bush an opportunity to draw parallels between World War II, on the one hand, and the war in Iraq and the broader global conflict, on the other. Astonishingly, this proved controversial.
“Many here … emphatically reject Bush's repeated comparison,” the Washington Post's Keith B. Richburg wrote from France. Richburg quoted Helene Luc “a Communist Party senator,” who insisted that “the American army must leave Iraq,” and Abu Mohammed, a Moroccan immigrant who asserted that “there is a big difference” between the liberation of France in 1944 and the liberation of Iraq in 2003.
The Italian Catholic newspaper, Famiglia Cristiana, said Bush was trying to “establish a moral connection” even though the American occupation of Iraq “has nothing moral about it.”
The BBC aired a more nuanced debate. I was pleased to participate but shocked by my French colleague's comparison of suicide bombers in Iraq with the French resistance -- whose members never targeted civilians.
More insightful comments on the links between World War II and the War on Terrorism – including the Iraqi theater – might have been found had the media asked some real experts.
The British historian Michael Burleigh, in his massive study of the Third Reich, defines Nazism as a “political religion” manifesting itself as a “cult of violence and destruction.”
Could there be a better description of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athism?
Nor is that mere coincidence. Ba'athism is the direct ideological descendant of Nazism. Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis points out that in 1940, the French government surrendered to Hitler “and a collaborationist regime was established in Vichy. The rulers of the French colonial empire had to decide whether they would stay with Vichy, or rally to De Gaulle. … Syria and Lebanon were at that time under French mandate, and these French officials stayed with Vichy, so Syria and Lebanon became a center of Axis propaganda in the Middle East. That was when real Fascist ideas began to penetrate. There were many translations and adaptations of Nazi material into Arabic. The Ba'ath party, which dates from a little after that period, came in as a sort of Middle Eastern clone of the Nazi party and, a little later, the Communist party.”
Communism, Nazism and Ba'athism are all totalitarian ideologies--aggressive, violent and expansionist. All seek the destruction of democratic societies. Nazism and Ba'athism are radically anti-Semitic; Communism, in its Stalinist expression, is at least Judeo-phobic.
The key distinction is that the Nazis claimed that the “Aryan race” was entitled to rule the world. Communists wanted the proletariat as the ruling class, a role Ba'athism reserves for Arabs.
Ralph Peters, a military strategist, observes that Saddam embodies “the European tradition of a tyrant sustained by a bureaucracy of terror. Europeans pioneered the methods. Saddam is merely an imitator.”
Peters has called the war in Iraq “the most important ‘hot' war America and Britain have waged since World War II.”
Of course, Nazism was not the only aggressive totalitarian ideology against which the Allies struggled. There also was Japanese Militarism and Italian Fascism.
Similarly, Ba'athism is not the only ideology against which America, Britain and the other coalition nations are today fighting – there also is Radical Islamism.
That ideology, too, is aggressive, violent and totalitarian. It seeks a world dominated not by Aryans, proletarians or Arabs but by extremist Muslim fanatics. Lewis maintains that while bin Laden's ideology contradicts basic Islamic teachings, it does arise “from within Muslim civilization, just as Hitler and the Nazis arose from within Christian civilization.”
Other historians would argue that Hitler represented an older, neo-pagan and anti-Christian impulse.
The British historian Andrew Roberts calls Osama bin Laden's style “essentially Hitlerian in its vernacular and antecedents.” Robert concludes: “Might not the War against Terror be legitimately seen as a re-fighting of the Second World War by proxy? I believe it can be.”
Paul Johnson, another esteemed British historian, observes that, “Geopolitics is like a game of chess: You have to think a dozen moves ahead. This is as true today as in 1944-45. When President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to destroy Saddam Hussein's military power, they took a risk that was abundantly justified both geopolitically and morally.”
Johnson does scold Bush and Blair for not being adequately prepared for the public relations problems that must be expected when fighting a chronic insurgency in the age of 24-hour television news, an era when journalists “have their own opinions and agendas and feel under no obligation to pursue the war (and peace) aims of the allied commanders.”
The military historian John Keegan adds that “the serried ranks of self-appointed strategic commentators who currently dominate the written and visual media's treatment of the Iraq story have a duty to stop indulging their emotions and start remembering a bit of … history.”
In other words, quite a few experts would disagree with the Communist Senator Helene Luc and Moroccan immigrant Abu Mohammed -- quite a few scholars would say that the struggle we are engaged in today against a lethal brand of totalitarianism is very much like the struggle against a lethal brand of totalitarianism that was fought in the last century. What's different, it seems, are the media.
Or maybe not. Throughout the 1930s, there was only one prominent voice warning of a gathering storm, urging that steps be taken to stop Hitler before it was too late. That voice was Winston Churchill's – and the prestigious Times of London was among those in the elite media who denounced him as a “war-monger.”

Regards,
Hist2004

[rokus2595]

defines Nazism as a “political religion” manifesting itself as a “cult of violence and destruction.” Hmmm, no difference here with what the US has been doing worldwide...


aggressive, violent and expansionist. All seek the destruction of democratic societies. Again, the US fits the bill here too...where the only 'democracies' allowed are those which allow the US to pull the strings...


Of course, Nazism was not the only aggressive totalitarian ideology against which the Allies struggled. There also was Japanese Militarism and Italian Fascism. I guess the similarities continue to today..add to those mentioned before American facism


Similarly, Ba'athism is not the only ideology against which America, Britain and the other coalition nations are today fighting This is so retarded rofl rofl ....That is indeed happening because the US INVADED iraq...Jesus who writes this ****?


When President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to destroy Saddam Hussein's military power, they took a risk that was abundantly justified both geopolitically and morally.” hmm, i'm sure the Nazis felt just as justified both geopolitically and morally as well....


Johnson does scold Bush and Blair for not being adequately prepared for the public relations problems that must be expected when fighting a chronic insurgency in the age of 24-hour television news, an era when journalists “have their own opinions and agendas and feel under no obligation to pursue the war (and peace) aims of the allied commanders.” rofl..so wait a second..the US invades Iraq, kills thousands of civilians in the process, incarcerates thousands without reason, tortures them, and now complains that those who critize the US "have their own opinions and agendas"...lol..yeah, this is a retarded article


quite a few scholars would say that the struggle we are engaged in today against a lethal brand of totalitarianism is very much like the struggle against a lethal brand of totalitarianism that was fought in the last century. What's different, it seems, are the media. True, with the media cheerleading the US invasion of Iraq. In no other conflict has the US media been so supportive and play such a servant role to the current US regime.....remember the build up to the Iraqi war?

[hist2004]

Great analysis...keep up the good work... :roll:

Regards,
Hist2004

[Roger Rabbit]

Its always highly interesting reading your posts hist2004, ignore the guy above.

[DE_Six]

^^Ditto


Excellent article, Hist2004. Your posts are always a good read.

Thanks.

[hist2004]

Its always highly interesting reading your posts hist2004, ignore the guy above.

Thanks, anyone is capable of tearing up an article whatever position is presented.
This individual obviously sees the U.S. as the “real” problem in the world. Just
ask him who is the first country to respond when another nation suffers a natural
catastrophe (earthquake, flood). How many other countries in history rebuilt
the nations they have been to war with? His views are sophomoric at best.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[The Walrus]

Yes, WW2 and the war on terror are similar in the respect that both are against a fundamentally agressive ideology, but the comparison stops there. Hitlers Germany was by far a greater threat than terrorism is today.
Nazi Germany at it's peak was probably the most powerful war machine in the world, whereas the best the terrorists can muster is a few dirty bombs targetted at civilians, they pose very little, if any threat towards the military, especially the US military which is so staggeringly far ahead of the terrorists in terms of organisation, technology, firepower and mobility, that Bin Ladens can never pose a genuine military threat, whereas with WW2 our very existence was threatened, WW2 could have been lost by the allies on numerous occasions, but was saved partly due to luck and partly due to Hitlers incompetent interventions in the military.
The only real power Bin Laden has is his Islamic extremist ideology, and that really is all he has, the only way he can realise his goals is by radicalising the entire Muslim population, which on it's own is practically unfeasable. Even if he could overthrow a few middle-eastern governments, they still wouldn't come even close to matching the threat the axis powers did.

[Ratamacue]

Nazi Germany at it's peak was probably the most powerful war machine in the world, whereas the best the terrorists can muster is a few dirty bombs targetted at civilians, they pose very little, if any threat towards the military, especially the US military which is so staggeringly far ahead of the terrorists in terms of organisation, technology, firepower and mobility, that Bin Ladens can never pose a genuine military threat...

The reason we have a military is not to defend itself from another force, but to defend the US government and its populous. No one is concerned about terrorist organizations becoming a true military threat, but rather becoming a greater and greater threat to civilians. And just so you know, detonating a dirty bomb in an area like downtown New York or Chicago is hardly a small threat.

[hist2004]

[quote]Yes, WW2 and the war on terror are similar in the respect that both are against a fundamentally agressive ideology, but the comparison stops there. Hitlers Germany was by far a greater threat than terrorism is today.[quote]





I disagree on this point. Hitler was left unchecked or un-challenged and we know the results.
The U.S. made a mistake by walking away from Afghanistan after the Soviet-Afghan War.
(Just my opinion) We can’t think of terrorism on a local scale anymore. (PLO for instance).
The Taliban grew to control a country; the same would have happen in Chechnya, or
Dagastan if the Russians hadn’t intervened. Terrorism today is a global menace which
threatens all countries; either physically or economically.

Regards,
Hist2004

[droopy]

The war on terror is a fiction since the Cold War and Irak #1,Yugoslavia are gone the West needs to fight someone so guess what just like at Pearl Harbor let two planes kill some 4000 inocent people and then name this crucade "The War on Terror" and invade A-Stan and Irak.
Conspiracy Theory i don`t think so.
Why didn`t the terorists take the 11 o`clock planes so that they got all the poor people in WTC and kill 15.000 souls not 4000.
Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

[DE_Six]

double tap

[DE_Six]

... so guess what just like at Pearl Harbor let two planes kill some 4000 inocent people and then name this crucade...

"Let" the planes crash? :roll:

[droopy]

... so guess what just like at Pearl Harbor let two planes kill some 4000 inocent people and then name this crucade...

"Let" the planes crash? :roll:
Well CIA,NSA "closed their eyes" again the COnspiracy Theory :slap:

[n4292936]

If there are similarities between WW2 and the WOT the linkages are tenuous at best. While I dont think it is either accurate or helpful for mainstream media to compare the two, I would have to say that there are more similaritires between Vietnam and the WOT. The point is, the WOT is a war without precendent anywhere in the world at any time in its past. The global, diffuse nature of the threat, the religious nature of the enemies ideology, and the way it is (and perhaps has to be) fought are all unlike anything the US has been subjected to before. People just need to face the fact that there is no good analog for the WOT - especially not WW2 when things were fairly black and white. I think Bush's attempt at drawing parralels between the two is a poorly disguised attempt to cloak the war in the mantle of herioc struggles between good and evil that adorns WW2's legacy.

[hist2004]

Sorry I posted this article, apologies to all.

Regards,
Hist2004

[UkrainianAmerican]

DROOPY, how DARE you disrespect the four thousand deaths of innocent civilians on an American site?
WHy don't you just SHUT THE FUUCK UP asswipe.

[Kilgor]

The war on terror is a fiction since the Cold War and Irak #1,Yugoslavia are gone the West needs to fight someone so guess what just like at Pearl Harbor let two planes kill some 4000 inocent people and then name this crucade "The War on Terror" and invade A-Stan and Irak.
Conspiracy Theory i don`t think so.
Why didn`t the terorists take the 11 o`clock planes so that they got all the poor people in WTC and kill 15.000 souls not 4000.
Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

another reichstag fire idiot ....

:slap:

[n4292936]

Hist, the article in itself wasnt bad and probably could have generated a lively debate about historical precedence for the WOT :) .... unfortunately you have people like Droopy here who chime with their learned remarks and put us all to shame :roll:

[Kilgor]

Post ww1 germany: humiliated , poor, unemployed, previously great

Islam in most countries, Poor, unemployment, voilent, previously a great culture, humiliated.

Rising again ?

[droopy]

Do you guys really bellive in the War on Terror i don`t thousands of people died for a well made lie.

I don`t desecrate anything and i didn`t intend that.

RIP to all.
Peace.

PS:how could Al Quaeda make such an operation on US soil?
Where did they train the pilots?
Why didn`t the FBI,CIA or NSA learn about it and neutralize the threath?
Why did they strike at 9 AM and not 11 AM ?
Where are the chemical weapons ?
What did the US accomplish in Irak except making a civil war over oil?
etc. etc.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Another essay that seeks to draw loose and tenuous comparisons between Nazism and fundamentalist Islam, I don't get it but then again I did not get Clifford D. May's essay on Russia it was full of sly pokes about how Russia was not ready to eat at the table with all the rest of the 1st nations of the world which in my opinion is nonsense if anything Russia should be getting stuck into the pudding.

[usa320]

The war on terror is a fiction since the Cold War and Irak #1,Yugoslavia are gone the West needs to fight someone so guess what just like at Pearl Harbor let two planes kill some 4000 inocent people and then name this crucade "The War on Terror" and invade A-Stan and Irak.
Conspiracy Theory i don`t think so.
Why didn`t the terorists take the 11 o`clock planes so that they got all the poor people in WTC and kill 15.000 souls not 4000.
Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

**** you moron.

[Red]

The war on terror is a fiction since the Cold War and Irak #1,Yugoslavia are gone the West needs to fight someone so guess what just like at Pearl Harbor let two planes kill some 4000 inocent people and then name this crucade "The War on Terror" and invade A-Stan and Irak.
Conspiracy Theory i don`t think so.
Why didn`t the terorists take the 11 o`clock planes so that they got all the poor people in WTC and kill 15.000 souls not 4000.
Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german
Your assesment of the article is lacking insight.Apply your mind and just think for a moment about you post and ask yourself if it makes any logical sense.

[n4292936]

Red, I think the problem is that he believes it makes logical sense. :( Dont try to appeal to the sense of logic of a conspiracy theorist, more often than not they dont have one. ;)

[Midav]

Good post, hist2004!

[Secret Squirrel]

Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

You dont actually believe this do you?

[Secret Squirrel]

If there are similarities between WW2 and the WOT the linkages are tenuous at best. While I dont think it is either accurate or helpful for mainstream media to compare the two, I would have to say that there are more similaritires between Vietnam and the WOT. The point is, the WOT is a war without precendent anywhere in the world at any time in its past. The global, diffuse nature of the threat, the religious nature of the enemies ideology, and the way it is (and perhaps has to be) fought are all unlike anything the US has been subjected to before. People just need to face the fact that there is no good analog for the WOT - especially not WW2 when things were fairly black and white. I think Bush's attempt at drawing parralels between the two is a poorly disguised attempt to cloak the war in the mantle of herioc struggles between good and evil that adorns WW2's legacy.

I'd agree that Vietnam is the best comparison because both conflicts were/are, among other reasons, ideological wars. But the difference is communism needs a political base to have any influence (something that can be easily targetted) whereas terrorism just needs a guy with a jacket and a bomb. If you want a good comparison for the WOT, use the war on drugs. You'll never completely get rid of terrorism or drugs, but at least it can see as "possible" to bring them both down to "reasonable" levels.

[n4292936]

In his paper on the WOT Jeffrey Record from the US Army War College makes exactly the same point about the WOT being analogous to the War on Drugs...
he goes further to point out that because terrorism is a tactic, waging a "war on terrorism" is like waging a war on aerial bombing.
excerpts from a paper on the subject:
...Terrorism, by contrast, does not seek to hold or attain ground, it does not have standing armies and it does not apply violence in a conventional manner as armies would. Given their decentralized, dispersed, and cellular tactics and organization, terrorists are also exempt from conventional military destruction (Record, 3:2003)
.....The question therefore arises of what kind of war can be fought against an enemy that does not engage in the form of warfare any army America or its allies may field against it is suited for. Jeffrey Record has noted the abundant of use of the term War in American dialogue. Citing such examples as business “war rooms” and the war on illiteracy and the war on poverty Dr. Record comments that the term “war” is perhaps the most overused metaphor in America (Record, 2:2003). Calling for a war on terror is like calling for a war on suicide bombing, it is a tactic not an enemy....
it goes on and on....

[droopy]

Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

You dont actually believe this do you?

If the US didn`t get in teh war then England would capitulate Hitler would have moved all his trops from West to East and there gose Mother Russia end of WW2 not to speak of the Pacific War.

And about the carriers it just seems a little too convinient that the carriers were on manovers just at the time of the attack and that Arizona was sunk .
Military speaking Pearl Harbor was not a succes but it pulled US in WW2 and that saved the world from Hitler.

"Your assesment of the article is lacking insight.Apply your mind and just think for a moment about you post and ask yourself if it makes any logical sense."

I did and i mean why not wayt a couple of hours since they were the big bad terrorists and do double the damge(inocent lives).
If there was no War on Terror and no Irak would the army`s involved get more money,more equipment or training if from 2001-2004 there would have been PEACE.

[hist2004]

I did and i mean why not wayt a couple of hours since they were the big bad terrorists and do double the damge(inocent lives).
If there was no War on Terror and no Irak would the army`s involved get more money,more equipment or training if from 2001-2004 there would have been PEACE.

Why are you posting this trash on an American Website?

Regards,
Hist2004

[n4292936]

:D c'mon mate, we're not all american :P
why is he posting it anywhere ??

[droopy]

oh sorry since this is an american site i will stop posting trash.

[Secret Squirrel]

Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

You dont actually believe this do you?

If the US didn`t get in teh war then England would capitulate Hitler would have moved all his trops from West to East and there gose Mother Russia end of WW2 not to speak of the Pacific War.

And about the carriers it just seems a little too convinient that the carriers were on manovers just at the time of the attack and that Arizona was sunk .
Military speaking Pearl Harbor was not a succes but it pulled US in WW2 and that saved the world from Hitler.




Maybe you could offer something a little more credible? some actual evidence for your assumption?

[Kitsune]

oh sorry since this is an american site i will stop posting trash.

Hey, if all the trash that is posted here, would vanish, only my posts would be left... :lol:




*jumping for cover*

[Tane Angle]

A decent article, but a few things, if I may.

First off, Ba'athism doesn't limit itself to Arabs. Many do not consider the Alawites to be Arab, yet Syria is ruled by a supposedly Ba'ath government. Assad is not a Sunni, he is Alawite. Also, look some of Hussein's inner circle. Some Christians and non-Arabs in there.

Secondly, there is no such thing as Islamic ideology or Islamic fundamentalism or extremism. There is Whahabism and other extreme Sunni interpretations. There is the extreme Shi'a interpretation of the Iranian government and other extreme forms of Shi'aism. There is no one sole Islam, just as there is no one sole group in most religions. Just as with Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and other religions, there are many forms of Islam. There are literally scores upon scores of "major" sects, that's not even counting the some of the smaller sects. Now some don't consider all of these to be true Muslims, but well, some Christians don't consider other Christians to be "true Christians" either; there are dozens of different forms of Islam, and thus there can be no such thing as "Islamic fundamentalism." There can be violent Whahabism, but I'd say that using the term violent Whahabism is a better way to put it then saying "Islamic fundamentalism."

Also, while this may or may not have affected the writer's level of objectivity, it is noteworthy that he was the spokeman for the Republican National Party, no? Thanks for posting it, hist2004. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Red]

A decent article, but a few things, if I may.

First off, Ba'athism doesn't limit itself to Arabs. Many do not consider the Alawites to be Arab, yet Syria is ruled by a supposedly Ba'ath government. Assad is not a Sunni, he is Alawite. Also, look some of Hussein's inner circle. Some Christians and non-Arabs in there.

Secondly, there is no such thing as Islamic ideology or Islamic fundamentalism or extremism. There is Whahabism and other extreme Sunni interpretations. There is the extreme Shi'a interpretation of the Iranian government and other extreme forms of Shi'aism. There is no one sole Islam, just as there is no one sole group in most religions. Just as with Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and other religions, there are many forms of Islam. There are literally scores upon scores of "major" sects, that's not even counting the some of the smaller sects. Now some don't consider all of these to be true Muslims, but well, some Christians don't consider other Christians to be "true Christians" either; there are dozens of different forms of Islam, and thus there can be no such thing as "Islamic fundamentalism." There can be violent Whahabism, but I'd say that using the term violent Whahabism is a better way to put it then saying "Islamic fundamentalism."

Also, while this may or may not have affected the writer's level of objectivity, it is noteworthy that he was the spokeman for the Republican National Party, no? Thanks for posting it, hist2004. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
I agree with your interpretation.

[droopy]

Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

You dont actually believe this do you?

If the US didn`t get in teh war then England would capitulate Hitler would have moved all his trops from West to East and there gose Mother Russia end of WW2 not to speak of the Pacific War.

And about the carriers it just seems a little too convinient that the carriers were on manovers just at the time of the attack and that Arizona was sunk .
Military speaking Pearl Harbor was not a succes but it pulled US in WW2 and that saved the world from Hitler.




Maybe you could offer something a little more credible? some actual evidence for your assumption?
What i mean is that the US commanders knew about the attack and let it happen.
Since the US citisens were agains USA intervention in WW2 and since on the Pacific front things were very bad, The Battle for England was doing bad,U-boats were starving the english people etc.
The might of the US industry and army needed to get somhow involved with the agrement of the US people.
Intel knew about Pearl HArbor and the Navy got the carriers out of the reach of the japanes in a military exercise and that saved us all.
Military there were 2500 casualties a few ships damaged the Arizona sunk,some P-40 destroyed.
And so afther this attack US joined the war and the rest is history.
Conspiracy Theory but it sounds very convinging to me.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Another article on the same theme.
Plan of Attack
Insurgents in Iraq are forging improbable alliances to fight what some analysts call a "netwar." The United States needs to adapt—and to relearn some old lessons
*
by Bruce Hoffman
*
.....
*

We know we're killing a lot, capturing a lot, collecting arms," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reportedly told a meeting of defense analysts and retired officers at the Pentagon last year, commenting on U.S. attempts to thwart the growing insurgency in Iraq. "We just don't know yet whether that's the same as winning." Rumsfeld's remark encapsulates the confusion and frustration that have plagued U.S. counterinsurgency efforts around the world for more than half a century—most notably in Vietnam, El Salvador, and now Iraq. The United States is not alone, however. It is the latest victim of a problem that has long afflicted the world's governments and militaries when they are confronted with insurgencies: namely, a striking inability to absorb and apply the lessons learned in previous counterinsurgency campaigns.
Guerrilla groups and terrorist organizations, on the other hand, learn lessons very well. They study their own mistakes and the successful operations of their enemies, and they adapt nimbly. The past year in Iraq has been a case in point: insurgents have moved from sporadic, relatively unsophisticated roadside bomb attacks to more coordinated, even synchronized attacks, with brutally successful results: growing numbers of coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying; security in much of the country remains fragile or elusive; Iraqi resentment of the United States is increasing; and international political support for the American occupation, never exactly formidable to begin with, is withering. By many measures the insurgents are succeeding and we are failing.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome in Iraq, in the decades ahead the United States is likely to be drawn into other military occupations and nation-building efforts; America's superpower status and the ongoing war on terrorism make this prospect almost inevitable. To a very important degree our ability to carry out such jobs effectively will depend on an approach to counterinsurgency that makes intelligent use of the lessons that countries around the world have confronted repeatedly throughout history. At root those lessons are basic: First, always remember that the struggle is not primarily military but political, social, economic, and ideological. Second, learn to recognize the signs of a budding insurgency, and never let it develop momentum. Third, study and understand the enemy in advance. And fourth, put a strong emphasis on gathering up-to-the-minute local intelligence.
Political considerations—applied to doctrine, planning, implementation, and, especially, operational coordination—must be at the foundation of any approach to counterinsurgency. The vigorousness of the insurgency in Iraq today stems directly from the fact that the United States did not plan well enough for the occupation; we lost a critical window of opportunity because we failed to anticipate the widespread civil disorder and looting that followed the capture of Baghdad. Despite the detailed planning for occupying postwar Iraq that was under way in many parts of the U.S. government (see "Blind Into Baghdad," by James Fallows, January/ February 2004 Atlantic), the officials directly charged with running the war and handling its aftermath appear not to have seriously considered the possibility that a sustained resistance effort might emerge and snowball into an insurgency. We were simply not on the lookout for the early signs of a social climate favorable to resistance; as a result, we were not able to suppress the insurgency before it had a chance to grow and gain momentum.
In the early 1990s I was the co-author of two RAND Corporation reports that together analyzed seven historical counterinsurgency and counterterrorist campaigns, involving Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Germany, Italy, and Rhodesia. In every case we noted that because authorities failed to detect the signs of incipient insurgency, and because the government was not sufficiently integrated with the military to mount a decisive initial response, the insurgents or terrorists had time to entrench themselves in the civilian population and to solidify their efforts. All was not necessarily lost, but time, money, and many lives were needlessly expended. In Iraq, as in the countries we studied, by the time the authorities realized the seriousness of the situation, they had squandered invaluable opportunities to bring the insurgency to heel.
The military side of the equation cannot be neglected, of course. But in any military operation it is essential to acquire, coordinate, analyze, and disseminate "actionable intelligence." Here, too, the United States has fallen far short of the mark in Iraq. The Washington Post has reported that the CIA station in Baghdad may well be the largest in the world by now, with more than 300 full-time case officers and nearly 500 employees (including contractors) in total—a figure that, according to the Post, is up from an originally planned complement of only eighty-five officers. Yet intelligence collection remains a problem, especially in our efforts to determine how many insurgents are present and who they are—two of the most basic and necessary pieces of information for understanding and fighting any insurgency. The generally accepted number, cited by General John Abizaid last November, was 5,000; most are thought to be Sunni Muslims who belonged to the Baath Party or served in the military, the police, or the security and intelligence services. Tellingly, U.S. officials still estimate the number to be between four and six thousand, despite obvious signs that the insurgency has grown. U.S. and other sources believe that more than 90 percent of the violent acts carried out by the insurgents are the work of these FREs (former regime elements), who are reported to be either doing the job themselves or paying others (often criminals or unemployed "angry young men") to do it. Despite repeated claims from official Washington that a large number of foreign volunteers are converging on Iraq, American military commanders report no indications that this is the case; the most frequently cited figure is around 500, although some estimates put it at 1,000 to 3,000. Of the 5,000 insurgents already in custody (a number strongly suggesting that official U.S. estimates are too low), only about 300 are foreigners. No doubt the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq explains some of the inadequacies in this area. Indeed, it was not until late November—when the daily pace of guerrilla attacks on U.S. troops rose to some forty a day—that many intelligence officers and analysts were reassigned from that search to focus on the insurgency.
Although determining the size of the insurgency is critical to combating it, recent history has shown that to a certain degree the exact numbers are immaterial. For more than twenty years a hard core of just twenty or thirty members of the Baader-Meinhof gang terrorized West Germany—a stable country with much more sophisticated and reliable police, security, and intelligence services than Iraq is likely to have for some time. Similarly, some fifty to seventy-five Red Brigadists imposed a reign of terror on Italy; the worst period, in the late 1970s, is still referred to as the "years of lead." And for thirty years a dedicated cadre of 200 to 400 IRA gunmen and bombers frustrated the effort to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland.
These examples are clearly not parallel to the situation in Iraq, but they do illustrate an important principle: there will always be a fundamental asymmetry in the dynamic between insurgency and counterinsurgency. Guerrillas and terrorists do not have to defeat their opponents militarily; they just have to avoid losing. In this respect the more conspicuous the security forces are and the more pervasive their operations become, the stronger the insurgency appears to be. Insurgents try to disrupt daily life and commerce with their attacks; they hope that security-force countermeasures will alienate the population and create a public impression of the authorities as oppressors rather than protectors. This, in a nutshell, is what is happening in Iraq.
General Abizaid has described the current conflict in Iraq as a "classical guerrilla-type campaign." In important ways, however, it is not. The Iraqi insurgency, unlike most others, has no center of gravity. Secular Baathists and other FREs are cooperating with domestic and foreign religious extremists. As a senior official with the Coalition Provisional Authority wrote to me in February, two months before this phenomenon crystallized in the fight for Fallujah, "Here the Baathist-Islamic divide does not exist in a practical sense. I wouldn't have thought it possible, as they were so diametrically opposed to each other during the [Saddam Hussein] regime—but it is happening." The Iraqi insurgency today appears to have no clear leader (or leadership), no ambition to seize and actually hold territory (except ephemerally, as in the recent cases of Fallujah and Najaf), no unifying ideology, and, most important, no identifiable organization. Rather, what we find in Iraq is the closest manifestation yet of "netwar," a concept defined in 1992 by the RAND analysts John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt as unconventional warfare involving flat, segmented networks instead of the pyramidal hierarchies and command-and-control systems (no matter how primitive) that have governed traditional insurgent organizations.
The insurgency in Iraq is taking place in an ambiguous and constantly shifting environment, with constellations of cells and individuals gravitating toward one another—to carry out armed attacks, exchange intelligence, trade weapons, and engage in joint training—and then dispersing, sometimes never to operate together again. It is a battlefield situation that a conventional military often cannot cope with, and we must learn to adapt. We must build effective indigenous intelligence capabilities so that we can identify the signs of an incipient insurgency; establish, train, and forge close cooperative relations with a functioning and capable police force; improve the safety, security, and living conditions of the local population, thereby gaining their confidence; and take advantage of the training capabilities, language skills, and cultural awareness and sensitivities of American special-operations forces, whose mission specifically includes the training of foreign militaries. In the end, however, no matter how sophisticated a response we develop, and no matter how new the insurgents' strategies are, a simple lesson that has been learned and forgotten again and again still applies: Don't let insurgencies get started in the first place.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/hoffman.htm

[Red]

Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

You dont actually believe this do you?

If the US didn`t get in teh war then England would capitulate Hitler would have moved all his trops from West to East and there gose Mother Russia end of WW2 not to speak of the Pacific War.

And about the carriers it just seems a little too convinient that the carriers were on manovers just at the time of the attack and that Arizona was sunk .
Military speaking Pearl Harbor was not a succes but it pulled US in WW2 and that saved the world from Hitler.




Maybe you could offer something a little more credible? some actual evidence for your assumption?
What i mean is that the US commanders knew about the attack and let it happen.
Since the US citisens were agains USA intervention in WW2 and since on the Pacific front things were very bad, The Battle for England was doing bad,U-boats were starving the english people etc.
The might of the US industry and army needed to get somhow involved with the agrement of the US people.
Intel knew about Pearl HArbor and the Navy got the carriers out of the reach of the japanes in a military exercise and that saved us all.
Military there were 2500 casualties a few ships damaged the Arizona sunk,some P-40 destroyed.
And so afther this attack US joined the war and the rest is history.
Conspiracy Theory but it sounds very convinging to me.
Wow i did not know that you were there.Look get your head out of your arse,you have something to say so why dont you just say it:

[Secret Squirrel]

Just like in Pearl Harbor the aircraft carriesrs were not in harbor and the US needed to get in WW2 or else i would be speaking german

You dont actually believe this do you?

If the US didn`t get in teh war then England would capitulate Hitler would have moved all his trops from West to East and there gose Mother Russia end of WW2 not to speak of the Pacific War.

And about the carriers it just seems a little too convinient that the carriers were on manovers just at the time of the attack and that Arizona was sunk .
Military speaking Pearl Harbor was not a succes but it pulled US in WW2 and that saved the world from Hitler.




Maybe you could offer something a little more credible? some actual evidence for your assumption?
What i mean is that the US commanders knew about the attack and let it happen.
Since the US citisens were agains USA intervention in WW2 and since on the Pacific front things were very bad, The Battle for England was doing bad,U-boats were starving the english people etc.
The might of the US industry and army needed to get somhow involved with the agrement of the US people.
Intel knew about Pearl HArbor and the Navy got the carriers out of the reach of the japanes in a military exercise and that saved us all.
Military there were 2500 casualties a few ships damaged the Arizona sunk,some P-40 destroyed.
And so afther this attack US joined the war and the rest is history.
Conspiracy Theory but it sounds very convinging to me.

U-boats were not coming close to starving England, just read any economic history of the battle of the atlantic. And the U.S had been involved in the battle of the atlantic before the attack on pearl harbor (check out Clay Blair's Vol. 1 of the battle of the atlantic). You said intel knew about the attack? I assume you're refering to "magic"? Since you seem to be so up to date on their intelligence history, you know what happened when a Russian convey was scattered based on intelligence. But above all, you cant be stupid enough to argue that the U.S allowed an attack to occur? If they knew exactly when it was coming why not meet it head on? It would have garnered the same result as getting the U.S offically into WWII. It all sounds convincing to you because you make the same mistakes many other conspiracy theorists have made before you.

P.S - incase you havent learned this yet, and take this from someone whos written about this subject, intelligence history isnt a black and white science.

[the_spec]

I think it's more or less a fact that Pearl Harbor was willingly accepted by the US, so I don't know what's there to argue about.
The US were cornering Japan economically and they knew how Japan was going to react if they wanted to "survive".
Roosevelt, the government, wanted to go to war, but you can't do that with an unwilling public. A backstabbing, unexpected attack is the ideal way to set public opinion on "war".
Why do you think were there so many cameras in Pearl Harbor that day? It's an interesting "coincidence" that made it possible to have so many good pictures to put into the papers to show all the americans the full tragedy. Have a few old battleships blown up, lose some sailors, no big deal if you gonna go into a world war.
Meeting the attack head on wouldn't have had any such effect, it would just be a big line in the newspaper, no tragedy, no pictures, just a simple "japan attacked". A reason to go to war, but not enough to rally public opinion.
Pearl Harbor had the same effect as the explosion of the "USS Maine" and as 9-11. I'm not saying the last two were set up, but they had the same effect on the public.

intelligence history isnt a black and white science
Then you should actually see the logic in a "no surprise" theory of Pearl Harbor.

[SpazzMunky]

I think it's more or less a fact that Pearl Harbor was willingly accepted by the US, so I don't know what's there to argue about.
The US were cornering Japan economically and they knew how Japan was going to react if they wanted to "survive".
Roosevelt, the government, wanted to go to war, but you can't do that with an unwilling public. A backstabbing, unexpected attack is the ideal way to set public opinion on "war".
Why do you think were there so many cameras in Pearl Harbor that day? It's an interesting "coincidence" that made it possible to have so many good pictures to put into the papers to show all the americans the full tragedy. Have a few old battleships blown up, lose some sailors, no big deal if you gonna go into a world war.
Meeting the attack head on wouldn't have had any such effect, it would just be a big line in the newspaper, no tragedy, no pictures, just a simple "japan attacked". A reason to go to war, but not enough to rally public opinion.
Pearl Harbor had the same effect as the explosion of the "USS Maine" and as 9-11. I'm not saying the last two were set up, but they had the same effect on the public.

intelligence history isnt a black and white science
Then you should actually see the logic in a "no surprise" theory of Pearl Harbor.
The United States didn't want war, it wasn't in their best interests at the time. They were isolationist.It is true that Japan was being economically cornered by the US, but the entire reason they were being manipulated is so they would provide no resistance to American ambitions in the Pacific. It would be counterproductive to have a war on your hands, when you are attempting more subversive methods.

Any attack on American interests would be reason enough to go to war. In the First World War, the US entered because ~100 civilians drowned when a British liner was sunk by a U-boat. If the US was bone-ass stupid enough to allow an attack to happen just so it would have an excuse to go to war against Japan, they sure as hell wouldn't allow it to cripple most of the Pacific fleet, just for a few minuiscule PR points. If they had managed to turn the attack around, it would have instilled the same patriotism that the defeat did.

[Secret Squirrel]

I think it's more or less a fact that Pearl Harbor was willingly accepted by the US, so I don't know what's there to argue about.
The US were cornering Japan economically and they knew how Japan was going to react if they wanted to "survive".
Roosevelt, the government, wanted to go to war, but you can't do that with an unwilling public. A backstabbing, unexpected attack is the ideal way to set public opinion on "war".
Why do you think were there so many cameras in Pearl Harbor that day? It's an interesting "coincidence" that made it possible to have so many good pictures to put into the papers to show all the americans the full tragedy. Have a few old battleships blown up, lose some sailors, no big deal if you gonna go into a world war.
Meeting the attack head on wouldn't have had any such effect, it would just be a big line in the newspaper, no tragedy, no pictures, just a simple "japan attacked". A reason to go to war, but not enough to rally public opinion.
Pearl Harbor had the same effect as the explosion of the "USS Maine" and as 9-11. I'm not saying the last two were set up, but they had the same effect on the public.

intelligence history isnt a black and white science
Then you should actually see the logic in a "no surprise" theory of Pearl Harbor.

FDR was obviously in favor of bringing American into the war. But (correct me if i'm wrong and if you've seen the primary documents and their translation time..etc) no one has produced any credible evidence that FDR knew the attack was coming. And i hope you're not putting any weight behind the supposed "delayed Japanese message". I'll try to find the source or doc. online but if i recall correctly, a researcher working in the Japanese foreign ministry archives recently found documents showing that Tokyo actively chose the path of war and, worse, intentionally concealed its hostile aims, even from its own diplomats in Washington, and that Japanese officials took pride in the deception.

Here's a few examples of the attempts of conspiracy nuts...

In 1981, journalist-historian John Toland published Infamy, which cited an interview with an unidentified seaman who claimed to have intercepted reports of a Japanese aircraft carrier approaching Hawaii just before the raid. But once the seaman was unmasked as Robert Ogg, and the interview on which Toland was relying was made known, it became clear Toland had distorted or misread Ogg's account.

In 1991, James Rusbridger argued in Betrayal at Pearl Harbor that it was Churchill, not FDR, who suppressed intercepted news of the invasion. But Rusbridger's reliance on the claims of a 92-year-old naval captain persuaded few reviewers.

In 2000, Robert Stinnett published Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, which uses the fact that American intelligence did seem to intercept Japanese messages not far from Hawaii. But as reviewers noted, Stinnett never demonstrated that those intercepts were fully understood or even relayed to the highest levels. Like many conspiracy theorists, he attributed to high-level plotting what was in fact something far more common: human error.

What I meant when I said intelligence history isnt a black and white science is in direct opposition to what you posted. Incepted messages do not appear in neat little packages that you calmly open and they tell you exactly what you want to know. The problem with writing intelligence history is hind-sight is 20/20 but you cant write history on what you think people should have known or how they should have acted. You simply have to take all the variables into account (ie. time for cracking, translation, interpretation...etc) and try to determine who knew what and when and what they thought about it..etc and then try to put that into a larger context.

edit: a few more conspiracy "myths" can be found at http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/index.html <--it also provides primary docs. Some of the myths debunked including why the carriers were at sea, the supposed Japanese declaration of war (which was only written, not sent, at 12:44 pm, Dec. 7th, Pearl Harbor time), and the radar operator who supposedly tracked the Japanese planes as they were coming.

[droopy]

"they sure as hell wouldn't allow it to cripple most of the Pacific fleet,"
Whit all the respect for the sailors that died, one sunken Arizona and a few damaged ships are hardly to be regarded as important in the WW2 USN Pacific fleet since the US industry was mass producing ships of all sizes and destinations.
The important thing was that the Aircraft Carriers were safe afther the attack and crushed the japanes navy in the following battles.
It makes the most sence to let the attack happen as to save half the world.

PS:i`m not a conspiracy theorist BUT i admit some of theirs theorys sound right an logical to me.

Want a CRAZY theory the russians sabotaged the Columbia in 2003 as to have it destroyed and ground all the other shuttles so that they can resupply the International space station with their crafts and so make money and take lead in the space race rofl :fork:

[Secret Squirrel]

Whit all the respect for the sailors that died, one sunken Arizona and a few damaged ships are hardly to be regarded as important in the WW2 USN Pacific fleet since the US industry was mass producing ships of all sizes and destinations.
The important thing was that the Aircraft Carriers were safe afther the attack and crushed the japanes navy in the following battles.
It makes the most sence to let the attack happen as to save half the world.


MYTH : The US carriers were hustled out of port just before the attack, to "save" them for a war that FDR already knew would be dominated by the flattop.

FACT: The two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver additional fighters to Wake and Midway. See the document. These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan and the IJN, widely separated and lightly escorted.

On Dec. 7th, Enterprise was about 200 miles west of Pearl and inbound to Pearl. Lexington was 400 miles to the west and heading for Midway. See Admiral Kimmel's report on these missions.
"OK, but they were still out of port!" Yes, but Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by "friendly fire."

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".

From the Times-Herald, Washington, D. C., Thursday, September 28, 1944]



THE TRUTH OF PEARL HARBOR



(AN EDITORIAL)



By Basil Brewer, Publisher, The New Bedford (Mass.) Standard-Times



...

Should the Pacific battle fleet have been at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7?

And, if it should not, why was it there, and by whose orders?

...

(Reprinted in PROCEEDINGS OF CLARKE INVESTIGATION, p. 141 (Clarke)[1])



Proof of a conspiracy by person or persons in the United States is frequently provided by the comment, "Well, it's a fact that the carriers were hustled out of Pearl just hours before the attack, and the old battleships were jammed in to become targets." To examine the facts surrounding the mystery of the missing carriers and the presence of so many battleships, we need to review the original documents and have the principle players tell the story themselves.

On Nov. 26th, 1941, Adm. Kimmel received a message from the Navy Dept. It advised that an agreement had been reached with the War Dept. concerning reinforcement of Wake and Midway.

The message started off, “In order to keep the planes of the Second Marine Aircraft Wing available for expeditionary use OPNAV has requested and Army has agreed to station twenty five Army pursuit planes at Midway and a similar number at Wake provided you consider this feasible and desirable. It will be necessary for you to transport these planes and ground crews from Oahu to these stations on an aircraft carrier.” (Navy Court of Inquiry, p. 1177 (Navy)) Adm. Kimmel, upon learning that the Army planes were allowed to fly no more than 15 miles from land, decided to reinforce the two islands with naval aircraft.

Notice the phrase “provided you consider this feasible and desirable” is included. The trips would be made only if Kimmel thought them possible. When Adm. Kimmel was asked if he considered this message “a directive or a suggestion”, he replied, “I considered it as a suggestion, …” (Navy, p. 238) He reiterated that thought in Admiral Kimmel's Story, stating "...I would have rejected the Navy Department's suggestion to send carrier to Wake and Midway..."[2]

When asked about this Adm. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, testified, “The dispatch was not a directive of execution. It distinctly puts up a proposition and states, ‘Provided you consider it feasible and desirable.’ ” (Navy, p. 32)

Adm. Kimmel responded to the Nov. 26th message on Nov. 28th. “…in this letter I also stated the arrangements I had made for handling material for planes and ground crews at Wake and Midway and of the fact that I was sending the Enterprise and the Lexington to Midway.” (Navy, p. 239-240)

The Navy Court asked Adm. Kimmel if he felt the Nov. 26th dispatch was an order:



“120. Q. Do you consider the matter of stationing these twenty-five pursuit planes at Midway and a considerable number at Wake to be a directive or a suggestion? How do you consider that?

A. I considered it as a suggestion, and in my letter of December 2, 1941, to the Chief of Naval Operations, which I request be read to the court and placed in evidence, you will the steps that we took and that we recommended.

...

“129. Q. About how many days would you estimate for the trip to Wake?

“A. My recollection is that Wake is some 2,000 miles from Pearl Harbor. Midway is about 1,100 miles. Halsey, in the ENTERPRISE, left on the 28th of November and would have arrived back in Pearl Harbor on 7 December.

(Navy, 239)



The timing of the trips depended on several factors, first being logistics.



"...We had very limited facilities on these islands to maintain the planes at that time. And that was the reason we had delayed sending the planes out there until the last minute. ..." (Navy, 239)



Also of importance was the need to not telegraph the absence of the carriers. Enterprise was not doing anything surprising by sailing on the 28th, this was her scheduled departure date as given in the quarterly employment schedules. Those schedules had been promulgated in August and their accessibility by unauthorized persons was a question raised during the Investigations. Copies of the schedules are printed in the Investigations and show that Enterprise was indeed due to be out Nov. 28th through Dec. 5th, then due for 10 days of Upkeep in Pearl. (Exhibits of the Joint Committee, p. 2517 (Exhibits))



36. Q. Admiral, do you feel that the dispatching of Marine planes to Wake was a consequence of this dispatch that you have had before you or had that been decided before the dispatch arrived?

A. I believe it was precipitated by this dispatch and the fact that the air fields were just ready at that time. In other words, it was a hurry-up move. One more reason for that was the fact that my task force was due to proceed to sea on the 28th of November and in order not to violate security, they wanted to make it appear a perfectly natural move.

36. Q. In other words, under the published employment schedules, you were due to go out on the 28th?

A. Exactly.

(Proceedings of the Hart Inquiry, page 323 (Hart))



Lexington was due to sail on the 5th, but still be in the immediate area. Kimmel understood the principle of concentration of forces, but this was offset by the need to reinforce the outlaying bases. Kimmel discussed the requirements of War Plan Rainbow 5 on his command:



72. Q. You mean that you were not to undertake offensive operations after a declaration of war or start of war?

A. To amplify: Our plan called for reconnaissance, including attacks in force, on Marshall positions. We felt that we should not move within easy striking distance where we might be sighted and possibly disturb any remote chance that still remained of averting war. As a consequence, our forces were held in close proximity to Hawaii where they could be kept fully fueled and ready to move toward the Marshalls. Two groups, each of which included a carrier that had been carrying aircraft reenforcements to Wake and to Midway, were exceptions. They were to return to Pearl Harbor as soon as possible after completing their assigned task. (Hart, 257)



Captain Vincent R. Murphy, Assistant to the War Plans Officer on Admiral Kimmel's staff told the Hart Inquiry:



That idea, as well as I recall, was to get Admiral Halsey's forces, which had been at Wake and which were or would be, out of fuel, back into Pearl Harbor and get them fueled ready to conduct the first operation of the War Plans. Admiral Brown's force was then at Johnston Island, as I recall, getting ready to conduct a practice landing operation. Another force under Admiral Newton, I think it was a task group under Admiral Brown, was delivering planes, or on the way to deliver planes at Midway. The general plan was to get all those ships back and fueled and proceed with our War Plans. (Hart, p. 322)



With Saratoga coming out of overhaul at Seattle, and returning to Pearl via San Diego, was important was to cover the fact that the carriers on-hand were going somewhere with a load of fighters. Unless they was going to Guam or the Philippines there were really only two places they would take those planes, Wake or Midway. This bit of information was not something to hand to the (potential) enemy, if it could be avoided.

The need for secrecy in the movement of major units was known by the Task Force Commanders. Adm. Halsey was questioned about the "mysterious" nature of his trip to Wake. He stated that security was a consideration, as was the hazardous nature of his trip:



"The Marine planes were finally selected and for security reasons it was necessary to get those planes on board the ENTERPRISE at sea the next day without anyone knowing where they [298] were going. This required a tremendous amount of planning and subterfuge before we hit on a scheme for flying these people aboard. We told them they were going out for two or three days' maneuvers. At the same time, to show the Army that it was possible to fly Army fighter planes off carriers, it was arranged to take two Army fighter planes aboard from the dock and fly them of at sea to land in Honolulu. This again required much planning so as not to excite people and break the security."

...

“Admiral Standley: You were asked a question in the beginning of your statement as to why radio silence. Would you please answer that, the reason for radio silence?

“Admiral Halsey: Because we were on a very secret mission, to land these Marine fighting planes on Wake with the then possible enemy learning of it. I might say, the results—I saw a report the other day of what those 12 fighting planes accomplished on Wake, and despite the fact there was no Radar on Wake—it hadn’t been landed—it was little short of remarkable.”

“Admiral Standley: Then, then the reason for radio silence was that you suspected or you thought it possible that there might be a Japanese attack?

“Admiral Halsey: Exactly.” (Proceedings of the Roberts Commission, pp. 619-620 (Roberts))



Halsey also testified that he had given the orders that resulted in three of the eight battleships being in port that morning. “Immediately after clearing the channel, I diverted the battleships...( Nevada, Oklahoma, and Arizona)” (Hart, 323-324) and those ships returned to Pearl Harbor at the time Enterprise was originally due to return, Dec. 6th. No Washington plan to have all the old and “expendable” battleships in port to be sacrificed would have been possible without Halsey’s cooperation.

The carriers were thus “safely” out of port, but were they safe? According to Adm. Kimmel, no:



“236 Q. Would not the sending of a carrier over 2,000 miles to the westward, within 600 miles of a Japanese base as proposed by these dispatches from both CNO and the War Department, have been a rather dangerous operation if war was expected immediately?

“A. Yes, and when we sent Enterprise to the westward—this affected my estimate—that is, to Wake, we covered our advance by a couple of squadrons of patrol planes operating between Pearl, Johnston, Midway and Wake.” (Hart, 266-267)



Adm. Newton led the force to Midway, departing on Dec. 5th. His orders were similar to Halsey's. In his book on this topic Edwin P. Layton, Adm. Kimmel's Intelligence office, states:



"…Rear Admiral John H. Newton who sailed in the morning in Chicago to provide the heavy cruiser escort for carrier Lexington in Task Force 12. The mission of this task force was to ferry the marine fighter reinforcements to Midway and carry out extensive reconnaissance sweeps of the northwestern approaches to the Hawaiian Islands…."



As the Kido Butai was approaching the Hawaiian Islands from the north and, it seems strange that anyone would send a carrier into that area to be safely out of the way of that fleet. Testimony of Adm. Brown:



“30. Q. Do you recall having any particular concern over the fact that the mission was advancing your force over a thousand miles toward Japan?

“A. I considered that I was going into waters that had not been frequented by our ships for some time and, as there might be more danger from submarines than we had considered in the past, I set a speed of 17 knots in day light and zig-zagged. Also, I had scouting flights made by planes to cover our advance.” (Roberts, p. 343)



The need for the undetected absence of the carriers is even clearer when we consider that Toshikawa Hideo was making regular reports to Japan regarding the ships in port, and dates of sailings and returns. He made a "ships in port" report on the 6th, indicating no carriers in the harbor. This message was in the PA-K2 code and translated on Dec. 8th by the Army. We could speculate that, given the knowledge that Pearl Harbor was being watched, we could have "baited the trap" with the carriers, and actually hustled them out late on the 6th, rather than risking the enemy's calling the whole thing off because the carriers were gone. This presupposes that someone would have known about the attack in the first place.



“The Chairman: In the event of a hostile air attack, the effort would be to sortie the battleships?

“Admiral Halsey: A great deal depends, sir. We might have had a very much worse catastrophe here if these vessels had been in the process of sortieing when this happened. For instance, my ship, my task force had planned to be off Pearl Harbor about seven o’clock in the morning, and by the grace of God we had bad weather out there that held us up and I could not have gotten in until about four o’clock in the afternoon.

“It might have happened that I would be in the middle of the channel when this thing happened, and that would have been very serious, because we would have been sunk, and then we would have had something.

“Admiral Reeves. What is your flagship, Admiral?

“Admiral Halsey. The USS ENTERPRISE.

“The Chairman. The USS ENTERPRISE, a carrier.

“Admiral Halsey. Yes.” (Roberts, p. )



The objection may still be made that it doesn’t matter why the carriers were out of port, they were still out of harm’s way. For this to be true we would have to assume that the carriers were in no way going to be exposed to possible damage from enemy action. Did the admirals think so?:



44. Q. As regards your own task force, upon putting to sea, did you institute any security measures advanced over those which had been in effect while at sea for some time previously?

A. Immediately on clearing the channel, I diverted the battleships, three in number, cruisers and destroyers, under Admirals Draemel and Kidd, and told them to carry out exercises in a certain area. I then headed West with the remainder of my task force. As soon as we were out of sight of the remainder of the task force, I sent a signal (324) to put war heads in all torpedoes; to regard any submarine seen as hostile and sink it; armed the planes with bombs; gave orders to shoot down any plane seen in the air that was not known to be one of our own. We went into Condition 3, as I remember it, and kept that the entire way out until we got close to Wake and then I went into Condition 2. In other words, I tried to make full preparations for combat. I also ordered ready ammunition for all guns. I might add one other thing. I carried out morning and afternoon searches to three hundred miles, as I remember it, for any sign of hostile shipping. I kept a combat patrol over the ships at certain times. (HART, 323 )



This would further require us to believe that Adm. William Halsey would have heard about the attacks on so many U.S., British and Netherlands’ territories and not wish to take any action. It if far more likely that Halsey would have raised Caine about such orders during the several inquiries that followed.

What actually happened was that the carriers were ordered to seek out and engage the enemy, at odds of 1-to-6. Adm. Brown testified:



About 1000 or 1100 that morning, I received a message from Admiral Halsey to the effect that I was to assume enemy carriers about 200 miles South of Oahu at that time and retiring on the Marshalls. My orders were to intercept and destroy. I, thereupon, changed course to take me to the east- (pg. 345) ward of Johnston Island and attempt, that afternoon, to contact enemy by planes and to make an attack by planes that afternoon in order to slow him down so that I could make physical contact during the night or the following day. (Navy, 344-345)



Adm. Halsey was closer to the Islands and thus in a better position to engage. Unfortunately (or perhaps not unfortunately) Hawaiian naval staff analysts made an assumption based on radio direction finding data that the enemy forces were south of the Island, not north. Therefore, Enterprise was directed to sail south by Adm. Kimmel. Halsey thought they were actually to the north, but followed orders.

Every pertinent log, message, or other document shows that Enterprise and Lexington were ordered to seek out and engage the enemy forces. These carriers were separated by a considerable distance and unable to support each other. They would have faced considerable opposition and in all likelihood would not have survived the encounters, but they were ordered to find the enemy and they made determined efforts to do so.

The accompanying map shows the course of the Kido Butai, Enterprise Group and Lexington Group. It a big ocean and the relative locations of each US group would render it difficult, if not impossible to support the other if an emergency arose. The carriers were escorted by a few cruisers and some destroyers. If one or both of these carriers had encountered the six carriers of the Japanese Striking Force the results would have been perfectly predictable. The thought of loosing William Halsey in the first week of the fighting should send a chill through any serious student of the Pacific War. No man is irreplaceable, but some men are priceless.

To recap the facts: Enterprise and Lexington were out of port on Dec. 7th under orders of Adm. Kimmel, not anyone in Washington D.C. Enterprise would have made it back into port on Dec. 5th if the weather hadn't delayed her. No human being prevented her from being there on the 7th. It was widely known that she was scheduled to be there on that date. After the start of hostilities both carriers were directed to locate and engage the enemy, despite facing unknown odds. It cannot be said, then that the carriers were "safely out of port" if they are just going to be sent to look for trouble when the shooting starts.

Given the above information it is clear that there was no "grand strategy" to save the carriers by someone who "knew" that the next war would be dominated by flat-tops. It is also clear that there were 8 "old and useless" battleships in Pearl that day because one of our most respected and talented admiral ordered three of them to proceed under normal schedule and return to harbor on the 6th. And finally, it is also clear that the carriers, instead of being wrapped in cotton and stashed away in a box like fragile Christmas ornaments, were being used as warships with orders to seek, locate and destroy. If there was any conspiracy surrounding Pearl Harbor it did not include carrier conservation in its plans.

Any other conspiracy points you want to argue?

[Fox2]

Also, while this may or may not have affected the writer's level of objectivity, it is noteworthy that he was the spokeman for the Republican National Party, no?

Although I agree with the body of your post, Tane, I have to disagree with the above statement. Would it be any different were the writer spokesman for the DNC or the Green party? Would it be any closer to the truth? I still harbor the hope that one's political party does not always occlude one's objectivity or judgement.

Anyway, "just some thoughts." ;)

[Tane Angle]

I am hoping that this is true:
may not have affected the writer's level of objectivity

I have trouble trusting any of the officials in the political parties, be they Democrat, Green, Republican, or other. ;) I'm probably too untrusting, but what can I say? So in answer to your question, I would be very surprised if a parallel statement from the spokesman of one of those other parties would be equally potentionally politically slanted. I'm not saying it is slanted, and it certainly doesn't seem to be (the parts I referred to in my above post aren't really political so much as religious in topic), but I thought it is worth knowing who's writings one is reading.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Fox2]

Roger that, big guy. :D I didn't mean to sound confrontational, I was just trying to point out that everyone has a bias, whether it be to one side or the other. I agree, though, it is important to take into account the source.

[Tane Angle]

Not at all bud. p-) Objectivity, or lack there of, is a real problem these days. The news networks are equally biased towards one side or another it seems often. C-SPAN does a good job of staying pretty neutral, but they don't always cover the same things as the main networks. FNN, CNN, and MSNBC all are pretty fast though.