Postscripts

TECHNICS

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Plymouth, Michigan, was a sleepy little town on the Rouge River 25 miles from Detroit. Settled in 1825 by descendants of the Pilgrims, the town in took its name from the landing place in Massachusetts, where their forefathers had first set foot in America.

But Plymouth, Michigan, can claim a few firsts of its own. For one thing, it was the birthplace of the toy air rifle. Credit for the invention of the first successful BB gun is usually given to William F. Markham--although some authorities claim that the original design may have been created by one George H. Sage, whose background is otherwise lost in the mists of history.

Built in a small, two-story structure, Markham's Challenger was a clumsy, brass-barreled gun that resembled a club more than a rifle. A truly American invention, it was manufactured and sold in 1886, a year before patent applications were first filed on it. This is not to say that Markham's toy air rifle was the very first air- or spring-powered weapon, however.

The true identity of the inventor of the air gun is unknown. In 250 B.C., Ctesibius of Alexandria wrote of a double-catapult gun that may have worked on the principle of compression. Forgotten until the Renaissance, air guns quickly enjoyed a revival of interest. Curiously, these early air guns, used the same general principle as a modern BB gun: as a spring drove a tight-fitting plunger forward, this compressed the air behind the projectile and drove it up and out of the barrel at speed.

But no gun developing its air compression from the action of a released spring, could be a powerful weapon. Another way of creating air pressure was needed--a pump to compress the air and an airtight magazine in which to store the compressed air would be the answer. One of the earliest authenticated pump air guns--a German crank gun--dates from about A.D. 1560. Marin le Bourgeoys, a French gun maker of Lisieux in Normandy, is credited with developing an air gun with a double-walled barrel, the space between the walls acting as a reservoir for the air under compression.

Guns with detachable ball air-reservoirs screwed to the barrel and those whose hollow butts served as air flasks were relatively common in the eighteenth century. In these years, a wide variety of air guns could be found, often with dummy wheel-locks, flintlocks or percussion locks. Some were even made to resemble canes or umbrellas.

During Napoleon's campaigns against the Austrians, an air gun--the model 1799--was used against French troops. Invented by gunsmith Bartolomeo Girandoni, an Italian who had lost a hand in a gun accident, this repeating weapon carried a magazine of twenty .52 caliber (13mm) lead balls. The magazine could be discharged in about 30 seconds, an amazing rate of fire compared to the slow-loading muskets of the period. It took two thousand strokes of a pump to charge the reservoir in the gun's butt; this produced a muzzle velocity of 975 feet per second on the first shot. The gun must have been quite effective, for Napoleon issued an order calling for the execution of all enemy soldiers found with air guns.

On the famous Lewis and Clark exploring expedition to the Pacific between 1804 and 1806, Capt. Merriwether Lewis carried a .31 caliber flintlock-style air rifle made by gunsmith Isaiah Lukens of Philadelphia. It was from this long and distinguished tradition that the modern toy air rifle sprang.

William Markham's Challenger was followed by other models from the company he formed--the Chicago (1888), the King (1890), the Prince (1900) and the Sentintel Repeater (1908). The Chicago air rifle was so named because it was sold in the Chicago area by a distributor, Thorson & Cassady. By 1910, Markham had added a lever-action gun to his line.

But Markham's guns were not without competitors. In 1882, a company had been formed in Plymouth, Michigan, to manufacture windmills so necessary to prairie farmers for the pumping of water. The company's product would be no ordinary wooden windmill but, as patented by Clarence J. Hamilton, would be made of iron. After an initially encouraging start, sales dropped off. Lewis Cass Hough, general manager of the company, began to look around for another product to manufacture. One day in 1888, Hough's face lit up with pleasure when Clarence J. Hamilton showed him an all-metal air rifle with a skeleton wire stock that he had constructed in his spare time.

After testing Hamilton's air rifle, Hough told him, "Clarence, it's a Daisy!" using a slang expression current at the time, thus giving spontaneous birth to a trade name known throughout the world to this day. When sales of BB guns soared to three times those of windmills, the future of the windmill-and-rifle company seemed assured.

The Daisy enterprise prospered right from the start. New models were introduced regularly. The Plymouth Iron Windmill Company formally changed its name to the Daisy Manufacturing Company in 1895. A 500-shot lever-action rifle was introduced in 1901 (predating Markham's by nine years), and special guns were even built to shoot streams of water at Masonic initiations. Perhaps the most famous model was the Little Daisy, Model 20, which was made continuously with only three model changes between 1908 and 1937. At times, this gun sold for less than fifty cents.

The stories of the Daisy Company and the Markham Company are a study in contrasts. Whereas Markham did little or no advertising, Daisy consistently poured a large portion of its revenues into advertising. By 1900, 15 percent of sales was being spent on posters and magazines space. The net result of such intensive promotion was to make Daisy virtually at household word. In 1916, the Markham management gave up competing with its neighboring company--the two factories were on either side of the Chesapeake & Ohio tracks--and quietly sold out to Daisy, who continued to manufacture the Markham King Model air rifle until 1935.

Daisy had an eye for talent. In 1912, they brought Charles Lefevre from St. Louis to Plymouth to work on the pump-action BB gun he had devised. It became the Model 25 of 1914. Lefevre remained with Daisy for 41 years and received more than 60 patents on air rifle designs. Interestingly, this model was manufactured until 1979.

The original bore size of air guns was .180 inch, which is close to the shotgun pellet size called BB, thus bestowing that name on the air gun. Daisy encouraged shot manufacturers to create a specially drop shot screened at 0.175 inch diameter and call it "air rifle shot." Designed to shoot the new shot, most air rifles could also shoot clods of dirt, small stones, wooden matches, water, or oil.

In the mid-1920s, air rifles with split barrels began to be returned to the Plymouth factory for repair. This damage turned out to have been caused by the use of steel ball bearings salvaged by enterprising youths from the scrap jettisoned by the American Ball Company plant in Minneapolis. Sensing that the market for steel shot might be bigger than that for ball bearings, the American Ball Company began to manufacture steel shot in a size close to air rifle shot. Daisy quickly became the exclusive sales agent for the steel shot and bought the entire company early in 1939.

Although Daisy had produced a Buck Jones Special and a Buzz Barton Special in 1934--both guns named after movie cowboy heroes--these models never achieved the popularity of a gun first made in 1940 and named after a mythical comic-strip character. In that year Daisy produced the first of what may very well be the most famous BB gun ever made, the Number 111, Model 40, the Red Rider Carbine, named for the hero of a popular newspaper cartoon strip drawn by artist Fred Harman. In 1958, the Daisy factory was moved to the town of Rogers, Arkansas.

Farm fields have been paved over into huge shopping center parking lots; woodlots on the edges of towns have disappeared under the onslaught of the bulldozer to reappear as monotonously regular cracker-box housing developments. Today's generation of boys have given up the delights of lone exploration of the wild neighborhood areas that remain, armed only with a trusty air rifle. Now it is more satisfying to watch TV while recumbent on a couch or to hunt down and kill opponents in ultrarealistic computer games.

Unlike so many aspects of the past, the BB gun is still very much with us in modern reincarnations. For anyone still interested in plinking at targets with one, the air rifle remains a very real yet inexpensive link with a time gone by. As anyone who has lived through the past will tell you, it may indeed have been both a better time and a better place, especially when seen across the span of the years and through the eyes of memory. It was a time when the girls were prettier, the boys handsomer and stronger, the grass greener, the sun warmer, and life much more pleasant. The next time someone says, "They don't make cars like they used to"--or construct houses or write books and plays--don't laugh. They're right.

What's in a Name?
In addition to Markham and Daisy air rifles, other toy air guns came and went. For the benefit of collectors and researchers, here are the names and dates of some of the other makes.

Atlas. Atlas Gun Company, Ilion, New York. 1890-1906. Purchased by Daisy.

Bijou. Decker Manufacturing Company, Detroit, Michigan. 1893-1903.

Bull's Eye. Bulls Eye Air Rifle Company, Chicago, Illinois. 1907-?

Columbia. Adams and Westlake Company, Chicago, Illinois. 1905?-1915?

Columbian. Heilprin Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1913-1918. Heaviest toy air rifle ever made.

Crescent. Crescent Gun Company, Saginaw, Michigan. 1899-1904?

Crossman. Crossman Arms Company, Fairport New York. This old-line firm introduced a spring air gun in 1961.

Cycloid. Rapid Rifle Company, Ltd. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1898-1901.

Cyclone. Rapid Rifle Company Ltd. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1898-1901.

Dewey. Crescent Gun Company, Saginaw, Michigan. 1899-1904?

Globe. J. A. Dunbar Manufacturing Co., Northville, Michigan. 1890-1908. Purchased by Daisy.

Herkimer. Henry M. Quackenbush, Herkimer, New York. 1903-?

Hexagon. Hexagon Air Rifle Company. Ltd., Detroit, Michigan. 1901-1903.

Magic. Plymouth Air Rifle Manufacturing Company, Plymouth, Michigan. 1891-1892?

Matchless. Henry C. Hart Manufacturing Co., Detroit, Michigan. 1890-1900.

New Rapid. Rapid Rifle Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1898-1901.

Oziehs. Japanese-made version of the Crescent.

Remington. Remington Arms Company, Ilion, New York. 1928-1930.

Shue. Shue Air Rifle Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 1914?-?

Simplex. Chicago Rifle Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois. 1900?-1910?

Sterling. American Tool Works, Chicago, Illinois. 1891-1929?

Upton. American Tool Works, St. Joseph, Michigan. 1912-1927.
Manufactured from 1927 to 1929 by All Metal Products Company, Wyandotte, Michigan.

Victor. Atlas Gun Company, Ilion, New York. ?-?

Wyandotte. All Metal Products Company, Wyandotte, Michigan. 1928-1929.

* * *

Readers with additional information about companies on this list can communicate additions or changes to:

Labels: Air Rifle Manufacturers, Air Rifles, History, Technics

THE WRITING CLINIC

Perhaps you are a proud parent, a member of a church or service organization. Or you own a small business, and you have news about an upcoming event that deserves to be publicized. Or you are a first-time author, and your book is about to be published. If the latter, you've undoubtedly arranged to talk about it and sign copies at a local bookstore. You're also scheduled to be interviewed on a local TV station and by phone for a morning drive-time radio broadcast.

Regardless of the reason for wanting or needing publicity, your next move should be to circulate a professionally looking news release publicizing your newsworthy event. Formerly called a "press release," the expansion of news outlets to radio, TV and the Internet warrant the changed name.

"You never printed the news story I sent in!" How often have newspaper editors heard this from readers about their failure to use a submitted news release. For their part, editors contend that most news releases omit important facts and interesting details, and so are unusable. Inevitably, such releases are of litle interest and are discarded.

Because news releases seem so simple and functional, they can be misleading. Writing an effective release is a skill attained only through careful observation and practice. To avoid the common complaint that "editors never use the news story I sent in," here are some ground rules for individuals and organizations seeking publicity:

Avoid the All-Purpose News Release
Unlike stretch socks, with releases one size doesn't fit all. The commonest error is the "shotgun" release--the same handout sent to many different news outlets and used by few or none. So don't be lazy and try to make a single release perform multiple duties. A release written for use in your college alumni magazine or a professional journal would surely be inappropriate for a local newspaper.

Slanting, the savvy freelance writer's stratagem, can make the difference between a release set in type and one that lands in the trash. Writing individual releases takes more effort but pays dividends. Editors are always more receptive to copy that can be run with a minimum of rewriting. Study each publication to which you intend to send your release. Analyze the length and content of news items, some of which probably came from handouts. Note any peculiarities in the publication's style in punctuation, spelling and capitalization.

The Pyramiding Secret
In writing your release, forget about the magazine article's traditional three-part structure of the opening, body and ending. Newspaper news stories and wire-service copy are expressly written so they can be cut. Called "pyramiding," this time-honored journalistic technique puts the gist of the story in its broadest form in the first few paragraphs. Important points are then reiterated and amplified in subsequent paragraphs that may also introduce less-important information.

Many releases give editors more information than they have space for. Pyramiding your copy will make your release look like the work of a pro, thus increasing chances of its use. To suit space requirements, editors will cut your copy from the back forward, starting at the very end and working toward the all-important introductory paragraphs containing the kernel of the piece. To an editor, it's what's up front that counts. Handouts requiring major rewriting because of awkward organization or to fit space available have little appeal for busy editors. Remember, most publications have no shortage of material--it's usable copy that always gets the nod.

Do's and Don'ts for Release Writers
Use letter-size white paper. Don't skimp on quality. Avoid colored papers, perfumed papers or exotic typefaces to attract attention to your release. A well-written release is what editors are looking for.

At the top of the page center the words NEWS RELEASE in a large font. Below this on the right, type "CONTACT:" On separate lines, add your name, mailing address, phone number and e-mail address. Type "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE" below this if the news item is not time-sensitive.

In a release about an event to take place at a specific future date, type "FOR USE BEFORE (DATE)" and show that date. Nothing bugs editors more than releases that turn up on their desks with no clue to their timeliness. These inevitably wind up in editorial wastebaskets.

Now leave a few inches of white space. This gives an editor room to write comments and instructions. Next center and type an appropriate headline in the style of the targeted publication. A crisp headline will always attract an editor's attention. Your headline is subject to change to suit space requirements and editorial policy. Don't be surprised if the editor rewrites yours.

Find an Angle
Approach your subject in a new or original way. Often this involves nothing more than rearranging the order in which the facts of the piece are presented. Avoid the ordinary. Be imaginative. Start off the all-important first paragraph with a bold statement, a challenging fact or a provocative statistic to catch readers' attention. Professional writers call this "the hook," a time-honored device for leading off a news story. Mention early in the release the event you are trying to promote. Explain what your book is about and what it will do for readers. Emphasize unusual qualities of your book. To add variety, don't forget to quote from any favorable reviews. Involve the reader. For example, if a portion of your book's royalties will be donated to a charity, tell readers what cause will be helped.

Write and Edit Your Release
Use the pyramiding technique to structure what you write. Keep it factual and make sure that what you write is newsworthy. Editors are always looking for genuine news, and a release can do their legwork for them. It has been said that the hardest part of writing begins once the words are on paper. Now is the time to look at what you have written through the eyes of readers and make revisions:

• Is the information clear?
• Is it interesting and informative? Have you deleted complicated terms and unnecessary words to make your release brief and to the point?
• Have you supplied answers to journalism's traditional five Ws: "Who, What, When, Where, Why?"
• Are dates correct? Check your calendar. A wrongly dated event in a release can leave you without an audience or vice versa.

Using a computer or typewriter, double line-space your copy to provide room for any changes by the editor. For local newspapers or magazines, you won't need a traditional dateline identifying the date and place of origin--but be sure the date of the event is in the story. To take the narrow columns of newspapers and magazines into account, keep paragraphs short. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's also the hallmark of a good release. Paragraphs of inexperienced release writers invariably tend to be too long.

If your release runs more than one page, type (MORE) within parentheses at the bottom right-hand corner of the first page to signal the editor to look for additional copy. Two pages (about 500 words) are ideal; with exceptionally newsworthy releases, this limit can be extended to three pages. Number and identify subsequent pages at the upper left-hand corner with what editors call a "slug line." Thus, for a release describing a forthcoming talk and book signing at a local bookstore, type: "BOOKSTORE SIGNING--ADD TWO OF TWO" and "BOOKSTORE SIGNING--ADD THREE OF THREE," if needed.

Use of the phrase "The End" will mark you as an amateur. Concluding news copy with the traditional -30- the telegrapher's signal that the end of the copy has been reached also is out of fashion now. Instead, type and center the marks



to indicate the end of the release.

Photos Add Interest
Good quality photographs make any release more publishable. Ideally, these should be glossy prints, the bigger the better. Avoid tiny photos or those shot with a flash or an instant camera, resulting in harsh shadows. Pictures should be in sharp focus and portray action against a neutral background. Close-ups are always better than distant shots. Avoid a posed appearance. If possible, limit the number of persons in any photo to three; two are ideal. Crowded group shots requiring lengthy identification of the subjects are less likely to be used. Don't be surprised if the publication crops (resizes) your photographs to fit its layout.

Don't fasten anything to photos with paper clips that can damage the surface. Never write information on the backs of photos. The pressure of a ballpoint can leave a visible mark, and the dyes in felt tips will penetrate through to the front. Type or print photo information on sheets of paper the width of the photo, leaving an inch or two blank at the top. Identify the scene or the persons in the photo and concisely describe what's happening. Don't call attention to the obvious. Starting with "This photograph shows..." or "A photo of..." wastes valuable space. Indicate in your photo information any photographer's credit: "Photo by so-and-so." Attach the photo information with transparent tape to the back of the photo toward the bottom, and fold the sheet up to cover the front of the photo.

Into the Right Hands
Editors discard more releases because they were sent to the wrong publication than for any other reason. Address your release to an appropriate person by name and title--the editor of a newspaper or magazine, the program manager or news editor at a broadcasting station. Don't bother with an unnecessary cover letter. Nothing will change an editor's mind if your release doesn't speak for itself or isn't newsworthy.

Find out each publication's closing dates for upcoming issues before submitting your release. If you mail or fax your release at the last minute, don't expect to see your story in the very next issue. And don't pester the editor with calls asking when your release will be used. Another amateur ploy is calling to ask whether you can answer any questions about it. Releases are designed to do their job efficiently with a minimum of personal intervention. If editors decide to use your release and need clarification, they'll call you.

Written carelessly and circulated in shotgun fashion, news releases inevitably fail to be printed. Targeted narrowly, well-written and timely news releases will be welcomed and published every time.

Sidebar 1: How to Prepare a Press Kit
A press kit gives you more latitude in talking about yourself and your book. It also gives editors a wider choice of information materials from which to choose. For meetings, trade shows and conventions, you'll need press kits in quantity to be placed and replenished in the pressroom.

A typical press kit is assembled in a distinctive folder or large manila envelope and includes:

• The news release.
• A selection of photographs, including one of your book and one of yourself.
• "Backgrounder" information. To encourage editors to give your release broader coverage, include separate sheets of additional facts and biographical details about yourself, your age, personal life, hobbies and writing habits.

Sidebar 2: Letters to the Editor and Guest Columns
A good place to hone your skills for writing tight copy is on the letters page of your newspaper. Most newspapers welcome letters from readers expressing an opinion on items of public interest or conveying news. Note, however, that some newspapers restrict the subjects of letters to the editor to news items or editorials or op ed pieces that appeared in the newspaper.

Guidance for writers of letters to the editor is often printed on a newspaper's editorial page. Short submissions are more likely to be published, and some newspapers state the word count limits applied to such letters, usually anywhere between 150 and 250 words. Letter writers are required to include name, address and daytime and evening phone numbers--for verification purposes, not for publication. Newspapers will not print unsigned letters.

Most newspapers insist that letters be original and reject form letters or those published elsewhere. Many newspapers will not accept poetry, open letters, thank-you notes of a personal nature or letters to third parties. And most newspapers will edit letters for brevity, good taste, grammar and clarity. Don't expect or demand that your letter be printed without editing.

Some letters may not be publishable simply because they are potentially libelous. These include letters that accuse individuals or corporations of providing poor or unsafe services or charge them with engaging in illegal activities or of having connections to unsavory characters. (A newspaper can be held liable for publishing such opinions, as it would be if the same unsupported allegations were made in a news story.)

Guest "op-ed" articles are also a way of calling attention indirectly to a just-published book, especially if the topic takes more space to explore or develop than can be done in a letter to the editor. Such pieces are usually accepted from anyone who has expertise in the topic area, or whose job title or position lends credibility to their views.

You should specify on your copy that you are submitting a guest article so it will not be confused with a letter to the editor or a news release. Add a paragraph about yourself (residence, profession or occupation, etc.) to give the editor an idea of the authority with which the piece is written. Don't be surprised if you receive a check in payment for your efforts. Writers whose essays are published on the op-ed page are amply remunerated by major newspapers.

Labels: News Releases, Publicity, The Writing Clinic

CURRENT AFFAIRS

In James Joyce's classic "Ulysses," Stephen Dedalus, Joyce's alter ego, complains, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." Right now, America is only beginning to awaken from the nightmare of our misadventure in Iraq.

At the start of the Second World War, after the sudden German Blitzkrieg attack on Poland and the consequent declaration of war by France and England, nothing happened. During the period between September 1939 and April 1940 all was indeed quiet on the western front. Yet the British and French failed to profit from studying the surprisingly innovative tactics exhibited by the German forces in Eastern Europe, and the close cooperation between Nazi ground and air elements.

British planes dropped harmless leaflets on German cities. Along the German border with France a few shots were exchanged. British newspapers called it the "Sitzkrieg." Secure behind their supposedly impregnable Maginot Line and unaware of the carnage that was about to descend on them, the French referred to the inactivity as "la drôle de guerre "--"the phony war."

Another Phony War
We, too, have been engaged in a phony war. Not phony because of inactivity. Phony because we have been fighting the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place against the wrong enemy. And we're doing it with the wrong strategy and for the wrong reasons. For those brave and uncomplaining soldiers fighting, making do, and dying in Iraq, it's a real enough war.

It has been dubbed "a war on terror" but never was formally declared. With its skimpy allocation of troops and the puzzling strategy we are employing, it has as much chance of being successful as our ongoing war on drugs. In many respects, it is proportionally a more deadly war than the war we fought in Vietnam. It took a long time for the simple truth to dawn on us that we cannot fight and control an insurgency with a field army intended for a war on the plains of Central Europe. Our preemptive attack on Iraq had a result that could have been easily predicted by anyone familiar with that troubled country's bloody history of fierce resistance to occupation.

Had planners consulted a book titled "The Insurrection in Mesopotamia, 1920," by Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer L. Haldane, published in England in 1922, they would have found sage advice. General Haldane was the general officer commanding in Iraq--then called Mesopotamia--who overcame guerrilla resistance to British occupation of the country. Place names of hot spots of resistance then are identical with those in today's headlines: Mosul, Fallujah, Najaf, Samarra, Karbala, Tikrit. Haldane's solution in 1920 was to employ armored cars to keep supply lines open. We only got around to armoring all our military vehicles in Iraq after suffering heavy losses in unarmored vehicles.

Gertrude Bell, who might be called "the godmother of modern Iraq," later confessed that the British attempt to establish representative government in Iraq through elections was a mistake. "The stronger the hold we are able to keep here the better the inhabitants will be pleased," she wrote. "They can't conceive an inependent Arab government. Nor, I confess, can I. There is no one here who could run it." For our part, we have encouraged elections in Iraq and the establishment of a government even though we still do not control the heart of the country in which half the Iraqi population lives.

Iraqis may be the least likely candidates for success at self-government in the Middle East. In the 37 years during which Iraq was a kingdom, the country had 57 prime ministers. Participatory government--and any hope of democracy--became moot after the young king's murder by Army officers in 1958, when rule passed to the hands of the Army and then Saddam Hussein.

The Wrong Planning
It has been said that this nation always fights the next war with the equipment and plans of the last war. If that were true of the war are fighting in Iraq, there would be no criticism. The war in Vietnam was a guerrilla war waged by a tenacious enemy. Yet in Iraq, our initial tactics and equipment seemed to be modeled on World War II.

The paradox is that we still do not even control the highway between Baghdad and its airport. In a guerrilla war, there is no front--or rather the front is everywhere. The Pentagon's failure to initially provide an adequate number of armored vehicles to troops in Iraq borders on the criminal.

It was foolish for American planners to base their occupation plans on our experience in Germany and Japan after the Second World War. These were two disciplined societies accustomed to living under rigorous regimentation. After a dozen years of sanctions, and despite the iron hand of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party, Iraq had become a corrupt, opportunistic society of fast-buck operators. Anything and everything was for sale, and the fabric of society had already broken down well before we got there.

Civilians vs. Military
Does the name Eric Shinseki ring a bell? It should. A 1965 graduate of West Point, General Shinseki was injured twice in Vietnam. (He lost a foot the second time and received two Purple Hearts and four Bronze Star decorations.) After serving ten years in Europe, he was promoted to General, named vice chief of staff of the Army in 1998 and served as chief of staff until he retired in 2003.

When he took over as Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld envisioned a different plan of future military action. Preferring defensive weapons against attacks from space and offensive weapons for attacks from the air, his plan did not involve the Army much. Shinseki wanted a new kind of army, one combining the adaptability of light infantry with the power of mechanized heavily armored forces. In May of 2002, although $2 billion had already been spent on it, Donald Rumsfeld canceled the unfortunately-named Crusader heavy artillery project, a self-propelled howitzer designed to fire up to ten 155mm shells per minute as far as 25 miles. (He didn't mind the name; he objected to its size and cost.) Later, General Shinseki would tell a Congressional committee the Crusader weapon system could have saved American lives during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan.

The unprecedented naming by Mr. Rumsfeld of General Shinseki's successor as Chief of Staff 18 months before his term expired turned him into a lame duck and stripped him of clout. Relations between the general and the defense secretary were never warm--and they became worse in 2003 when General Shinseki testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that occupying and stabilizing Iraq would require "several hundred thousand troops."

General Shinseki's numbers were pooh-poohed as too high by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Mr. Rumsfeld publicly repudiated him, saying he was "wildly off the mark." The Army invaded Iraq with about 100,000 soldiers. Recent events--the extended and repeated tours duty for our stretched-thin forces, and the continuing casualty figures--have shown how right Gen. Shinseki was.

Interestingly, a RAND Corporation study of occupation forces based on the British experience in Northern Ireland found that the ideal ratio was one soldier for each 20 inhabitants. According to that formula, to control Iraq properly, with its fractious population of about 25 million, would require 500,000 occupying troops.

The Wrong Enemy
For Iraq, Saddam Hussein was as bad as it could get. But he posed no immediate threat to the United States. Yet with monumental illogic, we waged a preemptive war against Iraq. Some experts have suggested that attacking Iraq because of 9/11 made as much sense as a declaration 0f war against Mexico would have made following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The simple truth is that 9/11 should have been treated as what it was--a crime with international ramifications--and the assistance of the countries of the world should have been enlisted in the hunt for the criminals. Our primary adversary should always have been Osama bin Laden, yet he was allowed to escape from our clutches. Now he seems to thrive and issue threatening pronouncements via taped messages from the safety of the tribal area of northwest Pakistan.

Ironically, bin Laden is a creation of the United States, although the U.S. government, probably out of embarrassment, has been singularly quiet about its participation in the recruitment and arming of fighters who forced the Russians in 1989 to abandon their occupation of Afghanistan. After Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), operating at arm's length, organized an Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the godless Russians, with the cooperation of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorateof Pakistan. The CIA provided weapons and recruited candidates from various Muslim countries and facilitated their travel to Pakistan for training.

Arab countries were the main source of fighters, who were jocularly called "Afghan Arabs." Non-Afghan recruits came from Algeria, Indonesia, Kosovo, Chechnya and Sudan. The Pakistani embassy in Algiers issued 2,800 visas to Algerian volunteers in the 1980s. Fighters from all countries trained at Peshawar in Pakistan and received the comparatively high salary of $1,500 a month.

The CIA had hoped to turn up a Saudi prince to lead this jihad but could not find one. It settled for Osama bin Laden, recruited in 1980--with CIA approval--by the head of Saudi intelligence. Osama bin Laden shuttled frequently between Saudi Arabia and Peshawar in Pakistan with Saudi donations for the jihad. By 1986, bin Laden, whose family had made millions in construction, was the major contractor on a large CIA-funded project, the Khost tunnel complex deep in the mountains near the border with Pakistan.

Not many years later, with the Russians gone, bin Laden turned on his erstwhile American employers. In Operation Anaconda, U.S. planes would bomb this same tunnel complex. With peculiar timidity, although American Special Forces troops were at hand, to spare American casualties U.S. commanders would choose to use Northern Alliance fighters of doubtful allegiance to root out Taliban die-hards in 2002 with an almost predicrables lack of the desired result.

Michael Scheuer, author of two books on Osama bin Laden and al Quaida under the pen name "Anonymous," spent many of his years of service as a CIA analyst studying bin Laden. Scheuer's advice in his 2004 book "Imperial Hubris" was not to see bin Laden as a criminal terrorist or as a lunatic, but rather as a talented, clever and brilliant military and political genius, with the attributes of a successful CEO. Scheuer warned that bin Laden has been precise in telling us the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, as George W. Bush insists. They have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world. Scheuer confidently predicted another massive bin Laden attack on the United States. In bin Laden's words, "just as you lay waste to our nation, so shall we lay waste to yours."

Osama bin Laden's long-term strategy is one developed by Gandhi and refined by radical Chicago labor and civil rights organizer Saul Alinsky. It is embodied in the phrase, "The action is the reaction." In his 1971 book "Rules for Radicals," Alinsky wrote, "The real action is in the enemy's reaction. The enemy, properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. Tactics, like life, require that you move with the action."

The bin Laden action was the bombing of American symbols: the twin WTC towers (wealth), the Pentagon (the military), and (probably) the White House or the Capitol Building (the government). The American reaction exceeded his wildest dreams. We attacked the hated secularist Saddam's Iraq, laid waste to it and removed him from power. Now we are engaged in trying to rebuild it. In bin Laden's words, "The policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy various corporations-- whether in the field of arms or reconstruction--has helped us to achieve our results." What is remarkable about bin Laden as an adversary is that he has so clearly spelled out his intentions and objectives in his many taped messages to the West--an Arab version of "Valdez Is Coming."

For an investment of about a half million dollars, bin Laden succeeded in goading us into attacking a Muslim country and committing us to spending billions of dollars. He has acknowledged that his policy is to bleed America to the point of bankruptcy--and we are foolishly cooperating with him in this. He knows that the soft underbelly of the West is oil, and oil will never get cheaper. Yet we continue to do nothing about reducing our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels.

Despite a record-shattering reward of $50 million offered for his capture, Osama bin Laden still remains at large, a potent threat to the United States and the West. Are most intelligence professionals worried about the possibility of another major incident masterminded by this formidable adversary? Yes, they are very worried--and you should be too.

The "C" Word Surfaces
Five days after the devastating attack of September 11, President George W. Bush alighted from his Marine Corps helicopter on the White House lawn and spoke extemporaneously at a press conference. In response to a question about homeland security efforts infringing on civil rights, he remarked ambitiously that his administration would "rid the world of evildoers," describing the new American purpose as, "this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

Foreign leaders, more sensitive perhaps to problems within their own borders, condemned the unfortunate choice of words. The French foreign minister said, "We have to avoid a clash of civilizations at all costs." Two days after invoking the "C" word, the White House back-pedaled. "President Bush regrets using the word 'crusade,' with all its connotation of religious warfare, to describe his campaign against terrorism," Ari Fleischer, his press secretary, told reporters.

But the damage had been done. Spoken by almost anyone else, the President's statement might have been seen as merely a few ill-chosen words. But coming from an evangelical Christian--in the light of the war that followed--the statement confirmed Muslims' worst suspicions and was taken as tantamount to a declaration of war against Islam. Six months later, President Bush showed that he had learned nothing from the first gaffe. On Feb. 16, 2002, he uttered the taboo word again. In a speech in Alaska, he referred to the war on terror as a crusade, paying tribute to the Canadian armed forces who "stand with us in this incredibly important crusade to defend freedom."

Throughout the Islamic world, "crusade" is a loaded term that evokes the successive Christian medieval wars against Muslims in the Holy Land. It is interesting to note that Iraqi insurgents have adopted a code name for American troops. To them, we are "crusaders." Witness the message left by the suicide bomber who blew himself up in the giant American mess tent near Mosul on December 21. In a tape made by him before the incident, he said that he intended to "take advantage of lunch time when the dining hall is crowded with the crusaders and their (Iraqi) allies." The word crusader has become a universal derisory appelation throughout the Muslaim world for American and British occupation forces in Iraq.

Between the eleventh and the fourteenth centuries, Christian Europe and Islam went from being occasional adversaries to avowed and intractable opponents. The depressing reverberations of this extreme attitudinal change still persist in the world today. There were eight crusades that poured out of Europe, successive rivers of humanity snaking their way to the Middle East, practicing "sanctified violence" against Muslims by raping and pillaging and living off the land. Is it any wonder that the words "crusade" and "crusader" stir bitter folk memories?

Who Incited the Crusades?
If blame can be laid at anyone's doorstep for the enmity generated by the successive waves of crusaders that penetrated the Middle East, it would have to be Pope Urban II. He applied a torch to the powder at the Council of Clermont in 1095. A member of the noble de Lagery family, Urban II was born around 1035 in the Champagne district of France. Baptized Odo (or Otto), upon ascending to the papacy in 1085, he followed papal tradition and became Urban II. His choice of the clergy indicates that he was probably a younger son. The eldest son in each noble family was destined for a knightly future.

Ten years after having been chosen pope, Urban II delivered an impassioned sermon in the French city of Clermont alleging that Christians were being oppressed and abused by their savage Muslim conquerors. He enumerated their misdeeds: enforced circumcision of Christian men; pouring the blood from these "foul practices" on altars or in baptismal fonts; "the appalling violation of women, of which it is more evil to speak than to keep silent."

A call for Christians to set out for the Holy Land to free Christian holy places from the grip of the Muslims. his sermon evoked spontaneous cries of "God wills it!" It was to become the rallying cry of the Crusades. The pope's motives for calling for a crusade were several: The Catholic clergy was rife with abuse; the pope was essentially powerless to change a warring and sinful society. Urban II also saw the Crusades as an opportunity to increase the power of the papacy by reestablishing friendly relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church in Constantinople, broken in 1054 by a bitter argument over liturgical practice.

Alexius Commenus, the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople, had asked Pope Urban II for aid from the West against the Seljuk Turks who had taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. He hoped his appeal would yield a few thousand mercenaries for his depleted armies. He neither expected nor wanted to be overwhelmed by an independent and unruly force of 100,000 men, women and children that trekked through his domain.

In the Crusades, other targets were Jews. In their passage through Germany and central Europe, CVrusaders extracted money from the Jewish communities of Mainz and Cologne in return for promises of protection that were then not honored. After Jerusalem fell in 1099 in the first crusade, the Muslim and Jewish communities were both slaughtered.

Instead of embracing Eastern Christian sects, the new patriarch of Jerusalem expelled them from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Eastern Christians soon discovered that they had been better treated under Muslim rule than they were in a "liberated" Jerusalem. Eastern Christianity, based in Constantinople, and Islam had actually coexisted for four centuries. Their relationship, although tense, was no more contentious than that between Byzantium and the Slavic or Latin countries to the west. The Crusaders' ultimate goal, the holy city of Jerusalem, remained in Muslim hands, but this had been the case for more than four centuries. In the Iberian Peninsula, overwhelmed by Islamic forces in the year 711, culture, learning and trade flourished, and Spain became one of the most civilized centers of the known world.

It is true that from its earliest days, the Muslim religion had embraced warfare. Muhammad himself had waged a series of bitter campaigns while subjugating Mecca, but the picture of Muslims as brutal oppressors painted by Urban II was pure fiction. By the eleventh century, Muslims were more likely to be waging war against fellow Muslims--Sunni vs. Shiia, a contest that continues to this day--than they were to be oppressing Christians. In fact, the papal picture of Muslims as brutal oppressors was a tissue of lies. For over four centuries Islam had proved to be considerably more tolerant of other religions than was Christianity. Christians under Islam were usually treated with remarkable compassion and tolerance. The Muslim faith acknowledged and respected Judaism and Christianity as creeds with which it had a common devotional tradition and a mutual basis in authoritative scripture.

Unless we familiarize ourselves with the real issues at stake in our so-called "war on terror" and the West's history of exploitation of the Islamic world, we shall not be able to make intelligent decisions. America will pay an intolerably steep price if Islam replaces communism as the next "Satanic foe."

A Dangerous Diversion
The war in Iraq and subsequent occupation of that unhappy and restive country have been a dangerous diversion from our hunt for bin Laden and the war on al-Quaida. Our Iraq folly has inflamed Islamic extremists, inspiring retaliatory terrorism everywhere. American resources--military manpower and equipment, intelligence services and money--should have been devoted to capturing bin Laden and crushing the al-Quaida infrastructure, tracking down its members and protecting the American homeland from assault.

Once it was demonstrated that Iraq was a paper tiger that possessed no weapons of mass destruction, to save face the administration conceived the unctuous lie that our objective all along was to bring democracy to Iraq. We seem to have the impression that democracy is like some all-purpose detergent cleanser that will eradicate the longstanding ethnic and religious rivalries of Iraq and other troubled countries of the Middle East.

How Did the Iraq War Happen?
With an ongoing war costing American taxpayers billions of dollars every month and no end in sight, the question of how we got stuck with the Iraq tar baby is paramount. How did a small band of unelected neocons, who managed to avoid service in the military (we used to call them "draft dodgers"), convince a president not known to be a great reader of history, nor one given to introspection, that an attack on Iraq was an appropriate action? How did they mislead Congress, browbeat the press and intimidate senior professional military officers into accepting their sketchy war plans without question? How was the American public conned into believing their lies? How could the neocons have been so wrong in their predictions that Iraq's oil would finance the war and subsequent occupation or that our troops would be welcomed with open arms and garlands of flowers?

The Iraqi population had already been ground down by years of sanctions enforced by the United States and Britain and attended by shortages of food, medicine and other necessities. Under the circumstances, they could hardly be expected to exhibit friendly feelings toward us. Even more pressing now are the twin questions of how and when can we get out of Iraq and be free of this tar baby. Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who commanded the invasion of Iraq, told the NBC news program "Today," "I think we will be engaged with our military in Iraq for, perhaps, three, five, ten years." That chuckle you are hearing is surely coming from bin Laden reposing somewhere in the mountain fastnesses of the Northwest Frontier province of Pakistan.

One Solution: Return to the Constitution
The way to prevent such situations from occurring in the future may be to adhere to the Constitution in initiating wars. In the last half-century, we have masked them as "police actions" that a supine Congress gives the President the power to pursue. Without adequate public debate on issues, such votes have been little more than rubber stamping of each President's aggressive actions.

Yet Section 8 of Article One of the Constitution, covering the powers of Congress, says, "The Congress shall have Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Never mind the quaint capitalization characteristic of the period. The intent of the Constitution's framers is quite clear.

For the record, the last time the U.S. Congress declared war was almost 65 years ago--on December 8, 1941, after Japan's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which also happened to be a preemptive attack. This was followed four days later by the declaration by the Congress that a state of war existed between the United States and Germany and Italy--after these two nations declared war on the United States. Sixty-five years! That's simply too long a time for constitutional government to have been circumvented.

Labels: Current Affairs, Iraq War

HISTORY

Continuing an examination of the truthfulness of accepted facts about the Revolutionary War, we are confronted by more fictions:

Ethan Allen's Surrender Demand
In the small hours of the morning of May 10, 1775, when the American Revolution was hardly a month old, Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys surprised poorly guarded Fort Ticonderoga. Later, Allen described how his men had occupied the parade ground without being detected by sentries and stood back-to-back facing the barracks in which the little garrison was still asleep.

British Lt. Jocelyn Feltham recalled that he was awakened by rude shouts of "No quarter! No quarter!" and hurried to the quarters of the commander, Capt. William de la Place, trousers in hand. By then, Allen was ascending the barracks stairway, thundering for the fort's surrender "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress"--or so he later insisted in his written recollection of the affair. A latter-day historian made the wry observation that "he had no commission from either of these high authorities."

Other witnesses remember a saltier folk version and the command to "Come out, you damned old rat.' De la Place appeared and agreed to surrender the fort, additionally persuaded by the muskets pointed at him by Allen's men. Benedict Arnold was present at this action and shared command with Allen, an example of the looseness of control during the early days of the conflict.

The capture of Ticonderoga deprived the British of what could have been an important northern base of operations during the coming struggle. It also supplied Washington with serviceable cannon, mortars and howitzers. Using these, transported to outside of Boston by Gen. Henry Knox, he was able to drive the British out of Boston the next winter.

The "Selling" of Ft. Ticonderoga
In July of 1777, British Gen. John Burgoyne easily recaptured Fort Ticonderoga, which had been strengthened and dubbed "the Gibraltar of America." Many stories began circulating to account for its sudden and almost bloodless fall. One story had it that Burgoyne, nicknamed "Gentleman Johnny," had literally bought the victory by firing silver balls into the confines of the fort. Continental General Arthur St.Clair is supposed to have collected them and shared them with the patrician American commander in Albany, Gen. Philip Schuyler.

Ridiculous as this story was, it was widely believed, especially in New England, where Schuyler, scion of New York's oldest and wealthiest families, was roundly disliked for having supported New York's claims in its boundary dispute with Massachusetts and New Hampshire over territory that was later to become Vermont. Even solid and wise John Adams gave some credence to the story and repeated it to his wife, Abigail.

The truth of the matter was that American commander General St.Clair made a crucial error in preparing the defenses of the fort. Although Gen. Horatio Gates had pointed out that the fort could easily be bombarded from the heights of nearby Sugarloaf Hill (Mount Defiance), St.Clair neglected to occupy it. The attacking British did not make the same mistake. Soon artillery under British Gen. William Phillips was pouring a devastating fire down on the American defenders, who were obliged to retreat from the fort under cover of darkness.

The Hessians of Hessian Hill
Repetition of inaccurate information often embeds it in local history. Hessian Hill, north of Mt. Airy, in the village of Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., takes its name because local legend says Hessian troops were quartered there during the winter of 1779-80. The village historical society's history of the community repeats this as fact, but the time frame is wrong. Hessian troops indeed may have occupied it during the summer months of 1779, but they were long gone before the winter of 1779-1780.

British General Sir Henry Clinton sailed up the Hudson in a fleet of some 70 vessels on May 30, 1779, with an army of about 5,000. Clinton's troops occupied Stony Point on the west bank. A force under British Gen. John Vaughan landed at Verplanck Point on June 1st and captured its Fort Lafayette.

Stony Point was recaptured by the patriots under Mad Anthony Wayne a month and a half later on July 16, 1779, in an impressive victory that had been planned by George Washington. Wayne later swore that he would storm hell if Washington made the preparations. After Washington reinforced American troops at Peekskill, the British withdrew from the area north of the Croton River and abandoned Verplanck Point on October 21st, well before the cold of winter set in.

Were German Mercenaries only Hessians?
No. Although many German mercenaries were from Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau, although other states, especially Brunswick, also supplied troops. One explanation why all German troops were incorrectly called "Hessians" may lie in the fact that their three successive commanders were all Hessians.

The practice of hiring foreign soldiers was common up to the 18th century, although mercenaries could not keep Constantinople from falling to the Turks in the 15th century. Most small professional armies found it necessary to employ auxiliaries in foreign wars of long duration. Only 17,313 of the 29,867 German soldiers who reached these shores returned home. About five thousand deserted and another 7,754 found graves in America, from disease as well as battle.

German mercenaries were despised for their cruelty, even by the British. They gained no battle laurels in America and did not win a single battle in which they were exclusively pitted against Americans. The most notable German defeats included their Christmas surprise at Trenton, N.J., their drubbing at Bennington, Vt., and General Knyphausen's failed raid against American forces under Gen. Nathanael Greene at Springfield, N.J.

Instead of learning from their experiences in America, German mercenaries returned home unshaken in their faith in the outmoded military tactics of Frederick the Great and the myth of their own invincibility. This illusion persisted until an October day in 1806 when Napoleon crushed two great Prussian armies in a matter of hours in twin victories at Jena and Auerstadt. Ruthless efficiency on the battlefield had given way to precision on the parade ground with disastrous results.

The Accidental Heroes
In New York during the Revolution, present-day Westchester County's fertile farms were looted so often by both sides the inhabitants frequently became looters themselves, if only to survive. The countryside eventually became a sinister wasteland full of marauding bands of outlaws. Many of its guerrillas switched allegiance between rebel and loyalist as circumstances suited them.

On the 23rd of September in 1780, British Major John André rode down the Albany Post Road toward the British lines at Dobbs Ferry disguised as a civilian. Concealed in each of his stockings were plans and descriptions of the defenses at West Point. These had been handed to him by Maj. Gen. Benedict Arnold, commander of the American stronghold, in a clandestine meeting in the woods south of Stony Point. In addition, André carried a pass personally written by Arnold asking American patrols to allow "John Anderson" passage "to the White Plains, or below if he chooses." André was no stranger to American ways. He had been captured in St. Johns during the abortive American invasion of Canada and had spent a year in Pennsylvania as a prisoner.

The plan had been for André to return to the British armed sloop Vulture that had brought him upriver for the meeting. When it was discovered that the ship waiting off Croton Point was within cannon shot, Col. James Livingston, who commanded American forces in this area, brought two cannon from Verplanck Point and directed fire at the Vulture from Croton Point, a promontory jutting far out into the Hudson. The British ship weighed anchor and sailed hastily down the river, leaving Andre‚ to fend for himself and return to British-held New York City on horseback.

Making his way back, he was challenged in Tarrytown by John Paulding, Isaac Van Wart and David Williams, members of an impromptu patriot patrol. André made the mistake of assuming they were Loyalists. Actually they were "volunteer militiamen" operating under a recently enacted New York law permitting them to claim property found on a captured enemy. They took him into the woods, strip-searched him and found the incriminating papers in his stockings. Lofty patriotic motives were later attributed to them, but their real reason probably was booty. The captors later sold André's silver watch, horse and bridle, and divided the money among the seven in their party.

In part because of the way the British had treated American spy Nathan Hale, André was tried swiftly and hanged at Tappan, N.Y., only nine days later. Paulding, Van Wart and Smith were each given the thanks of Congress, a silver medal, and an annual payment of $200.

In 1817, when Paulding applied to Congress for an increase in the amount of his annuity, Benjamin Tallmadge, a member of Congress from Connecticut, opposed any increase because Paulding and his companions had been amply rewarded for the patriotism they showed in making André a prisoner.

Tallmadge, who had headed George Washington's secret service, presented evidence based on his interrogation of André. The British spy had asserted that the three Americans had ripped up his saddle and the cape of his coat in search of money. Finding none, one of the party suggested, "He may have it in his boots." Ironically, it was their search for money that led to the discovery of the papers that sealed his fate.

The Myth of the Omnipresent Riflemen
In military histories, credit is given to the Americans for raising companies of expert riflemen from among frontiersmen who had become expert in the use of these weapons. The truth is, militarily speaking, the debt is owed to Frederick the Great. After being harassed by guerrillas during the Seven Years' War, the Prussian king formed his own body of light infantry, recruiting them from foresters and game keepers. He called them "Jaegers" (hunters).

Two Jaeger companies were sent to America in 1776 with other German mercenaries. They proved so useful that in a special treaty, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel agreed to increase the numbers of Jaegers in the mercenary forces he was supplying to the British.

Although the Jaegers from Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Hanau and Anspach were eventually formed into a corps and put under the command of Lt.-Col. Ludwig von Wurm, they seldom operated as such. Instead, they were detached for special missions such as reconnaissance, headquarters security, scouting and sniping from the front lines during sieges of American positions. Because of the characteristic green color of their uniforms, the Jaegers quickly earned the nickname of "Greencoats." Interestingly, a shade of green is now the characteristic color of the uniforms of most modern armies.

Myths about Militia
Large standing armies represent a relatively recent innovation in the art of warfare. The almost continuous wars in America in the hundred years before the Revolution were fought by British troops, reinforced by local militia called "Provincials" by the British. Battles against the rebelling colonists during the Revolution were fought by British regulars, German mercenaries and Tory militia. Professional British military men tended to take a dim view of the capabilities of the colonial militia. Yet during the American Revolution, it was these same militiamen who gathered so quickly at Lexington and Concord, who placed Boston under siege, who fought at Bunker Hill, and who formed the nucleus of the fledgling Continental Army.

At the same time, because they were part-time soldiers subject to their home state's authority, militia units often were unreliable. After the battle of Long Island, of the 8,000 Connecticut militiamen serving under Washington in August of 1776, only 2,000 could be located after the evacuation to Manhattan. The others had simply drifted away and went back home.

Just before the second battle of Saratoga in 1777--the engagement that was the turning point of the Revolution--men of Gen. John Stark's New Hampshire militia, only recently the heroes at the battle of Bennington, joined Gen. Horatio Gates's command one morning--but jeopardized the eventual victory by leaving before noon because their enlistments were up. "Few events in the war so proved the utter failure of the militia system," an American historian later wrote.

Misconceptions About Battle Tactics
Popular myth has it that the Revolution was fought between American troops who fired rifles from behind trees and stone walls against British troops who advanced in stiff formations and were armed with muskets. This notion cries out for debunking. In only a few engagements did rifles play a decisive role.

Thanks to the training of German drillmaster Gen. Friedrich Wilhelm Augustus von Steuben, American troops fought in the accepted European fashion. The running battle at Lexington and Concord and the encircling battle at King's Mountain, South Carolina, were notable exceptions. Before the invention of firearms, phalanx tactics involving compact bodies of men were used on the battlefield. These were successful because the principal weapons were the lance and the sword.

Most shoulder weapons used during the Revolution were smoothbore muskets, although both sides employed special units of riflemen. Much has been made of the musket's inherent lack of accuracy, but the linear tactics of the period took its inaccuracy into account. The line of battle consisted of two or three close ranks standing shoulder to shoulder, with another rank of "file closers" about six paces behind to replace casualties.

Maintaining alignment and with bayonets fixed, the attackers would move forward, secure in the knowledge that they were comparatively safe from enemy musket fire until about a hundred yards from the opposing force. Officers endeavored to maintain enough discipline to make their men hold their fire until they were within 50 yards of the enemy. The famous order at Bunker Hill, "Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes," was not intended to win a place in books of quotations. It was an admonition that could only have been intended for men armed with muskets. Historians cannot agree about who gave this command, Gen. Israel Putnam or Col. William Prescott, although the nod is usually given to the latter.

Each soldier had to bite off the end of a paper cartridge, exposing himself in a standing position while pushing it down the barrel with a long ramrod. Then the ball and a paper wad had to be rammed tightly to avoid leakage of the propelling explosive gases. Next, the firing pan had to be primed by shaking in loose powder, taking care that the wind did not blow it away. Finally, the shooter had to make certain that the flint was firmly in position to strike a good spark when a pull of the trigger brought it into contact with the steel jaws of the pan. The bullet, a lead ball with an awesome diameter of three-quarters of an inch, tore gaping holes in flesh and broke bones. With the primitive quality of military medicine and the absence of battlefield nursing care, almost any wound from a musket ball could have fatal consequences. Volley firing--in which all troops discharged their weapons simultaneously--was the common practice. On average, troops could reload and fire every twenty to thirty seconds. At the distances involved, this would assure at least two volleys at a charging enemy.

All loading and firing was done on command--modern soldiers would call it "by the numbers." The first volley was always the most effective because it would have been properly loaded in leisurely fashion before the bayonet had been fixed. After about two volleys had been exchanged, both sides resorted to bayonets--if they had them. Precision aiming was unknown. Rapidity of fire was more desirable than accuracy. Each opposing force was a continuous linear body of men--perfect targets for volley fire. Under the circumstances, training in marksmanship was unnecessary. At Lexington and Concord, it is recorded that "only one American bullet out of 300 found its mark and only one man out of 15 hit anybody." Speed was the objective: speed for the defenders to get off as many rounds as possible; speed for the attackers to close with their adversaries and use their bayonets before they took too many casualties.

The practice was to advance in parade formation and withstand the first volley, taking losses unflinchingly. Then, with the thinned ranks closed up and before the enemy could reload, the response was a volley as fired from a closer distance. Finally came the charge with bayonets and hand-to-hand combat. No wonder so many acts of heroism are recorded. It took men of great courage and fortitude to stand up to this kind of fighting. With most of the troops on both sides equipped with smooth-bore muskets and employing linear battle tactics, the general low level of marksmanship was probably adequate. Had America indeed been "a nation of riflemen," the war would have been over much sooner.

The heroes and events of our history can be seen in one of two ways: the people as they were and the events as they happened, or as a romantically embroidered picture of them. Unless we see the past honestly and appreciate what it can teach us about the present and the future, the painful sacrifices endured in the cause of liberty will all have been for naught.

Labels: American Revolution, History