Norwich University and the Battle of the Bulge: Conclusions

Sixty-Seven Years ago, on December 16th, 1944, the German military struck back against Allied forces in Belgium, the first major blow to the advance to Germany. During the battle, over a hundred members of the Norwich University community participated; former students who had graduated and advanced in the ranks of the U.S. military, and students who had graduated early to join the fight. They fought under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, and succeeded after a month of combat in the Ardennes. In 2010, I began a research project for the University, studying the role of the students and the school in the Battle before travelling overseas to Belgium. They played an incredible role in the battle, and undoubtably helped with many of the successes that would eventually lead to an Allied victory.

Conclusions

While the German attack on December 16th caught the allied forces by surprise, the response was swift: US leaders recognized the strength of the attack, and took swift steps in negating the German advance further into Belgium: holding actions by the 106th and 28th Infantry Divisions helped to stall the German forces long enough to position reinforcements towards the edge of the withdrawal. In particular, the actions at St. Vith delayed the German forces long enough for the 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Armored Divisions to move into Bastogne, where they denied the German military a key crossroads, thus helping slow their attack further west.

Further actions from the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions, the 82nd and 17th Airborne Divisions and the 84th and 26th Infantry Divisions helped to halt the German advance and push it back, closing the gap within a month, and closing the salient in 41 days. Considering the logistical element of coordinating the forces of two, multi-national (largely American) armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, vehicles and supplies, this seems to be an astonishing feat.

Norwich University alumni played key roles in the battle, most notably those in the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions, but with others playing smaller roles that helped define the successes that they earned over the course of the campaign. Norwich’s heritage and emphasis on equestrian training and tactics brought numerous Norwich men into armored cavalry units, a dominant force in the battle.

As in the Normandy invasion, Norwich had a presence in every part of the battle where American soldiers fought, from the north and south shoulders of the battle, to Bastogne, St. Vith and the attacks in the West, at Marche, during every point in the campaign, from the opening salvos on December 16th to the end as the gap between the 1st and 3rd Armies closed.

Direct combat experience on the battlefield was not a prerequisite for a direct impact on the battle. For the hundreds of soldiers on the ground, there were others who helped to support their efforts from afar, such as Major Duffy Quinn ’34, of the 3rd Armored Division as a logistical officer:

Duffy is the S-4 of Combat Command B and has gone down in history as one of the greatest experts on logistics in this war. We never lacked supplies of any kind all through the campaign, and, even in the dash through Belgium into Germany, when it was necessary to go over 100 miles to the rear to obtain gasoline,, Duffy kept our tanks and vehicles rolling. (Maj. Duffy Quinn, '34, Expert on Logistics, Cp. Riley, '32 Reports 1945)

Norwich played a meaningful role in the training of the men involved in the battle. Lieutenant Colonel Clifton Batchelder noted in a University survey years later that the “Four years of living in the Corps of Cadets with all the lessons, discipline, combined with the tactical instruction…” was most valuable during the war. (C. Batchelder n.d.)

Numerous men would continue with their military careers: Generals Ernest Harmon and I.D. White continued to serve in the Army following the war, as did Arthur Pottle, who rejoined the military for Korea, and eventually worked at the Redstone Arsenal under Werner von Braun, where they developed the US’s first guided missiles. Timothy Donahue Jr. returned to Northfield, Vermont, where he became the town’s postmaster for many years afterwards – fitting, as he worked as the divisional message chief in the 2nd Armored Division. James Burt lived in New Hampshire, where he taught high school. Harmon would later return to Norwich University, to serve as president for fifteen years.

While only around 13% of the men involved held the rank of Major or above (Major, 4.85, Colonel, 1.92%, Lieutenant Colonel 4.81%, General 1.92%), a far greater number held the rank of Captain at 22.12%, with an even greater number of Lieutenants, 32.12% making up the population. Enlisted men made up a total of 19.23% (Sergeant, 8.655, Corporal. 4.81% and Private 5.77%), with a further 12.5% of the men holding an unknown rank. The numbers would seem to indicate that a majority of the Norwich population held some form of leadership role, and thus some interpretation of the orders that they received from their superiors, interpreting them for the men under their command and carrying them out.

Indeed, a letter from General Harmon to Vermont Representative and former Norwich University President Charles A. Plumley on January 28th, just days after the Bulge officially ended, outlines his own admiration of the men from the school:

“I had many fine Norwich men in the [2nd Armored] Division, and I am happy to report that I have turned it over to a Norwich Man, Brigadier General I.D. White, to command… Other Norwich men are Johnson, who will be G-3 of the Division; [Batchelder], who you will remember, is now a Lieutenant Colonel commanding a tank battalion; and there are hosts of other junior officers who are all top-notch lads and are doing fine.”

Bibliography

• "1940 Class Survey." Northfield: Norwich University.
• Baker, Herbert A. "Career Questionnaire - Norwich University." Norwich University, July 1953.
• Batchelder, Arthur. "Letter."
• Batchelder, Clifton, interview by Norwich University. Survey
• "Biographical Sketch, Ralph H. Baker Jr." Northfield: Norwich University, July 1953.
• Brown, Albert Galatin. "Survey." Norwich University, 1987 - 1990.
• Burt, James. "Letter to Francis." Norwich University Archives, January 11, 1945.
• "Letter to Francis." Norwich University Archives, December 30, 1944.
• Christie, Dr. Robert. "Archival Files." Norwich University Archives.
• Cole, Hugh M. United States Army in World War II: The European Theater of Operations: The Ardennes: The Battle of the Bulge. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
• Cook, Bradford A. "Archival Files." Norwich University Archives.
• Dean, Jerry. Memorial Day means more for local vets. 5 25, 2006. http://www.farragutpress.com/articles/2006/05/4927.html (accessed 11/15/11).
• Eisenhower, John S. D. The Bitter Woods: The Battle of the Bulge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Da Capo Press, 1995.
• Gothard, Kristin A. "Deseased Notices for the Classes of 1944-1951." Northfield: Norwich University, October 25, 2006.
• "Deseased Notices for the Classes of 1978-1987." Norwich University, March 15, 2006.
• Harmon, Ernest M. Combat Commander: Autobiography of a Soldier. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1970.
• Henry, Walter. "World War II Years." 6.
• Kelly, Jacques. "George Norman Anderson Jr. Obituar." Baltimore Sun.
• Baltimore, February 15, 2009.
• MacKeerer, Donald, interview by Andrew Liptak. (November 14, 2011).
• Miller, Ted. "Letter to Ernest Harmon." Harmon Files, Norwich University Archives.
• Noriwch University Record. "Lt. Dick Bullens, '40, Wounded in Belgium." March 2, 1945: 17.
• Norwich University. "Donald Wing Deceased Constituent File."
• Norwich University. "John Carey Lee, Jr. ("Jack") 155 E. Main, Norwich N.Y." October 1, 1947.
• Norwich University. "Lt. Arnold MacKerer, '46, Dies of Wounds." March 2, 1945: 4.
• Norwich University Record. "1600 Norwich Men in Service, 1218 Are Officers."
• January 5, 1945: 1.
• Norwich University Record. "1st Lieutenant Frederick D. Wing, '44." June 22, 1945.
• Norwich University Record. "Capt. John McGauley, '41, Names Norwich Men With Him At Bastogne." April 27, 1945: 18.
• Norwich University Record. "Col. John MacDonald, '20, Avenges Hogan's 400."
• March 2, 1945: 8.
• Norwich University Record. "Corp. Henry Waters, '46, Missing in Action." March 2, 1945: 28.
• Norwich University Record. "Howard Chilson, '41." June 11, 1948.
• Norwich University Record. "James Logan, '45." March 16, 1945: 8.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. Bob Christie, '44, Gets Quinn Welcome." March 30, 1945: 12.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. Carl Huges, '42, with Capt. Al Hicks, '36, At Hurtgen Forest." March 2, 1945: 31.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. Col. Blanchard, '36, Twice Decorated." March 2, 1945: 25.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. Col. Henry Learned, '30, Shows Germans A Trick."
• March 2, 1945: 16.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. Don McKerer, '46, Visits Brother's Grave." March 30, 1945: 14.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. George Campbell '44, Wounded in Same Action."
• May 25, 1945: 28.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. Leonard Wing, '45, Is German Prisoner." March 2, 1945: 20.
• Norwich University Record. "Lt. Tom Vollenweider, '46, Killed Over Belgium." June 8, 1945: 9.
• Norwich University Record. "Maj. Duffy Quinn, '34, Expert on Logistics, Cp. Riley, '32 Reports." March 2, 1945: 14.
• Norwich University Record. "Maj. Gen. Harmon, '16 And His 2ndnd Armored Break Runstedt Drive." February 2, 1945: 18.
• Norwich University Record. "Maj. General Harmon '16, And His 2nd Armored Break the Runstedt Drive." February 2, 1945: 18.
• Norwich University Record. "Maj. Sherwood Adams, '34, Fighting In Belgium."
• February 2, 1945: 16.
• Norwich University Record. "Perley Brainerd, '40, Named Postmaster at Bradford." March 1955.
• Norwich University Record. "Pfc. John Bacon, '47, Reports His Travels." April 13, 1945: 15.
• Norwich University Record. "Pvt. John Hurlburt, '45, Wounded at Aachen."
• February 2, 1945: 19.
• Norwich University Record. "S.Sgt. Walt Henry, '45, Wins Quick Promotions."
• May 25, 1945: 31.
• Norwich University Record. "Sgt. Edwin Seeger, '46, Killed In Breakthrough." March 2, 1945.
• Norwich University Record. "T-4 Seeger, '46, Died Defending Post." April 13, 1945: 14.
• Norwich University Record. "T-5 Wesley Tibbetts, '45, Caught in Big Push." March 2, 1945.
• Norwich University Record. "Three Norwich Men Direct 2nd Armored Advance to Rhine."
• March 30, 945: 9.
• Norwich University Reecord. "Sgt. Burleigh A. Smith, '46." June 22, 1945: 8.
• Olson, David S. "Class of '45 Letter." Northfield: Norwich University, June 6, 1996.
• Pottle, Arthur, interview by Andrew Liptak. (10 15, 2011).
• Priscilla, N. Gilbert. "CPT James M. Burt, USA (RET)." Northfield: Norwich University,
• February 15, 2006.
• "Richard P Biggs Obituary." Patriot Ledger. Quincy, May 22, 2000.
• "Richard Sircom Bullens, 83." Portland Press,. Portland, May 1, 2001.
• Toland, John. Battle: The Story of the Bulge. Nebraska: Bison Books, 1999.
• War Whoop. Northfield: Norwich University, 1947.
• Whaley, David J. "Alumni Letter ." Norwich University, November 1990.

Norwich University and the Battle of the Bulge: The End of the Battle

Sixty-Seven Years ago, on December 16th, 1944, the German military struck back against Allied forces in Belgium, the first major blow to the advance to Germany. During the battle, over a hundred members of the Norwich University community participated; former students who had graduated and advanced in the ranks of the U.S. military, and students who had graduated early to join the fight. They fought under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, and succeeded after a month of combat in the Ardennes. In 2010, I began a research project for the University, studying the role of the students and the school in the Battle before travelling overseas to Belgium. They played an incredible role in the battle, and undoubtably helped with many of the successes that would eventually lead to an Allied victory.

Cleanup, December 26th – January 25th

Following the high water mark on December 26th, the 2nd Armored Division rested for several days following their combat operations, pulling out of the line on December 28th, and received orders on January 1st to move 30 miles to Grandmenil, north of Bastogne. (Harmon 1970, 242)

It was during this time that Staff Sargeant Walter Weatherill ‘44, of the 106th Infantry Division was killed:

Walter participated as a member of the 106th Division, which was cited by the President, in the Battle of the Bulge. He was wounded in the shoulder, but fought on until he was hit with a hand grenade about the face. A companion carried him to a German medical station after they were captured. He died somewhere in Germany in a motorized German prison hospital on December 29th. (War Whoop 1947, 22)

On December 30th, the 11th Armored Division, with 1st Lieutenant Howard Chilson, ‘41, launched an attack from Neufchateau towards Bastogne, to hold open the highway. Behind them, the 17th Airborne Division moved into position to further reinforce the Bastogne highway.

By January 3rd, the 2nd Armored Division returned to the fight, moving with the 84th Infantry Division to Houffalize, where they would spend the next thirteen days fighting, described by Harmon as “the most difficult campaigning that I have ever experienced. Heavy snow fell continuously, blotting out all light like clouds of fog.” (Harmon 1970, 242) Captain James Burt, in a letter to his wife, Frances, noted that “…we have fought under every condition possible now. Including darkness in woods in [daylight?] with foot of snow already on the ground.” (Miller n.d.)

The division seized several towns on their way, and by January 16th, the 82nd Reconnaissance Battalion with 1st Lieutenant Herbert Baker, linked up with elements of the 11th Armored Division, 1st Lieutenant Howard Chilson, just west of Houffalize. (Harmon 1970, 245) The north and south elements of the U.S. Army had begun to close in.

The Associated Press praised Harmon’s efforts in the war in a profile of the General and his division shortly after the division had halted the German advance:

His men have taken several hundred prisoners and re-liberated a half dozen Belgian villages in weather that would bother a polar bear.

They are back in combat after only three days’ rest following one of the greatest battles of the war – a head-on smash that broke the Rundstedt’s drive towards the Meuse River, kicked back the Nazis 10 miles and practically destroyed a prize SS armored division.

A second force under Brig. Gen. I.D. White of Des Moines Iowa, swept through Ciney to Celles and polished off an enemy column just outside of town. (Maj. Gen. Harmon, '16 And His 2nd Armored Break Runstedt Drive 1945)

At the same time, the 3rd Armored Division also moved ahead to converge on Houffalize, with the 82nd Airborne protecting their left flank. (Toland 1999, 334) British soldiers from the 6th Airborne also moved towards the city, and together, attacking from the north, west and south, struck against the entrenched German forces. The Germans, already suffering reduced numbers due to the ongoing fighting, received no replacements, unlike the American units, which were receiving new troops daily. (Toland 1999, 334)

On January 4th, the German military made a renewed attack against the Bastogne area, particularly against the 17th Airborne Division, who experienced their first combat on that day. (Toland 1999, 334) This unit contained four Norwich men: 1st Lieutenant Joseph M. Cronin, '47, 1st Lieutenant Frank Diefauf, '48, 1st Lieutenant Christo Zoukis, '47 and Corporal James Logan, '45. The unit received fierce resistance, and on the 7th, the 513th Regiment moved on Flamierge, where Corporal Logan, was killed:

“Jim’s unit,” the 17th Airborne Division, was flown to Paris from England, where they had completed their training, on December 24th, 1944. Because of a blinding blizzard, the Division went into action as infantry on January 1, 1945, for the blizzard blocked any plan for parachuting into combat. He was an expert rifleman, but was serving as a machine gunner on January 7th, 1945, near Flamierge, Belgium, when he was killed by an enemy tank artillery barrage after assisting a wounded companion into his foxhole.” (War Whoop 1947, 24)

However, by January 9th, German troops began to withdraw, starting with the 6th Panzers, while Patton, armed with the 26th, 35th, 87th and 90th Infantry Divisions, the 4th and the 6th Armored Divisions, and the 17th and 101st Airborne Divisions, pushed ahead.

2nd Lieutenant Arthur Pottle ’44, fighting with the 86th Mechanized Cavalry Squadron in the 6th Armored Division, was ordered to move from the southern-most part of the attack at the German-French borders on Christmas day. The unit arrived on January 1st, where he worked to listen in on the Germans. He helped to set up a listening post near Bastogne ridgeline, with German forces on the other side. He recalled ordering his men to dig foxholes in the frozen ground. Armed only with entrenching tools, they soon gave up.

“[We] had a heck of a time getting them going. Went into the position late in the afternoon. It was a moon-lit night, and we saw a couple of [artillery] batteries had pulled into a nearby field behind us. The Germans spotted them, and sent in aircraft to bomb them. Some of the bombs hit very, very close. I didn’t have to urge the troops to start digging.” (Pottle, Interview with Arthur Pottle 2011)

He would continue forward with his unit, noting that the weather was really bad with the ice and snow, and that they weren’t able to be resupplied from the air. At some point, the men in his unit built a large bonfire to ward off the cold, where he ran into a fellow classmate from another division, Hubert Schietinger ’43, as well as fellow 6th Armored Division member 1st Lieutenant Donald F. Wing ’44, of the 15th Tank Battalion. Following the meeting, towards the end of the Bulge, Pottle led his men to check a town. Crossing an empty field, he and his men discovered they had come across a minefield, and continued across, losing two soldiers in the process. The Germans promptly surrendered once they had reached the edge.

At this point, the 101st Airborne and 4th Armored Divisions were moving up to Noville, pushing past Bastogne, taking it on January 15th, the day before the 1st and 3rd Armies closed the gap between them. (Eisenhower 1995, 427) The 2nd Armored Division reached the Ourthe River at Houffalize, where they were joined by the 11th Armored Division on the next day. Two days later, the 17th Airborne Division relieved the 11th Armored Division.

Several days after meeting Pottle, Lieutenant Wing was killed in action on January 16th as the 6th Armored worked to push the German military back:

"When his platoon reached a ridge beyond the edge of town, the enemy met them with heavy, direct anti-tank fire. Realizing the situation would not permit the continuation of the attack until these guns were destroyed; he directed the withdrawal of his tanks and covered them with fire from his vehicle.” (Norwich University n.d.)

On the 16th, the Belgian Bulge was considered closed, although it would not be until the 25th of January that the Allied forces returned to their original positions held on December 16th.

Tomorrow: Conclusions

Norwich University and the Battle of the Bulge: The Meuse River & Bastogne

Sixty-Seven Years ago, on December 16th, 1944, the German military struck back against Allied forces in Belgium, the first major blow to the advance to Germany. During the battle, over a hundred members of the Norwich University community participated; former students who had graduated and advanced in the ranks of the U.S. military, and students who had graduated early to join the fight. They fought under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, and succeeded after a month of combat in the Ardennes. In 2010, I began a research project for the University, studying the role of the students and the school in the Battle before travelling overseas to Belgium. They played an incredible role in the battle, and undoubtably helped with many of the successes that would eventually lead to an Allied victory.

The Drive to the Meuse River

December 17th saw the beginnings of an organized response to the invasion: Generals Eisenhower and Bradley ordered the 7th Armored Division south from Holland and the 10th Armored Division from Patton’s command north, towards Bastogne. (Eisenhower 1995, 215) Additionally, the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, both recuperating in Reims, France after the fight in Holland, were activated on the 17th. (Cole 1964, 305) The 101st was trucked to the key crossroads at Bastogne along with the 10th Armored, while the 82nd Airborne moved further north, to Werbomont and Trois Ponts.

As the German military was prevented from moving inwards from the top of the line at Monschau, the German military moved up from the center, aiming for Liege and Trois Ponts, and was focused on the town of St. Vith, where American forces had begun to dig in. This battle would become known as the ‘Fortified Goose Egg’. Two regiments of the 106th surrendered to German forces, while a third held their ground at St. Vith, with the 7th Armored Division moving in to their aid. At least one Norwich graduate was with the 7th Armored, 1st Lieutenant Perley Brainerd Jr, ‘40. The combined forces, which were reinforced by remnants of the 28th Infantry and 9th Armored Divisions in addition to several other scattered units, held their ground from the 17th as pitched fighting for the city began. (Toland 1999, 106)

By December 18th, the German military had pushed heavily into the region, some nearly as thirty miles into Allied territory. (Toland 1999, 97) Captain Albert Hicks and 1st Lieutenant Carl Hughes, were still located to the south of the 106th Infantry Division’s positions, where the situation became desperate: their mission changed from stopping the German advance to delaying them as much as possible. As the German military moved in towards Bastogne, the 28th worked to slow their advance, as US reinforcements arrived to contain them. (Eisenhower 1995, 253) Elements of the 9th Armored Division, with 2nd Lieutenant Olin C. Tosi ‘45, helped on the 17th, but ultimately, the 28th Infantry Division units fell apart under the German advance, allowing them to advance towards Bastogne.

However, because the German military relied on a strict timetable, the delaying actions of the units helped to stall German advance, allowing the 101st Airborne and the 10th Armored Divisions to move into Bastogne, where they were ordered to hold the crossroads at all costs.

At the same time on the 18th, the 3rd Armored Division moved into place between the Salm and Ourthe rivers, between the 84th Infantry Division and the 7th Armored Division, West of St. Vith. Lieutenant Colonel Elwyn W. Blanchard, '36 had only just returned to command a battalion within the 3rd Armored, having been recovering from wounds he sustained in France. He continued his command until he was wounded again.

1st Lieutenant Robert Christie ‘44 recalled his unit, the 33rd Armored Regiment, ordered into the fight, brought in by train, with little idea of where they were headed or what they were faced with:

It was not many days thereafter that I found myself travelling through Belgium in “Forty Hommes et 8 Cheveaux”, rolling stock where I damned near froze to death for three or four days and was only kept warm by occasional swigs of calvados bought at the trainside from the French. From the train, I recall travelling in a 6x6 deep through Belgium and seeing wrecked tanks and other vehicles along the way, and occasionally unrecovered and unburied German and American bodies strewn across the road, this being the area in the middle of the Ardennes salient (Battle of the Bulge) by the Germans. (Christie n.d.)

Shortly after his arrival to Belgium, Christie encountered a fellow Norwich alumnus during the battle, although not face to face:

The day I hit the 33rd, I was ushered into a candle-lit room. From the big, dark bed, a voice boomed from the stack of blankets about a foot thick: “Who in hell’s Christie?” I made an appearance, and the next thing I heard was a gruff command to take a brace in the middle of the room and sing ‘Norwich Forever’. About that time, I had a small suspicion that perhaps there could be a Norwich man in the crowd. Sure enough, it was Major ‘Duffy’ Quinn, ’34… Still haven’t seen Duffy’s face. He was so wrapped up in those blankets, I didn’t get the opportunity. (Lt. Bob Christie, '44, Gets Quinn Welcome 1945, 12)

Christie would go on to describe a Vermont winter as being a dozen times better what they were going through. He would later write a book about his experiences in the 2nd World War, in which he noted: “His chest suddenly tightened as he saw the partially displaced helmet from the sprawled body of a GI, the barrel of his rifle projecting upward out of the snow at a low angle. He suddenly realized what a dead American soldier really was.” (Christie n.d., 77) Christie’s experiences and his turn towards writing after the war come as no surprise when his experience with the Norwich University Record and the War Whoop are taken into consideration. (War Whoop 1947, 67)

Including Christie, eight Norwich men belonged to the 3rd Armored Division: Lieutenant Colonel Elwyn W. Blanchard, '36, Major Scott Gordon, '33, Major Duffy Quinn ‘34, Captain Charles J. Adams, '39, Captain George Riley, ’32, 1st. Lieutenant Arthur Curtis, '41, 1st Lieutenant Herman J. Lavin '33, 1st Lieutenant Charles Sellars, '47 and 2nd Lieutenant Richard P. Briggs, '42.

The battle for St. Vith at this point was “in full swing.” (Toland 1999, 106) The 3rd Armored Division met with the 82nd Airborne Division by mid-day on the 19th, when the 82nd began to move east, towards Trois Ponts, just to the northwest of St. Vith. By the 20th, they had set up a perimeter around Werbomont in all directions, while the 3rd was directed to move out as far south as Houffalize. (Cole 1964, 344-346)

On December 19th, the 26th Infantry Division moved to Luxembourg to help advance Northwest against the Germans moving on Bastogne, with Norwich members Captain Leonard E. Nysted, ’42, 1st Lieutenant Burton B. Fall Jr., ’44, and Corporal Bradford A. Cook Jr. ’44 along with the unit. (Cook n.d., 520) They attacked on the 21st at Rambrouch, Grosbous and to the Wiltz River, joining with the 4th Armored Division which contained Captain George Fairbanks ’39 and Private Charles Bailey, ’47.

For his actions throughout the Bulge, Fairbanks was awarded the Bronze Star:

Since [November 9, 1944], this unit has never wanted for supplies of any type so long as they were at all available. There is no limit to the extent to which Capt. Fairbanks will go to obtain the necessary supplies, even though this entailed many trips to rear areas at all hours and under all types of weather conditions. On numerous occasions, he has gone to company positions in an unarmored vehicle under enemy shelling to obtain a list of the daily needs.

Capt. Fairbanks was with the Fourth Armored Division when the crack tank outfit effected the historic relief of the besieged 101st Airborne Division in Bastogne, Belgium.

Along with the 4th Armored Division’s push, the 104th Infantry Division with John W. Howley, ’44, and 80th Infantry Division, with Joseph Caffrey Jr., ’48, this push absorbed some of the remaining members of the 28th Infantry division. By Christmas Day, the force moved to Arsdorf, Belgium, encountering heavy fighting, where they would be pushed back. They regrouped in January for a renewed push to the area. At some point during this engagement, John Howley ’44, would be captured and sent to a POW camp, from which he would escape three times.

On December 21st, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery ordered a retreat from St. Vith, forfeiting the position. The 106th Infantry and the remnants of the other units pulled out during this withdrawal. Two things largely saved the units at St. Vith: the ferocity of the Allied defense around the city, and the readiness of the German field units, which had yet to receive their full strength by December 20th. Despite the failure to hold onto the positions, the actions at St. Vith helped to further slow the German advance.

Bastogne, December 20 - December 27

 With the difficulties that the Germans faced with the defense of St. Vith, their focus shifted to the next set of crossroads, located at Bastogne. (Cole 1964, 306) General Eisenhower, over the protests of General Patton, ordered the 10^th Armored North to the crossroads. The Division contained a number of Norwich men: Captain Phil Baird, ’38, Captain Dave Perrin, ’41, Captain, Marinus Van Kleef, ’41, Captain John R. McGauley, ’41, 2^nd Lieutenant Wilburn Hardy, ’45, Corporal Joseph McCloskey, ’42, Joseph Haines Clarke ‘40, Captain Philip R. Calder, ‘41, Lieutenant. Hubert Shietinger, ’43, and Staff Sergeant Robert G. Buttinger ’48. One member of the unit, Captain McGauley, recounted in a letter to the Norwich Record of his experiences in the unit:

 I have met several Norwich men over here so far. Most interesting were meetings during the ‘Bulge’. I was at Bastogne when the Germans started through, and in the tumult of action, I ran into Cap. Phil Baird, ’38. The last time I had seen him was when I was a freshman and was acting as an orderly for him. When the 4^th Arm’d broke through to us, one of the first persons I met was Maj. Tom Churchill, ’40.

The only members of my class still with me are Capt. Dave Perrin, and Capt. Marinus Van Kleed, both of whom have been wounded, and since returned to duty. Capt. Joe McCloskey, ’42 and Lt. Hubert Shietinger, ’43, are in this outfit also. (Capt. John McGauley, '41, Names Norwich Men With Him At Bastogne 1945)

Joining the 10^th Armored Division was the 101^st Airborne Division, who drove towards Bastogne, reaching it on the 19^th. An eventual member of the Norwich community, Howard Brosseau was a member of the 502^nd Regiment of the 101^st Airborne, which supported the north-northwest shoulder around the city. The American units around Bastogne dug in securely, with the mission to hold the town at all costs. (Eisenhower 1995, 318) The German military was aware that the US had moved in two of their airborne divisions to the center of the attack, but failed to anticipate how quickly they would set up around the city, and were forced to react as they came into contact with the three combined-arms task forces supplied by the 10^th Armored Division that were sent along the roads leading out of the city. The Americans were able to hold off the Germans for the remainder of the 19^th, but by the 20^th, they were cut off by German forces. Over the next couple of days, they would repel attacks from all sides in one of the most dramatic engagements of the battle, receiving supplies by air on the 23^rd and 24^th before being cut off again by poor weather on Christmas day. By the next day, units from the 4^th Armored moved in and helped hold open supply lines, likely aided by Major Churchill and Captain Fairbanks.

With the breakthrough of the 4^th Armored, the siege of Bastogne was over. Like at St. Vith, the allied actions helped to further slow the onslaught, denying the German military a vital crossroads that they required to support their objectives to the west. (Cole 1964, 480-481)

Monday: the 2nd Armored Division and Ciney

Norwich University and the Battle of the Bulge: Breakthrough

Sixty-Seven Years ago, on December 16th, 1944, the German military struck back against Allied forces in Belgium, the first major blow to the advance to Germany. During the battle, over a hundred members of the Norwich University community participated; former students who had graduated and advanced in the ranks of the U.S. military, and students who had graduated early to join the fight. They fought under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, and succeeded after a month of combat in the Ardennes. In 2010, I began a research project for the University, studying the role of the students and the school in the Battle before travelling overseas to Belgium. They played an incredible role in the battle, and undoubtably helped with many of the successes that would eventually lead to an Allied victory.

Breakthrough, December 16th - December 17th

By December, the Allied advance towards Germany had slowed down. The Allied armies settled along the German border in Belgium and France where units received replacements, retrained and waited to move forward. On December 15th, Private First Class Walter Henry, ‘45, of the 44th Infantry Division, went on leave in Paris, France where he planned on seeing Glenn Miller’s orchestra. While there, word came through that Miller’s airplane had been reported missing somewhere over the English Channel. Disappointed, Henry returned to his unit in Belgium. (Henry, Questions of Oct. 18 re: Battle of the Bulge 2011)

The German breakthrough of Allied lines began at 5:30 in the morning with an artillery barrage against 85 miles of Allied lines on December 16th. (Toland 1999, 23) At the top of the invasion near Monschau, three Norwich men were part of the 9th Infantry division: Major John Costello ’42, and twin brothers Arnold and Donald MacKerer ’46, both 2nd Lieutenants. Several miles to the south were six Norwich men assigned to the 106th Infantry Division: 1st Lieutenant Ralph H. Baker Jr, ‘43 Corporal Howard R. Clement ’32, Sergeant Edwin Seeger '46, Corporal Henry Waters, '46, Sergeant Walter H. Weatherill, '44, and Private Gregory Sarmanian, '47, who was part of the 14th Cavalry Group. In the center of the invasion was the veteran 28th Infantry division, which included Captain Albert E. Hicks, ’36, and 1st Lieutenant Carl Hughes, ’42. At the bottom of the invasion, the 4th Infantry Division included 1st Lieutenant Thomas L. Fulham, 2nd Lieutenant Robert H. Harrington and John W. Knowlton, all of the class of 1947.

During the initial attack, Sergeant Seeger of the 106th was killed in action, defending his post, while occupying a forward position that was overrun near Winterscheid.

Sergeant Seeger’s squadron was providing reconnaissance for the 106th Division on the opening day of the battle of “The Bulge”, December 16th, 1944. The Sergeant, with three other men, were occupying the most advance post of their squadron when the Germans overran their position. He was fatally wounded while “defending his position against overwhelming odds,” near Winterstchied, Germany, in the St. Vith sector on the first day of the battle of “The Bulge”. (War Whoop 1947, 30)

He appears to have been one of the first Norwich casualties during the battle, although he would not be the last: at some point on December 16th, 1st Lieutenant George Norman Anderson ’43, of the 1121st Combat Engineering Group, was captured, force marched to a prison camp in Bavaria, where he was later recovered by US forces.

Corporal Henry Waters ’46, was also reported as a casualty on the 16th: Corp. Henry C. Waters, Jr. has been reported missing in action in Germany as of Dec. 16. The son of Mr. and Mrs. H.C. Water of Marblehead, MA, has been overseas since Nov. 11, and was in a unit of the 106th Division which was rushed to the front lines following the Von Rundstedt breakthrough. (Corp. Henry Waters, '46, Missing in Action 1945, 28)

As the German military advanced, units of the 14th Cavalry Group occupied one of the key routes which stood in their way, with other units 25 miles away in Vielsalm. (Toland 1999, 27) Private George Sarmanian ’47, a member of the unit, was likely present at the first moments of the attack. By 1300 hrs, the 14th Cavalry Group had run out of ammunition, and began to retreat west towards American lines.

At the same time on December 16th, the 28th Infantry Division was hit alongside its entire divisional front. The center of the Division’s lines were hit hard by the German invaders, blowing open the route towards the interior of Belgium. (Toland 1999, 27) The two Norwich alumni were present amongst its ranks, Captain Albert E. Hicks, and 1st Lieutenant Carl R. Hughes would remain close friends after the war. During the attack, Hughes' unit, the 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, was surrounded by German forces. Hughes escaped by walking through the enemy lines, arriving back at American lines three days later on the 19th.

Carl Hughes described his experiences in a letter for the Norwich Record:

Here’s a bit of news. I was in Luxembourg when the breakthrough came. My unit was surrounded for three days, and then we made a break for it. We lost our wheels, so I walked through the German lines three days and nights. Now am getting a few days of rest after 170 days of combat. I saw Al Hicks ’36, in Germany during the battle of Hurtgen Forest. We were working side by side. (Lt. Carl Huges, '42, with Capt. Al Hicks, '36, At Hurtgen Forest 1945, 31)

At the same time that the Record received Hughes’ letter, further news arrived about Hicks:

“The squadron commander had my troop fall out into formation while he pinned by captain’s bars on me although the Germans were shelling about 400 yards away.” Capt. Hicks wrote his wife, “so you see I got my promotion on the battlefield after all.”

Attached to the 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, Capt. Hicks at one time pursued the Germans for 140 days with only little rest. Up to this time, he has been decorated with the Silver Star for gallantry in the face of the enemy, the Bronze Star for meritorious achievement and numerous other citations. (Lt. Carl Huges, '42, with Capt. Al Hicks, '36, At Hurtgen Forest 1945, 31)

At the bottom of the German invasion, the 4th Infantry Division met elements of the German military’s attack head-on near Echternach, where they held onto their territory, backed up by the 5th Infantry Division and Patton’s Third Army. The 6th Armored Division, with 1st Lieutanant John F. Hammell ‘44, 1st Lieutenant Donald F. Wing ‘44, 2nd Lieutenant Arthur Pottle ’44, and Sergeant John H. Pimm ‘47, was located in the same area, between the French-German border, where they faced off against German forces on the other side of a river.

The northern most section of the invasion was held by the 9th Infantry division, who arrived near Monschau by the 20th of December. It helped to contain the enemy advance towards the north and limited their movement around the center of the invasion. 2nd Lieutenant Arnold ‘Bill’ MacKerer ‘46, had recently earned the Silver Star medal for his actions in Schlick, Germany, ten days earlier:

Lieutenant MacKerer was awarded the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action on December 11, 1944, near Schlick, Germany. He crawled forward, under enemy fire and observation, to within twenty-five yards of a machine gun. With complete disregard for personal safety, he threw two grenades, destroying the gun and killing the entire crew of the machine gun. (War Whoop 1947, 29)

His twin brother, Donald, would survive him after the war, and described his brother as “a very strong person, totally fearless in combat, and he took more chances. He was much less bothered by the terror of warfare than I was” (Dean 2006).

The unit would stay in place for the battle, keeping the German advance back from Holland in the battle’s northern shoulder. (Cole 1964, 134) As the German military advanced, Bill MacKerer’s five man patrol was tasked with finding the whereabouts of the Germans in their area: His brother’s patrol performed its mission all too well, Don said. It turned up a nest of German machine-gunners, and Bill, struck by a burst of machine gun fire, fell mortally wounded. (Dean 2006)

His actions were reported in the Norwich Record:

Ten days after the action for which he was posthumously decorated, he was hit by machine gun fire while on a reconnaissance patrol near Monschau, died as a result of the wounds, and was buried in the Henry-Chapple Cemetery near Leige, Belgium. (Lt. Arnold MacKerer, '46, Dies of Wounds 1945)

Following the death of his brother, Donald took command of the same platoon, which he remained in charge of until he himself was wounded shortly after the end of the Bulge, on February 2nd, 1945. (Lt. Arnold MacKerer, '46, Dies of Wounds 1945)

By December 17th, most of the Allied forces had to pull back: The 106th Infantry Division pulled back towards St. Vith, while the German advance went through the 28th Infantry Division’s lines. One of the units that had moved following the attack was the 44th Infantry Division, along with a newly promoted Staff Sergeant Walt Henry. While the Germans had not yet hit their area in the south, they moved quickly to better ground. As they moved out, Henry recalled leaving with only their guns and ammunition. Left behind was a newly arrived package from his wife, Edith: “Some lucky German [son of a bitch] enjoyed all the goodies that Edith had so lovingly packed and sent me. I’ll never forgive them for that.” (Henry, World War II Years n.d.)

The Axis advance was aimed straight in towards American lines, uncontained.

Tomorrow, The Drive to the Meuse River & Bastogne.

Norwich University and the Battle of the Bulge: Introduction

Sixty-Seven Years ago, on December 16th, 1944, the German military struck back against Allied forces in Belgium, the first major blow to the advance to Germany. During the battle, over a hundred members of the Norwich University community participated; former students who had graduated and advanced in the ranks of the U.S. military, and students who had graduated early to join the fight. They fought under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, and succeeded after a month of combat in the Ardennes. In 2010, I began a research project for the University, studying the role of the students and the school in the Battle before travelling overseas to Belgium. They played an incredible role in the battle, and undoubtably helped with many of the successes that would eventually lead to an Allied victory.

Introduction - The Battle of the Bulge

The Battle of the Bulge was the most intense and costly engagement that the United States and its allies waged against the German military during the Second World War. Over a million soldiers on both sides were involved in the clash that would last for 41 days. In the pre-dawn hours of December 16th, 1944, the German military struck against the Allied advance along the German-Belgian border. Relying on a combination of inclement weather and surprise, the Germans caught Allied leaders by surprise, and were able to push through their lines far into Belgium. The 1947 memorial edition of the Norwich University War Whoop, described the battle succinctly:

We continued to advance against the Germans in Europe with occasional set-backs, such as “the Bulge”, which was not just another set-back for the men who were there, but a battle fought for the highest stakes by both sides.

Norwich University played its own role in the battle, with just under one hundred alumni spread out across the battlefield. The training and education that the school provided her alumni undoubtedly played a role in the conduct and leadership abilities that guided them as they were shipped off to Europe. By the time December 16th arrived, the Norwich University Record reported that 1,600 Norwich Men were involved in the war, with 1,218 of them serving as commissioned officers. A further 15 held the rank of General, demonstrating the value of the training they received in Vermont.

Norwich men occupied every level of the command structure in units that participated in the Battle of the Bulge, ranging from the rank of Private First Class on the front lines to Major General, overseeing the operations of an entire division. Each played a pivotal role in the direction of the battle’s outcome. In the fight, Norwich University alumni gave their blood and their lives in Belgium; the ultimate sacrifice for their country in a time of grave need.

Soldiers from Norwich were also present throughout the battle, from the first moments of the battle, to the last, over a month later, occupying airborne, infantry and most particularly, armored units, instrumental in all aspects of the battle.

Setting the Stage

On June 6th, 1944, Allied forces came ashore in Normandy, France, where the fight into Europe began in earnest, pushing the German military further back over the course of the fall that year. During that time, a number of Norwich University alumni arrived to fight for their country: On June 9th, elements of the 2nd Armored Division arrived on shore, under the command of General Edward Brooks ‘16, a Norwich graduate, who would eventually hand over command to General Ernest Harmon ‘16, who would continue to push deeper into Europe.

From Normandy, Allied forces moved to liberate Paris, engaging in a long campaign to capture the ground between the beaches and the capital, eventually doing so on August 25th, 1944.

In September 1944, the allies launched Operation Market-Garden against German positions in Holland. Allied forces looked to capture ground and allow for a quick march straight to Germany. Its eventual failure pushed back expectations that they would reach Berlin in a timely manner.

The 2nd Armored Division found themselves in the midst of the action as they pushed towards Germany and through the Siegfried Line, described as the division’s worst experiences in the war. During this campaign, Lieutenant Colonel Clifton Batchelder ‘32, and his unit were visited by a Red Cross truck with several women handing out supplies. The women were invited to join the officers, and Batchelder, pulling rank, sat next to one of the Red Cross nurses, Anne: “From then on, when I wasn’t fighting, I was chasing Anne; until two weeks after VE day when we were married.” (A. Batchelder n.d., 2) Batchelder had been a student at the same time that the division’s Commanding General, Ernest N. Harmon, had been the Professor of Military Science and later, Commandant of Cadets. He explained after the war that one of his highest points during his experience was Harmon’s instruction in equitation.

On October 13th, 1944, the 2nd Armored Division saw action at Wurselen, Germany, where Captain James Burt ‘39, of the 66th Armored Regiment’s B Company, earned the Medal of Honor for his actions against a German garrison over the course of nine days. During that time, he directed fire from his units, scouted enemy positions, and aided the wounded soldiers involved in the fight:

In the first day's action, when infantrymen ran into murderous small-arms and mortar fire, Captain Burt dismounted from his tank about 200 yards to the rear and moved forward on foot beyond the infantry positions, where, as the enemy concentrated a tremendous volume of fire upon him, he calmly motioned his tanks into good firing positions. As our attack gained momentum, he climbed aboard his tank and directed the action from the rear deck, exposed to hostile volleys which finally wounded him painfully in the face and neck. He maintained his dangerous post despite pointblank self-propelled gunfire until friendly artillery knocked out these enemy weapons, and then proceeded to the advanced infantry scouts' positions to deploy his tanks for the defense of the gains which had been made. The next day, when the enemy counterattacked, he left cover and went 75 yards through heavy fire to assist the infantry battalion commander who was seriously wounded. For the next 8 days, through rainy, miserable weather and under constant, heavy shelling, Captain Burt held the combined forces together, dominating and controlling the critical situation through the sheer force of his heroic example. To direct artillery fire, on 15 October, he took his tank 300 yards into the enemy lines, where he dismounted and remained for 1 hour giving accurate data to friendly gunners. Twice more that day he went into enemy territory under deadly fire on reconnaissance. In succeeding days he never faltered in his determination to defeat the strong German forces opposing him. Twice the tank in which he was riding was knocked out by enemy action, and each time he climbed aboard another vehicle and continued the fight. He took great risks to rescue wounded comrades and inflicted prodigious destruction on enemy personnel and materiel even though suffering from the wounds he received in the battle's opening phase. (MOH Citation for James M. Burt n.d.)

Burt’s actions were understatedly heroic over an extended period of time. His letters to his wife from the same time reflect little of the actions that he had just carried out, and following the war, he returned to a quiet life as a high school teacher in New Hampshire: the very embodiment of a citizen soldier.

Tomorrow, the Breakthrough.

Relevant Events & Art

 

Over on his blog, Mark Charan Newton talked briefly about the link between the Occupy movement and the upcoming Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, which seems to tap into the 99% idea with its recent trailer. I've got my doubts that a film of this magnitude would be directly influenced at the core by something that's happened: the Occupy movement has been around for around three months, and the film's timeline would predate that by a considerable amount of time. The marketing department, however, could certainly use the sudden relevancy of the issue and angle quite a bit of marketing towards that theme.

This has me thinking about the creation of films and art in general. Certainly, science fiction has a tendancy to be very relevant. Avatar and Moon in 2009 really took a stab at the state of environmentalism and energy consumption in the world, while this year's film In Time landed at the right moment, right when the Occupy movement started up a couple of months ago. These are big, societal issues, and if someone has their head to the ground, listening for what might come next, it's certainly easy to see some of these things happening down the road: the genre is a good place to examine such issues. While The Dark Knight Rises is already written, it's far from in the can: the next steps would be the post-production stage, where the editing shapes the footage into a regular, finished product, and I would be not at all surprised if some of the events in the tale end of 2011 will help to shape the film that we'll see next July.

Science Fiction is a relative genre, and often, the films that really last the longest are the ones that seem to retain a certain amount of relevancy the longest: films like Soylant Green, Silent Running or Outland are perfectly watchable, interesting films that hold up considerably well in the present moment, because they really carry messages that resonate: environmentalism, corporations running amok, and bleak futures, all of which we're seeing in full force in the present day. Certainly, the fact that the film Moon has drawn upon some of these films and become a critical success in the last couple of years is testament to that.

It would be facinating to take some of the politically charged films from the 1970s, go to the raw footage and recut and re-edit the film with the current context of today in mind to help shape the story. In all likelihood, I'm guessing that the films wouldn't change that much: the points those films made then are the same or similar now. Similarly, it would be interesting to take the footage that's been shot from The Dark Knight Rises and have it cut back in June 2011, and to compare the final product next year. How different would it be?

Rewriting the Past

Back in May, I posted up a week's worth of posts detailing my research with Norwich University and our alumni who fought at the Battle of the Bulge between December 16th through January 15th. The trip was incredible, but most of all, I learned quite a bit about working on a historical project with other groups: meeting their expectations, to construct a history that better matches with what they are looking for. Since then, we determined that there was more that could be done with the project, and for most of the summer, I worked on further research, uncovering quite a bit more material from archival sources, interviews and records to come up with a paper that’s far more centered around the men who had fought in Belgium, rather than the actions that thrust them into the spotlight.

The editorial process has been exceptionall well, and there's a couple of things that I've reinforced for myself this time around:

• Everything that I write generally needs to be put away and revisited with a clear mind. Going over the original paper, there were many parts that I found needed to be redone, either for the language that I used, or restructuring the project in a way that better explained what I was trying to convey to the reader.
• Live by the calendar. This is a key thing for me: deadlines matter, but marking down deadlines matter even more. I carry my iPad around with me almost everywhere, and as such, it's become an incredible tool for not only taking notes, but keeping me on task to finish up a project in a timely manner. Plus, deadlines are set much further in advance.
• Archives are your friend. I don't know what my hesitation was earlier: I think I wanted to write a paper that focused far more on the battle then the soldiers. The archives are an excellent, astounding wealth of information that I had never even known existed. They're the first stop for all of my NU related projects from here on out.

The paper is far stronger, in my opinion, and I’ve just wrapped up the final edits before  it’s turned in for good. As such, I’ve removed the older entries that I had posted up, but they’ll be brought back in their new (somewhat longer form) in the very near future.

Depictions of History

(Click for a larger version)

War has a universal impact on the world: travel to any town or city on the planet, and you'll likely find a stone engraved with various wars that the place has witnessed, and the citizens that they lost. We count our experiences by our losses, and I try to make it a point to look at one of the memorials if I happen to go near one. This past weekend, I came across one of the best ones that I've ever seen, located in Hardwick, Vermont.

Where most that I've seen around Vermont are simple affairs - a polished granite slab, etched with names - Hardwick's is a fascinating one to behold. The names are carved on the back of five blocks, each depicting five of the conflicts of the 20th century: World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East (presumably, the current wars in Iraq / Afghanistan). Each panel holds with it a similar theme: a depiction of their surroundings, the tools with which they used, but most importantly, the profiles of the soldiers who served.

In and of itself, the memorial is an outstanding depiction of the evolution of war in the 20th century, without losing the key focus: those who served and died for their country. The tools of war have changed drastically: rifles were replaced with machine guns, while the aircraft overhead have grown ever more faster, flown higher and have served numerous purposes on the battlefield. The terrain has shifted from the ruins of Europe to those of Iraq, from the Pacific islands to Vietnam and Korea. The people, however, remain constant, faceless.

History begins at the personal level. For all of the major reasons for which a war is fought; Axis aggression in Europe, the spread of communism in Asia, or the threat of state-sponsored terrorism, there is the ground level view from the people who served. What I take out of this memorial is the focus not on the politics and reasons for the war, but for the simple reminder that the people who carried out the will of their country shouldered one hell of a burden. Beyond that simple message, it's elegantly executed, a visual story that sums up almost a hundred years of military history at a glance, a powerful image to take in.

Memorials are worth taking a look at, connecting to, because the stories of history are literally set in stone here: not the individual stories, but hard data, showing who really paid the ultimate price, and when.

The Windup Girl, Revisited

In 2009, I picked up Paolo Bacigalupi's The Windup Girl based on the cover and early reviews. It looked like an interesting read, and I quickly devoured it, enjoying the complexity of the plot and intertangling characters in an all too frightening future that looks all the more plausible today. It's been two years since I read the book, and finding myself stuck in my car for much of the weekend, I decided that listening to a book would be better than constantly fiddling with the radio: a good as a time as any to revisit a book that I've recommended countless times.

The book far exceeded my expectations when I first read it, and revisiting the novel has surpassed my memories of the book. In the time since reading it, much has changed in the world: we're still in the middle of an economic crisis, one that has spread world-wide. Conflict has broken out in new places around the planet, and we've seen a number of ecological and industrial disasters that have been both highly public and highly contentious.

The Windup Girl has also done exceedingly well since my first read: it's garnered Bacigalupi the 2009 Nebula Award for Best Novel, the 2010 Hugo Award for Best Novel (along with with China Miéville's fantastic The City & the City), the 2010 Compton Crook Award, the 2010 Locus Award for best first novel and the 2010 John W. Campbell Memorial Award. Time Magazine has named the book one of the top ten books of 2009, and it's established Bacigalupi as a major up and coming writer.

What impressed me the most about the book was the interconnected nature of the entire, overall story. Bacigalupi takes a snapshot of a contentious, troubled, point in our future. Global climate change has had a profound impact on the worldL sea level rise has impacted millions, while war, politics and corporate entities appears to be linked in a single dangerous dance.

The strongest point in the entire novel is in how the various stories are handled: one action influences all of the other actions. It's an excellent example of two schools of thought when it comes to characters: characters either make the world themselves, through their actions (Self-made man), or the actions define the characters (Rising to the occassion). Jaidee's White Shirts, the enforcement arm of the Environmental Ministry, work to ensure that their country and city do not succum to the horrors of the outside world: diseases, war, conflict, trade, and so forth. They act as customs for Bangkok and Thailand. Early in the story, they destroy a sizable amount of cargo that is being brought in by outside interests, one of which is Anderson Lake. Lake is there to get the seedbank and work with the Environmental Ministry's rival, the Trade Ministry, to try and leverage his company's way into the country. The third puzzle is Emiko, a windup who's very presence is something that the Environmental Ministry is trying to keep from the country, and who runs to Anderson as life becomes more and more difficult for her.

The three storylines interact in an ever-closing circle. The destruction of the air pads and cargo at the hands of the Environmental Ministry sets into motion conflict between all three storylines: Trade and their interests are furious at the losses, and move against the Environmental ministry, which shocks the city into further conflict, with each of the numerous characters involved. The actions of one influence the larger picture in ways that's hard to see individually, but clearer collectively.

Bacigalupi lays his fingers down on a key point when it comes to the interaction between government and politics, and The Windup Girl is a very political novel. Multiple sides are presented: the factions in the Environmental Ministry that sticks to a rigid goal of protection, while the Trade Ministry works to leverage their own advantages. At the end of the day, the story really looks to the influence of money on people: the highly corruptable, and the marginally less so, and how that motivates their rise and retention of power. While all sides are equally flawed - both sides are corrupt in their actions. It's clearly a book that looks at what happens when large corporations gain a lot of influence and power in a political system. They work to their own advantage, an end that's not usually in line with the overall good ends of a country and large population.

What does that sound like?

The Windup Girl hit at the right moment: We're facing environmental degredation at the hands of a population and from corporations that can't look to practical, long term requirements or beyond shareholder interests, and when power in politics is generally distrusted by a large number of Americans. While listening and reading this book, I've had snippets of news on the radio or from twitter about protests from around the world, protests against an entire array of opressive governmental power and economic disparity. I view science fiction as the literature of the moment, and this book has certainly hit on a wide range of important points. Bacigalupi's future holds much of the same, in different forms and examples, in an all too realistic, frightening and plausible vision. It's a book that's not only held up to its first reading, but grown in significance.

Germline, TC McCarthy

A common talking point that I’ve found when it comes to military science fiction is that it's not a game. War is more than a bunch of soldiers dressed up in powered armor, shooting at aliens or their enemies, and telling a good story set against a backdrop of an epic war that pits the good guys against the bad guys. More than its surrounding features, military science fiction is a way to look at the present day. Germline, by TC McCarthy is a book that really gets the complexity, danger and horrors of warfare. It's the shock to the system that the first World War was to the civilized world, where they saw, first-hand, that war is a cruel and unforgiving institution.

Set at some point in the reasonably near future, the United States is at war with Russia. The battlegrounds are the mountains of Kazakhstan, where the war has dragged on in brutal fashion. Oscar Wendell is a reporter for Stars and Stripes, dropped in on the front lines to report on the progress of the war, where he's caught up amongst the soldiers that he befriends, and alongside the genetically engineered soldiers designed to take on the hardest battles.

One of the first novels that I've picked up that really seems to be influenced by the past decade of war in the Middle East (the other being Dan Abnett's Embedded), and it's a pleasant surprise to see the book draw from ideas other than the American experience in the Second World War or abject American exceptionalism. This feels like a book with less a political or national agenda, and one aimed far closer to the idea that warfare is, at its core, a horrible experience that should be avoided on the policy level.

Germline hits some snags early on, and takes a little while for it catch it's breath. For most of the book, I was wavering between liking the book for its message, and frustrated at points for some of the execution. Oscar is bounced from place to place, seemingly without warning, cause or purpose, as the war just drifts along. Key characters and moments that feel like they're supposed to take on far more significance pass by quickly, and a couple of personal issues that Oscar has are focused on and then dropped. Looking back, the ground-view experience from Oscar feels authentic, from his interactions with the US Marines in the beginning of the story, to the simple chaotic nature of his movements: this isn't a book that really looks at the war sans blinders. It's a tiny piece of a greater conflict, and within that context, it does a remarkable job.

For all of my misgivings, several of the complaints that I had about the story evaporated when I read a review that spoke a bit about the First World War experience, when everything began to fall into place. For all that warfare can be explained through charts, power point slides, rank structures, and the combat readiness statistics that are out there to explain why going to war is sometimes needed, it simply cannot explain away the experiences of a person on the front lines, no matter what the objectives are.

Reaching the last couple of chapters of Germline, it's clear that McCarthy gets warfare: his short bio includes a coy reference to his experiences as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency during the opening days of the 'War on Terror'. The final, key part of the book shows us everything about how warfare is all but unknowable to the people who haven't experienced it. (I'd like to think that studying it provides some level of insight)

When it comes to much of the military science fiction that's out there - and there's a wide variety of what's available - this book stands apart because it so intensely focuses on the people caught up in the middle of the war. They don't care about the larger parts of the strategy that's required, nor the theory behind it, but at the people at the other end of their rifles. There's other books that have focused on the characters, but there's none that I've really come across that drives the point home so effectively.

War, at the end of the day, is complicated. It's rarely as clear cut a story of overwhelming good verses overwhelming evil. It's far more than strategy, while it's also far more than just the soldier's perspective. While I found parts of Germline underwhelming in some of its details, I found that it was more than a match for my expectations in other arenas: a good lesson to internalize. Moreover, the book outlines some outstanding points about how we as a society deal (or fail to deal) with the institution of warfare: the people who experience warfare firsthand deserve a major amount of respect for what they've experienced and survived, and in some cases, are still dealing with.

Changing the Skies

So. A year of waiting, several weeks of research and writing, and it's finally here: the November 2011 issue of Armchair General. On page 36, and running for 8 pages (including some awesome pictures and captions), is my first print article titled Changing the Skies: Curtis LeMay and the Cold War Transition of U.S. Strategic Airpower from Planes to Missiles. It's a bit of a long-realized dream, and on Saturday morning a couple of weeks ago, I opened the mail to find a thick package with several copies: my advance copies of the entire magazine, in glossy print, with my name right below the article title.

In March of 2010, Norwich University held the annual Colby Symposium, a two day event dedicated to military history and writing, typically on the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least since I've been there. I've missed a single year since 2002, and ever year, I come away from the talks with a better understanding of how War works. Almost two years ago, while at the Meet the Authors Dinner, I met Col. (RET) Jerry Morelock, the editor in chief of Armchair General, which sponsors a student scholarship, and we began to talk. He gave me his card, and within a couple of days, I'd e-mailed him back with a couple of article ideas. The one that stuck was a transition from the Second World War to the Cold War, particularly when it came to how the United States transitioned from aircraft to missiles.

The article came out of a couple of projects that I'd been working on prior to that. In 2009, I'd finished my Master's in Military History through Norwich, and I'd presented at two conferences, one of which, I presented my capstone paper on Spaceflight and the Military influences, particularly the strategic arms race that raged between the US and USSR. After finishing that work, I came across some additional sources that shed more light on the broader subject, and I wanted to explore more about it.

After gaining approval for the article and signing the contracts, I began research, looking to tie together a better story than the scattered ideas that I had, eventually discovering that much of the history went through General Curtis LeMay, who had implimented many of the lessons that the US put to the skies post-WWII.

The article was turned in, then it came back for a couple of rounds of revisions, and by May, it was complete, a nice feeling. I moved on to a couple of other projects, and soon, the magazines appeared at home. (Another issue, July 2011's, also features a classmate, David Armstrong, with another piece that I've got on the to-read pile.) It's something to know that they'll be coming out, with all the work completed, but it's quite another to see the finished product, from the cutaways, the pictures (and the absolutely gorgeous front page spread), and my name under it all. The people at the magazine seemed to really like it, and the various family members and co-workers who've taken my advance copies have also been quite positive with their reactions, something I barely dared to hope for.

It's been a very, very cool opportunity, one that I'm following up with another project through Armchair General, this time on the late General Ernest Harmon, who commanded the 2nd Armored Division during the Second World War. The research is exciting, and I'm looking forward to getting this one written and turned in.

Changing the Skies appears in the November 2011 issue of the magazine, but subscribers should be receiving it now (I've gotten an additional copy through work in the mail). You can subscribe to the magazine here and get more information about the magazine at their website.

Captain America & World War II

The best part of the latest Marvel film, Captain America, is the end credits. Bold propaganda posters with bright, 1940s colors, jumping out of the screen in the best display of three dimensions in the entire film, the credits capture everything that’s to know about the entire film. Fun, splashy, with more than a little propaganda splashed in there somewhere, it’s everything that America remembers broadly about the Second World War: a classic fight against unmentionable evil, where the good guys win in the end.

Captain America as a superhero film felt like a mixed product for me. One part advance marketing for the 2012 Avengers film, helmed by Joss Whedon, another part superhero origin story and the last bit war film. On the whole, it’s a fun ride: Chris Evans is spectacular as the titular character in Red, White and Blue, with one of the better origin stories set to celluloid (or gigabyte as it were), up there with the original Spiderman and Iron Man films. Yet despite that, the film is torn between missions, and fell pretty far from my expectations, which surprised me, given the praise that the film has garnered from a lot of outlets that I generally trust.

One of the film’s strongest and weakest points was its setting of the Second World War. It’s a fantastic place to place a superhero origin, given the near supernatural nature of the war itself, not to mention accurate to the character’s origins. World War II has taken on a mythological status within the United States, as it’s arguably the one point where the country displayed its absolute best, and absolute worst (necessarily – I’m not being revisionist!).

The movie is good – great even – when we’re introduced to a scrawny Steve Rodgers getting booted from his physical, and given the opportunity to prove himself with some medical experimentation that turns him into the only super soldier that the United States is able to create. Johnson sets up a good arc for Rogers as he’s selected not for his physical strength, but for his purely American character of being a well rounded individual: good of heart, smart, resourceful, all traits that live up to a supposed ideal American that the modern right wing would point to. It’s an admirable goal, to be sure: Steve’s a nice guy, and he saves the entire Eastern seaboard, but it’s a simple vision for how the United States and her allies collided with the Axis powers in Europe. (Japan is barely referenced.) The film builds as Rogers is put onto promotional detail, and it’s not until he reaches the front that he realizes his full potential as a soldier. Once there, he gets one awesome costume / uniform that I love.

It’s the wartime action part of the film that drags the film down. Full of tired action scenes with the all-token American team, the film never really materializes as any type of war film: it’s a collection of sequences against a faceless (literally!) enemy who serves as a stand-in for the Nazi and German soldiers on the front lines of the war. Part of this is from the fact that this is a comic book film in a bizzaro Marvel universe, but I can’t think that the reasons for why we didn’t see Nazis in the films: The Hydra soldiers could have hardly beat out the SS troops as ridiculously cartoonish in and of themselves, and there’s an incredible opportunity missed here when looking to set up a story of American good vs. evil. The action scenes feel as if they’re there for their own sake, penciled in by the screenwriters because they couldn’t be bothered to pick up a Stephen Ambrose story, or any one of the other millions of tomes released in the last decade about the Second World War. As a whole? It’s also pretty boring: Cap hits people with his shield, bounces around Europe to take out the Hydra baddies, and jumps over things on his motorcycle.

In a way, this feels very much as how the United States sees and views the Second World War: we know the basics: the US was attacked, went overseas to far-off battlefields against an enemy who displayed a real disregard for any type of human dignity (not that there’s much in war to begin with, but there’s certainly a line drawn at human experimentation and outright murder), where we won by the strength of our soldiers with a moral imperative to win the war. Rogers / Captain America certainly fit this bill to a T.

My argument here is that it’s just too simple, much as Captain America is, and that the film is basically a reflection of our own understanding and our collective desire to understand the war. The United States faced an enemy that really outgunned and out trained our soldiers for years on the battlefield, bound by a strong nationalistic sense of duty that bordered on fanatical in some instances. The United States largely won the war by outsupplying their armies, slowly improving the training and equipment of our GIs and keeping to a strategy that outmaneuvered the Axis powers, rather than simply outfighting them at every turn by our own prowess, strength and will to fight. This in and of itself is a bit of a simplification, but the study of World War II is akin to a complicated onion, with layers upon layers: it was truly a global war, with innumerable facets.

The Superhero archetype that Captain America displays is something that we commonly believe as a country: it’s a nice narrative, and in a way, Captain America is us, or at least, the parts that we really want to see. The conflict set up between him and Red Skull is horribly underplayed: all things equal, the only differences between the two men are their inner natures: Captain America is good, Red Skull is evil, and it’s a fight that’s set up with some real promise, but ultimately never goes anywhere meaningful, beyond action sequences. Not that the film needed much more than that: it’s designed as a fun action film, so this works, but other Marvel films such as Iron Man really demonstrated that a strong character film is possible: Iron Man succeeded wildly as a story of a self-examination and role within the nation’s character. Captain America never quite does this, although it does a far better job at it than Superman, another type of national hero, does.

Finally, I’m personally tired of the Avengers crossover that seems to be bleeding into every film. Before, we just had to content with the trailers as the beginning of the film: now, they’re in the movies themselves, and while I’m just as excited to see everything next year, I hate the amount of pandering that Marvel is displaying for the film: there’s connections to Iron Man and Thor here in this film, and for someone who hasn’t seen every film, it doesn’t feel so much like connecting stories as trying to bleed the audience dry. The film also hints rather overtly that the next main storyline will be the Winter Soldier run, with the (spoiler!) off-stage death of Bucky.

Captain America is a fun film, but it’s no Iron Man. Well acted (Chris Evans is a superb Captain America and Tommy Lee Jones has some fantastic comedic moments throughout, as well as some of the supporting cast) at points, but the film’s unable to really capitalize on the 2nd World War beyond turning it into one giant series of action sequences that does little to move the characters forward, or even make the audience care about them. The real shame is that I’ve seen people point to this as the ultimate sort of patriotic film, which annoys me because it’s not much more than a regular run of the mill summer blockbuster, just wrapped up in the flag.

Like the end credits, it's propaganda, a self-fulfilling mythos that we perpetuate ourselves to remind us of how great we are. That bothers me, a great deal. Still, it’s fun to see quasi-Nazis get hit in the face with a red, white and blue shield. That never gets old.

The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways

This morning, I pulled out of my driveway and angled down U.S. Route 2, shifting onto VT Route 12 and through the hills of Berlin and Northfield to work. Tonight, I’ll likely make my way back on the same route, but I very well might take I-89N up from Northfield to Berlin. Never once, in any of the hundreds of trips that I’ve made along that route, have I ever seriously wondered where the roads came from. They’ve always been there, for better or for worse, and they make up the foundation upon which our modern lives exist. Earl Swift’s latest book, The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways, is a grand story that I’ve long wanted to read about: the development of the American highway and interstate system.

Despite the title about this being a history of the superhighway system, Swift’s book looks to the development of the entire vehicular road system in the United States, deftly weaving together a story that looks at the rise of the automobile, its influence on urban development and the growth of commerce in the United States over the last century. This is a book that could easily be a dry tome, mired in the tiny details at the weed level. The focus is on the personalities, however, where unassuming men shaped the character of the country: Thomas “The Chief” MacDonald, Herbert Sinclair Fairbank, and Frank Turner, all people you've likely never heard of. Swift balances neatly the personal lives of each man (and from all accounts, he really did his homework, going the extra mile, so to speak, to look into how the men were motivated) with how they each influenced the way we drive around.

At the turn of the 20^th century, driving was a nightmare for urban areas. Horses and bicycles were widely used within cities, and the first cars were primitive, dangerous contraptions that were hard to use at the best of road conditions. However, due to several motivated salesmen, cars became popular: the early days of racing sprang up, cars with wheels, a seat, steering, an engine, and not much else. As the demand for cars rose, so did the political pressure for a better road network, something that many notable politicians (including President Harry Truman), built their careers on.

The development of the United State’s infrastructure seems to have come in a couple of stages: the commonly agreed upon problem of poor roads in the country and the city brought about an interesting case for the influence of federal vs. state government interaction: a massive, national project such as the first highway system (the two lane roads that criss-cross the nation) is enormously expensive, and something largely outside of what the states could afford. The process in which the money came around, but also the construction and standardization of the roadways largely follows MacDonald, who’s vision carried the country forward by eventually linking the East and West coasts by a single, uniform road network. Once a dangerous endeavor that took weeks, it soon took just days, with little danger other than from one’s fellow drivers.

The development of the US Highway system shaped just how we drive as well: the development of headlights, improved safety features and the types of vehicles that were built all came as a result of just how the American public itself changed as a result of the new freedom of mobility that the new roads offered them. At the same time, the changes in cars allowed for continued changes in just how the roads were designed: new methods for building, as well as the best colors to paint signs, and an entirely new standard design for the signs and features along the highway system.

The monumental and extraordinary growth in car ownership from the turn of the century to the mid-1950s meant that the roads designed to link together the nation were overtaxed, overcrowded and clogged with traffic jams. Swift notes that the infrastructure simply wasn’t designed to hold the volume, which led to practical problems within cities. The traffic jams of today apparently can’t compare to what it was like at that time, with too many cars flooding too few (or too small streets), partially due to missed assumptions on the growth of the automobile industry, but also some fundamental basics to how roads attract drivers and how people themselves drive.

Where MacDonald took over for the first major phase of the highway system, his retirement lead to the rise of one of his associates, Frank Turner, who got his start under MacDonald. Turner helped to shepherd a newly designed style of highway into the country to help ease the numerous traffic problems throughout the country. The superhighway system is radically different from the regular highway system: seperated from other roads, with limited access, higher speeds and designed to bring people in and out of cities and across the country. As Swift recounts the development and political wrangling that occurred, we’re introduced to a new element of highway development: land use and the necessity to destroy thousands of homes and businesses in cities in place of roadway. Protests, political stalling and civic activism arises, further changing the system. Ever wonder why Baltimore doesn’t have a highway running through it?

If there’s any flaw with the book, it’s the treatment of President Dwight Eisenhower, for whom the entire network is named for. Swift goes out of his way to denigrate the President, pointing out almost every instance of where he was on vacation or away while vital decisions were made. While I've no issue with the critical element here, I do have to wonder if the careful research present in all of the other elements of the book are present on the highest level: I can’t fathom that Eisenhower was completely in the dark for all of the elements, as he alleges. That being said, it’s a good historical example how how enormously complicated things work: the groundwork is often laid far in advance of when things get going: this is certainly the case for the roads, with all of the right people, research and motivation moving along and ramping up in the first half of the 20^th century, before coming into fruition under the Eisenhower Administration, and finally completed by 1992.

Swift closes the book with a warning: the highway system, as monumental and fundamental as it is, isn’t designed forever, and with further increases in traffic volume around the country, we’re quickly running up to the point in time where large-scale problems will start to arise. Hundreds of bridges are dangerous, damaged or out of date, and road surfaces are in continual need for improvement. While this is the case, the entire system will need a large influx of investment in the coming decades, numbering in the hundreds of billions of dollars, while decreasing revenue is bringing in insufficient money to keep up with the demand. The golden age of roads may be coming to an end, but the system will last far into the future.

The Big Roads is a fantastic book that delves into American’s history and its character. Swift has done an impressive job in telling stories within stories, shedding an interesting light on the nature of the mid-20^th century. It’s exciting, exhilarating, and interesting throughout, with a bright cast of characters doing what very well might have been impossible, while building something that has made the country what it is today.

Europe Trip

 

I'm finally back from Belgium and caught up with work, rest and a bit of reading to start to put things together on the trip. Short story, Belgium and Germany both rock, while US Airways sucks. A couple of weeks ago, I posted up the sections of the paper that I wrote up, an overview of the Battle of the Bulge and the role that Norwich University students played (note, however, that it's a bit of a work in progress) during the battle.

Seeing a battlefield for one's self, however, puts an entirely new dynamic understanding the battle. Going to Belgium and Germany to look at the lead up to the Bulge, and the Bulge itself, helped me understand a lot, but also showed me where I need to continue to research to make the paper better. That'll likely happen this summer, as I update what I wrote a bit, and write up an article on the 2nd Armored Division for Armchair General.

Flying was a nightmare, and you can read the other post for the specifics - it's not worth remembering, honestly. But, getting into Brussels left me a little time to wander, so I walked a couple of miles from the hotel into the city center (I didn't want to worry about figuring out the bus and train system, and I was impatient). Taking out a map, I noted which streets I went down, and wandered my way over, which is something that I recommend in any foreign city - I did it in London, and in Athens, and I honestly believe that I got a better sense of the city than I otherwise would have. It's a neat place, entirely not what I expected, and a huge contrast from the downtown tourist section.

Meeting up with the group, we had our initial briefing, then set out the next morning to look at the northern advance of the 2nd Armored Division in the months preceding the Bulge, as Norwich had a member, Captain James Burt, who earned the Metal of Honor in Aachen for his actions during a firefight. We looked at several towns in the lead up to that fight, examining some of the logistical problems that would have cropped up, as well as some of the battlefield sites.

One of the parts that always hits the hardest when looking at battlefields is looking at the US Cemeteries: they're immaculate, haunting, and stark. We visited the Henri Chappelle American Cemetery and Memorial, where we discovered the final resting place of a Norwich Alum, Arnold McKerer, a 2nd Lieutenant from the 9th Infantry Division who was killed the day after he was deployed to Monschau. It was sobering, and drove a couple of points home: our institution had a real stake in the battle, and this was a tangible result.

Monschau was lovely: an ancient town, set in a valley, with traditional, German looking structures, a castle on one side, and some ruins on the other. I set out away from the group again and walked around the streets, covering most of it in the couple of hours that we had. It felt very touristy in some places, although it was gratifying to see that there were also German tourists there. I bought an wooden whistle for my dad, in the shape of an owl, then hiked up to the top to the Castle, and then to the ruins.

Monday, we set out from Monchau to look at the opening moments of the Bulge attack. Hitler and his forces achieved near complete surprise in their attack against the allies, which resulted in the near destruction of the 28th and 106th Infantry Divisions. This was in a heavily wooded section of the country, where there was limited mobility, units that were resting from hard combat and new to the front lines. As we drove to the first sites, we saw the remains of the Siegfried Line, dragon's teeth fortifications that were designed to stop an invasion. It's astonishing that they're still there, a pointed reminder of the war and Hitler's legacy.

Going into the woods was eerie. The temperature dropped a couple of degrees, and there's a peaceful calm feel to the woods. The trees are planed in lines, shooting straight to the sky. We could hear birds, owls and the wind as we walked to a monument to the 99th Infantry Division, the unit that fought in that area, as well as the Volksgrenadier Division that was also there. Moving in deeper, we came across the remains of the trenches and foxholes that the allies had dug in place, and listened to some discussion of life in the trenches. Such a violent past felt very out of place in those woods.

From there, we moved further West, towards St. Vith, and looked at the surrounding territory, and the intentions of the German military as they swept inwards. We had a couple of Norwich students perish in this area. Another stand saw more foxholes. We climbed out of the valleys and up into the high ground to the north of the section, where the 82nd Airborne Division held territory, before turning in for the night at Bastogne.

Tuesday, we focused extensively on the 2nd Armored Division, driving out to the western sections of the battlefield, 'classic tank country', according to our guides, BG (RET) Hal Nelson and MG (RET) Gordon Sullivan. Norwich University had focused on cavalry training early on, and we had a number of students present in the ranks, including the general, Ernest Harmon, who would eventually become the university's president in the post-war years. There were several key towns that we looked at that saw some major actions from our soldiers there, who worked to cut off the German advance, and stopping it in its tracks. I could spend an entire week there, looking at that, I think.

The last day, Wednesday, we stayed in Bastogne, where we drove out to the memorial, a towering star-shaped structure that spells out the actions of the bulge. It's an impressive memorial, one that would be a good place to stop to get a good overview of the battle. We didn't look much at Bastogne, but we saw where the significance came from, and the actions that the US 101st Airborne and 10th Armored Division played in helping hold the ground. From there, it was back to Brussels, where we had our final briefing and dinner, then departed for the night. I spend the next two days trying to get home, but ultimately, the trip was worth the trouble. I want to go back to that territory: it's gorgeous out there, with a fascinating role in the 2nd World War.

Norwich University and the Battle of the Bulge: Introduction

As of right now, I’m enroute to Brussels, Belgium. Last fall, I was tasked with researching the role that students and alumni played during the Battle of the Bulge, one of the defining engagements of the Second World War. Over six months, I looked at a number of records and publications, gathering information on the students, then at the units that they were a part of, before examining where they all fit together into the actual battle. It was quite a bit of fun, and over the next week, I’m touring the battlefields on what’s called a Staff Ride, essentially consulting and providing information on how the university played a role in the battle. Over the next week, I’ve split up my paper into parts, and as I’ll be in the country, it seems fitting that I share the work (somewhat modified from the original paper, in places) while I’m there. I’ll have plenty of pictures to share when I return.

Introduction The Battle of the Bulge was the most intense and costly battle that the United States and its allies waged against the German military during the Second World War. Over a million soldiers on both sides involved in the clash that would last for 41 days, beginning on December 16th, 1944. This battle was the only time that the German military fought against the United States with the upper hand, due adverse weather conditions for the allies, limiting their abilities, and the overconfidence in the Axis’ ability to wage war.

Norwich University played its own role in this engagement, with around one hundred alumni at or potentially at the battlefield, based on the records examined at various sources from the university. The school undoubtedly played a role in the conduct and leadership abilities of the students who trained and shipped off to Europe, with soldiers with university credentials (or eventual university association) ranging from the rank of Private, First Class, on the front lines, to the rank of Major General, overseeing the operations on a divisional level, playing pivotal roles in the direction of the battle. Indeed, Norwich University alumni gave their blood and their lives in Belgium, making the ultimate sacrifice for their country in a time of grave need, helping the battle and their comrades through to the end.

Soldiers from Norwich were also present throughout the battle, from the first moments in the early morning of December 16th, 1944, to the last, on January 25th, 1945, 41 days later. They participated as airborne, infantry and armored units, instrumental in all major actions taken during the campaign to push back the German onslaught.

Setting the Stage On June 6th, 1944, Allied forces came ashore in Normandy, France, where the fight into Europe began in earnest, pushing the German military further back over the course of the fall that year. Over the course of the fall, a number of Norwich University alumni arrived to fight for their country: On June 9th, elements of the 2nd Armored Division arrived on shore, under the command of Major General Brooks, a Norwich graduate, who would eventually hand over command to General Ernest Harmon, who would continue to push deeper into Europe.

From Normandy, US and Allied forces moved to liberate Paris and the rest of Europe.

In September 1944, the allies launched Operation Market-Garden against German positions in Holland, where allied forces looked to capture ground and allow for a quick march straight to Germany. Its eventual failure pushed back expectations that they would reach Berlin in a timely manner.

On October 13th, 1944, the 2nd Armored Division saw action at Wurselen, Germany, where Captain James Burt, of the 66th Armored Regiment B Company, earned the Medal of Honor for his actions against a German garrison, directing fire from an exposed position, and in the course of which he was wounded. Over following nine days, he continued to scout enemy positions, direct friendly fire towards enemy positions and to aid the wounded.

The 10th Armored Division likewise saw some action at this time, and on November 27th, Joseph Haines Clarke, with 10th Armored Division’s 3rd Cavalry, Troop D, was wounded in action.

As the German military was pushed back into Germany and out of lower Europe, German High Chancellor Adolf Hitler began to plan an offensive that would hit allied forces where they were the weakest, between the British and American militaries. Code-named Wacht am Rhein (Watch the Rhine), the planning began in September 1944, with the intention to move out towards Muese, and then to Antwerp.

On December 13th, just days before the German military stepped off their attack on the morning of the 16th, Major Wesley Goddard, ’33, of the 18th Field Artillery Group, was killed, after commanding units in France and Belgium.

Tomorrow, the start of the Battle: December 16th.

Space Exploration and the American Character

Historian Dr. Michael Robinson, of the University of Hartford, opened his talk with a William Falkner quote that helped frame the 1961-1981 Key Moments in Human Spaceflight conference in Washington DC, held on April 26th through April 27th: “The past is never dead. It's not even past.” The first talks of the day dealt extensively with the narrative and drive behind space travel and exploration, painting it as much of a major cultural element within the United States as it was one of scientific discovery and military necessity. In a way, we went to space because it was something that we’ve always done as Americans.

The Past

Dr. Robinson started with a short story of a great endeavor that captured the imagination of the public, one that brought in a lot of rivalry between nations on a global scale, advanced our scientific knowledge, and where high tech equipment helped bring valiant explorers to the extremes. Several disasters followed, and the government pulled back its support, yielding part of the field to private companies. If asked, most people would describe the space race of the twentieth century, and while they would be right, what Robinson talked about was the race for the North Pole. In 1909, American explorer Robert Peary claimed to have reached the North Pole, becoming the first known man to do so. While there are reasons to doubt or support Peary’s travels, Robinson makes some interesting points in comparing the North Pole to that of the space expeditions.

Robinson described a culture of exploration that’s existed in the United States since its inception, but took pains to make a distinction between the frontier motif that has permeated science fiction, and the realities that we’ve come to expect from going into orbit. Television shows have undoubtedly aided in the excitement for space research and exploration, but they’ve incorporated elements that have great significance for American audiences: Star Trek, for example, had been described as a ‘Wagon train to the stars’, while Firefly has likewise been described as a ‘Western in space’, to say nothing of films like Outland, Star Wars, and numerous other examples. In his 2004 address that helped outline America’s space ambitions, President George W. Bush noted that “the desire to explore and understand is part of our character”. Other presidents have said similar things, and it’s clear that there’s a certain vibe that it catches with the American voter.

It makes sense, considering the United State’s history over the past centuries: Americans are all newcomers, and as Robinson said, the west was a place to settle. The arctic, and space, really aren’t, and distinctions should be made between everything. Historically, both space and the arctic have much smaller footprints of human interactions. It’s a difficult area to reach, and once people are there, it’s an incredibly hostile environment that discourages casual visits.

The American West, on the other hand, is very different for the purposes of imagery for space travel. During the great migration during the 1800s, it was relatively cheap for a family to travel out to vast untapped territory: around $500. Additionally, once people reached the west, they found a place that readily supported human life, providing land, food, and raw materials. The American west was transformed by mass migration, helping to vastly expand the U.S. economy during that time, while leading to a massive expansion of the federal government and to the Civil War. Space, on the other hand, isn’t so forgiving, and like the arctic, doesn’t yield the benefits that the west provided.

The explorations into the arctic gives us a sense of where space can go and how expectations from the public and the scientific community can come into line with one another. The polar explorations absolutely captured the imagination of the public: art exhibits toured the country, while one of the first science fiction novels, Frankenstein, was partially set in the North. However, what we can learn from the arctic is fairly simple: we abandon the idea of development in the short to mid future. Like the arctic, space is an extreme for human life, and the best lessons that we can glean for space will come from the past experiences that we’ve had from other such extremes: exploration in areas where people don’t usually go. This isn’t to say that people shouldn’t, or can’t go to the ends of the Earth and beyond, but to prepare accordingly, in all elements.

The arctic provides a useful model in what our expectations should be for space, and provide some historical context for why we go into space. We shouldn’t discount the idea that the west and the country’s history of exploration and settlement as a factor in going into space.

The Space Age

James Spiller, of SUNY Brockport, followed up with talk about the frontier analogy in space travel, noting that the imagery conformed to people’s expectations, and that notable figures in the field, such as Werner von Braun, liked the comparison because it helped to promote people’s interest in space. The west connected and resonated with the public, which has a history and mythos of exploration. This goes deep in our metaphorical, cultural veins, linking the ideas of US exceptionalism and individualism that came from the colonization of the American continent. The explorations to the west, the arctic and eventually to space, came about because it appealed to out character: it was part of our identity.

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 undermined much of what Americans believed, not just on a technical scale, but seemed to confirm that a country with vastly different values could do what we weren’t, with everything that was going for us, able to do. In the aftermath of the launch, President Eisenhower moved slowly on an American response, to great dismay of the public. It was a shock to the entire country, one that helped to prompt fast action and pushing up the urgency for a red-blooded American to go into space. How could the individual, exceptional Americans fall behind the socialists, whose values run completely counter to our own? There had already been numerous examples of individuals who had conquered machines and territories, such as Charles Lindberg and Robert Peary and the Mercury astronauts followed. Indeed, for all of the reasons for why the West feels important to Americans, the space program exemplifies certain traits in the people we selected to represent us in space.

Spiller noted that the frontier of the west seems to have vanished: the culture towards the end of the 1960s and early 1970s fractured society and the idea of American exceptionalism: the Civil Rights movement discredited parts of it, all the while the United States seems to have lost its lead in the global economy as other countries have overtaken it. As a result, the message of space changed, looking not out, but in. President Ronald Reagan worked to revisit the message, as did President H.W. Bush. There have been further changes since the first space missions: a new global threat that actively seeks to curtail modernism, terrorism, has preoccupied out attention, and pushed our priorities elsewhere.

Going Forward

The last speaker was former NASA Historian Steven Dick, who looked at the relationship between Exploration, Discovery and Science within human spaceflight, pointing out distinctions between the three: Exploration implies searching, while Discovery implies finding something, while science leads to explanation. The distinctions are important because they are fundamental to the rhetoric, he explained, and that the last program to really accomplish all three was the Apollo program.

Going into the future, NASA appears to be at a crossroads, and its actions now will help to define where it goes from here on out. The original budget that put men on the moon was unsustainable, but only just, and that as a result, NASA at the age of fifty is still constrained by actions taken when it was only twelve. The space shuttle is part of a program that was not a robust agent of exploration, discovery or science. He pointed out that where programs like Apollo and the Hubble Space telescope have their dramatic top ten moments, the Space shuttle really doesn’t, because it’s a truck: it’s designed with indeterminate, multiple functions, ranging from a science platform to a delivery vehicle for satellites. This isn’t to discredit the advances made because of the shuttle, but when compared to other programs, it doesn’t quite compare. The space station, on the other hand, was well worth the money, but people don’t respond as well to pure science as they do exploration. Apollo demonstrated that science alone isn’t enough to sustain public interest.

As he said it, “exploration without science is lame, discovery without science is blind, and exploration without discovery or science is unfulfilled.” Going forward, any endeavors beyond our planet should encapsulate all three elements to capture the public’s imagination, and make the efforts to go beyond orbit worthwhile for all. However, manned spaceflight can accomplish so much more than robotic probes and satellites, especially for fulfilling the frontier motif that helps to define our interest in going into space: it seems hard to embody the traits that have helped inspire people to go further when it’s someone, or something, else doing the exploring.

Space, the final frontier, is an apt way to look at how manned spaceflight programs are looked at, and it certainly captures the imagination of people from around the world. While some of the direct imagry is misplaced, it's not a bad thing for people to capture, but it does help to remember the bigger, and more realistic picture when it comes to what the goals and expectations are for space. NASA, going forward will have to take some of these lessons to heart, reexamining its core mission and the goals that its working to put forward. Nobody in the room doubted that the money and the advances that have come forward as a result of space travel were worth the cost and risks involved, but they want it to continue forward far into the future. To do otherwise would mean giving up a significant part of who we are, because the traits that that have come to define our exploration beyond the horizon, to the North and high above us are elements that are worth celebrating: the drive to discover, to explore and to explain are all essential for the future.

Coda

I vividly remember the events of September 11^th. I was at my high school’s library, on one of the computers when I came across the news on a news site, and over the course of the afternoon, we learned that it was no accident, but a deliberate attack against the country. I remember being concerned that we didn’t know who did it, until the news began to shift over the next couple of days to the Middle East. In my 10^th grade history class, we listened to the radio. The road was dead silent as the commentators spoke about the event. That day has defined the existence of my generation, in every single facet of life, as we’ve watched the towers tumble into two wars across the world, while our domestic society has undergone major shifts and changes that we’ve gone along with in the name of security and safety. One man changed the world, and he’s now dead.

I’m not sure what I felt while listening to NPR late at night, when the rumors that Bin Laden was killed by US Special Forces in Pakistan. There’s a certain amount of relief, given the significance of the actions, but quite a bit of emptiness at the news. Bin Laden is now gone, and as the head of a terrorist group that’s killed thousands of people, I’m happy to see that he won’t be able to contribute to the overall direction and leadership, which will undoubtedly save lives in the future. At the same time, his death won’t bring back all those who’ve been killed across the world, and it won’t stop the momentum on the movement that he started.

Major political events have a certain momentum that keeps them going, and the death of Bin Laden ultimately won’t stop because their leader has been killed. It’s a setback, to be sure, just as when any organization loses their leader, they lose their particular guidance and leadership. Undoubtedly, there is some form of contingency plan on the part of Al Qaida to shift power around, and hopefully, it’s not well thought out or planned to any good degree, so that the transfer of power will be inefficient and slow down whatever plans they have coming up. That being said, Al Qaida certainly does have a population of people who support their goals and the means that they use to bring about their intended ends, and for that reason, it’s clear that the fight against terrorist activities will continue.

Hopefully, though, his death will help to further delegitimize Al Qaida as a credible entity in the eyes of those who are sympathetic to their ends. The uprisings across the Middle East have demonstrated – in part – that peaceful protest can help to gain what the people want, that violence doesn’t always have to happen. There’s no direct comparison between the efforts used to attack the US and to overthrow some of the Northern African – Arabic leaders, but there’s certainly the demonstration of alternatives. That being said, some of his supporters have already vowed violence in revenge: we’re not out of the woods yet.

Undoubtedly, we’ll see a couple of dramatic narratives on the events of the 1^st, covering the planning that went into the raid that took Bin Laden’s life: I’ll be interested in seeing everything that happened leading up to it. I’ve already read a number of fascinating accounts between the White House and the military, in a real intelligence story that involved a lot of moving parts and elements. I’m rather surprised to see some of the news point to Guantanamo Bay as a source for some of the information that helped lead to the raid. It’ll be interesting to see the aftermath in the years, and that despite the stigma that the place represented to the outside world, some parts of it proved to be useful to the security of the country. It’s hard to remember at times that there are elements that we don’t see, and it’ll be interesting to see the final cost vs. the benefit that we attained from it.

The wars in Afghanistan will continue on as well, although with the death of Bin Laden, I’m guessing that there will be a bit less support for the conflict, and its impact on global affairs will be interesting to see. The people who supported Bin Laden’s world view of a strict non-secular state ruled by his strict (and flawed) interpretation of Islam are still around and seeking to implement their views in various points around the world. Afghanistan is one place, where the country’s government allowed an attack on the United States from Bin Laden. However, the US presence in Afghanistan, and the United States’ role in world affairs should be reexamined to determine where force should be used. The core mission in Afghanistan was to depress the abilities of Al Qaida to the point where it is no longer a threat to the United States: that would seem to be further along today, but it’s far from over. Our efforts against the insurgency in Afghanistan should be evaluated, to determine whether they are a threat to the country, or to consider whether we’re changing the core mission to something far more different, which has grave consequences and implications for our stance in the world.

This feels less like a victory, and more like a stepping stone in what has turned into a long and terrible struggle. At points, it feels like we’ve lost our way, our focus and sight of what we’re out to do, but hopefully, this incident will remind us of the reasons why this happened in the first place. I for one, don’t want to think of the last ten years that helped to define the world as something of a wasted opportunity to learn and improve upon our future. If anything, hopefully the death of one evil individual will help to bring about a brighter tomorrow.

Karl Marlantes on 'Matterhorn'

Each year, the Colby Symposium awards the Colby Award to a first notable book from an author that deals fundamentally with the nature of warfare and contributes substantially to the field. During the awards dinner this year, executive director and Norwich University Alum, Carlo D'Este said that it was rare that the entire committee universally agrees on a single book, but that this was the case for the 2011 prize, going to Karl Marlantes, with his first acclaimed novel, Matterhorn.

Karl Marlantes is a Marine Corps veteran, a Rhodes Scholar, and a graduate from Yale University. In the course of his military service during the Vietnam War, he earned the Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, two Navy Commendation Medals for Valor, ten air medals and the Navy Cross, amongst numerous others. He first attempted to publish his novel in 1967 and was unsuccessful until 2009, when his book was published by El Leon Literary Arts, and later by the Atlantic Monthly Press in 2010.

Matterhorn is a work of fiction, but is closely tied to Marlantes's own experiences in Vietnam. Early in his presentation, he told the group that he wanted to tell the common experience of Vietnam, rather than simply his own: in literature, readers relate to the characters in the novel, whereas in a memoir, the reader's experience is somewhat different. He believed that fiction was the better route in this case, also because he wanted to get into the heads of a number of different characters, rather than just one person.

Like Stanton, he noted that part of a soldier's training is that people make mistakes: the key is to make sure that the mistake isn't repeated. In the instance of military operations, mistakes can be fatal, and officers are responsible for the people under their command. He noted that the military is run by human beings, and that he didn't believe that there were villains, just people with flaws.

Vietnam, he said, is akin to the alcoholic father, the elephant in the room: it's influential, but nobody wants to talk about it. Like we're seeing now in Afghanistan, we didn't understand the culture, we were restrained by very strict rules of engagement and we worked with a very corrupt and illegitimate native government. One key difference is that there is the absence of major civil unrest in the United States right now, unlike in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1969, there were over 200 fragging instances, where someone would take a fragmentation grenade and roll it into someone's tent. These incidents of fratricide were usually racially motivated. He said that when you take a bunch of 19 year olds and give them weapons, you have the very definition of racial tensions.

Another major difference was the institution of the draft. While the draft was incredibly unfair - people could be exempted from being called into service (if they were attending college, for example), but we have a burdened all volunteer military now. Marlantes asserted that changes needed to be made and that the volunteer military needs to be rethought, as extended periods of warfare put an incredible strain on our armed forces and on the country as a whole. He cited an indifference to the military right now, and that that wasn't good for anyone.

One of the major problems that helped to define Vietnam (and according to Jack Segal, Afghanistan as well): the lack of definable progress with the war. World War II was a clear cut battle: there were objectives that were captured, defined and tangible enemies that were pushed back, islands captured, and so forth. With Vietnam, the only progress was a body count (which he also noted was heavily distorted by soldiers on the ground). Using a body count as a measure of war is immoral. The purpose of the military is not to kill (although it carries that out in the course of its duties) but to stop their enemy from continuing the fight. As soon as one military gets the other to stop, they've won. The killing should never be the objective of the war. In a way, Vietnam became a game. In all things, whether it's warfare or a business, the objectives and the metrics used need to be clear-cut, careful and solid.

Marlantes also cited that there shouldn't be a separation between the people on the ground and the strategy for the war as a whole. Micromanagement of soldiers is problematic, and its essentially a double-edged sword, something that began in Vietnam, and is something that we continue with today. The people on the ground need to understand what the objectives are, and the people setting the objectives need to understand the capabilities and resources available to them in the people on the ground.

At every reading, Marlantes was asked where Matterhorn was. He fought at Hill 484, where they fought very hard to take and hold the position: at one point, they were down to seven bullets per man, before resupply. The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) was very well organized, and formidable enemies. 484, and another hill, 3107, heavily influenced the novel. He noted that a lot of people pulled him aside and recounted their own experiences, and how similar the book's lined up with their own, an indication that the war saw numerous similar experiences for a number of different people.

One major problem with Vietnam, he noted, was the way in which the war was approached and fought. Just a couple of decades after the Second World War, the Navy and Marines were geared towards certain ways of fighting: the marines were geared towards amphibious warfare, while their helicopters were geared towards tactical missions, rather than resupply. During WWII, the Marines worked to take islands, dropped off by the Navy, who would then retreat out of range. Rather than simply bombing, the Marines sought to exchange casualties for speed. However, capital ships weren't in regular danger, and that this caused problems in the execution of the war's strategy.

Personal problems also flared up: drug usage was heavy amongst soldiers, which shouldn't come as a surprise, but soldiers of Vietnam exchanged alcohol for pills, or weed. This is something that's continued forward with the current wars in Afghanistan, although now, it's through legal means, and is something that Marlantes believes will be causing a number of psychological problems for soldiers after the war is over.

Matterhorn is a novel that he hopes will demonstrate the character of the Vietnam War, and through the course of the talk, it's clear that there's a number of parallels between the conflicts in Vietnam and the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East: the changes in strategy, the metrics of warfare, the organization and command of the soldiers and the uncertain battleground and objectives. Matterhorn is on my personal to-read list, and at some point in the future, I'll have a review for it here. There are lessons in the past that should not be overlooked, or forgotten.

Doug Stanton on US Special Forces in Afghanistan

The third talk of the Colby Symposium featured author Doug Stanton, author of the widely acclaimed New York Times bestseller In Harm's Way: The Sinking of the USS Indianapolis and the Extraordinary Story of Its Survivors (Published in 2002), and Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan (published in 2009). Stanton has written for a number of publications, ranging from Esquire to Sports Afield to Outside, and is a contributing editor at Men's Journal. His talk centered on the Special Forces who were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001. He opened by noting that on September 11th, he wondered what, as a writer, he was supposed to do, and realized that he could explain the situation and tell the story of the people who would be fighting.

Shortly after he released In Harm's Way, he toured the country, signing his book at bookstores across the country. At every stop along the way, he found that people everywhere had some way in which they could relate to the disaster of the U.S.S. Indianapolis: they were veterans, they had served on the ship, or were related to someone who had a meaningful relationship with the ship before it sank during the Second World War.

The sailors who had survived the sinking went through a hellish experience: hundreds of survivors in the water, without provisions and hunted by sharks (the disaster helped inspire elements of the film Jaws), numerous sailors simply gave up and perished. The descriptions were horrific: a sailor would let go from the life raft and would be set upon by sharks, after several days without water, with swollen digits and eyes, burned by the sun and hearing the screams of men around them. However, he said that many people told him that they had thought about giving up and going under, but were stopped by the memory of someone talking to them: a grandfather, parent, teacher, who encouraged them to continue onwards just a little longer. Three and a half days later, the remaining 321 survivors (out of the 880 who survived initially) were located and rescued. Stanton said that that made him wonder what he had said, what his parents and teachers had told others that would allow them to continue onwards in a hard situation. This was particularly relevant to the cadets in the room.

Stanton said that he was fortunate to be able to point attention to the veterans of the wars: their stories were at risk of being forgotten or under realized, and that writing was a particularly important way to preserve the past. People need to recognize and understand the contributions of the veterans.

When it came to researching the story behind Horse Soldiers, Stanton said that he ran into trouble because he was used to calling people up and asking them questions: the people involved in the US Special Forces weren't used to that, and he recounted several experiences where the soldiers weren't very forthcoming, because of the nature of their positions in the military, and that it took a little while before they realized what he was doing, and opened up to him. On September 10th, he told the group, you likely wouldn't have found Afghanistan on the plans for any military operation: it was a remote country that caught people by surprise, and there was a scramble to figure out just what to do. The first plans involved the deployment of conventional soldiers into the country, but there were no plans in place, nor any training to support such a mission. Plan B involved 12 Americans in a helicopter that landed in Uzbekistan, where they linked up with a couple of CIA operatives and twenty thousand Anti-Taliban fighters. Special Forces had never been used as the first people into an engagement such as this. The first operations were fast, cheap (70 million dollars), and involved around 300 soldiers, and were shortly followed up with conventional troops. On September 11th, the anti-Taliban forces had heard of the attacks on New York City and Washington DC, and realized that they would soon get help to their cause.

Special Forces, Stanton noted, were unique because they operated very differently from the conventional military: they weren't taken as seriously, because they were forced to understand how to affect changes from the inside of a command structure, rather than from an external means. As Jack Segal noted earlier, the people in Afghanistan have a very different outlook and mindset on their existence, something that has been difficult for the US to understand and either work with (or against). Building a common cause was essential, and the training that the soldiers had was essential.

Stanton talked about a training operation that special forces soldiers went through, called Pineland. USA Today has a good explanation of some of the background on the exercise here, but in short, it's a training operation that forces soldiers to work within relationships of another country: something that is highly relevant in today's battlefield in the Middle East. He noted that their training has a lot to do with failure: the key is to learn from one's mistakes, but also that it's not the decisions that they make when you have a problem: it's the decisions that you made 7 or 8 turns ago that are important.

Improvisation and decentralized decision making are important for this style of warfare as well: soldiers need to learn to improvise and to understand the context of what they are doing, but also to learn on the go as events change quickly. When the first soldiers arrived in Afghanistan, they were asked if they'd ever ridden a horse. Only two raised their hands, and that had only been as children. Stanton went on to characterize the war as a western, only with lasers. It's a situation that changes fluidly, and that the best way to understand, and to fight in a situation like that, is to understand the choices and decisions that were made earlier, and how they influence the present.

Afghanistan: America's Second Vietnam or its First Victory over Al Quida?

The second presentation in the Colby Symposium at Norwich University was titled 'Afghanistan: America's Second Vietnam or its First Victory over Al Qaida?', by Jack Segal. Segal is the Chief Political Advisor to the NATO Joint Force Command Commander, General Wolf Langheld. He is a distinguished figure, having served two tours in Vietnam with the 4th Infantry Division during the Tet Offensive and again with the 25th Infantry Division, where he earned the Bronze Star and Meritorious Service Medal. Since the war and subsequent education, he's held numerous posts in the US Diplomatic service, playing key roles in the negotiations with the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks between the US and the USSR, and was named the first US Consul General in central Russia in 1994 and became the Chief of Staff to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Lynn Davis in 1995. Following that, he worked with the National Security Council at the White House as the director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, and worked with the White House's Kosovo group. in 1999, he became the NSA Director for Non-Proliferation, and joined NATO in 2000. He is also a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the US National Defense University. To say that he's had a distinguished and important role in foreign affairs is a bit of an understatement.

His talk looked to the history of Afghanistan, and the roots of the conflict that we are currently in. He opened with a couple of comments about the present affairs: he noted that he always asks soldiers that he meets a question that his father asked him while he served in Vietnam: "Are you making any headway?".  When his father asked him in the 1960s, he said that he had sat on the question for a month while he tried to figure out the answer. He said that he's gotten a variety of responses from soldiers currently serving in Afghanistan. The war is complicated, he noted, politically, and geographically. One question he's fielded from politicians is that the Afghanistan border needs to be secured, to which he's replied that it's the equivalent of attempting to seal the US Border from Maine to Key West: it's a lot easier said than done.

Segal then turned to history, starting with the Buddha statues that had recently been destroyed by the Taliban, speaking to a long, troubled history with religious connotations. The statues were destroyed because they went against some of the tenents of Islam: deities aren't permitted to be represented in human form. It was an interesting example as to the lengths to which they will go to protect their faith.

Afghanistan was once part of the 'Great Game', between Persia, Russia and the United Kingdom, who went and divided up the country amongst themselves. The UK had extensive colonial interests in India, and were worried about the Russian ambitions in the region. In 1839, the first Anglo-Afghan war began at Ghazni, and while it had begun in favor of the British, by 1842, the entire British army, save for a single person, was massacred at the Khyber Pass. The UK attempted to invade twice more, with similar results, before the region was divided up politically by the major powers in the region, resulting in instability in the future. [As an aside, a good book on the British experiences in India and Afghanistan is Saul David's 'Victoria's Wars'.] The British relinquished control on August 19th, 1919. For part of the 20th century, the country went through several rulers, who made great changes in the nation, working to bring it out of isolation. The monarchy was abolished in 1973, and Afghanistan was declared a Republic.

Segal talked extensively about the Soviet invasion of 1979. On December 24th, the Soviet military deployed a large ground, air and special forces mission in the country, and installed their own Soviet-friendly leader. Thousands of people were killed under this regime. Over the next ten years, a million Afghans were killed, another 1 million internally displaced, and a further 3 million refugees. It was a major disruption to the country. The Soviet Union played out their interactions as a protection from the Mujahedeen, and sought to remove Islamist ties with the country, preferring their own atheistic model - an easy sell to the USSR. This created opportunity for enemies of the USSR: A good example is the events of Charlie Wilson's War, as the US began to funnel money and weapons into the country. At the start of the invasion, the US handed over around $1 million. By the end of the occupation 10 years later, that money ballooned to over a billion dollars.

During this time, Osama Bin Laden enters the picture in Afghanistan to help oppose the Soviet occupation and agenda: he attempted to create a holy war to kick them out. At the same time, Stinger missiles were introduced to help counter the tactical advantages that the Soviets had with their helicopters. They were wiped out, and soon, weren't able to fly. By 1989, over 16,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, a lot more wounded, and following the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan's Soviet placed leader, Najibullah, remained for three years before the country dissolved into Civil War, which lasted until 1996, when the Taliban game into power.

 Segal pointed out that Taliban is a plural term: the singular is Talib, which essentially means 'Student of Islam'. He noted that when we say that we're fighting 'The Taliban', it comes across that we're fighting the students of Islam, a mistake that has further molded their expectations of what we intend to do in the country. Around this same time, Osama Bin Laden has returned to the country with Al Qaida, after his citizenship was revoked by Saudi Arabia and he was kicked out of Sudan. He was welcomed by the Taliban government, and he began to set up training camps, training about a thousand people a month.

 In 2001, he helped to orchestrate the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and US response was swift, with an invasion of Afghanistan by US Special Forces. (A note, Doug Stanton, who also presented at this Symposium, talked extensively about this) By 2004, the warlords were back in control of the country, but Taliban rule has resisted between 2002 and 2006. As of 2009, a number of new players have entered the field: businesses, criminal groups, religious groups, and so forth, resulting in a splintered country. Now retired General Stanley McCrystal issued a report in 2009, stating that the situation in Afghanistan was serious, under resourced and deteriorating. A major change in strategy would be needed to turn the war around. He proposed a population centric, regional strategy, although he and Karl Eikenberry were split on what to do. As of right now, 132,000 soldiers are in Afghanistan, while there's only around 100 Al Qaida in the country.

Segal noted that there are significant problems, and a disconnect in the nation's strategy towards the country. The original mission was to disrupt the operations of Al Qaida, not the Taliban, and that two concurrent strategies, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency don't necessarily work as well together at points.

He also told the group that the situation on the ground is incredibly complex, with a network of tribes, sub tribes and conflict between other groups throughout the country. There were situations where interpreters working on behalf of the US were from an enemy tribe during sensitive interactions, causing problems. Networking, Segal said, is important, and understanding the networks and the people is vital to the success of the Afghanistan mission. He noted that we're doing good things right now: building roads, and bridges, as well as a police and military force. However, money is becoming a problem, with the costs up to around $600 million a day.

A key element to understand in the country is that Islam plays a key role in how people live their lives. In 33 out of the 34 provinces in the country, the Taliban maintain a shadow government, and are able to provide what the people want: security, and adjudication of civil disputes: they are legitimate in the eyes of a lot of people, because it is so closely linked to their beliefs. Segal said early in the talk that the thing that he learned the most was how people in the 14th century lived: the mindset it similar, because of the extreme isolation of the country. At points, US troops were asked if they were Russian, because villagers simply didn't realize that the USSR had left.

This, coupled with a lack of clarity as to what the US is working to achieve, cause problems when working to conduct a war and to justify the costs and sacrifices in the country. When asked what the conditions of victory were, he simply stated that there was no victory: just success, a self-sufficient government that could stand on its own. This brings up some issues, especially when it's realized that neither side is willing to budge or compromise on their values: the subject of women’s rights is a particularly tough one, given how ingrained some of the beliefs are in the country: the people who believe what we believe exist, but aren't in the majority.

At the end of the day, Afghanistan is a country that has proved formidable throughout its history: both the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union were driven out after long, grueling wars with high numbers of casualties. While the US doesn't have to follow this same path, there's a number of things that need to be understood about the country's history, to avoid some of the things that caused problems before.

The first is to understand the complexity of the situation on the ground, and the extensive networks and social structure in Afghanistan. Uniting the country is difficult at best, with a plethora of rivalries and grudges from group to group. Along the same lines, it's important to understand and to not underestimate the importance of Islam in the culture. The Taliban are seen as legitimate because it is very similar to what the people believe, and that the Taliban is able to provide what they want in a government: security and social adjudication. These elements need to be included, because both sides seem to be unable and unwilling to change or compromise their beliefs.

The second element to understand is the mission itself: originally, it was to disrupt Al Qaida, and to prevent them from carrying out threats against the United States: however, with a ratio of over a thousand to one, this mission seems to require rethinking. When Segal asks soldiers what headway they've made, the answer is unclear, because people involved are unclear as to the mission and the overall objectives in the country: if it's to root out Al Qaida, that's one thing, but complete and utter nation building is another mission altogether, especially when one considers the complications involved with the current conflict in Libya, and the one winding down in Iraq.

The future is unclear for Afghanistan, and it will depend greatly upon the the changes in stance, strategy and attitude towards the ongoing operations in the country.