In the spirit of my previous post on the erudition of the Mountain Men… The other day, I engaged in a geopolitical discussion of considerable depth regarding Iran. This was with mi compañero Craig Rullman while we stacked a load of firewood. Just tryin’ to walk the walk.
Anyway, the resurgent Persian Empire led into a discussion of the fundamental tribal nature of warfare and the practical application of such an outlook in the current threat environment. As you may have noticed, I’ve been revisiting old Fur Trade terrain in my ramblings of late, and some of that study seems relevant to the subject. To wit:
The Free Trappers of the Rocky Mountains had a pretty simple doctrine in their relations with hostile or potentially hostile elements among the native tribes of the region: Don’t fuck with us.
In the excellent Kit Carson & The Indians, Tom Dunlay examines the complex relationship of the Mountain Men of the 1820s-1840s with the various tribes that inhabited and roamed over the Rocky Mountain region and the Southwest. Some tribes like the Flathead and Shoshone were consistent friends and/or allies; some like the Blackfoot and the Arikara were consistent threats; others were opportunistic and could go either way depending on circumstances and vulnerability.
Gotta watch out for the Arikara. Always.
The Mountain Men’s doctrine derived in part from circumstances and in part from a backcountry heritage with deep cultural roots. Dunlay notes:
“Chivalry as understood by the readers of Sir Walter Scott had nothing to do with it, although the actual knights, or Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers might have understood it very well. It was the backcountry code of retributive justice, the refusal to let somebody get away with something at your expense.”
Their retaliation was harsh. Carson recounted an episode in which a party of trappers and some of their Cheyenne allies were raided by Crows, who stole some horses. The trappers and the Cheyennes trailed the Crows, caught them napping and secured the horses. But that was not enough for Carson and his men. They attacked the Crows in their log-fortified encampment and killed several.
“We were determined to have satisfaction, let the consequence be ever so fatal,” Carson recalled.
One of Carson’s multitude of critics takes exception to the idea of “satisfaction,” disgusted by its “debased-chivalric connotation of a code of honor.” As Dunlay notes, chivalry in the romantic sense had nothing to do with it. And I am very suspicious of any man who denigrates the idea of honor.
Anyway, the point being that the Mountain Men were willing to draw blood when nominally friendly Indians like the Crows stole from them. When it came to sworn enemies like the Blackfeet, they were preemptive. Francis Fuller Victor, biographer of Mountain Man Joe Meek noted:
They knew that among these unfriendly Indians, not to attack was to be attacked, and consequently little time was ever given for an Indian to discover his vicinity to a trapper. The trapper’s shot informed him of that, and afterwards the race was to the swift and the battle to the strong.
Could such a doctrine be adapted to meet the kinds of asymmetrical non-state threats that characterize the ongoing Global War on Terrorism? Could the U.S., instead of attempting nation-building in inhospitable locales and cultures, simply adopt a doctrine of immediate retaliation for any attack and preemptive strikes against clear enemies? Are we not just another tribe — a very, very strong one?
Is the Free Trapper’s Doctrine scaleable? It’s not so far-fetched. It’s pretty much the strategy and doctrine Vice President Joe Biden advocated for when the Obama Administration was debating a “surge” in Afghanistan. Leave the country to its tribes and its troubles, stay just over the horizon and plaster any threat that evolved out of the country (though it would be tough to evaluate the rise of potential threats without a robust intelligence presence on the ground). Actually, you could argue that the drone campaign in the Northwest Territory on the Af/Pak line is our trapper’s preemptive rifle shot on the Blackfeet.
Such a strategy and doctrine would require lots and lots of Rangers and special operations-capable Marines, SEALs, Delta, etc. in addition to drones (and maybe less use of drones wouldn’t be a bad idea) but it seems like a lot more efficient use of force than leaving giant footprints in the sand. One big, badass raiding force.
I’m thinking Carson and Meek and Ewing Young and the rest of that crew of hard-bitten Frontier Partisans would approve.
Matthew says
Western culture has been stuck between “an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek.” This often shown as a contradiction in the Bible. In context it makes more sense. “An eye for an eye” is for those in authority to determine punishment. (Human nature being what it is people want to take a whole head for an eye.) “Turn the other cheek” is on a personal level. It means don’t be bitter about the bad things people do to you.
When I was young I took a complete pacifist stance when I was bullied. And I was bullied a lot. (Elementary School was like what most people describe High School for me.) I wouldn’t fight back. Despite that, I held grudges about what happen well to my adult years. This included disturbingly violent fantasies about retaliation. In other words, I turned the cheek physically but not in the ways that matter. If I fought back it’s possible I would have been left alone and I could have gotten on with my life. (Eventually, I realized it was absurd and I just got over it.)
So what I’m saying there is a fine balance between the two.
JimC says
I always liked what some biographer said about Daniel Boone: He was an unusual kind of pacifist who was willing to fight for his right to be peaceful.
Thom Eley says
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
JimC says
Yep. Thought so.
deuce says
I hear ya, Matthew. My mom was so worried about me being a bully that I ended up having the crap beat out of me for the first 9yrs of school (I started pre-school and was gang-bullied at age 3). After reading Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E. Howard, I decided a non-pacifistic response was called for. I won’t say I didn’t enjoy the results.
I find it hard to imagine a worse mental state (such as I, myself, endured) than surface “pacifism” without the moral wherewithal to sincerely forgive aggressors. It’s dishonest. No matter what I told myself, I knew I wasn’t in the right. I could clearly see the same bullies doing the same thing to others. I was complicit. Deep down, I wanted to beat the crap out of those guys, yet I didn’t do so. I didn’t even really try.
The best I can say of the entire experience is that it made me more sympathetic to others who have done or do the same. It has also given me a good view of just how “perfectible” homo sapiens is. As REH said, “Scratch a civilized man and you find the ape, roaring and red-handed.”
Matthew says
I gave up the belief in pacifism before I was able to give up my anger.
If you ever watch Peace Rally’s you can see a lot of violence in the protestors faces. There’s men who can do real numbers on their wives and children without striking them. So REH was correct as he often was.
deuce says
Nation Building/Regime Change has nearly always been an idiotic option for the US outside of Europe. It hasn’t always worked well there, either. If we (as we are constantly berated to do) accept the notion of “cultural relativism”, then we should leave figuring out how to govern themselves to the societies in question. That is certainly the case in Islamic countries and, I would argue, most of the rest of the world.
Americans, for whatever reason, are horrible empire builders. We need to quit ruminating over “ethical” issues which may be entirely at odds with the societies we so condescendingly want to “uplift” and simply look to our own situation. If we can’t get our own house sorted, we don’t need to look for projects over the horizon.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” — C.S. Lewis
JimC says
Yep.
John C. says
The SAS used their Special Forces “Task Force Black” very effectively in Iraq, and harassed the shit out of the insurgent forces. Nightly quick strike raids designed to keep them on their heels, and hopefully “cut the head off of the snake”, with good intel. TF-88 employs the same tactics in Afghanistan, and hopefully in Syria.
It is a particularly demoralizing version of asymmetric warfare, relatively low in cost, and with a really favorable casualty ratio. The link below is to a Mirror article from a couple of years ago, about a joint UK/USA task force.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-special-forces-forming-hunter-4097083
John C.
JimC says
There ya go right there.
deuce says
Despite Jim’s recent post, the SAS are still keeping their hand in regarding centerfolds and whatnot. One of the truly elite forces on this planet. Stirling and John “Nikalseyn” Nicholson would approve.
JimC says
Interesting bit from SOFREP:
https://sofrep.com/68625/obama-administration-expands-special-operations-command-powers-hunt-foreign-fighters-globally/
john roberts says
I’ve been rereading Robert D. Kaplan’s “The Coming Anarchy,”a series of magazine articles he wrote in the 90s that are amazingly prescient considering they are pre-9/11. He traveled extensively in Africa, central Asia and generally in all the crappiest parts of the world. His prediction was that future wars would be tribal and cultural in nature, not national. He chides America for being so fixated on nations when in fact most of the world has none, just “regions.”The boundaries of African states are largely imaginary and the world abounds in geographical absurdities like Iraq and Pakistan, created by colonial powers. He said it would be Christian against Muslim, Tutsi against Hutu, Turk against Kurd, not nation against nation. So far, it looks like he was right.
JimC says
I remember that book. He did have it right.
John C. says
Here’s a nugget. You can substitute drones for clowns in “Send in the Clowns” and it kind of makes sense.
Isn’t it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here, at last, on the ground
You in mid-air
Send in the drones
Just a quirky observation.
John C.
Wayne says
Ah, the appeal of foreign entanglements.
Watched The Siege of Jadotville last night and found it excellent on all counts. I hope all of the lads in the company were still alive when the Irish government finally recognized them for heroism.
JimC says
Indeed.