Whistle Blows Snowden into Injury Time?

I like whistleblowers. I dodged a military career because I had read enough to know that generals do not like to hear you say, "Sir, that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard." No one told me that ambassadors don't like it either.

But governments need to be reminded every once in a while by whistleblowers that all of their employees are also taxpayers and voters and citizens - and at least some of them will live up to those obligations by calling out the government when it forgets who it is supposed to serve. Some of these people are just cranks but some are genuine whistleblowers and their efforts force a change in how we do things and how our government does things.

Snowden seems to be moving beyond that role and appears increasingly to be simply the guy who didn't get it and didn't fit in. It may be that he will yet turn out to be the Daniel Ellsberg of government eavesdropping - but the jury is still out on that.

Do I think that what he has done will help or hurt the US? Yes - on both. Do I think he should be punished under the law? Yes. One of the things about being a whistleblower versus a mere crank, is that the whistleblower stands up and takes the chance that his eventual punishment under the law will be mitigated by a general conclusion that he or she has actually done both government and citizenry a public service. I realized a long time ago that one person can accomplish anything - as long as they are also willing to pay the price.

This post appeared earlier today on The Military Philosopher on Face Book, inspired by this article from Foreign Policy: 

Whistleblowers: Thanks for Nothing, Snowden

blog.foreignpolicy.com

When Edward Snowden first started revealing secrets about the National Security Agency's massive surveillance operations, the small community of U.S. government whistleblowers and their advocates publicly leapt to Snowden's

Hey, Watcha Reading?

Like many of my friends, I do a lot of reading, usually as many as four or five books at a time. These often include fiction for entertainment, a military history or two on a battle or campaign of interest, perhaps a biography or memoir, and maybe a political science of economics text or other non-fiction work. This year I am re-reading Carl von Clausewitz’ “On War” and will be writing about it as I do. However, I’m also reading a number of other works right now.

My favorite of the books I’m reading is the newly published and very well-written “Lincoln’s Code, The Laws of War in American History” by John Fabian Witt. It’s the story of the “Lieber Code” approved by President Lincoln and published as General Order 100 in April, 1863. But Witt uses that as the framework upon which to present a history of the laws of war in the United States and internationally. This will be of great interest to both students of the laws of war and of the American Civil War – including reenactors and living historians of that conflict!

I’ve just finished reading a book published in 1946 on Front-Line Intelligence, written as a how-to manual for S-2s and G-2s (the staff officer responsible for intelligence in a military unit). Written by several veterans of World War II, it draws extensively on vignettes, anecdotes, as well as personal experience on how to be an effective intelligence staff officer. This was published by the Infantry Journal Press, a favorite source of period texts and articles on war and warfare as practiced or at least as understood at the time. I found this to be a very entertaining and informative work and will be drawing on it for several of my lectures and talks.

Another recently finished but still close at hand book is Barry Rubin’s The Truth About Syria, published in 2008 but which has been extremely helpful as I try to fathom what is now going on in that benighted country. I should note that the author and I are in some ways old acquaintances after I read his earlier book about US policy and relations with Iran in the days of the Shah and then the Iranian revolution.  I am again so impressed by his work that I will be relying heavily on this volume as I prepare to lecture this year at several venues attempting to explain Syria – as best anyone can. I highly recommend that you try and track this down if you are still yourself trying to understand events in Syria.

From World War I, I’m reading Anthony Farrar-Hockley’s Death of an Army about the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) fighting in France and Belgium in 1914. This is an often harrowing story as you read about these regiments full of regular army veteran soldiers disappearing one by one under the tidal wave of Prussian and German troops that faced them. The record of their performance in this campaign is not enough recognized today, though they are sometimes remembered as “They Old Contemptibles” because a remark reportedly made before the war by the Kaiser called these pre-war soldiers a “contemptible little army” that he would have arrested by the German police if it dared to land in Germany in the event of war. Farrar-Hockley tells their story cleanly and eloquently as he traces the fate of the BEF – that held the line for the Territorials, Kitchener’s Volunteers, and the conscript soldiers who would follow them to Europe.

In a related but more personal vein, I’ve been reading a series of memoirs by those who fought in the First World War – the latest being Over the Top by Arthur Guy Empey, an American who fought in the British Army, and Under Fire, an English translation of a French novel of the First World War based upon the experiences of the author, Henri Barbusse. Empey’s story is a quick and fascinating read as wounds ended his just over a year of service at the Battle of the Somme, but he offers the great details of how the private soldier experienced the war. Barbusse’s novel reflects the not-oft told (in English) story of how the average French soldier (volunteer or reservist) experienced The Great War fought on their own soil.

Finally, for some fun, I’m reading The NPR Curious ListenersGuide to Celtic Music, by Fiona Ritchie, presenter of The Thistle and Shamrock show on NPR. I’ve already learned about the back story to several favorite musicians and groups and their songs even as I’m being introduced to new ones!

A Monumental Confederate Memorial In North Carolina

In my last posting I followed up on my discovery last summer of what I considered to be an outstanding Civil War Monument in Gloversville, New York, which I later learned is also on public display in three other locations.  So you already know that I am always interested in finding new to me monuments like this one. Despite a childhood dalliance with wearing the grey during the Centennial observations, seduced by the cavalier image, my sentiments today are very much with the North and the Union. Nevertheless, a handsome memorial will catch my interest almost regardless of its subject.

 

Most monuments, whether in the North or the South, warrant little more than a cursory examination of the single static figure and brief supporting inscriptions. However, during a recent sojourn in  Wilmington, North Carolina, almost by chance I found a dramatic multi-figure Southern monument that deserved close examination (even though located on a narrow island in the middle of an extremely busy street!).

The Confederate Monument includes two figures, one reclining - described in commentaries as representing sacrifice; the other standing - representing courage. It is the latter standing figure that really holds the eye and captures the imagination. He appears to embody the emotional attachment to the Lost Cause that still held sway in much of the South when the monument was dedicated in 1924.

The sculptor is identified on the memorial base as the then-noted F.H.Packer of New York but several articles and a guide book report that he worked in collaboration with local architect Henry Bacon, Jr, on the monument as a whole. It consists of a more than 15 ton granite pedestal and shaft providing base and background to the two figures. This is not the only work by Packer to be seen on the streets of Wilmington.The casting was done at Roman Bronze Works in New York which worked with many of the greatest sculptors in America.

Whatever their symbolic representation, the two figures offer some interesting details regarding the appearance of these Confederate soldiers. For example, the socks pulled up over the pants’ cuffs and tied down with what appears to be twine; and the two bullseye canteens with their distinctive metal ringwork patterns.

 

 

The two canteens featured in the memorial bear the markings of Company H, 40^th North Carolina.

According to Stewart Sifakis’ Compendium of the Confederate Armies: North Carolina, this company was also known as Company H of the North Carolina 3^rd Artillery Regiment in November 1863 and was captained by Calvin Barnes. Much of the 40^th/3^rd Artillery was captured at the fall of Fort Fisher on January 15, 1865. The then surviving remnants were converted to infantry and consolidated with the remnants of the 2^nd Artillery Regiment and other companies. They were surrendered as part of Joe Johnston’s army at Durham Station, North Carolina on April 26, 1865 having fought at Fort Anderson, Northeast River, Jackson’s Mills, and finally at Bentonville.

The National Park Service offers the following account of the regiment: “40th Regiment Volunteers-3rd Artillery was organized at Bald Head, Smith's Island, North Carolina, in November, 1863, from heavy artillery companies formed in 1861 and 1862. Its 1,152 men were from the counties of Lenoir, Beaufort, Pamlico, Richmond, Robeson, Wayne, Wilson, Edgecombe, Greene, New Hanover, Bladen, Anson, and Chatham. Attached to the Department of North Carolina and Southern Virginia, detachments served at Fort Holmes, Fort Caswell, Fort Campbell, Fort Anderson, and Fort Fisher. In 1865 the unit was converted to infantry and assigned to Hagood's Brigade. It fought at Bentonville and surrendered with the Army of Tennessee on April 26. Its commanders were Colonel John J. Hedrick, Lieutenant Colonel George Tait, and Major William A. Holland.”

You can also find their published roster at Google Books.

The good news is that the only apparent visible damage is the broken off bayonet on the standing figure’s musket. Sadly, the bayonet was clearly there in 1994 based upon the photo at this link to the North Carolina monument’s online index - http://ncmonuments.ncdcr.gov/Photos.aspx?searchterm=66.