Introduction In the morning of March 9, 1916, a number of Villista’s armed to the teeth crossed the border attacking the small town of Columbus, New Mexico. The United States suffered its first attack on its soil since the War of 1812. General Francisco “Poncho” Villa raided and torched the city.1 Washington responded by sending Brigadier General John “Black Jack” Pershing, which lead the “Punitive Expedition” into Mexico.2 Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, “Che” Guevara, Osama bin Laden and others have professed unique qualifications as innovators and practitioners of Guerrilla warfare. However, in our relatively short military history, we have periodically had to use or defend against irregular warfare. During the French and Indian Wars as well as the Revolutionary War, we were the guerrillas. In the Civil War, there were the partisan operations of Mosby, Forrest and the outlaw Quantrill, who played a key role in the Confederacy’s ability to wage effective war against the numerically and industrially superior Union for over four years. It is often forgotten, that regular forces require a ratio of ten to one to prevail against a partisan operating on their native soil3. Nevertheless, one thing remains constant: the adaptability and courage of the American Soldier under the harshest of circumstances continues to allow them to prevail. History The Mexican Revolutionary Poncho Villa was born on June 5, 1878, in San Juan Del Rio, Durango. His original name was Jose Dorotero Aurango. He was born as a peon and worked with his family on farmland, which belonged to an aristocrat. Villa became head of his household at age 15, when his father died. After coming in from the fields, he walked into the hacienda to discover t... ... middle of paper ... ... issues in the dark and pushed 20,000 rounds, repelling what could have been a gruesome attack. Villa’s ineffective reconnaissance teams lead him into a garrison of 357 well-trained and equipped Soldiers. His willingness for revenge on the Revel brothers kept his men searching well after the looting requirements. Allowing time for the H and F troop to set up effective kill zones. The decision to light the town on fire resulted in increased visibility making Villa’s men easy targets. The American Soldiers showing courage in the face of adversity during the raid has been evident throughout the research of this paper. From Cooks throwing boil pots of water, to Soldiers fighting with no shoes and half clothed. The adversary having planned and executed was not allowed to extract a devastating blow. This is a testament of the American Soldiers adaptability and courage.
Throughout the battle, you see numerous Army Values and Warrior Ethos being used. “I will never leave a fallen comrade”, was the etho used the most, to reach the separated platoon. The battle also shows that not all tactical orders are effective, but as a leader you must never second guess yourself.
John Keegan, the author of “The Face of Battle” is allowing the reader to view different perspective of history, from the eyes of the soldier. Although by his own account, Keegan acknowledges, “I have never been in a battle. And I grow increasingly convinced that I have very little idea of what a battle can be like.” Keegan scorns historians for pointing the finger of failure after an evolution occurs and not examining the soldier’s point of view while the battle is transpiring.
The Raid “when seen in full perspective, might serve as to our national planners as a reminder of how much a small, elite, well trained unorthodox force can accomplish”6
Thesis: What happened after Columbus arrived in Hispaniola (modern day Haiti and Dominican Republic)? So many people still assume that Christopher Columbus was a hero, whether they know if that’s true or not. They think that he was a man that cannot be forgotten. What humans in the 21st century have forgotten is that Columbus was a nasty man. He was very cruel, especially after his arrival at Haiti, on December 5th 1492, with three ships, the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria (“Taino Conquest” Latin American Studies). Of course, Columbus had always thought he had reached the East Indies in Asia, due to his underestimation of the size of the world’s vast seas. What he didn’t know was that there was no way he would reach Asia without a half dead and starving crew.
After gaining more knowledge about Christopher Columbus and his voyage to the “New World,” I believe that Christopher Columbus is a villain. Although Christopher Columbus used his courage and great navigation skills to voyage to a place unknown to the western part of the world many native people suffered from his voyages to the west.
“In 1913, a bloody civil war in Mexico brought the ruthless general Victoriano Huerta to power. American President Woodrow Wilson despised the new regime, referring to it as a “government of butchers,” and provided active military support to a challenger, Venustiano Carranza. Unfortunately, when Carranza won power in 1914, he also proved a disappointment and Wilson supported yet another rebel leader, Pancho Villa.”
Recent technological advancements on show in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have indicated, to some, that there is a new American way of war. Scholars, however, do not seem to have reached consensus on what a new way of war for the United States would embody. Depending on the scholar, their beliefs are underwritten by the American ability to wage war with highly interconnected, agile, precise, and extremely damaging methods or because the United States is capable of waging war with a small, Special Forces centered footprint. Other scholars argue that there is not a new American way of war because traditional methods are still necessary in many kinds of conflict. Scholars who address this question focus on conflicts that they believe to be important indicators of how the United States will act in the future, but miss the forest for the trees. The choice of a particular method of combat in any given war is not the result of some national tendency, but rather the result of the political object desired. The political object is the ultimate arbiter of the choice of strategy in war, and that is certainly not new to how the United States wages war.
The men were thinking about using the Lem but it would burn because it was to thin. So they had to be calm and find a way to survive
Some may ask the question as to why these men charged to their inevitable death. One answer is what is stated in an 1835, Volume II, edition of the Southern Literary Messenger. It states that “duty requires obedience, and it would be dishonorable to disobey.” Obedience is defined as the compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another’s authority, and to these men, backing down from a fight, even with a predicted, unfortunate outcome, would ...
Addressing the issues raised here and answering the uncertainties outlined in reference to irregular warfare procedures may provide a more subtle analysis of the capabilities of modern and irregular forces. What is called for is a greater degree of attention and sensitivity to, and flexibility for, irregular forms of warfare. It requires the Community to preserve what expertise it has on areas where irregular warfare is under way or likely and to develop new skills and the people to use them for this form of war.
'We Fought a military war; Opponents our Fought a political one. We sought physical attrition, Opponents Aimed for our psychological exhaustion. In the process, we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerilla war. The guerilla wins if he does not lose, the conventional army loses if it does not win. The North Vietnamese used their forces the way a bullfighter uses its cape - to keep us lunging into areas of marginal political importance. ' (Kissinger, 1969, 214)
Regardless of the decade or the country a person lives in, there seems to be a reckless disregard for the toll a war can take on human lives. When the Alamo was fought back in February 1836, it was about the independence of Texas from Mexico. In retaliation of the death and destruction of human life, Sam Houston retaliated in April and killed 630 Mexican soldiers and took General Santa Anna prisoner (Tindall & Shi, 2010). This was the start of the independence of Texas and the quest for annexation into the United States, which ultimately led to the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. This paper will briefly explain the reasons for the Mexican-American War and will describe the outcome of the war.
This case study will introduce the events leading up to the largest surrender of US forces in history and examine the most daring rescue attempt of WWII. The paper follows the planning and execution of the 6th Ranger Battalion’s Great Raid on the Japanese prison camp of Cabanatuan. Lastly, the events of that raid will be examined in order to discover and evaluate the repercussions and lessons learned.
David Galula and Roger Trinquier have common roots, they were French citizens and both lived in the 20th century when the study of counterinsurgency theory was coming into focus. Each of these men experienced bitter conflicts of war. Galula fought in North Africa, Italy, and France. In addition, Galula fought in irregular wars located in China, Greece, Indochina, and Algeria. Galula was a lieutenant colonel when he decided to author his now classic book. Whereas, Trinquier an officer in the colonial infantry defended the French concession in Shanghai and later in Indochina under the Japanese occupation where he was held prisoner of war in a Japanese internment camp. After Trinquier’s release from prison, he continued to serve in Indochina and additionally in Algeria. Both men wrote from first-hand experience and published their accounts in 1964 while the Cold War waged. Communism ideology vs. the free world theorists collided across the face of the globe in a race for domination. Counterinsurgency has been an American strategy since the 1960s ebbing and flowing in strategic signi...
When comparing and contrasting U. S. military operations and capabilities with regard to regular versus irregular warfare it is important to understand the definition of irregular and the spectrum of conflict. In recent history, the term “irregular warfare” has been used interchangeably with or alongside insurgency and counterinsurgency warfare. This usage and comparison is too narrow. ...