Can you say "stalemate", boys 'n' girls?

Call me a traitor if you like, but it has to be said that the US of A has form for starting wars which it can't finish. Before Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam we can point all the way back to the War of 1812, which then POTUS James Madison said would be "only a matter of marching", all over in a month or so. Does this sound familiar?

Since the outcome of the War of 1812 is barely mentioned in US schools nowadays, let us review how Madison's little excursion turned out. There was fighting, mostly on the Canadian (British, in those days) side of the Great Lakes. The Royal Navy attacked and burned the American capital, causing Dolly Madison to pack up her dishes and flee the White House. The Americans won the final battle (New Orleans) nearly a month after a truce had been agreed. The borders of the US of A remained as they had been ante bellum. Much treasure and blood was expended, but nothing was gained.

Walt predicts a similar outcome for the American-Israeli war on Iran. 

Again, call me a traitor if you like, but I don't see a lot of winning going on here! The Israelis are said to have invaded Lebanon, but that's a sideshow. The Big Show is Iran. The mission (so far as we can understand it) is to (a) terminate the Chief Mullah and so (b) to effect the overthrow of the Islamist theocracy, while also (c) ensuring that Iran would never have nuclear weapons and (d) the supply of Big Oil would be secure forever more, Or (e) all of the above.

Three weeks in, after the loss of dozens of American lives and expenditure of many millions of dollars, as nearly as Walt can see, only (a) has been accomplished. So what? The same gang of mullahs may be hiding behind a cardboard cutout of the Son-of-the-Mullah, but they're still in control. A few oil tankers are getting through the Strait of Hormuz, but the US is clearly incapable of keeping that channel oopen to the point where President Trump is almost screaming "A little help here!?!?" at America's fair weather friends.

I can't see any favourable outcome to this conflict. POTUS says it'll be over when he thinks it's over, but when will that be? Seems to me the stage is being set for a declaration of victory and a "withdrawal" under cover of a cease-fire which will be touted as a Big Win, just like that over Hamas a few months ago.

Many Americans have been killed. US military bases in the Gulf are burning. America's so-called allies are running for diplomatic cover. The only "winning" is being done by the Israelis, who are finishing what they couldn't do in 1967. Clearly the US of A has lost control of a war that will not end until Iran says so. 

Any realist has to call the situation a strategic stalemate, with intense air campaigns failing to force capitulation or halt Iranian retaliations. While initial strikes damaged infrastructure, Iran has continued targeting energy routes in the Strait of Hormuz, leading to a protracted conflict with no clear endgame. Iran has successfully targeted global energy security, creating a protracted war.

The stalemate is causing major global disruptions, with oil prices rising over $100/bbl and increasing economic uncertainty in other regions, notes. It's hard to see how this ends except in a "draw" where both sides declare victory, or settle into a low-level, long-term confrontation that could reshape the region. Or not.

I would dearly love to be wrong. I would like to see the people of Iran liberated from the yoke of Islamist oppression. I have similar hopes for the people of Venezuela and (even more so) the people of Cuba. But we're not there yet... are we...

On Labour Day weekend at Queenston Heights, this happend

Queenston Heights, located in Niagara-on-the-Lake ON, is known to pure laine Canadians (American's don't like to talk about it) as the site of the defeat by British soldiers and Canadian patriots (including Indians First Nations) of American invaders at the start of the War of 1812. A tower honouring General Sir Isaac Brock, who led the counter-attack, dominates the land scape.

What better setting, then, for a public rally -- not a "mostly peaceful protest" but a totally peaceful show of strength -- by Second Sons Canada, one of many white nationalist groups emerging in the Great No-longer-white North in response to the plans of the Liberal governments of Blackie McBlackface and his successor Marx Carnage to make Canada over into a veritable Canuckistan.

More than 50 men, many wearing sunglasses echoing the outfits of the Patriot Front, one of the largest white nationalist groups in the United States, lined up at the Brock monument chanting the group’s slogan, "All thy sons."

The public gathering was the first known by the group in Niagara, though a report by CBC' visual investigations team in July into white nationalist "active clubs" found the group was present in the area and had training in a gym in Welland ON.

Second Sons Canada's first known sighting was reported by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (known haters of all things and people who resist the Great Replacement) after the group gathered at a cenotaph for Canadian soldiers in Dartmouth NS in March.

Prof. Kawser Ahmed, an obviously unbiased professor of political science at the University of Winnipeg, said choosing the Brock monument was symbolic. He said the site has symbolism of British imperialism, settler nationalism and military defence. "This is something very common in white supremacist groups throughout the Western world, Europe, the US, Australia and here. This is the symbolism they often pick up, because they think that these countries were founded by Anglo-Saxons and there’s no place for the immigrants to come here."

Indeed. One video showing scenes from the Niagara rally was posted on Second Sons Canada’s X site, formerly Twitter, with the statement, "Canadian Nationalism is inevitable. Remigration is coming." Many Canadians will share their sympathies. What to do next should be obvious.

Thanks and a tip o' the touque to Agent 3 for the lead.

Early casualties of the trade wars

"You realize, of course, this means war!" I didn't expect to hear this threat uttered again, outside of Warner Bros. cartoons, but now American and Canadian politicians are shouting this at each other, and it appears they are in earnest. 

Americans should be thankful that President Trump has not yet led them into a shooting war against their ever-so-nice northern neighbours -- notice the Canadian spelling -- for the last time Yankees tried to make Canada a state, look what happened.

Walt has lost his photos taken during the War of 1812 -- the only war the US of A lost until Vietnam. This was taken during a re-enactment of the Battle of Fort Erie.

You can't see the American soldiers because they're inside the fort, which they had occupied for a time. The British, aided by Canadian militias and Indians [it was OK to call them that, then. Ed.] were trying to take the fort back, and eventually did so. 

You can see Old Fort Erie today, just five miles or so northwest of the World's Longest Formerly Defended Border (TM). From there you can see Buffalo... if you want to. 

I mention this because plans for re-enactments of this and other battles of the War of 1812 and even the Revolutionary War are being cancelled on both sides of the border, because of the Trump Tariffs. 

Canadian re-enactors don't want to spend their hard-come-by US dollars where they're not welcome, and won't put up with the surliness of the CBP. Americans are afraid they won't be able to bring their guns across the border, and that on their return the US border guards will tear their bags to shreds looking for mary-jew-anna and beavertails. 

So fuggedabadit. Too bad, sez Walt.

"Racist" logos, "racist" mascots, "racist" names - Where will it end?

It was bound to happen. Towards the end of yesterday's fond (but somewhat premature) farewell to the Cleveland Indians' beloved Chief Wahoo, I wrote that the Chicago Blackhawks' mascot, Tommy Hawk, "is the coolest Indian in all of sports." The Indian ink [sic. Ed.] was no sooner dry on the parchment when Poor Len Canayen was on the horn to correct me. Tommy Hawk, he told me, is not an Indian or First Nations person or whatever term's PC these days, but, as shown in the picture at the left, is actually... wait for it... a hawk... a black hawk. Geddit?

The only Indian in the picture at upper left is the rather noble-looking chap whose visage adorns the Chicago team's sweaters. (And they are sweaters, by the way -- hockey sweaters. Don Cherry gets his hair all on fire when commentators -- usually American -- call them "jerseys". Quite right, too.) That Indian, complete with coppery skin, feathers and war paint, is a logo, not a mascot. (A cunning linguist would debate even that point. A purist would say a "logo" should be a word, but in modern times it has come to mean any distinctive design.)

OK, the Chicago Blackhawks have an Indian for a logo. And a fine-looking logo it is, too. But who is that person? Is he supposed to be Chief Blackhawk (or Black Hawk)? There was such a person -- Black Hawk, born Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak in 1767. He was a band leader and warrior of the Sauk American Indian tribe in what is now flyover country -- the midwestern USA. Black Hawk was not a hereditary civil chief. He earned his status as a war chief or captain by his actions: leading raiding and war parties as a young man, and a band of Sauk warriors during the Black Hawk War of 1832.

During the War of 1812 -- the only war America lost until Vietnam -- Black Hawk fought on the side of the British, hoping to push white American settlers away from Sauk territory. Later he led a band of Sauk and Fox warriors, known as the British Band, against European-American settlers in Illinois and present-day Wisconsin in the 1832 Black Hawk War. After the war, he was captured by US forces and taken to the eastern states, where, in true American entrepreneurial fashion, he and other war leaders were put on display on a tour of several cities.

Shortly before being released from custody, Black Hawk told his story to an interpreter. Aided also by a newspaper reporter, he published Autobiography of Ma-Ka-Tai-Me-She-Kia-Kiak, or Black Hawk, Embracing the Traditions of his Nation in Cincinnati iin 1833. His book was the first autobiography of a Native American [That's today's PC term, in the USA. Ed.] to be published in the USA. It became an immediate bestseller and went through several editions. Black Hawk died in 1838 in what is now southeastern Iowa. He has been honoured by an enduring legacy: his book, many eponyms, and other tributes, including (I would suggest) the Chicago team's name and logo.

I must admit, though, that the logo doesn't greatly resemble the real Black Hawk. That's him, looking askance from the top right. Is that logo racist? How about the mascot? Why does Tommy Hawk have to be black? Has the NAACP heard about this? Will the Chicago hockey team be forced to remove the Chief from their uniforms and merchandise, just as Cleveland has been forced to do away with Chief Wahoo? Will either team also have to change its name to satisfy the SJWs and PC police? Stay tuned.

Will America never learn? The persistence of bad foreign policy

Almost 237 years ago the United States of America started life through an armed rebellion against established authority -- the British monarchy -- which established a revolutionary new model of government "of the people, by the people and for the people". That remains a great and noble goal, and the fact that it has yet to be fully realized hasn't stopped US governments from trying to impose their model on the rest of the world.

Over the course of the last two centuries, successive administrations have adopted a policy of forcing other countries to adopt the US model, sometimes by persuasion and sometimes by conquest. Walt has a little list.

In 1812 the US Congress thought Canadians could hardly wait to join the new republic. Taking Canada from the British would be "merely a matter of marching", said Jefferson. Two years later, with the White House burned and the country nearly broke, Congress changed its mind.

The Mexican Invasion of the mid-19th century succeeded in annexing to the USA a large chunk of the southwest. For some reason, people from further south keep coming into "New Mexico" and neighbouring states, wanting to keep their language, customs and religion. Some folks, especially in Arizona, think it might be better to give the territory back to the Mexicans.

Then came the War Between the States, in which some states had the temerity to assert the right to leave the Union, a right which they thought had been guaranteed by the Constitution. They learned that once you're in the Hotel America, "you can check out, but you can never leave".

Having got that nasty business out of the way, and realizing that the Hispanics were a soft target, the USA embarked in 1898 on a truly imperial war against Spain. The net gain was a handful of tropical paradises (?) --- Puerto Rico, Guam and Philippines -- but hey, America was now a colonial power, just like Britain! The economic and other benefits were, errr, dubious.

What about the World Wars, I hear you ask. [Yes, what about the World Wars? Ed.] Is Walt saying the USA should have stayed out of the War to End All Wars...and the second War to End All Wars? Didn't America save the world for democracy? Well... No matter how many John Wayne movies you watched, America didn't bail out the Allies singlehandedly. And if the USA had come into the wars at the beginning rather than during the second act, the other colonial powers might have been accomplished faster and at considerably less economic and human cost.

But, you might argue, that's precisely why the USA was so quick to jump into Korea. Sorry, wrong again. Omar Bradley called the Korean War "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy". One lesson that might have been learned (but wasn't) is that if you're going to fight, use both hands!

Douglas MacArthur wanted to cross the Yalu and invade Communist China, possibly dropping the Big One for a quick and decisive victory. But "wiser men" in the Truman administration wouldn't let him, for fear of provoking a war with the Soviet Union, for which China was merely a proxy.

Apparently they didn't consider the possibility that the USSR wasn't as strong as it appeared, and might well have been defeated, sparing the world the 40 years of cold war that followed the Korean truce. Even the willingness to call it a draw may now be regarded as a mistake, for the war, which technically never ended, threatens to go ballistic -- literally -- at any moment.

Which brings us to Vietnam, which Pentagon types will tell you is the first war the US ever lost. (This ignores the War of 1812, but Washington's memory is short.) In The Rise of the Chinese Republic (McGraw-Hill, 1989) American historian Edwin P. Hoyt says:

The Americans did not learn fast. It took them still another war in Asia [Vietnam] to learn that what American leaders had said many years ago was true. No statesman with a lick of sense will let the country get involved in a land war in Asia.

There was another lesson that the Americans May not even yet have learned: Anyone who interferes in an indigenous revolution anywhere is a fool, and such interference is bound to fail. In China and in Vietnam the Americans tried to interfere. These actions cost them billions of dollars and far too many lives, and ultimately the revolutions succeeded in the face of American interference.

Mr. Hoyt wrote that in 1989. Since then we've had the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and (sort of) Libya. These theatres of war are all in Asia, although not the part Hoyt was thinking of. And they're all part of the Muslim world. Walt predicts that 100 years from now historians will lump them all together as "the Middle Eastern War" or "the Great War Against Islam". ("Crusades" has already been used.)

And still the USA cannot or will not learn. Now the Prez -- no Muslim he? -- is making noises (again) about taking action (nature unspecified) in Syria to overthrow a tyrannical dictator, make it safe for democracy, yada yada yada. Haven't we seen this movie before? (Canadians need not feel all smug and superior. "Call me Steve" Harper and his bumboy Baird are very vocal in their willingness to hold America's coat...at least until Uncle Sam's nose bleeds.)

Edwin Hoyt again:
The United States has run out of gas politically and philosophically. Any nation that converts from a dynamic economy to a service economy...finds that it loses that precious quality of initiative. The American government is still posturing itself in the world as the defender of the status quo. It is hard to consider a less dynamic and less appealing posture for a nation that once boasted of its revolutionary spirit.

Another martyr to political correctness

Meet Tecumseh. He was an Indian leader of the Shawnee and a large tribal confederacy (known as Tecumseh's Confederacy) which fought alongside British soldiers and Canadian militias against the United States during Tecumseh's War and the War of 1812.

The bicentennial of the War of 1812 is being celebrated in Canada right now -- the Battle of Queenston Heights will be re-enacted on the site next month -- but for some reason is being largely ignored in the US. Click here for more information on the War of 1812. You'll see a picture of Tecumseh -- well, an actor portraying the great Indian leader -- second from the left on the landing page. If you'd like to watch a good video about Tecumseh and his role in the war, click here.

Now then, about the political correctness... Ed. thinks I should say "Native American" instead of "Indian" in the opening sentence. I will not, for the same reason I won't write "Native Canadian". The Indians regarded themselves then, and still regard themselves as neither American nor Canadian. They are just "the people", and that is how they refer to themselves in Cree and other native languages. Actually there's nothing wrong with the word "native", except that it's no longer politically correct to refer to people of colour by six-letter words beginning with "N".

Nor is it PC to use representations of n*****s as mascots for companies or sports teams or... well... anything. One company that has stopped "appropriating cultural images" is (or was) the Tecumseh Power Company, founded in 1934 as Tecumseh Products.

There is still a company of that name trading on NASDAQ, but it's not really the same as the Tecumseh Power Company that was known in 120 companies around the world for its small gasoline engines, like the one shown here.

This is an old(ish) picture. If you have a Tecumseh engine manufactured in the last half-dozen years or so, you'll notice that the Indian has disappeared, replaced by a nondescript and meaningless geometric design. The chief, it seems, is not wanted in the New Age of Political Correctness.

Warning to fans of the Cleveland Indians and Chicago Black Hawks: You're next! (Signed) The PC Police.

War of 1812 bicentennial celebrations: has anything been learned?

The first shots -- purely rhetorical -- in the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the beginning of the War of 1812 have been fired. At the historic battlefield of Queenston Heights, Ontario, yesterday, the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada (and winner of the Steve Harper Prize for Excellence in Drafting Terms of Reference) launched "1000 days of commemorations" of the first war started and lost by the USA.

Perhaps because it was not a Great American Victory [like Vietnam? Ed.], the War of 1812 is not well known in the Excited States. War was declared by President Madison on June 18th, on the advice of many political and military notables, including President Jefferson who opined that the annexation of Canada -- that being the point of the exercise -- was "merely a matter of marching".

As in Vietnam, Iraq and, now, Afghanistan, it turned out to be not so easy. The United States was not prepared to prosecute a war. Madison had assumed that the state militias would easily seize Canada and that negotiations would follow. In 1812, the US Army comprised fewer than 12,000 men. Congress authorized its expansion to 35,000, but the service was voluntary and unpopular. It offered poor pay, and there were few trained and experienced officers.

The militia objected to serving outside their home states, were not open to discipline, and performed poorly against British forces when outside their home states. One of the first places this lesson was learned was at Queenston, in October of 1812, when units of the New York militia refused to cross the Niagara River to join in the invasion.

All the same, enough Americans scaled Queenston Heights to overpower a small British force and capture its gun. The British, led by Major General Isaac Brock, counter-attacked. Brock, unwisely dressed in his full-dress uniform replete with gold braid, made an easy target for American sharp-shooters as he ran up the hill, and perished.

However, his 2IC, General Roger Hale Sheaffe, arrived with reinforcements -- British regulars, Canadian militia and a large number of "Indians" (as "First Nations" people were then called), whom the Americans feared greatly for their interest in scalp-collecting.

The men in red (and green and tan and assorted other colours) handed the Americans a crushing defeat, which will be re-enacted this fall. In his address yesterday, the Governor General expressed the hope that, in the spirit of friendship between the two countries, the Americans would refrain from using live ammunition. [Ed. Please check this; I didn't really listen to the speech.] Nevertheless, as they always sing in their national anthem, the Canadians will "stand on guard".

Footnote: Major General Brock became "Sir" Isaac Brock only after his death, being knighted posthumously. A very tall monument on Queenston Heights is surmounted by a statue of Brock, looking watchfully across the river -- standing on guard, no doubt. The only statue dedicated to General Sheaffe -- who actually won the battle -- is a small one...of his horse.

Another footnote: On June 15th, Canada Post issued two stamps, one showing "Sir Isaac Brock" and the other his great Indian ally, Tecumseh. The inscription on the marginal tab (above Tecumseh) says "They protected territories from American expansionism". Indeed.

Recommended reading: Two entertaining pop histories by Pierre Berton: The Invasion of Canada (covering the period 1812-13) and Flames Across the Border (1813-14). In the latter, you can read how the Americans routed the Brits from Newark (now Niagara-on-the-Lake) and burned the village to the ground. Of course you'll also have to read about the British and Canadian burning of Buffalo. Niagara-on-the-Lake was rebuilt and is today a very pretty little town. As for Buffalo... well...

The "only" problem

Ed. here. I was reading a little essay on the War of 1812 -- the only war the USA lost until Vietnam -- and came upon this sentence:
The war is only part of [Canadian] history because the Americans and the British decided to work out their differences on our land.

What does the writer (Barbara Smith) mean by "The war is only part of [Canadian] history..." Does she mean there's more, as in "only a part of [Canadian] history"? Or does she mean the war is a part of Canadian history only because...

The word "only" is like a penis. You have to be careful where you stick it. You must take care to place it immediately before the noun, verb or adjective you wish to modify because to put it close to some other word can change the whole meaning of your sentence. Here are some examples:

Only I told you I killed my wife. = No-one else told you.
I only told you I killed my wife. = I didn't put it in writing.
I told only you I killed my wife. = I didn't tell anyone else.
I told you only I killed my wife. = Nobody helped me.
I told you I only killed my wife. = I didn't do anything else to her.
I told you I killed only my wife. = No-one else.
I told you I killed my only wife. = I'm not a Muslim.

Thus endeth the only lesson... for today. You're welcome.

War of 1812: film at 9!

Listen up, history buffs! PBS is airing a terrific new made-for-TV film on the War of 1812, tonight at 9 p.m. EDT.

Since the teaching of our own history is sadly neglected in American and Canadian schools these days, Walt will give you a quick recap. At the beginning of the second decade of the 19th century, the hated British (and others) were engaging Napoleon in Europe, and getting the worst of it. The Congress of the new(ish) United States of America reckoned that it would be a good time to finish what they started in 1776, and drive the British out of Canada. Doing so would only be "a matter of marching", it was said.

Well sir, American soldiers clashed with British, Canadian and Indian ["First Nations", surely! Ed.] forces to ultimately shape the geography and the identity of eastern North America as it is known today. In other words, the American invasion of Canada failed. Thus the War of 1812 became the first war the USA lost ["failed to win", surely! Ed.] until Vietnam.

Now PBS is attempting to do for the War of 1812 what Ken Burns' great series did for the Civil War. The lead station behind their new film, The War of 1812, which airs tonight is Buffalo's WNED-TV, which is only natural because the main part of the war was fought on the Niagara Frontier and Lakes Erie and Ontario.

Said Donald Boswell, WNED's president, "We have proudly recreated the War of 1812 for both nations. This timely examination of a shared history allows us to celebrate our past together, and renew the bond of our present and future as national neighbours." Rumours of Mr. Boswell's bid for the presidensity of the USA are unconfirmed as of this morning.

Historical figures depicted in the film include Tecumseh, William Henry Harrison and President James Madison, along with a Canadian icons such as General Sir Isaac Brock and, of course, Laura Secord.

The film also recounts dramatic human stories of ordinary citizens, the political alliances of the various Native American ["First Nations", surely! Ed.] nations and the African-American slaves who reached for their freedom by fighting for the British. [It's not Black History Month, but if there's a hotbed of political correctness in the USA, it's PBS! Ed.]

All kidding aside, it's an excellent piece of work. Back in July, Walt was privileged to see a segment of it, dealing with the assault on Fort Erie, and found it very well done, indeed.

The War of 1812 airs on PBS stations on Monday, October 10th -- that's tonight! -- at 9 p.m. EDT. Click here for more information and a video trailer.

Footnote: As far as anyone knows, Laura Secord never made a candy in her life. When an American company bought a small Canadian candy-making concern about a century later, they put Laura's name on the new outfit because it sounded good!

Another footnote: Click here to read "War of 1812 battles a nation's collective amnesia", good column by Konrad Yakabuski from today's Globe and Mail. Here's an excerpt:
Historians consider the war a “draw” because the Treaty of Ghent that ended it entrenched the status quo ante bellum. But the truth is, the Americans sought to engulf us; instead they bankrupted their own country (the United States defaulted on its debt) without gaining an inch of territory. That doesn’t sound like a draw.