The Far Line of Sand [fascinating article]

The USS Maine, a 6682-ton second-class battleship built in 1895, spent her active career operating along the U.S. east coast and the Caribbean area. In 1898 she was sent to Cuba, to protect U.S. interests during a time of local insurrection and civil disturbances, where she famously blew up. Contemporary images of the Maine, available from the link above, show a vessel with guns down low along sides that sloped inward from her waterline to her deck, the so-called "tumblehome" hull form. It was an image of the classic gunboat of the type which Joseph Conrad described in the Heart of Darkness.

These types of gunboat operations ended in the first decades of the 20th century as "sea mines, surface and submarine torpedo-attack craft, long-range rifled guns ... and ... aircraft meant that the traditional form of blockade ... could no longer be sustained ... maritime blockade evolved into long-range operations". Naval warfare became a thing of fleets grapping with rival fleets for control of the blue water. But things have changed again. The decay of the Soviet fleets and the rise of terrorism has shifted emphasis to the coasts once more. As Roger Barnett put it:

Many of today's critical naval tasks require operations close inshore; including keeping choke points open, preventing piracy in strategic waterways, ensuring harbor security and blockade. Unfortunately, open ocean warships are at their most vulnerable in restricted waters. The US Navy, invincible in the blue water, suffered its worst losses since Korea in the littoral. The FFG-7 class USS Stark was nearly sunk by two Exocet missiles in the Persian Gulf in 1987. During Desert Storm in 1991, Aegis class cruiser USS Princeton and Iwo-Jima class LPH USS Tripoli suffered extensive mine damage. One of the most powerful surface combatants in the world, the Burke class destroyer USS Cole, was nearly destroyed in 2000 by an explosive-laden small boat while in port at Aden.

In consequence, the USN has been recreating the capability lost since British failed to force the Dardanelles in the face of mines and coastal artillery; to be able say as Nelson once did that 'the enemy's coast is our frontier'. Apart from changes to doctrine, new classes of USN warships now coming online will make this possible. The former Ohio-class USS Georgia SSBN is now being converted to an SSGN "Tactical Trident" SpecOps Sub and may be followed by the USS Ohio (SSBN 726), USS Michigan (SSBN 727), USS Florida (SSBN 728). These vessels can transport the ASDS minisub, designed to operate as an offshore "underwater hotel" for SEALs landing on an enemy coast.

A wholly new class of warships called the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), able to transit open oceans at half-helicopter speeds is being fielded in considerable numbers. These ships can act as small amphibious landing ships or platforms for unmanned aerial and waterborne unmanned vehicles. Depending on their configuration, they can land forces or deploy robotic vehicles to find enemy mines or submarines. Up to 60 LCS vessels are planned.

But if anything visually represents how things have come full circle, it is the Navy's planned new destroyer class, the DD(X). It's weapons will be deployed along the rim of the hull. And it will have, shades of the Maine, a tumblehome hull form. The accompanying image in the DD(X) link shows a vessel firing into a continent at a camp of enemies 'hidden out of sight somewhere'.

(Speculation alert) If form follows function the shape of the 21st century US Navy suggests that the "dark-green ... almost black" coastlines of the Third World will again become a theater of operations with this fundamental difference: areas that 19th century Europeans once sought to penetrate are now localities that need to be contained. No longer are arms being landed on those whispering coasts in hopes of conquest. The flows now go the other way. Today they must be blockaded against the outflow of weapons, armed gangs and multitudes of desperate people bent on escape from their misery. The USN by restructuring itself in response to the logical implications of terrorism, is anticipating a crisis that, to use Thomas Barnett's terminology, the "Core" governments have yet to face: how to bring freedom, prosperity and functionality to the "Non-Integrating Gap". The system of World Courts, multilateral institutions and development agencies which had their genesis in the 1950s and 60s will not be enough. Fund raising rock concerts will not be enough. The task requires the spread of functioning democratic institutions and market systems assisted where necessary by peacekeeping and relief operations. One day even the UN and the EU will realize that need and on that day America will be ready with some of the means.

Update

The Joseph Conrad quote above was chosen with the awareness of its historical context. The Heart of Darkness was written as a moral examination of human behavior using the example of the Congo. Conrad's Congo was the plaything of King Leopold II of Belgium, who turned it into his private concentration camp. From it he extracted billions of dollars in rubber and ivory from slave labor under the mantle of extending European civilization. In the process he killed ten million people. Better yet, his crimes, which bear comparison with Hitler's, have been largely forgotten by history. In 1914 England would go to war to preserve the neutrality of poor defenseless Belgium. Conrad's work serves even today as an allegory for crime committed in the guise of virtue.

The Heart of Darkness has the potential to make many sorts of people uncomfortable. It is a cautionary tale for those who would remake the Third World by force, but it is also comes uncomfortably close to characterizing the virtuous enterprise of "international" organizations whose rich livelihoods depend on a steady stream of human misery; who leave disease and oppression unaddressed in order to remain true to the banners under which they march. There's a rich vein of unmined irony in the high-minded posturing of countries (where is Brussels?) who only a century ago were dividing the map of the world into private fiefdoms with colored pencils; from whose actions in part derive the mess which must now be cleaned up, though not by them after their retirement from history.

In any case the reflux from European colonialism, with further impetus from non-European forces of expansionism such as Islam, have now burst upon a world too small to ignore it. I was struck by boldness of the USN's decision to re-invent itself as a force capable of fighting in the littoral, creating capability in advance of policy. It bore historical similarities to the initiatives of Major Earl H. Ellis, who in the years between the World Wars, foresaw the need for amphibious warfare long before Pearl Harbor made it necessary.

The quote asserts:

In the process he killed ten million people.

But your reference says something quite different. It notes "disease" and "famine":

Under the reign of terror instituted by King Leopold II of Belgium (who ran the Congo Free State as his personal fief from 1885 to 1908), the population of the Congo was reduced by half -- as many as 8 million Africans (perhaps even 10 million, in Hochschild's opinion) lost their lives.

Some were beaten or whipped to death for failing to meet the rigid production quotas for ivory and rubber harvests, imposed by Leopold's agents. Some were worked to death, forced to labor in slavelike conditions as porters, rubber gatherers or miners for little or no pay.

Some died of the diseases introduced to (and spread throughout) the Congo by Europeans. And still others died from the increasingly frequent famines that swept the Congo basin as Leopold's army rampaged through the countryside, appropriating food and crops for its own use while destroying villages and fields

As to the money is simply misleading and shoddy scholarship to arbitrage currency into a different century more than a hundred years later. If the author meant $1B now, and not then, he should have said so. To imply then instead of now is the worst sort of sophistry of the sort one would expect from left wing anti-colonialists.

While we are speaking of a century ago in darkest Africa, just who was out in the bush counting 10 repeat 10 million corpses? Just what means and methods were employed? I suspect we have a little inflation in the body count just as we had in the money count. Are these the folks who tote up the figures today on global warming?

Look, I have no brief now or then for the Belgians, but even less am I naive enough to permit myself to be bamboolzed by junk-history contrived by a bunch of NY Times board certified, politically correct, anti-colonialists.

If its all the White man's fault, then Africa will never get well. If its all Bush's fault, New Orleans will never get well. This is agenda driven history.

nathanbedford.

And you're still missing the point:

1) The deaths may have been brought about by various means, but were all traceable to the actions of the King of Belgium's push into the country and enslavement of the population.

2) The source is not my source but an article about a book which although an eyeopener for people when it was published was not so shocking for historians of the time period and region because these things were known in 1890 already. You of course never read the book, but are attacking its good research anyway.

3) The "source" says nothing of ONLY famine and disease killing people. You claim it says something "quite different" then what I said (and an earlier writer here). It doesn't. Nice try at spin, but the "source" still says: "Under the reign of terror instituted by King Leopold II of Belgium.... the population of the Congo was reduced by half -- as many as 8 million Africans (perhaps even 10 million, in Hochschild's opinion) lost their lives."

"Some were beaten or whipped to death for failing to meet the rigid production quotas for ivory and rubber harvests, imposed by Leopold's agents. Some were worked to death, forced to labor in slavelike conditions as porters, rubber gatherers or miners for little or no pay."

Whoa, have we gotten to disease or famine yet? Nope. Then...

"Some died of the diseases introduced to (and spread throughout) the Congo by Europeans. And still others died from the increasingly frequent famines that swept the Congo basin as Leopold's army rampaged through the countryside,"

So the diseases were brought by Europeans in an age when they understood basically how that happened, and the famines were actually CAUSED BY THE EUROPEANS who destroyed crops, moved populations, stole food, etc. If I steal all your food and kidnap all of your village's farmers and allow you to starve to death am I responsible for your death by starvation? Yes, I am. Stalin did it to Ukraine. Leopold's agents did it to Congo.

You also wrote: "As to the money is simply misleading and shoddy scholarship to arbitrage currency into a different century more than a hundred years later."

It is neither shoddy or misleading. What was worth millions then is worth billions now. How is that shoddy or misleading? Also, this is not "arbitrage" as you opine. I have done it myself, and you use a conversion book which lists money values in relation to goods throughout centuries. Sorry, it is perfectly good for historians to do it.

"If the author meant $1B now, and not then, he should have said so."

Why? Wasn't it clear? I thought it was.

"To imply then instead of now is the worst sort of sophistry of the sort one would expect from left wing anti-colonialists."

Did he imply then? It didn't seem so to me.

"While we are speaking of a century ago in darkest Africa, just who was out in the bush counting 10 repeat 10 million corpses?"

Men on the scene: Morel, for instance. But also, there were various census takers who tallied up bodies for Leopold's counting houses. They know from regional census that Congo's populations dropped by half in just a few years. Villages disappeared completely.

Barbaric treatment could be rather easily documented even in "darkest" Africa in the nineteenth century: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pvda.be/images/solidair2005/sol2005/P16_congo1905.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ptb.be/scripts/article.phtml%3Fsection%3DA1AAABBRAA%26obid%3D27195&h=406&w=400&sz=20&tbnid=pR5hfzL_cloJ:&tbnh=121&tbnw=119&hl=en&start=18&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcongo%2Bleopold%2BII%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

"Just what means and methods were employed? I suspect we have a little inflation in the body count just as we had in the money count. Are these the folks who tote up the figures today on global warming?"

No. These are historians. There very well maybe inflation in the body count. Maybe it was 7 million and not 10. But it was millions, and millions. Remember, the population was reduced by half. Entire villages throughout the country disappeared.

According to the researcher appointed by the British government in 1905 or so: "Roger Casement's original 1904 report estimated that as many as 3 million Congolese had died of disease, torture or shooting since 1888 (cited in Gilbert's History of the Twentieth Century; also in Colin Legum, Congo Disaster (1972))."
Peter Forbath (The River Congo (1977)): at least 5 million killed.
John Gunther (Inside Africa (1953)): 5-8 million deaths.
Adam Hochschild (Leopold's Ghost, (1998)): 10 million, or half the original population.
Britannica, "Congo Free State": population declined from 20 or 30 million to 8 million.
Fredric Wertham A Sign For Cain : A Exploration of Human Violence (1966): the population of the Congo dropped dropped from 30M to 8.5M, a loss of 21.5 million
Rummel:
2,150,000 democides, 19th Century (based on 10% of Wertham)
25,000 democides, 1900-1910.
AVERAGE:
Median: ca. 8M
Mean: ca. 8.5M

We will never know how many millions died, but clearly millions have always been known to have died. And these are some pretty good sources above.

"Look, I have no brief now or then for the Belgians, but even less am I naive enough to permit myself to be bamboolzed by junk-history contrived by a bunch of NY Times board certified, politically correct, anti-colonialists."

Hey, Rocket Scientist, the NYT merely commented on a book written by a historian. Do you think the sources I posted above were written by the NYT? Please wake up soon!

"If its all the White man's fault, then Africa will never get well. If its all Bush's fault, New Orleans will never get well. This is agenda driven history."

No, it looks more like corpse driven history. None of this has anything to do with Bush, or New Orleans, or really even colonialism. It was about Leopold II being a greedy man who didn't care that millions of innocent people were being killed so he could have a billion dollars in spending cash to glorify himself.

Now, how about going to the library and actually reading a book about it? Why not not be ignorant and think this is all an attack on whitey? I don't know if you have the testicular fortitude to do that -- especially if Nathan Bedford Forest is your hero -- but there's no reason to be ignorant in the 21st century. No matter how much you think whitey has been pounced on by the left for colonialism that ended before you were born that doesn't mean that there weren't genuinely horrific crimes committed by some -- I SAY SOME -- colonialists. Not all were bad men. Some were. Leopold's men were more often than not in the bad category. Why is that so hard to accept? It has nothing to do with you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.