Let's turn back the clock a bit, to April, 2008. General Petraeus testified to Congress on the way forward in Iraq. The graph below (for a full explanation, click here) should help put that moment - along with the before and after - in historical perspective; it's indicated by the dashed red line.

This wasn't the more widely-covered ("Betrayus") testimony of the previous summer, but it was an election year, and Democrats were still heavily invested in a narrative of Iraq as an eternal nightmare of endless war. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even warned the General ahead of time not to come with a message that things were going well.

While there's no doubt he could have done more with more, General Petraeus got what he needed for Iraq. Of course, in April, 2008 the chart above ended where the dashed line is now - and other ways forward had their advocates, too. Which brings us to this moment in the hearings, as Senator Bayh applied all the skills in his politician's toolbox to get General Petraeus to say that reasonable people could certainly discount his advice.

Bayh: In fact reasonable people can differ about the most effective way forward, is that not also a fair observation?

Petraeus: I dont know whether I would go that far, sir. Obviously I think that there is a way forward, I've made a recommendation on that, and so I think in that sense...

Bayh: (interrupting) General, you would not mean to say that anyone who would have a different opinion is by definition an unreasonable person?

Petraeus: Senator lots of things in life are arguable, and certainly there are lots of different opinions out there, but again I believe that the recommendations that I have made are correct...

Bayh: (interrupting) Here's the reason for my question, gentlemen. Just as I acknowledge your honor and patriotism which I think is absolutely appropriate I hope you would acknowledge the honor and patriotism of those who have a look at this very complex set of facts and simply have a different point of view - and as you both are aware some argue that to not embrace the assessment you're giving us is in fact to embrace defeat - or to embrace failure in Iraq, and I simply would disagree with those characterizations and that was the reason for my question to you.

Petraeus: Senator, we fight for the right of people to have other opinions.

Back to the present - or at least, last week. To bring us up to date, here's another graph.

The white part of that is something the White House likes to brag about - in fact, they provided it. I had to add the red myself - the steady rise in American war deaths since Obama took office is something they'd prefer to ignore. We can all hope that negotiations with the Tollybon bear fruit - and that the red line plunges with the white as we pursue the way forward in Afghanistan. But as with Iraq in 2008, that way forward was the topic of Congressional testimony from General Petraeus last week.

LEVIN: I want to pick up the question of Afghanistan, the decision the president made last night. You gave a number of reasons here today where -- for why you -- as I read you, that you are comfortable implementing the decision that the president made, whether or not it was precisely following your recommendation or not, that you do feel comfortable implementing it and supporting it. Is that an accurate reading?

PETRAEUS: I would be a bit more qualified, Mr. Chairman.

There's a notable difference in this testimony compared to the 2008 version.

LEVIN: (inaudible) would you also agree with Admiral Mullen, as he put it to the committee, that the truth is, that we would have run other kinds of risks by keeping more forces in Afghanistan longer. That's his exact words.

And we would have made it easier for the Karzai administration to increase their dependency on us. Those were his words today as well.

We would have denied the Afghan security forces who've grown in capability opportunities to further exercise that capability and to lead.

And that, in terms of risks, we would have signaled to the enemy and to our regional partners that the Taliban still possessed strength enough to warrant the full measure of our presence. They do not.

Would you agree with Admiral Mullen on that?

PETRAEUS: I'm not sure I buy every bit of that characterization, Chairman...

Although the message "you aren't going to put words in my mouth" is still loud and clear - as is this point from the General:

I obviously support the ultimate decision of the commander in chief. That is, we take an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States.

PETRAEUS: Well, I'm not a quitter, Chairman.

LEVIN: Well...

PETRAEUS: And I don't -- I think that -- I've actually had people e-mail me and say that. And I actually -- this is something that I have thought a bit about.

I think there's much in his comments for every America to think about. I wish congressional testimony from commanders of American troops at war was considered as newsworthy now as it was in 2007. But wish in one hand, shit in the other - slap 'em together and you've got the way forward in Afghanistan.

"I feel quite strongly about this," the General continued - after Senator Levin had tried to cut him off. "Our troopers don't get to quit."

And at the end of the day, this is not about me, it's not about an individual commander, it's not about a reputation. This is about our country.

And the best step for our country, with the commander in chief having made the decision, is to execute that decision to the very best of our ability, to do everything I can during the remainder of my time as commander of ISAF to enable General Allen then to take the effort forward, and then, if confirmed, to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to do everything I can from that position with that great organization to support the effort as well.

Added: scratch Kabul's Inter-Continental Hotel from the list of potential peace talk sites; apparently the Tollybon don't like it.

Without further ado, here's the "against the war but for the cost" crew. See if there's anyone you'd vote for on here. (And don't be surprised when they lie to you about how they "voted against authorizing the Libya war.")

It's something that's been missing from our national dialog on war since late 2007 - remarkably, prior to that it was all anyone ever talked about.

The chart above shows the combined American death toll from Iraq and Afghanistan, as reported at icasualties. The blue line depicts the monthly totals, the red line a running twelve-month average. The variability in the raw numbers - the cyclical peaks and valleys in the blue line - reflects the "fighting season" in Afghanistan. (Here's another look, and here's another comparison of trends in both wars.) In the red line you see more clearly the steady rise in American deaths from the last year of President Bush's term to the past twelve months - a seventeen percent increase coincident with a seventeen percent reduction in troops.

Simplify the red line to a straight one connecting the Jan, 2009 point to now (the end points) and overlay it on the White House infographic and it looks like this (click the charts below for larger versions):

Of course, what it might look like in the future is hard to predict - a lot of that will be up to a group of people President Obama likes to call the Tollybon. They got his December, 2009 promise we would be leaving, too. Since that's a promise kept maybe they'll be patient; maybe not. If they are, then all the troops will be able to vote in November 2012 just like you.

This is pretty nifty, too (unless you're one of the dead people or their relatives). Add the same date points that Mathew selected to my red line overlayed on his infographic and it looks like this:

Remarkable, I think. Of course, what matters is what those troops accomplish on the road to successfully completing the President's stated goals. And we should never forget what Rhodes emphasizes on the White House web site, "Our troops have provided extraordinary service and sacrifice in both Afghanistan and Iraq for nearly ten years."

Like whatsisname and whosisface, the ones Obama gave that Medal of Whatchamacallit to.

Gage orders two of his officers, Captain John Brown and Ensign Henry De Berniere, to travel the roads west from Boston and to gather and record information along the way. By 20 March, Gage shifts his attention to Concord, where the Provincial Congress has been meeting and a large supply of arms are stored. Once again, Gage sends Brown and Berniere on a mission. Closer to Boston, Concord seems a more accessible goal for recapturing provincial munitions and demonstrating British authority.

De Berniere would document the mission, and everything about it would confirm Barker's description of British activity in Boston as "so noble a field for Satire." As with Barker's diary, we might never have seen this document; however, unlike Barker's there was no hundred-year wait. As the first page of its 1779 publication (in Boston, by then back under rebel control) makes clear, a copy of Gage's orders and De Berniere's report were "Left in town by a British Officer previous to the evacuation of it by the enemy, and now printed for the information and amusement of the curious."

The whole thing is available online at the web site of the Massachusetts Historical Society, and even two centuries later is comedy gold. "We sat out from Boston on Thursday," our James Bond forerunner explains, "disguised like countrymen, in brown cloaths and reddish handkerchiefs round our necks..." Thus camouflaged, they hoped to make their way largely unnoticed through the small towns dotting the country. Almost immediately the two masters of disguise were patting themselves on the back at their great success: "We next went to Watertown," Ensign De Berniere reports, "and were not suspected, it is a pretty large town for America, but would be looked upon as a village in England..." (You know, one of those places where everyone is related to everyone else?) "...a little out of this town we went into a tavern..."

Yeah... so here's what happened next.

"This disconcerted us a good deal," he says - in what may be an early written example of the British penchant for understatement. "We resolved not to sleep there that night, as we had intended..."

The (mis)adventures of the three amigos ("Brown, I, and our man John," De Berniere explains - "for we always treated him as our companion since our adventure with the black woman" - no longer would he have to wait outside in the cold while they ate) had just begun. Fortunately for us all, they'd push on in the face of exposure and adversity repeatedly - eventually identifying the route to Concord via Lexington as the best option for future travels. Thus, if they hadn't been so worried about appearing very foolish, history might have been very different - and we'd all be speaking English today.

Their story continues here. (For those not inclined to read the whole comic epic, our heroes should at least get credit for fooling some people. On returning to Boston "we met General Gage and General Haldiman, with their aid-de-camps, walking out on the neck, they did not know us until we discovered ourselves.")

Footnote - for comparison with Barker, here's the entry for the same day from the diary of Frederick Mackenzie, another British officer in Boston:

8th . It has been signified to the Army, that if any Officers of the different Regiments are capable of taking Sketches of a Country, they are to send their names to the Deputy Adjutant General.

I am afraid not many Officers in this Army will be found qualified for this Service. It is a branch of Military education too little attended to, or sought after by our Officers, and yet is not only extremely necessary and useful in time of War, but very entertaining and instructive.

Mackenzie (of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers) deployed with Percy's relief column on April 19th. His diary can be read here, along with historian Allen French's (who sought out and published Mackenzie's diary) contrast of the two journalists as revealed in their own words:

Barker - a promising officer, eager and restless, is full of youthful intolerance. His chronicle bristles with contemptuous flings at his superiors and at the enemy, whether in the street or in the field. Mackenzie, on the other hand, who must at the time have been hard on his fiftieth year, expresses no such sentiments. A seasoned, experienced soldier, he takes the days work as it comes and discharges it with fidelity.

It's certain after reading De Berniere's account that MacKenzie's concern was more valid than Barker's hurt feelings.

Next - part three: Lt Sutherland's Ride

I'll let the fraud himself explain why this matters. Here he is reading from his prepared remarks at SSG Giunta's Medal of Honor ceremony seven months ago:

THE PRESIDENT: Of all the privileges that come with serving as President of the United States, I have none greater than serving as Commander-in-Chief of the finest military that the world has ever known. And of all the military decorations that a President and a nation can bestow, there is none higher than the Medal of Honor.

Today is particularly special. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the Medal of Honor has been awarded nine times for conspicuous gallantry in an ongoing or recent conflict. Sadly, our nation has been unable to present this decoration to the recipients themselves, because each gave his life -- his last full measure of devotion -- for our country. Indeed, as President, I have presented the Medal of Honor three times -- and each time to the families of a fallen hero.

Today, therefore, marks the first time in nearly 40 years that the recipient of the Medal of Honor for an ongoing conflict has been able to come to the White House and accept this recognition in person. It is my privilege to present our nation's highest military decoration, the Medal of Honor, to a soldier as humble as he is heroic: Staff Sergeant Salvatore A. Giunta.

Now, I'm going to go off-script here for a second and just say I really like this guy. (Laughter and applause.) I think anybody -- we all just get a sense of people and who they are, and when you meet Sal and you meet his family, you are just absolutely convinced that this is what America is all about. And it just makes you proud. And so this is a joyous occasion for me -- something that I have been looking forward to.

The Medal of Honor reflects the gratitude of an entire nation. So we are also joined here today by several members of Congress, including both senators and several representatives from Staff Sergeant Giunta's home state of Iowa. We are also joined by leaders from across my administration and the Department of Defense, including the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Where's Mike? There he is, right there. Army Secretary John McHugh; and Chief of Staff of the Army, General George Casey.

We are especially honored to be joined by Staff Sergeant Giunta's fellow soldiers, his teammates and brothers from Battle Company, 2d of the 503d of the 173d Airborne Brigade; and several members of that rarest of fraternities that now welcomes him into its ranks -- the Medal of Honor Society. Please give them a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Being a good con man, he provided a lot of information no one would disagree with in that statement. One of the best, most widely-applicable examples came when he went "off-script" for a moment: "I think anybody -- we all just get a sense of people and who they are."

Story on Monti here, Giunta here, for those more interested in this stuff than the Pres'ent is.

Postscript: A couple of oldies -

"Just kidding" at Osan:

"Mis-speaking" on Dover:

A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.
<...>
The images and the sentiment of the president's five-hour trip to Delaware were intended by the White House to convey to the nation that Mr. Obama was not making his Afghanistan decision lightly or in haste.

It should have been a "good" day for the project; "This week alone, about two dozen soldiers have died in attacks and accidents." But while the remains of 15 soldiers and three federal agents arrived at Dover while the president was there, only one family elected to participate:

The other families chose not to, officials said, under a new Pentagon policy that lifted an 18-year ban on media covering the return of U.S. service members killed in action if families provide permission.

Under George Bush, who launched the conflict in retaliation for the terrorist 9/11 attacks, news media were barred from observing the return of fallen troops through Dover airbase.
<...>
Obama overturned the ban this year...

That one had to be flushed down the White House memory toilet real fast.

But that "legitimizing" approval's an interesting thing - as it brings with it the constraint: "the use of force solely to protect civilians." Except at this point in time, that assertion is laughable - and there can't be anyone left in the world who can actually believe it. Witness Hillary Clinton's comments in support of the president's efforts in Libya:

I don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that Qadhafi and the people around him have their backs against the wall.... But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi's side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

For some reason I can't read that as a defense of protecting civilians, something that seems better defended by the simple phrase "we're just protecting civilians - how can you oppose that?" Of course, the UN is still pretending we're just protecting civilians in much the same way the administration is just pretending we're protecting civilians per UN mandate in official written justifications for our actions. Therefore it will be interesting to see if any administration officials will abandon that pretense in their congressional testimony in support of our support to kinetic activity constrained to protecting civilians mission in Libya and follow Hillary's "hey, we're kicking Qaddafi's ass here - you're either with us or with the terrorists" format. (A line even President Bush didn't apply to his domestic opponents.)

No secret number two: the Libyan Civil War has driven oil prices up (though President Obama likes to blame "speculators") - a predictable impact of the loss of the Libyan supply. (Hey - the whole thing was supposed to be over in a week...) So if you believe Italy is suddenly going wobbly on Libya based on humanitarian grounds four months after losing almost a quarter of their oil supply - "with the government in Rome warning that it has ...enough oil to last 90 days" then you're what certain Chicagoans I know call an easy mark. Of course, Italy (and most of the rest of NATO) still have to get oil somewhere, which drives up prices for them and everyone else, unless offset by reduced demand elsewhere...

Which brings us to "it will be interesting to see if..." number two: it will be interesting to see if Italy continues to express its profound humanitarian concerns now that President Obama (in an amazing coincidence) has opened the US strategic oil reserves to "keep pump prices in the United States down this summer," since that will (coincidentally) reduce demand on the global supply. (Why didn't he just make the speculators lower their prices, you ask? Easy answer: Hey, are you with us, or the terrorists?)

Lastly (for today) on this topic: "Libya is a 'dumb war'" says Glenn Reynolds, "because it's halfhearted, half-assed, and run by committee, and the President can't even articulate the national interest involved."

On points: dumb - yes, halfhearted - yes, half-assed - yes, committee - yes... but as for the President, although I disagree with it, and it's certainly obscure, I thought he articulated the national interest quite well:

It is in America's national interest because nobody has a bigger stake in the Middle East than does the United States of America.

Hillary's and you're either with us or against us makes a nice companion point to that.

Some might argue his statement wasn't as clear and articulate as my interpretation above, but (to use a much more well-known recent quote as comparison) I say it was at least as clear - if obviously not as newsworthy - as Sarah Palin's description of Paul Revere's ride. If that's not articulate enough for you, you're obviously with the terrorists.

Update: never say "lastly (for today)" before 4PM on a Friday:

The House delivered a surprising split decision on Libya Friday: Voting against authorizing the use of American forces there and then, an hour later, refusing to limit funding for the mission.

Apparently a whole lotta Democrats and a handful of Republicans voted against the war but in favor of funding it, (update: not accurate - see here) so President Obama's Dynamic Fear Train of History will continue chugga chugga choo chooing along. (I've heard of people being "against the war but for the troops," but this is the first time I recall anyone saying they were "against the war but for the cost.")

I guess this means the troops will continue to get their combat pay; I'm glad the "not combat" fraud was never extended to screwing them out of that.

19th. Last night between 10 and 11 o'clock all the Grenadiers and Light Infantry of the Army, making about 600 Men (under the command of Lt. Coll. Smith of the 10th and Major Pitcairn of the Marines) embarked and were landed upon the opposite shore on Cambridge Marsh. Few but the commanding officers knew what expedition we were going upon. After getting over the Marsh, where we were wet up to the knees, we were halted in a dirty road and stood there 'till 2 o'clock in the morning, waiting for provisions to be brought from the boats and to be divided, and which most of the men threw away, having carried some with 'em.

At 2 o'clock we began our march by wading through a very long ford up to our middles. After going a few miles we took three or four people who were going off to give intelligence. About five miles on this side of a town called Lexington, which lay in our road, we heard there were some hundreds of people collected together intending to oppose us and stop our going on. At 5 o'clock we arrived there and saw a number of people, I believe between 2 and 300, formed in a common in the middle of the town. We still continued advancing, keeping prepared against an attack though without intending to attack them, but on our coming near them they fired one or two shots, upon which our men, without any orders, rushed in upon them, fired and put 'em to flight. Several of them were killed, we could not tell how many, because they were got behind walls and into the Woods. We had a man of the 10th Light Infantry wounded, nobody else hurt.

We then formed on the Common, but with some difficulty, the men were so wild they could hear no orders. We waited a considerable time there, and at length proceeded on our way to Concord, which we then learned was our destination, in order to destroy a magazine of stores collected there. We met with no interruption 'till within a mile or two of the town, where the country people had occupied a hill which commanded the road. The light infantry were ordered away to the right and ascended the height in one line, upon which the Yankies quitted it without firing, which they did likewise for one or two more successively. They then crossed the River beyond the town, and we marched into the town after taking possession of a hill with a Liberty Pole on it and a flag flying, which was cut down. The Yankies had that Hill but left it to us; we expected they would have made a stand there, but they did not choose it.

While the grenadiers remained in the town, destroying three pieces of cannon, several gun carriages, and about 100 barrels of flour, with harness and other things, the light companies were detached beyond the river to examine some houses for more stores. One of these companies was left at the bridge, another on a hill some distance from it, and another on a hill 1/4 of a mile from that. The other three went forward two or three miles to seek for some cannon which had been there but had been taken away that morning. During this time the people were gathering together in great numbers, and, taking advantage of our scattered disposition, seemed as if they were going to cut off the communication with the bridge, upon which the two companies joined and went to the bridge to support that company. The three companies drew up in the road the far side the bridge and the rebels on the hill above, covered by a wall. In that situation they remained a long time, very near an hour, the three companies expecting to be attacked by the rebels, who were about 1000 strong.

Captain Lawrie, who commanded these three companies, sent to Colonel Smith begging he would send more troops to his assistance and informing him of his situation. The Colonel ordered two or three companies but put himself at their head, by which means stopped them from being time enough, for being a very fat heavy man he would not have reached the bridge in half an hour, though it was not half a mile to it. In the mean time the rebels marched into the road and were coming down upon us, when Capn. L____e made his men retire to this side the bridge. (Which by the bye he ought to have done at first, and then he would have had time to make a good disposition, but at this time he had not, for the rebels were got so near him that his people were obliged to form the best way they could.) As soon as they were over the bridge the three companies got one behind the other so that only the front one could fire. The rebels, when they got near the bridge, halted and fronted, filling the road from the top to bottom.

The fire soon began from a dropping shot on our side, when they and the front company fired almost at the same instant, there being nobody to support the front company. The others not firing, the whole were forced to quit the bridge and return toward Concord. Some of the grenadiers met 'em in the road and then advanced to meet the rebels, who had got this side the bridge and on a good height, but seeing the maneuver they thought proper to retire again over the bridge. The whole then went into Concord, drew up in the town, and waited for the three companies that were gone on, which arrived in about an hour. Four officers of eight who were at the bridge were wounded; three men killed; one sergeant and several men wounded. After getting as good conveniences for the wounded as we could, and having done the business we were sent upon, we set out upon our return.

Before the whole had quitted the Town we were fired on from houses and behind trees, and before we had gone 1/2 a mile we were fired on from all sides, but mostly from the rear, where people had hid themselves in houses till we had passed, and then fired. The country was an amazing strong one, full of hills, woods, stone walls, &c;, which the rebels did not fail to take advantage of, for they were all lined with people who kept an incessant fire upon us, as we did too upon them, but not with the same advantage, for they were so concealed there was hardly any seeing them. In this way we marched between nine and ten miles, their numbers increasing from all parts, while ours was reducing by deaths, wounds, and fatigue, and we were totally surrounded with such an incessant fire as it's impossible to conceive; our ammunition was likewise near expended.

In this critical situation we perceived the 1st Brigade coming to our assistance. It consisted of the 4th, 23d, and 47th Regiments and the Battalion of Marines, with two field pieces, 6 pounders. We had been flattered ever since the morning with expectations of the brigade coming out, but at this time had given up all hopes of it, as it was so late. I since heard it was owing to a mistake of the orders, or the brigade would have been with us two hours sooner. As soon as the rebels saw this reinforcement, and tasted the field pieces, they retired, and we formed on a rising ground and rested ourselves a little while, which was extremely necessary for our men, who were almost exhausted with fatigue. In about 1/2 an hour we marched again, and some of the brigade taking the flanking parties we marched pretty quiet for about two miles. They then began to pepper us again from the same sort of places, but at rather a greater distance.

We were now obliged to force almost every house in the road, for the rebels had taken possession of them and galled us exceedingly. But they suffered for their temerity, for all that were found in the houses were put to death. When we got to Menotomy there was a very heavy fire. After that we took the short cut into the Charles Town road, very luckily for us too, for the rebels, thinking we should endeavor to return by Cambridge, had broken down the bridge and had a great number of men to line the road and to receive us there, however we threw them and went on to Charles Town without any great interruption. We got there between 7 and 8 oclock at night, took possession of the hill above the Town, and waited for the Boats to carry us over, which came some time after. The Rebels did not choose to follow us to the hill, as they must have fought us on open ground and that they did not like. The piquets of the army were sent over to Charles Town and 200 of the 64th to keep that ground. They threw up a work to secure themselves, and we embarked and got home very late in the night...

Thus ended this expedition, which from beginning to end was as ill planned and ill executed as it was possible to be. Had we not idled away three hours on Cambridge Marsh waiting for provisions that were not wanted, we should have had no interruption at Lexington, but by our stay the country people had got intelligence and time to assemble. We should have reached Concord soon after day break, before they could have heard of us, by which we should have destroyed more cannon and stores, which they had had time enough to convey away before our arrival. We might also have got easier back and not been so much harassed, as they would not have had time to assemble so many people; even the people of Salem and Marblehead, above 20 miles off, had intelligence and time enough to march and meet us on our return. They met us somewhere about Menotomy, but they lost a good many for their pains...

Thus for a few trifling Stores the grenadiers and light infantry had a march of about 50 miles (going and returning) through an enemy's country, and in all human probability must every man have been cut off if the brigade had not fortunately come to their assistance. For when the brigade joined us there were very few men had any ammunition left, and so fatigued that we could not keep flanking parties out, so that we must soon have laid down our arms, or been picked off by the rebels at their pleasure.

Young Lt Barker survived the war and continued his military career, ultimately retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel himself. No record of his body mass index or 1/2 mile run time at that point in his life is available online. His youthful chronicle of events that changed the world, as first published (though erroneously attributed) is here.

Part two of this series: The Comic Relief

Darrell Wallace Jr., driving the U.S. Army-sponsored Revolution Racing Toyota, celebrates his victory in the April, 2011 Blue Ox 100 K&N; Pro Series East race at Richmond International Raceway.

We apologize for any confusion.

Correction 2: Dammit! - I got it wrong again. That was Lance Armstrong crossing the finish line in one of his many Tour de France stage wins, wearing the familiar yellow version of his US Postal Service-sponsored team's jersey.

One last try:

Darrell Wallace Jr., driving the U.S. Army-sponsored Revolution Racing Toyota, celebrates his victory in the April, 2011 Blue Ox 100 K&N; Pro Series East race at Richmond International Raceway.

I got it right that time... The story is here. (Warning: fans of Betty will be disgusted with the enemy victory celebrations.)

On Thursday night, Darrell Wallace Jr., drove his Revolution Racing Toyota to victory in the K&N; Pro Series East race at Richmond International Raceway.

In mid-February at Daytona, the Army had to postpone its announcement of support for Revolution Racing--the flagship organization of NASCAR's Drive for Diversity program--after Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) introduced an amendment that would have blocked the armed forces from using taxpayer money to fund NASCAR sponsorships.

The amendment was voted down 281-148, largely along party lines.

Lt. General Benjamin C. Freakley of the Army Accessions Command, the branch of the Army that oversees recruiting, said Friday that racing sponsorships are enormously valuable in counteracting a declining awareness of the Army among young potential recruits.

But I suppose my failures at getting the right photo posted above, followed by my ultimate success, are another demonstration that quitters don't win and winners don't quit. Perhaps some future day in Minnesota there will be no homeless veterans, and proud parents will be able to show their children triumphant victory photos of Betty McCollum, who made it all possible.

Postscript: Darrell Wallace Jr. is a 17-year old African American; more on the NASCAR "Drive For Diversity initiative" here. (If pale, middle-aged Betty from Minnesota succeeds in getting his sponsorship money yanked, I hope she takes the time to educate him about how he was just being used by The Man.)

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933

I've seen it repeatedly on Facebook, discussion boards, blogs and other locations over the past several months. It's a fabricated Hitler quote - it sprang into existence in February this year (just in time for the Wisconsin campaign) - but like so many other fabricated Hitler quotes it does sound kind of... Hitlery, to coin a term. (And like at least one other fabricated Hitler quote it sprang into being at the exact moment it was needed to advance an agenda remarkably similar to Hitler's.) It's even dated the actual day Hitler shut down those unions that weren't part of his socialist labor movement (the day after he held massive May Day celebrations), leaving his own Labor Front the only option available to workers. (Except they had no option - they had to join.)

So Hitler controlled Labor in Germany. The question becomes and then what? We know (or at least, we used to) Hitler blamed "speculators" (nudge wink) for Germany's economic woes, launched World War Two (citing his responsibility to protect German citizens in Czechoslovakia and Poland as an excuse) and killed millions - but we're talking about Labor here. We know (or at least, we used to) he revitalized the economy via government stimulus and jobs programs (the autobahn... public works... munitions... Volkswagen... tanks...), but what did Hitler do for those German workers of the mind and fist he claimed his party represented?

"Then and now," reads the text (a World War One reference) "we remain comrades." Deutsche Arbeitsfront is the German Labor Front. (Collection here.)

Let's turn to William Shirer for the answer. (Quick note for younger readers: his book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich documents exactly that, combined with his experiences as an American reporter in Germany throughout the period when Hitler came to power. It was a bestseller in an America where most people old enough to read had personal memories of World War Two. The entire book is available online for free here, the section on labor referenced below begins here.)

So, did he really slash wages? The answer is yes. Well, sort of yes. For skilled laborers the average fall was one cent an hour: "from 20.4 cents an hour in 1932... to 19.5 cents during the middle of 1936," Shirer says. Things were even worse for others: "Wage scales for unskilled labor fell from 16.1 cents to 13 cents an hour." How could he pull that off without inciting a workers' revolt? Simple: total income grew by 66 per cent. How can this be, you ask? Simple: Hitler reduced unemployment in Germany from six million to less than a million in that same time frame. (What part of socialism do you not understand?)

However, as Shirer makes clear, the typical German worker's income fell in other ways.

Besides stiff income taxes, compulsory contributions to sickness, unemployment and disability insurance, and Labor Front dues, the manual worker - like everyone else in Nazi Germany - was constantly pressured to make increasingly large gifts to an assortment of Nazi charities...

"Don't donate," urges this poster encouraging generous contributions to a National Socialist Worker's Party charity drive, "Sacrifice."

Much of that charity money went to support Germany's many unwed mothers and their children. With Hitler's encouragement and financial support their numbers were climbing sharply in the pre-war years - Der Führer foresaw the need for a large future pool of soldiers.

"Many a workman lost his job," Shirer reports, "because his contribution was deemed too small." How bad were things at their worst? All totaled, says Shirer, "In the mid-Thirties it was estimated that taxes and contributions took from 15 to 35 per cent of a worker's gross wage." I can only imagine an American veteran of D-Day and beyond reading that in 1960 and wondering... taxes, union dues, health insurance all mandatory, and charity "encouraged" - and totaling 15 per cent of gross income! We Americans fought a revolution over less! How could the Germans put up with that?

Shirer leaves no doubt as to how bad it was for the German worker. Those with weak stomachs might want to stop reading here - it keeps getting worse.

There was another heavy cost to the wage earner. As the largest single party organization in the country, with twenty-five million members, the Labor Front became a swollen bureaucracy, with tens of thousands of full-time employees. In fact, it was estimated that from 20 to 25 per cent of its income was absorbed by administration expense.

Okay, at this point you've probably noticed that mandatory taxes, union dues and health insurance combined to support a bloated bureaucracy isn't just a description of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, it also fits America today. (Though we do have cleaner, less inherently disturbing graphics, IMHO.) We all know Nazi Germany was horrible, Shirer from first hand observation. But reading past his general characterizations and into his specific descriptions it becomes obvious that many of the differences are nothing more than semantic - with obvious exceptions that still set us apart. For instance, we still have some states where (except for federal government employees) you don't have to join a union to get a decent job; union officials in twenty-first century America can still negotiate (while calling anyone who negotiates with them Nazis); and our unemployment rate is nowhere near that low. (And some of us wish our mandatory taxes and contributions were only 15% of our gross income...)

And...

Germans also had something called Kraft durch Freude (KdF - translated: "Strength through Joy") that subsidized vacations (the beach, cruises, skiing...) sports, the theater, opera, concerts, (including a "ninety-piece symphony orchestra which continually toured the country, often playing in the smaller places where good music was not normally available") and a host of other diversions. (We've got the NEA and NPR, of course, but ...) Through KdF Hitler even started up his own government motor company (see Volkswagen link above) to subsidize ownership of economical, fuel efficient cars for German workers. (Many who paid in advance were disappointed; no one ever got one...)

Much of the focus of all KdF efforts was on government "health and fitness" guidelines for the German worker, whose "proper diet" and exercise were seen as government responsibility. "To the ordinary German in the Third Reich this official all-embracing recreational organization no doubt was better than nothing at all," says Shirer, "if one could not be trusted to be left to one's own devices."

It provided members of the Labor Front, for instance, with dirt-cheap vacation trips on land and sea. Dr Ley built two 25,000-ton ships, one of which he named after himself, and chartered ten others to to handle ocean cruises for Kraft Durch Freude.

Shirer went on one such cruise himself, and says "the German workers seemed to have a good time." Of course, Shirer could see something the average German would likely not admit: they'd been transformed into nothing more than "serfs" (to use his term).

I always thought Rise and Fall was a cautionary tale - but obviously others saw it as a how-to manual. I'd like to thank our patriotically concerned American union officials for the numerous shrill warnings over the past several months. I'm not clear if it's lower unemployment or subsidized vacations they're concerned these Hitlerific Republican Governors are trying to force on unsuspecting American workers, but at least when they try it we'll recognize it for what it is - the last few steps on the road to Nazidom.

Are you shovel ready, comrade?

Just finished reading Virtual Light, an early 90's sci-fi book by William Gibson. Gibson is credited with creating the "cyberpunk" sub-genre; I'd read his Neuromancer trilogy some time ago and enjoyed it.

Virtual Light is the first book of another trilogy, but I don't know if I'll bother with the rest. It's not bad, but the setting is the "near future" - and that future is now, or close enough to now that it becomes obvious that the future was not quite so bleak as full enjoyment of the story would require.

That of itself provides interest - but of a sort that wasn't the author's intent. I suppose there could be another sub-genre of science fiction: the bleak future that didn't happen. Watch almost any pre-Star Wars sci-fi films of the 70's - Silent Running, Soylent Green, Logan's Run, et al - and you'll see examples what I mean.

Of course, one can't consign such stories into that category ahead of time, right?

And anyhow, perhaps the authors were just off by a few years in timing. We still have a future in which any number of things can happen.

For instance, did you know the Earth was getting hotter?

An autobiographical bit:

In 1967, Gibson went to Canada "to avoid the Vietnam war draft", appearing that year in a CBC newsreel item about hippie subculture in Yorkville, Toronto. He settled in Vancouver, British Columbia five years later and began to write science fiction. Although he retains U.S. citizenship, Gibson has spent most of his adult life in Canada, and still lives in the Vancouver area.

This reduces my enjoyment of his work not one bit. I read Virtual Light by flashlight over several nights, just before dropping off to sleep here in my tent in Iraq.

I don't get enough sleep, though. Mostly that's due to long hours. But some days aren't so busy. One Sunday I almost went to bed early - it was Father's Day, in fact. I'd already read and replied to the emails from the kids who really aren't kids any more, and was about to log off and call it a day.

Then into my inbox popped a message from my brother in the states: I'd been invited to view an online album of photos from our niece's wedding.

The event had been planned for a year, at least, and even when I first heard of it I knew I couldn't go - knew I'd be in Iraq on that day.

Our family scattered around the country, my parents' generation and my own. None are left in my hometown, and that wasn't my parents' hometown anyway. Since the third generation is now starting out on their own, we'll see if the trend continues.

"Where are you from?" I'm asked from time to time. If you're looking for a place that defines me, the answer is "I'm not sure."

But from time to time the family gathers, and this time the gathering wasn't far from the fictional setting of Virtual Light. Sometimes I'm there, this time I wasn't. But here was my chance to be there in a virtual sense, after the fact.

Who'd have thought such things were possible, just a few short years ago?

So I clicked the link in the email, and waited while 200+ thumbnails made their agonizingly slow appearance on my screen... Who are these old guys hanging out with the beautiful girls I've known for years? And who are these young adults who look so much like the kids who used to visit Grandma's? ... I'd have to click through for the full version for answers. Those loaded slowly, too.

So much for sleep. I wouldn't miss this for the world.

I think I've already mentioned a memorial at headquarters. I saw a new face among the collection of photographs of the fallen the last time I passed by, as I do every time. This time, "... killed by indirect fire".

"Indirect fire" means rockets or mortars, launched in the general direction of camp. Most land in the middle of nothing, others don't. Here was one that didn't.

I did not know this person, who was on a base other than mine. But like all the faces, hers looked familiar. Like family.

Such is life on the FOB.

The first picture I saw from the virtual wedding album was one of family at a table. My older brother, the father of the bride, was not among them. But on a shelf in the background, I saw his picture. A picture in a picture, small, visible only upon clicking the thumbnail for the larger image, and waiting and waiting for the pixels to make their way from California through the lens of a digital camera then through cyberspace to me in Iraq. Though his photograph in the background was small it was recognizable to me because it was a college yearbook photo, a copy of which hung proudly on a wall in my parents' home in my hometown, when it was there.

He was in college through the last few years of the Vietnam war. I can remember my being concerned he could be drafted. That was a possible future, but it didn't happen. Instead he graduated, got married, and got a job doing something with computers out in some place people started calling Silicon Valley...

Years later and years ago, I visited him at his home in California. I was returning from two years in Korea, on my way to an assignment near my hometown where one member of my family still lived. Our younger brother, who was getting married a few months later, to a girl who looked the same when I saw her in photos on Fathers' Day this year.

A couple years later the three of us got together in California. Good times.

On one of those visits out West he gave me some paperback books he'd finished reading. Among them, Virtual Light, by William Gibson. I can't recall if he'd given me his opinion of it - probably not.

But years later and a few months ago I was packing to come to Iraq, and grabbed a couple of books off my shelf for the trip. That was one of them.

And a couple months later and a couple weeks ago I clicked through pictures from my older brother's daughter's wedding, sent to me by my younger brother via cyberspace.

No matter how many works of science fiction prove faulty at predicting a disastrous future, people will eagerly consume the next pronouncement of doom. There's a market for such things. There are people who thrive on imagining a future hell.

In the 70's it was nuclear war, overpopulation, pollution, and numerous other threats to all mankind that distracted our attention from that which was truly important. By the early 90's it was the economy, stupid, that was going to bring us down.

Sacrifice: some of us miss family weddings and other big events, others die from indirect fire.

Others get to leave early:

Him: You've been stationed in Germany, right?
Me: Yes...
Him: Ever been to Landstuhl?
Me: Yes. Shit, you heading that way?
Him: Yes... doc says I've got a tumor.

He was worried about his future, he knew I'd been in Germany, and he needed my advice: "So, what's there to do over there?"

He's heading your way, MaryAnn. I told him to say hello for me.

So, on my last trip out to California - unbelievable to me now it's been over ten years - I had a conversation with my older brother and his then teen-age daughter.

"She wants to ask you something". He said.

She was quite solemn, and quite serious.

"When the time comes and I get married, if Dad can't do it, would you walk me down the aisle?"

She wasn't just worrying needlessly about the future. Her father had cancer, and though he preferred to say he was "living with cancer", he was also dying from it.

Such things matter. Such things are non-trivial, and not to be taken lightly. I am the father of two daughters myself, and I know.

I told her I'd be honored.

He died on Christmas Eve, 1996, and left a wife and two daughters. From her wedding pictures I saw in Iraq on Father's Day, 2007, the wedding held on the weekend that included his birthday, they are all quite beautiful, and he would be proud.

May you sleep well tonight, wherever you are. Elsewhere rough men ride, and tomorrow will be a fine day indeed.

2007-06-29 18:20:15

Whether they'll admit it or not, Americans now know a little-known fact about Paul Revere: he warned the British, too. In fairness to the British¹ (considering they didn't respond appropriately to that warning) we should acknowledge that the number of armed locals he said they'd confront (500) was far less than the number they actually faced that day (4,000 - a number that continued to grow as those more than a day's march away swelled the ranks) so their march into history wasn't quite as suicidal as it seems in hindsight. On realizing he and his men were expected, the commander of the deployed British forces sent a message for reinforcements back to Boston and marched on (split his forces, even), obviously confident enough that the ignorant rabble populating the American countryside couldn't stop them.

Had I ever visited the historic locations of Paul Revere's ride (and I hope some day I can) I - like Sarah Palin - might have found that now-obscure (though highly significant to the events of 19 April 1775) tidbit about Revere's warning interesting - one of those "gosh, I didn't know that" moments. In short, not the sort of thing that fits in a survey-type American history class (regardless of grade level) but exactly what you'd expect a knowledgeable tour guide to share. If someone then asked who Paul Revere was I'd say the same things every American knew (at least, I once thought they did): the guy who warned the people in the countryside around Boston that the British soldiers were out in force, and headed for the stores at Concord. (Obviously, without the reason for it, the British are coming is hardly noteworthy - certainly not worth losing sleep over.) If someone asked me what I'd learned about him that day I'd say "that he warned the British soldiers, too." (To no avail.) Asked what my "takeaway" from all that might be, I'd probably say good luck trying to take away an American's guns.

Therein lies the core truth about Lexington and Concord and the significance of the events immediately before and after the 19th of April, personified for every American since by Paul Revere and his legendary ride. If asked about the birth of our nation, or what's so special about our Constitution (so many things...), or why it guarantees us a right to keep and bear arms, a complete answer - with or without Paul Revere - must include a reference to that day. It wasn't "about" the Second Amendment or the entire Constitution - it's the reason we have any of it at all.

And that's what really disturbs the people who are disturbed by Sarah Palin - much the same as the presumed ignorant (but armed!) rabble populating the American countryside once disturbed King George and his appointed Governor, General Gage. It's tempting to dismiss the recent uproar over Palin's comments as nothing more than the predictable behavior of people (disturbingly too many) who combine their abundant hatred for her with little knowledge of history and, though lacking time for fact checking, have no shortage of time to devote to sharing those first two qualities with the world. On closer examination (admittedly not an enjoyable task) there's a bit more to it than that. Many folks mistakenly believed Palin's observation that Revere warned the British was a sign of her ignorance rather than their own, but they'd hoped that could be used to support a much less trivial point they thought worthy of promoting: Paul Revere's ride had nothing to do with an American's right to keep and bear arms at all.

The part of Palin's comment that really gets these people seething isn't her observation that Revere warned the British, it's her description of Paul Revere "...making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free - and we were going to be armed" - and it's not her convoluted (even for impromptu; for example, what does 'making sure' mean?) elocution - or the identities of whoever did ring those bells - they're concerned about.

Among the first to "fact check" her, the Washington Post. "Palin also seems to suggest that Revere's midnight ride was mostly in defense of the as-yet-unwritten Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," asserts Glenn Kessler, the paper's designated fact checker. "That's not right."

Obviously Palin never said "Second Amendment of the US Constitution" - and indeed it hadn't yet been written, so the right to keep and bear arms is the issue here, the obvious common point that both Palin and Kessler (and thousands of other confused individuals) are talking about. (If not, her opponents' arguments make no sense at all.) He presents his supporting evidence for "that's not right" in an earlier paragraph:

As the Web site of the Paul Revere House says: "On the evening of April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was sent for by Dr. Joseph Warren and instructed to ride to Lexington, Massachusetts, to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were marching to arrest them."

I've heard the expression "if only these walls could talk" used many times, and it certainly applies to Paul Revere's house - but that's the first time I've seen a statement from any house (whether it has its own web page or not) claimed as a journalist's source... Kidding aside, Paul Revere's house is right - but the Post's "fact checker" is wrong. More politely, "the house" is stating one of many known facts about Paul Revere (much as Palin did), Kessler is expressing his feelings. That's fine for an op/ed, but for something passed off to the public as a "fact check" in a major paper in our nation's capital (or anywhere else), not so much.

We'll get to the supporting facts in a moment. First, while I used him as an example, he's hardly the only one who showed up unarmed for a "battle of wits" with Sarah Palin on this issue. From mainstream news sites to blogs (most of which portray themselves as reliable sources for well-informed people) to Facebook to old-school discussion boards you'll find similar claims (often under identical headlines, even, right down to abbreviations and capitalization; this might be one of the biggest cut-and-paste spam efforts in history...) that Paul Revere's ride had nothing to do with preventing gun grabbing and was solely a mission to warn Hancock and Adams. Very humanitarian sentiments, to be sure - but anything but accurate.

Besides those pages of search results, here's (the 2009 Pulitzer Prize-winning) "PolitiFact" review:

[Revere's] aim -- in his own words -- was solely to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock of British troop movement. We rate Palin's comment Barely True.

Since PolitiFact links Revere's own account - implying the "fact checker" actually read it - we can rate their manufactured Revere quote as A Lie rather than Barely True. Unfortunately for them this is the internet in 2011 - not Boston in 1775. If we want to know why Paul Revere was out so late that night we don't need to wait for a guy on a horse to ride along and tell us - we can ask Paul Revere.

In short - his aim, mission, purpose or anything else you want to call it was to ensure the safety of Hancock and Adams and the weapons, powder and foodstuffs the militia had stockpiled at Concord.²

That was Revere's quick version - produced within days of the event and intended for use (presumably - though it never was) in defense of American actions. His ride was hardly the spur of the moment thing one might imagine from just that source. Fortunately he later produced a slightly more detailed version for posterity; absurdly, the version PolitiFact claims includes a Revere quote that his mission was "solely to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock of British troop movement." Let's look closer...

From this circa 1798 version we learn that Revere had been the key messenger for the Americans for some time - and that he'd also been part of a group of Bostonians who'd been keeping tabs on the British.

We already know from his 1775 account that his mission had multiple goals. From this later account we can, if we choose, conclude that "warn Hancock and Adams" was added at the last minute - but we can't reject the other part of the mission Revere had previously acknowledged - regardless of our feelings about the right to keep and bear arms.

That's certainly not the end of it - but if six million Palin-hating "fact checkers" were right Revere's account would then say "So I did. The end." (Except that no one would have ever asked him to write up the account.) If Revere had just one goal - get to Lexington and warn Hancock and Adams - he'd get across the water, get on his horse, and slap leather for Lexington. But he didn't:

Hardly the behavior of a man whose mission "was solely to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock of British troop movement." (I can't believe I have to make such an obvious point in 2011 - but I suspect that for different reasons Revere didn't think he had to back in the days of the quill pen, either.³) He wasn't ringing bells or shooting guns, (though that was going on throughout the countryside - he'd made sure of it) or knocking on everyone's doors in the middle of the night just to say "Hi I thought I'd stop and let you know I'm in a great big hurry on a secret mission to go warn Hancock and Adams - please don't tell." Hancock and Adams didn't need an American army to protect them from the British army that night - they could move faster than a marching infantry column could (once warned). The militia was needed to stop the British from taking the stores at Concord - as Revere well knew they intended (whether Hancock and Adams were also on their "to do" list or not) and as they had already attempted (with varying degrees of success) at other locations in the months before. While a long way from being enumerated as the Second Amendment, even when half asleep the people Revere alerted understood a threat to their right to keep and bear arms - the very thing that protected their lives and liberty from the whims of the King and his army - when they heard one.

Map of the routes taken to Concord by Revere, Dawes, Prescott, and the British troops. Revere and Dawes didn't make it all the way there; had the British heeded Revere's warning they wouldn't have either. (Map from the US National Park Service.)

We can only imagine how most of those conversations on the road to Lexington went - but we do have a primary source for a Revere quote once he arrived there. Because this is the internet in 2011 we can read his actual words, too.

Munroe's sworn statement is dated 7 March, 1825 - fifty years after the fact (imagine a Vietnam veteran recalling his most vivid experiences today) but still first-hand. (He does refer to Dawes as "Lincoln" - either he was traveling under an assumed name or he had already become "that other guy, ol' whatsisname" even then.)

What other conversations Revere engaged in once inside are mostly lost to history, but we can read the Reverend Clark's account of that night (and the following day) here. Excerpt:

(Bold emphasis added, but interior quotation marks in original.)

Having delivered messages (written - by Warren, according to Munroe) and refreshed themselves Revere and Dawes pressed on to Concord. Revere's accounts of that are as matter-of-fact as most of the details in his narratives:

Revere clearly knew his duty; having spent a few minutes handing over a piece of paper and/or imparting the verbal intel he could add (a vitally important, if brief, part of his evening ⁴) and minutes more on refreshment he got back to it. He and Dawes were joined on the road by Dr Prescott, the three men decided "that we had better allarm all the Inhabitents till we got to Concord" - but were only about half way there when the British ended Revere's ride.

As for the British, this being the internet in the twenty first century, we don't have to spend years searching through tens of thousands of pages of thousands of old books in dozens of dusty old libraries to learn what their mission was that night, either. We're a mouse click away from the first British history of the American Revolution, Charles Stedman's The History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American War, published in London in 1794. There (page 116, to be exact) we read that "Information having been brought to Boston, that a considerable quantity of military stores... were deposited at Concord" General Gage detached his grenadiers and light infantry "with orders to proceed to Concord, and destroy those stores." (Or "with orders to proceed to Concord, and deftroy thofe ftores" if you're a purift.)

In marked contrast to Revere, these troops didn't want to wake the neighborhood that night. They "proceeded on their march to Concord; every precaution being taken" (including detaining civilians) to remain stealthy. However, "they had advanced only a few miles, when it was perceived, by the firing of guns and the ringing of bells, that the country was alarmed." (No bell-ringing or gun firing by Revere, of course - he's just the guy who made sure it happened.)

Of course, this being the internet in the twenty first century, we don't have to settle for a British history written twenty years after the march - we can read the actual written orders from Gage to Smith here.

In short: be nice to the people, show them you mean no harm, smile, and take away their guns. (Coincidentally very similar to what Moamar Kaddaffi announced was his troops' aim at the outset of the civil war in Libya this year.) If Gage wanted them to arrest any rebel leaders while they were at it, he didn't express that desire in his written orders.⁵

Speaking of "aim" - that word appears in another passage from Stedman, revealing what the Americans knew of Gage's "secret mission" at the time it was launched.

There we have evidence that ten unnamed Americans knew what was going on almost immediately. The odds of Percy crossing paths with someone in the know would be slim - unless it was already the talk of the town. Who told the speaker, who his companions told in turn, and how many others got the news is a matter for speculation, but we can safely conclude that most everyone in Boston knew the troops had deployed to get the guns at Concord (and that they would "miss their aim" - and why) before those troops got back.

If Elijah Sanderson's memory served him well (his account was taken at the same time as Munroe's, and is found in the same volume), the "miss your aim" line was soon to be repeated elsewhere that night.⁷  Sanderson was one of the Lexington militiamen the British held captive along with Paul Revere, and he provides us the final Revere quote reported that evening, delivered on the road to Concord.

Sanderson also tells us that "Loring (as he afterwards informed me) told them, 'The bell's a ringing, the town's alarmed, and you're all dead men.'"

The 19th of April had begun. There are multiple reports from many sources of the events of that day available to us in ours, more readily now than any time in between. From rebels and redcoats, civilians, common soldiers and leaders - found in statements taken for public consumption and letters written only for the eyes of a friend or relative then preserved by their descendants for years. However, even the accounts of the key players in the event are largely unknown in their original, unfiltered form. That's unfortunate. To spend some time with them now is to make those moments and people live once again, to realize that we the people haven't changed all that much since those days, but still to wonder what we might do were we in their place. I could quote them endlessly here, as you read you'd hear the musket balls sing, smell the smoke in the air, and wonder - with a British soldier - what might be around the next bend in the road, or - with an American - whether that familiar sounding scream of a dying man you just heard was a friend or your brother or your father or your son.

Battle Road: the bloody return to Boston. (Map from the US National Park Service.)

"We strangely become inured to those things which appear difficult when distant," Hannah Winthrop assured her friend Mercy Warren much later during the war for independence that began on that day. She wasn't speaking hypothetically; earlier, in the aftermath of Lexington and Concord, she had written of the events surrounding her flight from Cambridge (not one of the towns Revere passed through that night) and apologized for her recent lack of letters - "but, since we were dispossessed of our earthly enjoyments, all nature has seemed to be reversed, and with it the weakened mind of your friend rendered incapable of attending to those pleasures which made life agreeable."

"I have not seen our son since his return from sea..." she wrote, before adding "It is a satisfaction that our sons possess that love of liberty which will engage them in the cause of their bleeding country."

In at least one regard Sarah Palin's detractors are correct - Paul Revere's ride wasn't just about the Second Amendment - it was about every future document produced by every American that followed.

Notes:

1. "Americans" and "British" are imperfect descriptions of the two opposing sides in April 1775. While other equally imperfect options abound, I've decided to stick with these in this discussion for simplicity. [Back]

2. One could claim that Palin and the people who hate her were all only half right, insofar as they were only able to identify half of what "Paul Revere's mission" was - except that Palin never said anything about "Paul Revere's mission" at all, she merely mentioned something he did. The "fact checkers" have no such excuse. Unlike Revere's motive that night, what they hope to gain from inserting "Paul Revere's mission" (or the Second Amendment) into this discussion in the first place is anyone's guess. (Though it obviously isn't "to set the record straight.") [Back]

3. "Having a little leisure," Revere begins his 1798-dated account, "I wish to fullfill my promise, of giving you some facts, and Anecdotes, prior to the Battle of Lexington, which I do not remember to have seen in any history of the American Revolution." The fact that the British were after the stores at Concord, and that this was the main purpose for alerting the countryside that night, was well remembered and well documented when Revere wrote his account. Hence he's focusing on then-obscure details he was involved in - and thought important or interesting - surrounding the event. Note he refers to "Messrs. Hancock & Adams" without giving their well-known first names, but to his (then unknown) co-rider that night as "a Mr. Wm. Daws," and later to "Richard Devens, Esq.who was one of the Committee of Safty." He also references geography in the same manner; of being "nearly opposite where Mark was hung in chains" when he spotted two British soldiers, then escaping them when one "got into a Clay pond, near where the new Tavern is now built." In most regards Revere was the typical American of his day, a true genius but one who didn't waste his ink (or little leisure time) on "common knowledge." [Back]

4. A classic account of Adams and Hancock's activities after getting Revere's warning comes to us from Dorothy Quincy (then Hancock's fiance, later his wife) who was left behind with Hancock's Aunt Lydia while the two men relocated. (Traveling with the presumed wanted men must have been considered too risky at that time.)

(Note that the man described as giving this later second warning to Hancock and Adams was not Paul Revere.) [Back]

5. It's probably best to think of the "warn Hancock and Adams" part of Revere's ride as an example of better safe than sorry rather than a failure of the rebel's intelligence network. Gage had received orders from London to "seize and secure all military stores collected by the rebels; to arrest and imprison such as should be thought to have committed treason; to repress rebellion by force..." and " to make the public safety the first object of consideration" - arguably in the interest of public safety he chose not to arrest the leaders until he'd eliminated their ability to fight back. It's certain that Warren's source - if not privy to Gage's decision - had advised him of the contents of Gage's orders from London.

That said, some accounts of the day include descriptions of British troops actively searching for rebel leaders during their march up (see "Lieut Col Smith's advance through Arlington" in Coburn), and Sanderson recalled that his questioners "particularly inquired where Hancock and Adams were." No mention of efforts to locate rebel leaders can be found in any of the first-hand British accounts of the march. Still, though much of history is uncertainty, we can be certain Gage looked forward to dealing with his opponents - in one way or another - once they were disarmed. [Back]

6. In its original form:

Percy's account became one of the most oft-quoted personal anecdotes of the Revolution - it's frequently cited by historians to this day, usually in support of the theory that Gage's American-born wife was the source who had betrayed his confidence. [Back]

7. Interesting if for no other reason than the point that weapons-related terminology was already an integral part of the American lexicon. Revere's versions of that moment on the road between Lexington and Concord (one written in the immediate aftermath, both preceding Sanderson's), says he told his British captors they'd soon confront 500 men. (Which in no way implies he didn't say what Sanderson quotes, too - the stories do not conflict. Revere had died prior to publication of Sanderson's account; he could not be reached for comment.) Curiously, many of the same people who today claim he never warned the British in the first place dismiss this as a mere boast or exaggeration. I concur with Revere in rating his statement as true. Given Revere's place in the 'rebel network,' he would have had a good idea of capabilities. That morning the British were confronted by up to 80 men at Lexington; their next hostile encounter was with about 400 at the Concord bridge. On their long, bloody march home they were opposed by up to 4,000 armed Americans, including at least 59 from tiny Medford under the command of Captain Isaac Hall - alerted by Revere on his way to Lexington. (The Medford men joined the battle at Menotomy - the bloody field Hannah Winthrop passed through.) By the end of the day the Siege of Boston had begun, with over 14,000 men surrounding (or nearing) the city. For a good account of the scope and effectiveness of the American "warning" system that night, see Frank Warren Coburn's well-written and highly readable The Battle of April 19, 1775 (available free in its entirety here - with his description of the efforts of others besides Revere, Dawes and Prescott beginning here ). For a more recent (and highly recommended) treatment, John Galvin's (now General, US Army, retired) The Minute Men: The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution is an essential examination of the day's battle. For a look at the growth of that force to the birth of the US Army two months later (officially June 14, 1775) see here. [Back]

A tradition exists in the Revere family, says Drake in History of Middlesex County,

"that while Paul and his two comrades were on their way to the boat, it was suddenly remembered that they had nothing with which to muffle the sound of their oars. One of the two stopped before a certain house at the North End of the town, and made a peculiar signal. An upper window was softly raised, and a hurried colloquy took place in whispers, at the end of which something white fell noiselessly to the ground. It proved to be a woolen undergarment, still warm from contact with the person of the little rebel."

Concerning this incident Mr. [John] Revere [grandson of Paul] says in the same letter as quoted above:

"The story is authentic of the oars being muffled with a petticoat, the fair owner of which was an ancestor of the late John R. Adan, of Boston; Mr. Adan having repeated the account to my father within a few years of his decease."

This house, the scene of this incident, known as the "Ochterlony-Adan House," is still standing at the corner of North and North Centre Streets. It was not very much out of the way to Revere's boat, which he had concealed beneath "a cob-wharf at the then west part of the town, near the present Craigie Bridge."

We sett of together for Concord, and were overtaken by a Young Gentleman named Prescot who belonged to Concord, and was going home when we got about half way from Lexington to Concord, the Other two Stopped at a House to awake the Man. I kept along, when I had got about 200 Yards a head of them, I saw two officers under a Tree as before. I imeaditly called to my company to come up, saying here was two of them, (for I had told them, what Mr. Devens told me and of my being Stopped) in an Instant I saw four of them officers who rode up to me with their Pistols in their hands & said God damn you Stop if you go an Inch farther you are a dead man, imeaditly Mr. Prescot came up, he turned the butt end of his whipp. We attempted to git thro' them but they kept before us & swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would Blow our brains out...

That's from the rough draft of his 1775 account, the finished version is here.

...in an instant I saw four of them, who rode up to me, with thier pistols in their hands, said G-d d-n you stop. If you go an Inch further, you are a dead Man, immeaditly Mr. Prescot came up we attempted to git thro them, but they kept before us, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out...

I told him I knew better, I knew what they were after; that I had alarmed the country all the way up, that their Boats, were catch'd a ground, and I should have 500 men their soon; one of them said they had 1500 coming; he seemed supprised and rode off, into the road, and informed them who took me, they came down immeaditly on a full gallop, one of them (whom I since learned was Major Mitchel of the 5th Regiment Clap'd his Pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed my self a Man of truth, that he had stopped me on the high way, & made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid...

There's also a later first-hand account of the night's events - Letter from Paul Revere to Jeremy Belknap, circa 1798 - available at the same site.

David Hackett Fischer's book is from 1996, and draws on multiple sources to provide us a clear picture of the man: "If we can see him in Copley's painting, we can also hear him speak in the eccentric way he spelled his words..."

His spelling tells us that Paul Revere talked with a harsh, nasal New Englad twang. His strong Yankee accent derived from a family of East Anglian dialects that came to Boston in the 17th century and can still be faintly heard today.

Such common Bostonians "favored biblical cadences" and "homely expressions," he writes. "But in another way, the provincial ring of Paul Revere's Yankee speech could mislead us. Just as in the surface and subtle depths of Copley's painting, there was more to this man than met the ear."

Perhaps the British officers who'd captured him that night - sent in advance of the main body of "Regulars" in order to close the roads to men like Revere and thus maintain a much-needed element of surprise for the mission (to capture or destroy stores of rebel weapons, powder, and foodstuff) found his low Bostonian nasal twang annoying, too. Whether that grated on their ears or not, they certainly didn't appreciate his telling them that they'd already failed.

More from Fischer:

Then Major Mitchell himself came up to Paul Revere in a high temper. "He clapped [a] pistol to my head," Revere remembered, "and said he was agoing to ask me some questions, and if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out."

Paul revere was angered by those words, and told the major that "he did not need a threat to make him speak the truth." He added contemptuously, "I call myself a man of truth, and you have stopped me on the highway, and made me a prisoner I knew not by what right. I will tell the truth, for I am not afraid."

That is precisely what Paul Revere proceeded to do. He told the truth without hesitation, while surrounded by armed and hostile horsemen in that dark pasture on the Concord road. He spoke with a serene self-confidence, even to these armed and angry men who pointed their pistols at him, and were not happy to hear what he had to say.

"He warned the British officers that if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington Green, they also would be in extreme danger," Fischer concludes, "and he hinted that the expedition coming after them could start a war unless it was warned of the trouble that awaited them at Lexington center."

Neither the British soldiers nor Paul Revere were on a mission to start the American Revolution that moonlit night. But Revere's mission to warn was already a success, and his captor's a failure. He lost nothing in telling them so - in warning them not to press on. The Sons of Liberty had no "sneak attack" planned, the Minutemen were assembled and waiting in the open on the Green. And here we approach the moment described at the outset of this post, as Jonathan Loring, another captured rebel who'd been sent from Lexington (following Revere's warning) to keep tabs on the British soldiers took a que from Revere as the party approached his town.

At last the officers began to feel the full import of what Paul Revere had been telling them. His words of warning took on stronger meaning when punctuated by gunfire. The sound of a single shot had suggested to them that surprise was lost. The crash of a volley appeared evidence that the country was rising against them. As they came closer to the Common they began to hear Lexington's town bell clanging rapidly. The captive Loring, picking up Revere's spirit, turned to the officers and said, "The bell's a'ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!"

The British troops stole Revere's horse and chased off the others', then set their captives free on foot while they rode off, presumably to rejoin their main body still approaching Lexington.

Not far away:

I, Sylvanus Wood, of Woburn, in the county of Middlesex, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, aged seventy-four years, do testify and say, that on the morning of the 19th of April, 1775, I was an inhabitant of Woburn, living with Deacon Obadiah Kendall; that about an hour before the break of day on said morning, I heard the Lexington bell ring, and fearing there was difficulty there, I immediately arose, took my gun, and, with Robert Douglass, went in haste to Lexington, which was about three miles distant. When I arrived there, I inquired of Captain Parker, the commander of the Lexington company, what was the news. Parker told me he did not know what to believe, for a man had come up about half an hour before, and informed him that the British troops were not on the road. But while we were talking, a messenger came up and told the captain that the British troops were within half a mile...

The rest, as they say, is history. Ours, whether you're familiar with it or not.

So thank you Sarah Palin! - and in a roundabout way, all you folks who hate her so much, too. (I was happily ignoring her bus tour, but without you overly obsessed morons I never would have learned any of this.) I'm not sure who I'll vote for in the 2012 elections, but I've certainly found something worth reading for this July Fourth.

And nothing about it was easy.

"Three things are certain concerning the Forecasts for D-Day," writes James R. Fleming: "1) the invasion was postponed on June 5, 1944; 2) the invasion occurred under marginal weather conditions on June 6; and 3) the German meteorologists decided that the weather conditions were too poor to permit an invasion attempt. That is about all that is certain."

Regardless of the forecast, the actual weather was good enough. But success, of course, has no shortage of fathers - more from Fleming:

The beginning of the end of World War Two in Europe depended on what were arguably the three most critical forecasts in history -- two successful ones by the Allies and one failure by the Germans. On the Allied side, six meteorologists working in three different teams were responsible for the D-Day forecasts. The American team used an analogue method that compared the current weather with past conditions. Their forecast was overly optimistic and would have resulted in disaster on June 5, 1944. The British Admiralty and the British Meteorological Office urged delay. They were aided by the brilliant Norwegian theoretician Sverre Petterssen (1898-1974), a giant in the field of weather analysis and forecasting and an international leader in meteorology during the mid-twentieth century.

In the wee hours of June 5, beneath the storm-drenched skies of England, the Allied forecasters advised General Eisenhower that a very short break in the weather would allow the invasion to proceed. On Tuesday, June 6, 1944, under barely tolerable conditions, the largest amphibious landing force ever assembled landed on the beaches of Normandy.

Ironically the German meteorologists, aware of new storms moving in from the North Atlantic, had decided that the weather would be much too bad to permit an invasion attempt. The Germans were caught completely off guard. Their high command had relaxed and many officers were on leave; their airplanes were grounded; their naval vessels absent...

Two accounts of D-Day have dominated the literature: 1) the heroic story, oftrepeated, in which the American team of Irving Krick and Ben Holzman found the "possible" weather that allowed the great invasion of Europe to proceed; and 2) a standard bureaucratic account by James Stagg published in 1971 that so infuriated Sverre Petterssen that he composed his own historical memoir with five chapters on Overlord. The Petterssen manuscript, written in English and published in Norwegian translation in 1974, has now been published (2001) in an English-language edition that is becoming the third standard account...

Read the rest here.

"Chaos" is probably the best single-word definition of the job of the military meteorologist, and "consensus" the best description of their output. But if there's a lesson learned from the D-Day forecast, it's one that applies far beyond the small group of people tasked with making weather a force multiplier: you don't have to be perfect, just better than the enemy.

If there's a critical lesson not evident from the D-Day story, it's that science and technology are no guarantee of that.

Epilogue: for at least some American weather forecasters, the effort was personal:

"The death of Captain Losey, who is the first American official to be killed in this war, was reported today to Frederick A. Sterling, United States Minister to Stockholm," recorded the New York Times on its front page on April 23, 1940. Captain Robert M. Losey, America's first military casualty in World War II, would not be its last.

A young and brilliant officer, Losey had taken two master's degrees from the California Institute of Technology while serving as a meteorological officer at March Field in California.

Other milblogs on D-Day, 2010:

Remembering D-Day (Cassy Fiano/Hard Corps Wife)

At Point du Hoc, June 6th (Jonn Lilyea/This ain't Hell)

The Saga of Sgt Richard E. Owen (Mitch "Taco" Bell/The Sandgram)

D-Day - We weren't the only ones there, we had Allies (The Armorer/Argghhh!!!)

D-Day: Currahee! The Airborne goes in (The Armorer/Argghhh!!!)

Eyewitness to D-Day (Assoluta Tranquillita )

Omaha (Laughing Wolf/Blackfive)

And our friends at USNI are remembering Midway.

Previously in Mudville: MilBlogs, Midway, and D-Day

2010-06-06 12:00:00