Saturday, May 21, 2011

THE EXAMPLE OF DON ALEJO


Often it’s found in quiet places where people refuse to give in to debilitating injuries or fatal disease. Sometimes it’s found in dirty, dingy prison cells. In 1945 it was commonly found among kamikaze pilots, U-boat crews, and Soviet tank riders—all with extraordinarily poor chances of survival. On 9-11 it was found on United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania.

On November 14, 2010, it was found in Mexico in the person of Alejo Garza Tamen.

Seventy-seven years old, Garza Tamen was known as “Don Alejo,” the patron of the family ranch in Tamaulipas State. In Mexico, don is an honorific, a title denoting seniority rather than actual nobility. In Garza’s case, it carried considerable respect as well.

Tamaulipas is in northeastern Mexico, bordering Texas and the Gulf coast. Don Alejo’s hacienda was nine miles outside the state capital, Ciudad Victoria, some 175 miles south-southwest of Brownsville. That geographic fact made the estate attractive to drug cartels moving their products to del norte. It also forced many remote landowners to rely upon themselves rather than the government.

Against a background of prolonged violence and civil war, the Mexican constitution of 1917 ensured individuals the right to possess firearms, but in 1968 widespread unrest led to severe restrictions by state and federal authorities.

Government policy is to conduct ”permanent educational campaigns that induce the reduction of the possession, the carrying and the use of arms of any type.” Simply put, the constitution was invalidated by legislation and regulation, with the defense ministry maintaining a national firearms database.

Generally, the largest permissible sidearm caliber for civilians is .380, though 9mm and even .357 may be exempted, go figger. (Mexican law presumably accounts for the perennial shortage of .380 ammo in Arizona.)

Some exemptions exist for shotguns and rifles (commonly .22s) in rural areas, though licenses still are required. Reportedly compliance with the more onerous regulations is low. Furthermore, in some cases the army has disarmed police in areas sympathetic to antigovernment movements. In that context, the huge majority of Mexican citizens are defenseless in a nation where narcoviolence has escalated massively. Available figures indicate fewer than 100 cartel-related deaths in 2006, rocketing to nearly 10,000 each in the last two years. It’s so dire that mayors of some Mexican border towns spend the night across the river.

The Garza family received no support from the local authorities so Don Alejo was left on his own. Subsequently a Spanish language blog addressing the subject proposed organ transplants, as certain Mexican politicians require a set of cojones. Other comments lamented the country’s gun laws, which make self defense difficult to impossible, though community defense groups have formed in some areas to resist to the extent possible.

Meanwhile, there was no help for Don Alejo.

On Saturday, November 13, drug traffickers drove to the hacienda, announcing that the owners had 24 hours to vacate.

Garza was not intimidated. Reared in an outdoor environment—his family ran a timber and sawmill business--he knew the wild and reportedly he was a founder of the local hunting, shooting, and fishing club. Familiar with firearms and willing to use them in self defense, he set his mental trigger. The patron informed the gang members that he would meet violence in kind. After they departed he told his employees they would not be needed the next day, and suggested they leave. Thereupon, Don Alejo tended to his weapons and planned his defense. What weapons he possessed are unknown, but news accounts emphasize hunting rifles. He positioned guns and ammo at doors and windows around the house for easy access.

Around 4:00 Sunday morning, at least two vehicles approached, entering the wooden fence perimeter about 50 yards from the house and stopping near the hacienda entrance. Reportedly they called upon the patron to leave, firing threatening shots. At that point the fight was on.

It probably didn’t last long, though apparently the attackers fired hundreds of rounds and threw grenades. Don Alejo killed four assailants within a few yards of the entrance, then died in his front room. When the gunmen fled, they left two of their compadres bleeding into the dirt, unconscious but alive.

The investigation was handled by the Mexican marine corps, evidently because local police could not be trusted. Internet videos show the whitewashed house, probably of 1940s construction, with some outbuildings. Footage of the scene showed bullet gouges on the wall, explosive impacts from grenades; windows and shades riddled with 7.62 holes. The front door contained about 70 bullet holes and three or four larger ones.

According to one Mexican news source, Don Alejo perhaps represented “the first instance of a nation's push-back against the monstrous cartels that are challenging the very existence of the Mexican state.” In the U.S., the story appeared on the web site borderlandbeat.com, and immediately filled emails.

Don Alejo was 77 years old, capable, proud, and courageous, but his health is an unknown factor. As a lifelong outdoorsman, he may have remained fit enough to conduct his fight outside the house. By moving and shooting, denying the criminals anything but a fleeting, ghosting target, perhaps he could have survived—even killed more of the cartel thugs. Of course, others may have returned to complete the job another night. We’ll never know.

But what we do know is that Don Alejo made his decision, stood his ground, and fought his own fight. On the night he died, surely he was the most man in all of Mexico. He has inspired millions of his fellow citizens while shaming those Americans who would deny free men the right of self defense.

God bless him.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

FAMILIES, PATRIOTS, AND OTHERS


This April has more history content than most recent months. Every year there’s a nodding acknowledgment to the embattled farmers who confronted the redcoats at Lexington and Concord in ’75 (that’s 1775 for products of Outcome Based Education), and for more recent history buffs, April 18 is the anniversary of the brashly daring Doolittle Raid (1942) and the semi-miraculous navigation and timing attending the interception of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s bomber near Bougainville in the Solomon Islands (1943). If you don’t know who Admiral Yamamoto was, clearly you’ve stumbled onto the wrong blog, but you can look him up on Wikipedia.

In Arizona, April 18 is Patriots Day and some of us took time to assemble on the green (however scanty, here in the Sonoran Desert) at the state capitol. Some exercised their Second Amendment rights of open carry, though Arizona recently enacted Constitutional Carry (aka universal concealed carry). It was interesting to see folks with revolvers and semiautos on their belts conversing with policemen. That may be the subject of a future Rant.

Meanwhile….

This April also is the 150th anniversary of the start of The Civil War. Amid all the sturm & drang attending that event, I thought I remembered the, um, irony of “Honest” Abe Lincoln’s first inaugural address, and my aging memory was confirmed when I found the following statement:

“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it…”

Those words were spoken on March 4, 1861, five weeks before the Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.

Obviously the 16th president did not mean what he said, or drastically changed his mind, but that’s peripheral to this month’s Rant.

The point at hand is that today we hear vastly ill informed people—usually blow-dried minions of the mainstream media—claim that the country is divided as never before.

Ahem.

At least we’re not shooting at each other. Not yet. And thereby stands a lesson, evident in my own family.

Both my parents’ ancestors came to these shores within three years of each other, in the 1630s. Therefore, by the time of the Revolution (the first one, typified by those white males wearing wigs and stockings) the Barretts and the Tillmans (Tilghmans) had been here for some 140 years—long enough to become well established. The Barretts apparently were wholly committed to the rebel cause when it seems that only about one-third of the population shared the sentiment.

The clan came early to the rebellion. Captain Richard Fay Barrett, an insurance purveyor, commanded the Concord Artillery and Infantry Company of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia.

Colonel James Barrett dispatched the militia companies that swapped lead with the Brits at Concord Bridge. His kinsman Deacon Samuel Barrett owned a gun making firm with a laboratory “where every branch of that business is carried on.”

We’ve been ballistically inclined ever since.

Another Barrett relation was Captain John Parker who commanded the minutemen on Lexington Green. Originally repulsed, they reformed and harassed/sniped/assassinated “lobsterbacks” along the route back to Boston. Payback was the order of the day: his cousin Jonas Parker had been bayonetted to death at Lexington.

The Tillman/Tilghmans were another matter. George Washington’s aide de camp through most of the war was Lt. Col. Tench Tilghman, a successful Philadelphia businessman. Washington thought so highly of his aide that Tilghman was selected to take word of Lord Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown to the Congress in Philadelphia. Tench died young in 1786—only 42—and the future president wrote a condolence letter to his father. GW had to know that James, then living in Maryland, had been attorney general of Pennsylvania. More than that, Tench’s brother Richard was an officer in the Royal Navy, and Tilghman Island remained a British naval base in the Chesapeake.

Lapse-dissolve, fade in, 80 years after Yorktown.

By 1861 some of the Tillman/Tilghman family had meandered westward, many settling in Ohio. But both branches of the clan (originally settled in Virginia and Maryland) remained in the east and south. Throughout the Civil War, Dad’s kin opted for the Confederacy by 8 to 1. Probably the best known was Brig. Gen. Lloyd Tilghman, a Marylander who barely graduated from West Point in 1836. In 1862 General U.S. Grant captured Fort Henry on the Tennessee River. After a prisoner exchange he resumed his duties until KIA near Vicksburg the next year.

Saddest of so many sad developments is that members of both sides of my family died in Confederate prison camps: a Tillman from Ohio and a Barrett from Maine.

Family division did not end with the War Between the States. Shortly before Pearl Harbor, a concerned mother in North Carolina grew suspicious of a German national’s attentions to her daughter. Being mistrustful of Yankees and other foreigners, my great aunt notified the FBI, which investigated. An exaggerated account of the situation held that a “Nazi spy” married into the family, but in truth he was an exchange student who was interned for the duration.

I mention all the foregoing in an attempt to put a multi-generational face on current events. As divisive and perhaps irrevocably fractious as the present political situation may be, it’s not yet as dire as American families—and the American nation—have endured before.

On the other hand, maybe it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable: balkanizing the USA along cultural-philosophical lines before we start shooting at each other again. The last time it cost more than 600,000 American lives, when the population was merely 130 million—barely 40 percent of today’s figure.

Something for every family to ponder.

Monday, March 21, 2011

ARE WE AT WAR OR WHAT?

Apparently we're at war with Libya. At least that's how it appears, as on Day One U.S. Navy ships and submarines fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libyan thug and international terrorist Moamar Qaddafi (however his name is spelled this week). Meanwhile, Marine Corps Harriers launched from the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge. That's because we haven't had big-deck carriers in the Mediterranean for a couple of years due to all that "rightsizing" that began under Bill Klinton and the GOP wimps in congress. Meanwhile, the Air Force has put B-2s, F-15s and F-16s overhead. That's in concert with other nations as diverse as France, Britain, Spain, and Qatar, with Paris providing msot of the leadership and muscle. (British participation is noteworthy considering the odiously shamelful episode when one of the 1988 Lockerbie bombers was returned to a 2009 hero's welcome in Tripoli in exchange for oil concessions.)

One thing is missing. Well, OK, several things are missing, but one really big thing: A MISSION STATEMENT. I.E., what is our goal in Libya beyond bombing the air defences?

Thus far the only statements that remotely answer that essential question have come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and some spokespersons who allude to "protectingLibyan civilians." Well, if that's the goal, then We The People are entitled to ask, "Protecting civilians to what end, and for how long? And what other nations' civilians are we presumably bound to protect?" Since Barack Hussein Obama has stated that no American ground forces will be committed to Libyan soil, are we to conduct an air campaign indefinitely?

America has a long history of trouble with Libya, dating from the Barbary pirates of the early 1800s. In 1981 and 1986 the Navy clashed with Qaddafi when carrier based fighters downed four Libyan jets during exercizes along the notorious "Line of Death." In 1986 Navy and Air Force planes struck Libyan targets in retaliation for a terrorist bombing that killed Americans in Germany.

The current air offensive began with approval of the Arab League and a United Nations resolution supporting use of force against the Libyan government. However, barely had the Tomahawks left their launch cells than the head of the League began backpedaling, saying that the allied measures were excessive. A typical diplomtic double standard expressed in doublespeak: please help us solve the problem but don't solive it too violently.

If any multinational endeavor is doomed to fail, it's this one.

The operation is called Odyssey Dawn, which at least avoids the grandiose and often self-serving names of U.S. missions such as Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom. The generic title of the Libyan op undoubtedly reflects the colalborative nature of the endeavor, especially since the Europeans have the lead.

Perhaps it's understandable that politicians like Obama and Clinton decided to remain nonspecific about America's objective in Libya. But that does not excuse the deafening silence from the military professionals responsible for executing the "plan." If there is a plan. Every one of the service chiefs attended war college at some point, presumably learning about the military-political-industrial complex, and presumably reading some geopolitical theory. The Prussian genral Karl von Clausewitz wrote the bible on military theory about 180 years ago, and On War has been required reading ever since. Clausewitz 101 begins at the beginning, which is a fine place to begin. Among his nine rules of war, the first is "Define the mission." Thus far the joint chiefs have flunked the course, and apparently they require remedial education.

Some essential topics are going unexamined in the media. How will a cobbled-together coalition of naval and air forces from multiple nations operate together with little or no prior training? How well do they communicate? What are the rules of engagement, and are they standardized? (Reportedly the French are free to whack Qaddafi while Americans are not.) And perhaps more importantly, what happens if the Libyans or anyone else comes out to play? Is a generic air/submarine defense adequate to the challenge? We don't know.

At home there's very little discussion about the legitimacy of the U.S. operation. The War Powers Act requires the president to notify congress within 48 hours of beginning military operations, with a 60-day grace period before further consultation. If Obama bothered to comply with the law, it seems a well kept secret, and the lack of a clear mission satement in Libya permits only two conclusions: either the administration and the military establishment are incompetent, or they fear that stating a specific goal could prove inconvenient or embarrassing. Therefore, the U.S. Government has decided to provide no yardstick because that would afford an objective measure of the extent of America's failure in the Libyan adventure.