I suspect that few today even know who Mark Fidel Kools is — which is, perhaps, perfectly understandable. Mr. Kools is the illegitimate son of John Kools. John was a gangster who operated in the Watts section of Los Angeles, California, and, as a consequence of his domestic terrorism as a gangster, was sent to prison. The State of California released John from prison in 1974 — but not before falling in with another gang, which we today call the Moslem Brotherhood — an organization funded by the Saudi Kingdom as part of their Wahhabist invasion of western civilization. John Kools, having converted to Islam (at the taxpayer’s expense), changed his name to Akbar.
At the time of John’s release from prison, Mark was three years old. By then, his mother had also converted to Islam and married William Bilal, also a convert to Islam. Mrs. Bilal is known today as Quran Bilal. With apparent pride in her former lover’s accomplishments, Mrs. Bilal changed Mark’s name to Hasan Karim Akbar.
In 1988, Hasan began attending the University of California (Davis); he graduated nine years later with bachelor’s degrees in Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering. During his somewhat elongated college experience, Hasan participated in the Army Reserve Officer’ Training Corps (ROTC), but he was not offered a commission upon his graduation in 1997. Deeply in debt, Hasan subsequently enlisted in the US Army.
A few years later, Hasan served as a sergeant with the 326th Engineer Battalion, 101st Airborne. In 2003, the Army staged elements of the division at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait. In the early morning hours of 23 March 2003, Akbar cut off the generator that powered the lights inside the encampment. He then tossed four fragmentation grenades into three tents where other soldiers were sleeping, causing numerous injuries. In the resulting chaos, Akbar used his service rifle to kill Army Captain Christopher S. Seifert, an intelligence officer whom Akbar shot in the back. Air Force Major Gregory L. Stone was killed from one of the four hand grenades.
An Army court-martial convicted Akbar of murder and sentenced him to death. Having exhausted all of his appeals, he remains on death row at the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. All that remains, in this case, is presidential authority to carry out the execution.
Also awaiting execution at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is former Army major Nidal Hasan. We all know what he did at Fort Hood, Texas. While awaiting his execution, Hassan petitioned the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for citizenship. Whether he remains in close contact with former sergeant Akbar is unknown, but it is plausible that they offer one another comfort and encouragement since they are both confined on death row.
Carrying forward in my snake hunt, I similarly expect that few people today know who Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed is. Mr. Mohamed has a long and interesting history working against the interests of the United States of America and its people. He was born in Egypt in 1952. For some period of time until 1984, Ali Mohamed served in the Egyptian army as an intelligence officer, reaching the rank of colonel. From around 1979 through 1984, he was instrumental in training anti-Soviet fighters en route to Afghanistan.
Afterward, back in Egypt, Mr. Mohamed went to the US Embassy in Cairo, asked to speak to the CIA Station Chief. During this meeting, Mohamed volunteered his services as an informant against the emerging Al-Qaeda organization. Apparently, the CIA was unaware of Mohamed’s former association with the Egyptian Army or his involvement with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Despite the CIA’s suspicions that he might be an Islamist agent, they appointed him as a junior CIA intelligence officer and tasked him with collecting information about the Islamist movements. One of his first tasks was to infiltrate a mosque with known ties to Hezbollah. Mohamed affiliated with the mosque but soon informed the Imam that he was working for the United States as a spy. He may have suggested that this situation would be an excellent opportunity to feed the Americans misinformation about Islamist movements.
As it turned out, Mohamed was not the only informant in that particular mosque. There was another who informed the CIA that Mohamed was a double agent. The CIA subsequently dismissed Mohamed and took measures to bar him from entering the United States. However, Mohamed somehow evaded the ban and once more went to the United States. He married an American woman, became a US citizen, and joined the U. S. Army.
After Mohamed’s initial training, he found his way into the US Special Forces. In that organization, his leaders encouraged him to pursue advanced degrees in Islamic Studies. They wanted Mohamed to become an instructor so that he could teach courses involving the Middle East. They thought he was a pretty sharp tack, not knowing he was a former Egyptian army colonel. Mohamed was a “self-starter,” they said.
Throughout his service in the US Army, Mohamed collected information from the Army. He made copies of technical manuals, doctrinal publications, and training manuals to inform Al-Qaeda better how to defeat the American armed forces. He provided information about weapons, tactical formations, and Special Forces operations.
In 1988, Mohamed took a 30-day leave from the Army and returned to the middle east. He informed his superiors that he wanted to fight in Afghanistan. When he returned, he bragged about killing Soviets, and to back up his claim, he showed people his “war relics.” Alarm bells sounded in the head of his immediate commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Anderson, who initiated action to have Mohamed investigated by Army Intelligence. Anderson’s reports went unanswered; no investigation was ever conducted (that we know about) — which led Anderson to wonder if Mohamed was part of the US clandestine services.
Mohamed left the US Army in 1989, finding work with a defense contractor providing security at a factory that produced Trident Missile systems. When he wasn’t doing that, he began training Middle Eastern refugees and American-born Islamists in such areas as demolitions, including those who were later associated with the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ramzi Yousef.
In the early 1990s, Mohamed returned to Afghanistan. He trained Al-Qaeda volunteers in unconventional warfare techniques, including kidnapping, assassination, and aircraft hijacking, which he had learned during Special Forces training. According to some, Mohamed even trained a wealthy Saudi fighter named Osama bin-Laden and later helped bin-Laden plan the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed became the “go-to” guy when bin-Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri needed to know or understand something about the US Army. In 1993, Mohamed toured California with Zawahiri, who posed as a Kuwait Red Crescent Society representative. Together, the two men hoped to raise money from Islamic-American charities to fund Jihadi movements (otherwise known as global terrorism).
In May 1993, Mohamed became an FBI informant in San Jose, California. In exchange for worthless information, Mohamed provided Al-Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad with valuable American intelligence. It was also in 1993 that Mohamed was nearly arrested in Canada while meeting with a representative of Osama bin-Laden. He escaped arrest by telling Canadian authorities that he was an FBI informant, and they promptly released him.
After the 1998 bombings, FBI agents searched Mohamed’s apartment and discovered his complicity in terrorist activities. Such evidence included plans and scripts of Al-Qaeda training, plans to meet with Osama bin-Laden, and so forth. On the day Mohamed was scheduled to give testimony in another case, FBI agents arrested him.
Federal authorities charged Mohamed with several offenses, including five counts of conspiracy to kill US nationals, conspiracy to kidnap, murder, and maim others outside of the United States, conspiracy to kill government employees, conspiracy to destroy US buildings and property, and conspiracy to destroy or disrupt utilities vital to the security of the United States. Mohamed faced the death penalty, but he made a deal with the federal prosecutor. He would plead guilty in exchange for life in prison. To date, Ali Mohamed has not appeared in court. He remains in federal custody at an undisclosed location.
These are the snakes among us. How many of these snakes exist is — unknown. What the US government is doing about the snakes inside America is equally obscure. It would be comforting to have some indication that the United States is on top of the problem rather than unwittingly playing a role in global terrorism. Still, I cannot comment about that possibility, either. However, here’s what we know: all three men are US citizens, all three are Moslems, all three murdered American citizens, and all three remain alive at the taxpayer’s expense. Pest control specialists say that if you see one cockroach, there are 50 more that you don’t see. I wonder if the same ratio applies to venomous snakes.
In a televised interview, Ali Mohamed explained his rationale for becoming a terrorist: “Islam without political dominance cannot survive.” If this isn’t good advice, then I’ve never heard it.
Atwan, A. B. The Secret History of Al-Qaeda. UC Berkley, 2006.
Bergen, P. Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden. Free Press, 2001.
Esposito, J. L. Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. Oxford University, 2002.
Mura, A. The Symbolic Scenarios of Islamism: A study in Islamic political thought. Routledge Publishing, 2015.
“We’ve been looking for the enemy for several days now, and we’ve finally found them. We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them.” —Colonel Lewis B. Puller, Commanding Officer, 1st Marine Regiment, November 1950.
Colonel Puller’s comment was motivational to the Marines of the 1st Marine Division in the Korean War, suggesting to the American press of his day that when the going gets tough, the tough get going. Now, however, seventy years later, the American people no longer know who the enemy is — and this is probably because there are too many candidates to choose from.
The oath of office and enlistment reads:
“I, _________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
“I, __________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
One will note that these obligations specifically stipulate “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Who are the enemies of the United States? Is it, for example —
The politician who is so invested, financially and professionally, in the war industries that s/he has never seen a war that they didn’t absolutely love?
The politician that sends young Americans to war, and then ties their hands so that they cannot fight it, cannot win it, or cannot survive it?
The politician that sends young Americans into a combat zone, and later labels them as war criminals — and through such labeling, utterly destroy them as American servicemen.
Fearful and incompetent senior officers who will not make a momentous combat decision without first consulting with a lawyer?
The journalist or media manager who collaborates with the enemy?
An aside: is there any substantial difference between the politician who sends young Americans to war, and the Islamic goombah who wraps teenagers in bomb vests and sends them out to do the most harm? The difference between the two, or so it seems to me, is that the Islamacist proudly admits to his behavior, while the self-perpetuating American politician wraps his baloney in the American flag and national interests.
We frequently hear presidents and members of congress lecturing to us about our national interests, but they never seem to get around to explain, in detail, what those national interests are. What, for example, were the United States’ interests in invading Afghanistan or Iraq — and why is our military still in Afghanistan twenty years after the attacks on 9/11? One further question: if sending our young men and women to the Middle East to engage in lethal combat was or continues to be in our national interests, then why does our government prosecute our combat troops for doing what they are trained to do?
During the first battle of Fallujah in April 2004, the Associated Press reported that US Marines bombed a mosque, killing forty (40) innocent “civilians” gathered for prayer. From the AP’s initial report, the story took off like gang-busters. False reporting was so intense that it caused senior military commanders to order the Marines out of Fallujah.
A few questions:
If the battle for Fallujah was a critical objective to begin with, then why would “bad press” force senior military officials to back out?
Note that the formal definition of “civilian” is someone who is not a member of the armed forces or a law enforcement organization. By what justification, then, do we regard any Moslem a civilian who picks up an AK-47 or RPG with lethal intent? Two principles of warfare come into play. First, humanitarian law governing the use of force in an armed conflict requires belligerents to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Since Moslems with AK-47s are combatants, they cannot also be civilians. Another important principle of warfare is proportionality. In the legal use of force, belligerents must minimize the harm caused to civilians and civilian property consistent with the advantages of military objectives. Non-uniformed combatants who use civilian property as firing points or defensive structures become legitimate military targets.
The fight unfolded on video taken by an unmanned aerial vehicle. The UAV followed a Marine infantry company as it engaged armed enemy (civilians) in the city streets. The Marines were in a tough spot because the “civilian” insurgents were laying down accurate fire from the minaret of the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarai mosque. During the fight, “civilian” insurgents moved in and out of the mosque, either to bolster their defenses or resupply the insurgents with ammunition. What made this a critical situation was that the stymied Marines could not keep pace with other advancing elements of the assault force, and this in turn exposed the flanks of the advancing elements to enemy fire.
The battle raged for two hours (all recorded on video). Meanwhile, five Marines were wounded and evacuated. Rules of engagement precluded the use of heavy machine guns but small arms fire wasn’t getting the job done. The company commander radioed back to his higher headquarters asking for assistance. The battalion commander couldn’t decide about “next steps” until first consulting with a team of lawyers. While the legal meeting was going on, the enemy continued to inflict casualties on the Marines. Eventually, higher authority authorized the use of a hellfire missile to take out the minaret. The aircraft launched missile missed the target and slammed into the ground with no effect on the enemy. The company commander then requested an airstrike. Another meeting took place. Two 500-pound bombs opened a wall in the mosque and the Marines were able to advance and secure the mosque.
The UAV camera captured the explosion. While opening one wall, the building remained intact. There were no bodies … live or otherwise … near the point of detonation. There were no casualties inside or around the mosque. In fact, when the Marines entered the mosque, all they found was spent casings from rounds fired.
But that didn’t stop the news assault on the Marines. Associated Press reporter Abdul-Qader Saadi, provided an “eyewitness account” of the incident. He reported, “A U.S. helicopter fired three missiles at a mosque compound in the city of Fallujah on Wednesday, killing about 40 people as American forces batted Sunni insurgents, witnesses said. Cars ferried bodies from the scene, although there was no immediate confirmation of casualties. The strike came as worshippers gathered for afternoon prayers, witnesses said.”
Saadi’s story was entirely fictitious. Nothing even remotely similar to this story happened, but that didn’t stop the press from repeating it across multiple outlets, including BBC, and Agence France-Presse. Then AP modified their story to include a statement by an unnamed Marine official who “confirmed” the alleged 40 dead worshippers. This too was a lie. No Marine officer confirmed anything of the sort.
What did happen was captured on video. The video, however, having been taken as part of a classified system, could not be released to the press — but a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, Tony Perry, witnessed the event as an “embed.” Reporter Gwen Ifill interviewed Perry and the conversation follows:
Ifill: We did hear today about an attack on a mosque that killed anywhere from 40 to 60 people. Were you with that unit and can you describe what happened?
Perry: Yeah, I’m with that unit right now. The first reports are a little misleading. What happened here … there are several mosques that have been used by the insurgents as places to either gather or strategize or even fire at Marines. One particular mosque had about 30 to 40 insurgents in it. They had snipers. They wounded five Marines. There were ambulances that drove up and the Marines let them come in to take the insurgent wounded away. But instead, people with RPGs jumped out of the ambulances and started fighting with the Marines. Ultimately, what the Marines did is call in airpower. A helicopter dropped a Hellfire missile and then an F-16 dropped a laser-guided bomb on the outside of the mosque, put a huge crater outside the mosque. There’s sort of a plaza outside the mosque. And suddenly, the firing inside stopped. But when the Marines examined the mosque and went in and went door to door in the mosque and floor to floor, they found no bodies, nor did they find the kind of blood and guts one would presume if people had died. Now one or two things must have happened: either the people died inside and were carried off somehow — and there is a tradition of the insurgents carting off their dead very quickly; or, two, frankly, they escaped before the bomb was dropped. We cannot confirm that anybody actually died in that mosque. The Marines were quite willing to kill everybody in the mosque because they were insurgents. They had been firing at people, at Marines. And as the lieutenant colonel who ordered the strikes said, this was no longer a house of worship; this was a military target.”
There appears no major difference in the way the western press handled this fictional story from the way Al Jazeera handled in a few days later, adding to the story, of course: “The bomb hit the minaret of the mosque and ploughed a hole through the building shattering windows and leaving the mosque badly damaged.”
What appears missing here, as the battalion commander observed, is common sense. If Moslem insurgents intend to use mosques as defensive positions to fire at Marines, a reasonable person should expect to have the entire building blown to hell and everyone inside the building killed. That’s the way wars are fought.
Going back in time a few generations, collaborating with the enemy was (and should remain) a capital offense. So too was providing aid and comfort to the enemy. If the media decides to hire an enemy non-combatant (Saadi) to do their reporting, then media managers and editors should anticipate biased reporting. The issue then becomes an exercise in logic. If the effect of reporting fabricated stories provides aid or comfort to the enemy, if false reporting benefits the enemy, then the media is an enemy collaborator.
The net effect of this fraudulent reporting, given its impact on lily-livered commanding generals is that it caused the flag rank officers to abandon the operation — and this in turn produced a win for the enemy. In the long term, a second battle would become necessary, and even more people would die or suffer life-changing disabilities. Where was the honor in that?
The Battle of Fallujah was not the first or last instance when the press manufactured stories about American and Coalition forces. The entire spectacle of the Haditha Affair, which morphed into the most expensive court-martial in American history, produced no convictions for murder, mayhem, illegal assault, or war crimes — and yet, because of this fraudulent reporting, the lives of several good and decent men were outrageously and unforgivably changed. No one associated with the media was ever held to account for their scandalous behavior, which in my view, classifies these people as “enemies foreign and domestic.”
Connable, A. B. Ideas as Weapons: Influence and Perception in Modern Warfare. Washington: Headquarters Marine Corps, (2009)
Department of Defense Law of War Manual, 2016. (A 1,236 page document).
Witt, J. F. Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History. Free Press (2012)
In March 1880, a worn out and frustrated Colonel Gordon realized that his efforts had come to naught.He resigned his position and returned to England.He returned home a broken man and if not suffering from a nervous breakdown, he was close to it.During his return trip to England, one fellow traveler remarked of Gordon, “The man is off his head.”
In May 1880, Sir Robert Hart, Inspector-General of Customs in China invited Gordon to return to China, as his services were urgently needed.China and Russia were on the verge of open warfare and someone was needed who could help sort this problem out.The British War Office learned that Gordon was contemplating a return to China and ordered him, instead, to return to England immediately.Gordon ignored the War Office and sailed on the first ship to China.The Duke of Cambridge was not at all pleased, but the fact of Gordon’s insubordination increased his prestige in China.
By this time, it was clear to his inner circle that Chinese Gordon had become a bit unhinged.Sir Robert Hart noted that at best, Gordon was “very eccentric,” and wrote, “ … as much as I like and respect him, I must say that he is ‘not all there’.Whether it is religion or vanity, or the softening of the brain—I don’t know, but he seems to be alternatively arrogant and slavish, vain and humble, in his senses, and out of them.It is a great pity.”
The British Foreign Office soon ordered Gordon to return home.London was not comfortable with a serving officer leading a Chinese Army against Russia (noting that the Czar of Russia and Queen Victoria were blood relatives).In any case, the United Kingdom did not want an Anglo-Russian War.In October 1880, Gordon returned to London and spent the winter of 1880-81 socializing with his family and close friends.
In April 1881, Brigadier Gordon assumed command of the Royal Engineers in Mauritius, remaining there until March 1882.Gordon was bored and irritated with British policy he regarded as idiotic.In his view, building forts to protect Mauritius from a Russian naval attack was pointless.He was also opposed to the over-reliance on the Suez Canal.The Russians, he argued, need only sink one ship in the canal to make it irrelevant.Instead, he proposed that the British government devise a series of coaling stations in Africa and the Indian Ocean, which would improve the Cape route to India.
Gordon was promoted to Major General on 23 March 1882 and dispatched to resolve the Civil War in Basutoland, in South Africa.The issues were satisfactorily resolved (in the long-term interests of the people —allowing them to avoid apartheid in the twentieth century), Gordon returned to England and was once more unemployed.From 1882-83, General Gordon traveled to Palestine.The deeply religious Gordon wrote a book titled Reflections in Palestine.In it, he proposed that the site of Golgotha (the site of Christ’s crucifixion) was incorrect.Today this area is known as the Garden Tomb and alternatively, Gordon’s Garden.
In Egypt, popular dissatisfaction with Ismai’il Pasha and Europe’s intrusion into Egyptian affairs led to the rise of a nationalist movement in 1879, with Ahmad Urabi a prominent figure [Note 1].In 1882, Urabi became the leader of a nationalist-dominated ministry committed to democratic reforms, including parliamentary control of the budget.With concerns about their loss of control over the affairs of Egypt, the United Kingdom and France intervened, bombarding Alexandria, and crushing the Egyptian Army at the Battle of Tel el-Kebir.The British and French re-installed Ismai’il’s son Twefik as a figurehead of a de facto British protectorate, which lasted until 1953.
In late 1883, Gordon was contemplating the acceptance of an administrative post in the Congo Free State, working for King Leopold II of Belgium.Aware of Leopold’s offer, the British War Office requested that Gordon accept a commission to Egypt instead; they needed him to resolve a rebellion in Sudan.
The revolt was led by a self-proclaimed Mahdi, Mohammed Ahmed.According to Islamic tradition, the Mahdi is a messianic figure who appears at the dawn of every new (Islamic) century to strike down the enemies of Islam.1881 was Islamic year 1298, and Ahmed announced that he was the Mahdi and promptly proclaimed jihad against the Egyptian State.Ismai’il’s long exploitation of the Sudanese people led many to rally to the Mahdi’s black banner.Ahmed promised to expel the Egyptians, whom he proclaimed apostate, and establish a fundamentalist Islamic State as practiced in the days of the Prophet Mohammed [Note 2].
In September 1883, an Egyptian army force under Colonel William Hicks [Note 3] set out to destroy the Mahdi.Hicks’ command was mostly composed of conscripts who had no interest in serving as soldiers much less in the Sudanese desert.Morale was poor, training was nil, and the only way that Hicks could keep these men from deserting was to chain them together.Hicks was well aware that his force was inadequate to its stated purpose, and made that argument to his superiors.However, the Egyptian ministry did not believe that the Mahdi was a force strong enough to defeat Hicks and sent him on his way on 9 September.Hicks commanded 7,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry, and 2,000 camp followers—including 13 European mercenaries.On 5 November, the ragtag army, thirsting to death in the oppressive desert, was ambushed by forces loyal to the Mahdi.All but 300 of the expedition were killed, including Hicks.According to Hicks’ cook, who was spared, Colonel Hicks went down fighting with a pistol in one hand, and a sword in the other.Hicks was decapitated and his head taken to the Mahdi.
In the United Kingdom, particularly in London, there were three political forces: the liberal party, the conservative party (imperialists), and public opinion.Liberals had won the general election on a platform of imperial retrenchment, or withdrawal from overseas locations.Prime Minister William Gladstone withdrew the British Army from the Transvaal and Afghanistan in 1881.But the British War Office contained a few “ultra-imperialists” who continually argued against withdrawing from long-held British territories.One of these was Field Marshal Garnet J. Wolseley, 1st Viscount Wolseley, who was a close friend and ally of Major General Gordon.
Initially following the massacre of the Hicks expedition, Gladstone opined that the Sudan was not worth the trouble of retaining it under Egyptian (British) control and he made the decision to abandon Sudan.This decision was promptly communicated to Egypt, but the order failed to take into account that thousands of soldiers, civilians, and families would have to be evacuated.
At the beginning of 1884, General Gordon had no interest in the Sudan.While staying with his sister in Southampton, Gordon received William Stead, the editor of Pall Mall Gazette, with whom Gordon reluctantly agreed to do an interview.Gordon wanted to talk about the Congo, but Stead pressed him to discuss the situation in the Sudan.Gordon finally unleashed his opinions, which attacked Gladstone’s policies, and instead advocated a military response designed to crush the Mahdi.The prescient Gordon also cautioned that in allowing this Mahdi to succeed in rebellion, Gladstone would open the entire British Empire to religious or nationalist rebellion.Stead published his interview with the heading CHINESE GORDON FOR THE SUDAN.The interview caused a media sensation and led to popular demands that Gladstone send Gordon to crush the Mahdi.
The man behind the curtain was Lord Wolseley, whom history remembers as a skilled media manipulator.In the face of public demands, Gladstone relented and ordered Gordon to the Sudan —albeit with a limited mandate.He was to observe and report on the situation, and provide advice on the best means of evacuating military and civilian personnel.Gladstone, who at the time was ill, retired to his estate for recuperation, leaving the matter of Gordon’s instructions the cabinet.Gladstone believed that his plan was clever: public opinion would be satisfied by sending Gordon to the Sudan, and Gordon’s limited (hand-typing) mandate would allow Gladstone to achieve British withdrawal from Khartoum.Britain’s foreign secretary, Lord Grenville, disagreed.He believed that Gladstone had just opened the door to a folly of far-reaching consequences.
With Lieutenant Colonel J. D. H. Steward as his aide, Gordon started for Cairo in January 1884.Upon Gordon’s arrival, he received additional instructions from Sir Evelyn Baring, which essentially reinforced the mandate issued to him in London —but he also received the Viceroy’s appointment as Governor-General (with executive powers), and an official edict ordering him to establish a provincial government in the Sudan.The appointment as Governor-General caused Gordon to disregard everything Gladstone and Baring had told him [Note 4].
Although a very religious man, General Gordon was an intellectual.Still, as a man, he was not immune to errors in judgment.One of these was in revealing his secret instructions to tribal leaders.He told them that his mission was to arrange for the withdrawal of British/Egyptian military and civilian administrators from Khartoum.The effect of this revelation, realizing that the British/Egyptians intended to wash their hands of Khartoum, was that nearly every Arab tribe of Northern Sudan abandoned Egypt and declared their loyalty to the Mahdi.Whether intentional or a mistake, Gordon had thus sealed his own fate.
The siege of Khartoum began on 18 March 1884.The British had made up their mind to abandon the Sudan, but Gordon had other plans [Note 5].Back home in England, the British public demanded that Gladstone send an expedition to rescue Gordon.Gladstone resisted.
For his part, Gordon could have safely withdrawn at any time between March and May 1884 —had he the inclination.Some writers of the day, the armchair psychologists, suggested that Gordon wanted martyrdom more than life.In any case, on 24 July, the British cabinet, over the objections of Gladstone, voted to send a relief expedition to Khartoum.The House of Commons approved the force on 5 August.The relief force commander was Field Marshal Wolseley, but the expedition would not be formed until November.By this time, the garrison and population of Khartoum were starving to death; there were no horses, mules, donkeys, cats, or dogs inside the city —the people had eaten them all.Gordon himself was in a state of mental exhaustion and incoherence.
Wolseley’s reconnaissance units arrived at Khartoum on 28 January 1885.They found the city had been captured two days earlier and Gordon killed and decapitated.With him, 10,000 civilians and members of the garrison had also been killed.In London, William Gladstone was politically destroyed; Queen Victoria sent him a personal rebuke via telegram, the contents of which found its way into the press.Gladstone’s liberal government was voted out of office in the elections of 1885.Despite popular calls to avenge Gordon, no such undertaking was even considered by the new conservative government.
Muhammed Ahmad bin Abd Allah (1844-1885) was a Nubian religious leader of the Samaniyya order who combined orthodox Islam with mysticism.His popularity came as the result of dissatisfaction with the policies of the Turco-Egyptian rulers.While the “Mahdi” succeeded in capturing Khartoum and killing Gordon, he himself died within six months from typhus, a bacteriological disease caused by body lice, chiggers, and fleas.Today, 40% of individuals contracting typhus will die from it.
Despite the relatively recent pronouncements of American and British governments, there is no American or British “national interest” in the Middle East (or Africa) that in any way justifies squandering national resources (money, men, material) trying to sort out Islamic nations or societies.We only need to look to history to see that western involvement in Islamic affairs has always been a lost cause, save one: defense.If Islamic leaders understand that there will be horrific consequences to attacking or destroying Anglo-American personnel or property, and if these two nations will act on this principle, there will be no more assaults on Western civilizations from the Middle East.The latest invasion of European countries by Islamic “refugees” and issues with homegrown extremists are a completely different issue.
Cleveland, W. And Martin Bunton.A History of the Middle East.Boulder: Westview Press, 2009
Karsh, E.Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Marlowe, J.Mission to Khartoum: Apotheosis of General Gordon.Littlehampton Press, 1968
Brigadier General Stone (1824-1887) was a career army officer, engineer, and a surveyor.He fought with distinction in the Mexican-American War.After the war, he resigned and surveyed for the Mexican government, but returned to the US Army to fight in the Civil War.At the conclusion of the Battle of Ball’s Bluff, a Union defeat, Stone was placed under arrest and imprisoned for six months.He never received a trial, which causes one to conclude that his arrest was for political reasons.After the war, Stone served as a general officer in the Egyptian army.He is also noted for his role in constructing the foundation upon which the Statue of Liberty now stands.
Reinforcing the fact that proponents of Islam are stuck on stupid.
Hicks (1830-1883) was an experienced British officer with years of experience in India, retiring in 1880 as a Colonel.In 1880, Hicks accepted the position of Pasha (generally equivalent to general) within the Egyptian Army.In 1883, Hicks served in Khartoum as chief of staff of the army there, serving Suliman Niazi Pasha.Hicks duty was to recruit an army from the disbanded troops of Arabi, who were sent to him in chains.After a month of training, Hicks led 5,000 of these men against an equal force of Dervishes, whom he defeated, and then undertook to clear the country of rebels.Aware that Suliman Niazi Pasha was intriguing against him, Hick resigned in July 1883.Alarmed, Twefik fired Suliman and appointed Hicks as commander-in-chief of an expeditionary force with orders to crush the Mahdi.
In Baring’s report to London, he emphasized that it was a mistake sending Gordon to the Sudan: “A man who habitually consults with the Prophet Isaiah when he is in difficulty is not apt to obey the orders of anyone.”Gordon confirmed Baring’s fears when he almost immediately began issuing press statements attacking the rebels, referring to them as “stinking Dervishes,” and demanding that he be allowed to “smash the Mahdi.”
By his obstinance, Charles Gordon consigned to death ten-thousand men, women, and children who did not share his vision of the afterlife.
All the Gordon’s sons were army officers —descendants of military officers who devoted themselves to the idea that their children would inherit this tradition.And so they did.Major General and Mrs. Henry William Gordon were the parents of Charles George Gordon, Major General, British Army, Commander of the Bath (1833-1885).Owing to his father’s duty stations, Charles grew up in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Ionia.Charles’ education included the Fullande School in Taunton, the Taunton School, and the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich.
While still a young lad, Charles’ younger sister succumbed to consumption; her passing devastated him and for several months he withdrew from the family.An older sister named Augusta, a particularly religious young woman, embraced Charles and she influenced him for the rest of his life.It was because of Augusta, for example, that Charles grew up to become a staunchly religious person.Despite his religious beliefs, Charles was a spirited and highly intelligent young man, one who developed the (then) deplorable habit of ignoring authority whenever he believed that its rules were foolish or unjust.This was a trait that held him back for two years at the military academy,.At the same time, Gordon had marvelous talents.He developed into an accomplished cartographer and engineer.He received his commission to Second Lieutenant of Royal Engineers in June 1852, completed his training at Chatham, and advanced to First Lieutenant in February 1854.Although trained as a sapper [Note 1], he became adept at reconnaissance, leading storming parties, demolitions, and providing rearguard actions.
His inclination to question or disregard orders aside, Charles Gordon evolved into a fine military officer.He had charisma, a superior leadership ability, and an unparalleled devotion to his assigned task or mission.His only problem was that in refusing to obey what he considered an unlawful or poorly conceived orders, many senior officers regarded him as rogue.Yet it was this very same trait that caused his men to love him.
Over time, Gordon became even more devoted to his religious principles.He was no zealot by any measure, at least not initially, but someone who maintained the strength of his convictions —and was steadfast in living his life according to those beliefs.In many ways, Gordon was a fatalist; believing in the after-life, he was not afraid of death and some say, in time, he began to pursue it.
During the Crimean War, Gordon performed his duties at the siege of Sevastopol, took part in the assault of the Redans as a sapper, and mapped the strongpoints of the city’s fortifications.What made this a particularly dangerous duty was that it subjected him to direct enemy fire from the fortress and he was wounded during one such sortie.During this war Gordon made several friends who remained so for the rest of his life; friends that would later defend him.
In 1855, the British and French initiated a final assault on Sevastopol.Following a massive bombardment, sappers assaulted the fortress at Malakoff Hill.The engagement was a massacre of British and French soldiers and none of the operation’s planned objectives were achieved.As a participant, Gordon distinguished himself by his courage under fire and his tenacity as a combat leader.
Following the end of hostilities in the Crimea, Gordon served the international commission charged with marking a new border between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire in Bessarabia.He later performed similar services on the frontier between Ottoman Armenia and Russian Armenia.It was during this time that Gordon became fascinated with a new American invention and took it up as a hobby: the camera.
Seeking adventure, Gordon volunteered to serve in China during the Second Opium War (1860).By the time he arrived in Hong Kong, however, the fighting was over.He had heard of the Taiping Rebellion [Note 2] but didn’t understand it.En route to China, he read all he could about the Taiping and initially found sympathy for the movement.Gordon was a young man, reading one individual’s opinion, and allowed himself to be influenced by it, but what made his empathy a bit odd was that the leader of the Taiping —a man named Hong Xiuquan— believed himself to be the younger brother of Jesus of Nazareth.
After disembarking in Shanghai, Gordon made a tour of the Chinese countryside.The atrocities he witnessed committed by the Taiping against local peasants appalled him and he began to see the Taiping for what they were: cold-blooded killers.
During the early period of his tour in China, Gordon served under General Charles William Dunbar Staveley [Note 3], who occupied northern China until April 1862.During the war, Taiping armies came close enough to Shanghai to alarm European residents.European and Asian legations raised a militia to defend Shanghai.Legates detailed Frederick Townsend Ward [Note 4] to command this militia.Apparently, the British arrived in the nick of time.General Staveley decided to clear the rebels within 30 miles of Shanghai.He planned these operations in cooperation with Ward and a small force of French soldiers.At the time, Gordon served on Staveley’s staff as an engineer.
After Ward’s death, command of his Asian army passed to another American, Henry A. Burgevine (shown right).It was an unhappy choice because Burgevine was ill-suited to the task of commanding a multi-ethnic mercenary force: he was inexperienced in leading a large body of men, lacked the necessary self-confidence of command, and consumed copious amounts of alcohol, making him unreliable.The Taiping rebellion was a civil war, of course, but unlike any other in the history of the world and Henry Burgevine was no Frederick Ward.He was much detested by the Chinese —so much, in fact, that the governor of Jiang-su Province asked General Staveley to appoint a British officer to command this largely mercenary force.The officer Staveley selected was Brevet Major Gordon.The British government approved Gordon’s appointment in December 1862.Gordon, it seems, was exactly the kind of man Governor Li Hong-Zhang was looking for: a man of good temper, clean of hands, and a steady economist.
Major Gordon, unlike many (if not most) Chinese officers, was honest and incorruptible.He did not steal the money that was earmarked to pay his men, and he insisted on paying the men on time and in full.Of course, the Chinese bureaucrats did not understand why Gordon insisted on paying his men.In their view, he should have allowed his men to loot and plunder the countryside for their pay —this was the way of things in China.Gordon would not have any of that sort behavior among his men.To instill a sense of pride in his men, Gordon designed their uniforms.He dressed his regulars in green, while designating blue uniforms for his personal guard.
Major Gordon assumed command of his army in March 1863 and led them at once to relieve the town of Chansu some forty miles northwest of Shanghai.Gordon quickly accomplished this first test, which was securing the respect and loyalty of his troops.As a means of encouraging the Taiping to either desert or surrender, he treated all prisoners of war with dignity and respect.
As an engineer, it occurred to Major Gordon that the network of canals and rivers that flowed through the Chinese countryside would be useful for moving his troops and establishing an expedient supply line.In matters of training and rehearsing his army, Gordon’s ideas were innovative and efficient.He was vocally critical of the methods Chinese generals used in war fighting.In contrast, Gordon was sought to avoid unnecessary casualties or large battle losses.By maneuvering his forces to deny enemy retreat, he found that enemy troops would quickly withdraw from the battlefield [Note 5].Gordon believed that frontal assaults produced unacceptably high numbers of casualties (which is true).As his subordinate commanders were Chinese, they did not object to unnecessary carnage, but Gordon insisted on attacking the enemy’s flank whenever possible.Gordon’s innovative thinking, such as his creation of a riverine force, caused the Taiping army to avoid Gordon’s army on several occasions.Of some value to Gordon, once the peasants realized that Gordon’s strategy had a telling effect on the Taiping, they were more disposed to coming to his aid, which did occur on several occasions. The peasants, tired of Taiping terrorism, attacked the retreating Taiping and hacked them to death with simple farming implements.Among Gordon’s peers, he was“thoughtful and fearless in the face of grave danger.”
Because Gordon’s force was mercenary, their only loyalty was to money and the men willing to pay them.It was only Gordon’s stern disciplinary policies that kept his force from plundering the peasants, whom they were supposed to protect.At one point, Gordon ordered the execution of one of his Chinese officers who conspired to take his unit over to the Taiping.It was a distasteful duty and one that would never survive the modern evening news, but in China, it was a necessary and prudent step to avoid mass desertion.The fact is that Gordon’s mercenary force consisted of some of the worst elements of Chinese, British, and American society.Prior to Gordon’s assignment in command, it was commonplace for these mercenaries to enter a town or district, steal everything they could get their hands on, rape the women, and indiscriminately murder local citizens.It was only Gordon’s harsh discipline that changed this behavior.Any of his men who were accused of crimes against the people would very likely face a firing squad —from which there was no appeal.
When Gordon defeated Burgevine’s new mercenary force, which had aligned themselves with the Taiping, he had Burgevine arrested and deported.Burgevine, however made his way back to China, was promptly arrested by the Qing secret service, and was “shot while trying to escape.”Burgevine was many things but exceedingly bright wasn’t one of them.
Major Gordon was appalled by the poverty and suffering of the Chinese people.It was this hardship that strengthened his faith because, as he would frequently argue, there had to be a just and loving God who would one day redeem humanity from wretchedness and misery [Note 6].Nevertheless, it was Gordon’s humanity that brought him the respect and friendship of those who opposed him politically.He led his mercenary army from the front, never personally armed with anything more than a rattan cane.His coolness in battle led many Chinese to believe that he possessed supernatural powers; it was only that Gordon was a fatalist and predestinate.
Imperial troops joined Gordon’s force in capturing Suzhou.He had let it be known that any Taiping soldier who surrendered would be humanely treated.After pacifying surrounding towns and villages, Gordon himself entered Suzhou but, given the tendency of his men to loot, he denied them entry into the confines of the city.Only the Imperial forces [Note 7] would be allowed to enter the city, and when they did, much to Gordon’s anguish, they promptly executed every Taiping who had surrendered.Angry, he wrote, “If faith had been kept, there would have been no more fighting, as every town in China would have given in.”Of course, what Major Gordon did not understand was that while it is possible to take a Chinese man out of China; it is impossible to take China out of the Chinese man.Even today, most Chinese are devoid of a sense of humanity.
As a measure of the man and his integrity, the Emperor of China, in recognition of Gordon’s achievements, subsequently awarded Gordon ten-thousand gold coins, laudatory flags, fine silk clothing, and a title equivalent to Field Marshal.All of these things Gordon refused —and all because the Imperial troops, in executing the Taiping prisoners, had made Gordon out to be a liar. Rebuffing the Chinese emperor did nothing to solidify their relationship, but it was consistent with Gordon’s sense of self.It was after his service in China that the press and his peers began to refer to him as “Chinese Gordon”.The nickname stayed with him to the end of his days.Gordon’s father did not approve of his son working in the service of the Chinese government and it was an estrangement that had not been settled before his father’s death.Charles, of course, felt guilty about his failure to reconcile with his father and deeply regretted it for the rest of his life.
After Gordon’s return to England, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel and placed in command of the Royal Engineers near Gravesend, Kent, and tasked to prepare fortifications in defense of the River Thames.By then, Chinese Gordon has become a press celebrity —except that Gordon wanted nothing to do with it.He promptly informed the press to leave him alone.In Gravesend, Gordon volunteered to teach at a local school, called the Ragged School [Note 8].
Tasked with constructing forts, Colonel Gordon disapproved of the notion that they were in any way necessary.He regarded them as expensive and useless.The Duke of Cambridge [Note 9], in his role as Commander in Chief of the Forces (head of the British Army) visited one of the construction sites and praised Gordon for his excellent work.Gordon answered, “I had nothing to do with it, sir.It was built regardless of my opinion, and, in fact, I entirely disapprove of its arrangement and position.”Gordon didn’t mince his words, regardless of who he was talking to.And, of course, Gordon was entirely correct.It was a waste of limited resources.
Gordon was advanced to Colonel on 16 February 1872.Afterward detailed to inspect British military cemeteries in the Crimea, and when transiting through Constantinople, he made his manners to the Prime Minister of Egypt, Raghib Pasha.Pasha opened negotiations with Gordon to serve under the Khedive (Viceroy) Ismai’il Pasha.French educated, Isma’il admired Europe as a model of excellence, but favored most France and Italy.He was a devout Moslem who enjoyed Italian wine and French champaign.The language of Ismai’il’s court was French and Turkish, not Arabic.It was the Viceroy’s dream to make Turkey culturally part of Europe and he spent enormous sums of money in the modernization and Westernization of Egypt.The doing of this sent Egypt deeply into debt —even after the American Civil War had transformed Egyptian cotton into “white gold,” Ismai’il’s spending increased Egyptian debt to more than 93-million pounds sterling.
Ismai’il’s love affair with western culture alienated the more conservative members of Egyptian Islamic society.Ismai’il’s grandfather, Muhammad Ali (The Great) attempted to depose the ruling Ottoman family in favor of his own, but failed due to the interference of Russia and Britain.With this knowledge, Ismai’il turned his attention south with the notion of building an Egyptian empire in Africa.Toward this end, Ismai’il hired westerners to work in his government, including Colonel Gordon, both in Egypt and the Sudan.His chief of general staff was the American brigadier general Charles P. Stone [Note 10].He, and a number of other American Civil War veterans commanded Egyptian troops.In the opinion of some, American officers in the employ of Egypt were mostly composed of misfits in their own land.As harsh as this criticism sounds, it may be based on fact.Valentine Baker was a British officer who was dishonorably discharged after his conviction of rape.After Baker was released from prison, Ismai’il Pasha hired him to work in the Sudan.In any case, Colonel Gordon, with the consent of the British government, began working for Ismai’il Pasha in 1873—his first assignment was as governor of Equatoria Province (present-day Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda).His mission included extending Equatoria into Southern Uganda with the goal of absorbing the entire Great Lakes region of East Africa.
While serving in Sudan, Colonel Gordon undertook efforts to suppress the slave trade, and doing this while struggling against a corrupt and inefficient Egyptian bureaucracy—and one with no interest in suppressing the slave trade.Gordon was later distressed to learn that his immediate superior was heavily engaged in slaving and actively countermanded many of Gordon’s efforts.Despite his lofty position in the Egyptian government, Gordon believed that the Egypt was inherently oppressive and cruel and he was soon in direct conflict with the system he was supposed to lead.What Gordon did achieve was close rapport with the African people, who had long suffered from the activities of Arab slave traders.These same people were being converted from animists to Christians by European and American missionaries, and this gave Gordon some encouragement.What made the effort a struggle was the fact that the basis of Sudan’s economy was slavery.Gordon did manage to shepherd a number of reforms that materially improved the lives of the common man, such as in abolishing torture and public floggings.
(Continued next week)
Cleveland, W. And Martin Bunton.A History of the Middle East.Boulder: Westview Press, 2009
Karsh, E.Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Marlowe, J.Mission to Khartoum: Apotheosis of General Gordon.Littlehampton Press, 1968
A sapper is a soldier responsible for the construction of roads and bridges and laying and clearing mine fields.They are combat engineers (sometimes called pioneers) who remove enemy obstacles in order to keep the attack in progress.
The Taiping Rebellion was one of the bloodiest conflicts in world history.It lasted from 1850 to 1864 with estimated dead numbering in excess of 40-million people.
General Staveley’s sister was married to Gordon’s brother.
Ward was born in Massachusetts in 1831.Because of his rebellious nature, his father consigned him to work aboard a clipper ship commanded by a friend.The ship made frequent voyages to China.While in China, Ward became a filibuster.He was killed while commanding the “Ever Victorious Army” at the Battle of Cixi on 21 September 1862.
The problem with allowing the enemy to withdraw is that they live to fight another day, perhaps under conditions or on terrain of their choosing.
It is true that there was much wretchedness in the world in Gordon’s day; to find it, he might have looked closer to home —in London, for example.
Gordon referred to the Imperial army as “Imps.”
Prior to 1870, there was no universal school system in the United Kingdom.The so-called Ragged Schools were a network of privately funded schools that offered free education to children whose parents were too poor to afford the fees associated with available schools.Unhappily, as with a few other senior British officers, 21st Century writers have used such examples of humanity to suggest, in Gordon’s and William Slim’s cases, that their compassion was likely motivated by their attraction to young boys.The claims are ludicrous, of course, but this is what revisionists do to in their attempt to destroy the reputations of men (after their death) who occupied prominent footnotes in history.
George William Frederick Charles, also known as Prince George of the House of Hanover, was a professional army officer with the rank of field marshal.He served as commander in chief for 39 years, a period of time when the British Army became a moribund and stagnant institution. I am quite sure he had something to say in response to Gordon’s caustic remark.
‘Urabi was a serving Egyptian officer who participated in the 1879 mutiny that developed into a general revolt against the Anglo-French dominated administration of Khedive Tewfik.He was promoted to a place in Twefik’s cabinet and began reforms of Egypt’s military and civil administrations, but demonstrations in Alexandria in 1882 prompted a British naval bombardment and invasion.‘Urabi was deposed and the British occupied Egypt.