Saturday, December 26, 2015

Slaves of Utopia



Slaves of Utopia
Col Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

Leftist Socialists prove to be endlessly ineffective because they are lazy at heart. Stuck in the twentieth century, they follow a stale paradigm of critique and condemnation of the present that is fatally devoid of the requisite labors needed to offer cogent solutions. 

Instead, the Socialist Left invokes dreams and visions far beyond those of any past conjurors, seers or snake oil peddlers. The outraged shout supplants hard work and form always beats substance.

This of course, quickly devolves in to disastrous populism that effortlessly opens with "socially just" promises to remedy all our ails at next to no cost and unerringly ends in failure, great suffering and increased poverty. 

Svetlana Alexievich, as to be expected of Nobel Laureate in Literature, succinctly summed up the believers of this nonsense in three words: Slaves of Utopia.[1]

The Socialist Left’s proposition is nothing more than a banal debating trick that simplistically declares the present wanting while selling an impossibly perfect future, a position that should render the argument unworthy of serious consideration, but such is the allure of utopia.

Semper Fi,
Mike

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Usama bin Laden's Fatwah



Usama bin Laden's Fatwah
Col Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

This is in small part a back-to-basics but mostly an important indictment of our collective ignorance and/or failed memories.

Everyone remembers 9/11 and opines endlessly (and often with a professed sense authority about the war with radical Islam that is clearly undeserved).

Why do I write that with such conviction? Because of answers I get to this one question: 

How many of you ever truly have read al Qaeda's fatwah of holy war against the United States?

If you had then you would already know that THE critical year in this whole mess was 1998 (and the "Beltway Fivers" be damned). 

That is the year of the fatwah and the year Usama bin Laden approved Mohammad Sheik Khalid's plan of attack that ended in 9/11.

And earlier in that transcendental year of 1998. Usama bin Ladin, as head of al Qaeda, issued the fatwah presented below. 

If you have never deeply analyzed this document -- from the title to the signatures to the Qur'anic references to the geopolitical ramification -- then you are fairly disqualified from uttering a competent assessment on the war waged by radical Islamists.

Semper Fi,
Mike

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt 
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."
Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."

Friday, December 11, 2015

ISIL/ISIS Or What Is In A Name?



ISIL/ISIS Or What Is In A Name?

Col Mike walker, USMC (retired)

All,
Get a bit frustrated with the inane debate over ISIS versus ISIL.
 
The Intel community started by using ISIL and the Press used ISIS. The Administration uses Daesh.
 
Given that its followers hold territory in Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq and they claim to have footholds in northeastern Afghanistan, parts of Algeria and northeastern Nigeria then all three terms are clearly obsolete.
 
The correct term is Islamic State
 
Understanding that requires a longer explanation. So, as Paul Harvey used to say, "Here is the rest of the story."
 
 A Complex History of Names
 
The root of the Islamic State begins with founding of al Qaeda (The Base) in Pakistan in 1988 and then its arrival in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s. 
 
In 1999 in Afghanistan, an al Qaeda (AQ) operative, Abu Musad al-Zarqawi (AMZ), a Jordanian, was given funds by Usama bin-Laden (UBL) to set up the Jund al-Sham (Soldiers of the Levant or JAS) branch of AQ (and Sham is the last "S" in ISIS). 
 
AMZ's job was to form up and prepare the JAS to go to the Levant/Sham and spread the global jihad. His unit was part of 055 Brigade of the Taliban Army in Afghanistan.
 
After the 9/11 Attacks in 2001, AMZ was wounded in a US strike in Afghanistan in late 2001 or early 2002. He fled towards the Iranian border, was given sanctuary by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and eventually safe passage to join Ansar al-Islam (Islamic Partisans) in Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2002.
 
When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, AMZ was invited by the Ba'athist holdouts in Syria led by Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri (protected by "our good friend" Bashar Assad) to join in their war against the Coalition forces in Iraq and kill and maim Americans.
 
AMZ then created Jama'at aTawhid wa-al-Jihad (The One God Religion and Jihad Organization) and moved into Iraq's Sunni Triangle, spending most of his time in al Anbar fighting the Marines. 
 
He obtained a fresh supply of foreign fighters courtesy of a jihadi pipeline set up in Syria by Bashar Assad (when with the Marines in Iraq in 2004, we called them the Syrian ratlines).
 
Later in October 2004, just before the second Marine offensive on Fallujah, AMZ renamed the organization Tanzim Qa'idat al Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (The Mesopotamia Base Organization) and reaffirmed his allegiance to UBL and AQ.
 
The current leader of al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote to AMZ about the war in Iraq in July 2005, declaring that Iraq was "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." 
 
Things did not go well for AQ. On 7 June 2006, AMZ was killed by US Special Operations forces.
 
Later that year, what was left of his organization finally settled on the name al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq (The Islamic State in Iraq or ISI) and that was where the "ISI" (used in ISIS and ISIL) first originated. The US intelligence community called this organization al Qaeda in Iraq or AQI. 
 
On 13 October 2006, AQI/ISI declared a caliphate in Fallujah and that was the first time that word was formally adopted by the Islamic extremists.
 
With AMZ dead, AQI/ISI went into a long decline culminating in the Sunni Awakening where the Sunni Tribes in al Anbar rose up and smashed AQI/ISI during 2007- 2008. By 2011, violence in Iraq had dropped by over 90%.
 
Iraq had become the world’s 6th fastest growing economy. Its national debt had been 100% of GPD in 2003 but only 31% by 2011 and with a balanced Federal budget. Life in Iraq was better than it was in 2003 (or even in 1978 – before Saddam) for every segment of the society, by region, by ethnicity, by religion and by every meaningful economic metric. Unemployment had fallen from +50% in 2003 to 11%. More kids were in school then ever before and Iraq was undergoing the biggest building boom in its history, all of which was accompanied by a rapidly growing standard of living.
 
It looked like the war Iraq was over and by late 2011 the US had completely withdrawn.
 
But we had forgotten about “our good friend” Bashar Assad.
 
In March 2012, "our good friend" Bashar faced a massive non-violent movement aiming to transition Syria from a corrupt and bloody dictatorship to a Western-leaning progressive democracy.
 
"Our good friend" Assad responded by beating, arresting, torturing and summarily executing the non-violent protesters. Unlike the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran where the protesters were easily suppressed, in Syria, they fought back.
 
The Ayatollahs in Iran and Putin in Russia went all in in their support for Assad and soon both, along with Iran's surrogate, Hezbollah in Lebanon, were making their presence felt on the Syrian battlefield. The pro-democracy fighters were pummeled unmercifully and beaten by Assad and his allies. 
 
The leaders in Paris, Berlin, London, Washington and elsewhere did nothing of merit as Syria spiraled into terrible civil war.
 
This vacuum created the opportunity for the Islamic extremists in Iraq. In January 2012, the bulk (but not all) of ISI/AQI began leaving Iraq for Syria and created Jabhat al-Nusra Front (Front to Support the Levant People) or JN which we called Al Qaeda in the Levant or AQL.
 
In April 2013, AQI operative Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi split off from AQL to form what came to be called  al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi I'-Iraq wash-Sham which we call either ISIS or ISIL. By the way, the acronym for al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi I'-Iraq wash-Sham is Da'ISh where the Administration gets Daesh.
 
Ironically, the jihadi pipeline Bashar Assad had created to kill Americans in 2003 became in 2013, the primary Islamic State pipeline for foreign fighters bent on killing him and his followers. As the saying goes, "He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind."
 
In early 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi reentered Iraq at the head of the Islamic State army and captured large swaths of northwestern Iraq.
 
All the promise of 2011 was destroyed because of one man's egomaniacal thirst for personal power. May Bashar Assad rot in hell.
 
That is the long but tragically fascinating and important history of the Islamic State's name.
 
Semper Fi,
Mike


Wednesday, December 09, 2015

18 to 22 Year Olds




18 to 22 Year Olds
Col Mike Walker, USMC (retired)


Harry,

I just ignore it. Most of what we are seeing is self-indulgent university "ya-ya-land" psycho-babble.

It is not noble or principled but more a temper tantrum by a class of citizens who have been ill served after enduring years of such bubble-wrapped coddling.

What is truly high farce is that these students have convinced themselves that they are so lacking in intellectual vigor and so emotionally fragile that to step out of their "safe zones" to even hear the details of what these veterans actually lived through would be overwhelmingly traumatic.

They would have us believe that the horrors those veterans faced cannot not be discussed in the presence of such poorly developed -- even childlike -- collegiate psyches.

It is all a sham -- a scam -- and the biggest suckers are the college students who believe this delusional narrative.

Good grief and nonsense!

But not to worry: Once they leave their bizarro university cloisters the overwhelming majority will become functional adults.

Semper Fi,
Mike

Sunday, December 06, 2015

The Little Bighorn and Custer Revisited

Very interesting... I've probably done 5-6 paintings of Custer and always had that.... "but, please General Custer, I don't want to go!" running through my head. I see him and his mission quite differently now. I have visited the "Battle Field" and viewed the re-enactment in Harden, MT.
____________________________________________________________________________


The Little Bighorn and Custer Revisited
Col Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

As a change of pace, a little historical "nonpolitical/national security" food for thought. 

When I grew up, the Errol Flynn "They Died With Their Boots On" Custer was definitely passé. In its stead, Custer was treated as a one-dimensional... well… idiot, clown, buffoon, etc. More a caricature than a human.

I have not gone back to Errol's version but after studying Custer in the Civil War, he was not the "horse's behind" that I had come to accept. 

The Little Bighorn and Custer Revisited
A. THE FACTS

I. Where Are They?

In June 1876, none of the Army commanders knew precisely where Sitting Bull was located. As they conferred at the confluence of the Yellowstone and Rosebud Rivers, scouting parties were sent out. No one found Sitting Bull but the scouts were able to determine where he was not and where he had been.

Based on that information, the Generals knew he had to be somewhere south of the Yellowstone and between the Rosebud and Big Horn/Little Bighorn Rivers. 
Unlike the simplistic legend that Custer was an “unguided missile,” Terry gave Custer written orders just before he struck out at noon on 22 June. Given the lack of accurate intelligence, Terry informed Custer “it is of course, impossible to give you definite instructions.” 

Terry had ordered Gibbons to advance west along the Yellowstone to the Big Horn River and then south along that river until meeting the Little Bighorn River and Custer. 

Custer was to drive south down the Rosebud to the location of Sitting Bull’s abandoned Sun Dance campsite and near the headwaters of the Tongue River, locate Sitting Bull’s trail as best he could and follow it westwardly to the Little Bighorn River and then north to meet Gibbons.

Terry then wrote: “It is hoped that the Indians, if upon the Little Bighorn, may be so nearly inclosed [sic] by the two columns that their escape will be impossible.”

Terry also gave Custer leeway to operate in that he would “not impose on you precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy.” There were no written directives telling Custer to wait for Gibbons or not to attack until ordered so. 

[As an aside, during the earlier scouting to find Siting Bull, a few Gatling guns had been brought along. They were unwieldy and easily stuck and proved so cumbersome that the cavalry lost heir ability to maneuver and just sat around waiting for the crews to get the Gatling guns on the move again. The cavalrymen wanted nothing to do with them and afterwards they were sent to the various unit pack trains, to include those of the 7th Cavalry.]

II. The fiercely independent Sioux warrior culture changed everything

From afar, Custer’s scouts had spotted the smoke and dust signature of Sitting Bull’s camp on 24 June but it was late afternoon and Custer did arrive at the look out point until near dusk and could not see the signs in the fading visibility. He knew there was a camp but did not realize just how big. Here again, past experience worked against Custer.

Not just Custer but Sheridan and most all the veteran Indian fighters knew that it was not possible to keep a large encampment for long as the thousands of horses would soon exhaust the nearby grasses forcing movement and even with a fresh supply of river water, the natural accumulation of waste created immediate hygiene problems.

As a result, large camps like Sitting Bull’s only lasted a few days before they broke up into smaller groups. Having uncovered the remains of the massive Sun Dance camp by the Rosebud, it was assumed that the Sioux and others were likely moving in two or more groups.

The assumption was wrong; Sitting Bull still retained a huge single force of warriors on the Little Bighorn. At that day’s end on 24 June, veteran scout Mitch Bouyer told Custer the signs indicated the largest camp he had ever seen. Bouyer was relatively new to working with Custer having previously served with the 2nd Cavalry and apparently Custer did not have enough confidence in Bouyer to act based solely on the scout’s word. 

Bouyer wound up with the 7th Cavalry because Custer, who traditionally used Ree scouts, needed a Crow speaker to communicate with the Crow scout-guides assigned to him by Terry for the campaign. [Note: scouts were experts at reconnaissance while guides knew the local terrain, it was boon to have the Crow who could perform both jobs, although the language barrier proved problematic]

After finding Sitting Bull, Custer’s original plan was to go to ground, remain hidden and rest for one day and then fix and attack Sitting Bull’s camp on 26 June.

Earlier on 24 June, however, the 7th Cavalry and a small band of Sioux spotted each other. Having no interest in returning after opting to leave Sitting Bull’s camp and having avoided the 7th Cavalry, the band continued on their way. Such was the Sioux warrior way. 

The cavalrymen saw it differently. Knowing they had been discovered, they believed the band would warn the others of the regiment’s presence and time was of essence. Custer decided to move up the attack to the following day.

Had Custer attacked on 26 June as originally planned, he would have been able to scout out the camp on the 25th and obtained a much more accurate picture of the enemy. Additionally, Gibbon’s forces would have been a day closer and it should be recalled that his column reached the Little Bighorn battlefield early on 27 June.

That chance 24 June encounter with the Sioux band changed everything.

III. The Battle Formation and Opening Maneuver of the 7th Cavalry on 25 June

Much has been written about the manner in which Custer divided his forces and most of it derogatory. That criticism is too simplistic. 

US Army Cavalry regiments in 1876 were organized into in companies (not troops) with no formal battalion structure. Battalions (not squadrons) were, however, routinely used on an ad hoc basis, in peacetime for administrative purposes and in wartime for battle.

On 25 June, Custer had twelve companies of cavalry, an armed pack train and a large contingent of scouts and guides. He divided the regiment into four three-company battalions under Yates, Keogh, Benteen and Reno. 

Custer was stickler for readiness and the last company to be fully saddled was assigned to guard the pack train. On that morning, Yates, who had been with Custer since the Battle of Gettysburg, would only have two companies as the tardy Co. B under Lt. McDougall went with the packs. McDougall was, nonetheless, a solid combat commander.

[A short note on the battalion commanders (officially three captains and a major): Like Captain Yates who had been promoted to brevet Lt. Colonel for bravery at Gettysburg, all had distinguished Civil War records: Major Reno had risen to become a Cavalry Division chief-of-staff in the war with the brevet rank of Brig. General, Captain Benteen was a Colonel of Volunteers and regimental commander by 1865 while Captain Keogh distinguished himself with Buford’s cavalry at Gettysburg and ended the war a brevet Lt. Col.]

Because of the uncertainty over the location and number of camps, Terry had ordered Custer to constantly guard his left flank. The fear was that the 7th Cavalry might reach the Little Bighorn River to north – not the south - of Sitting Bull’s Camp.

In other words, there was a concern that Sitting Bull might not be trapped between Custer and Gibbons. Another concern was that Custer and Gibbons would converge on one camp to the north and then be surprised by an attack from second camp to the south (behind) Custer on the Little Bighorn.

On the morning of 25 June, the flank guard duty fell on Benteen who was told to sweep to the left (south) and make sure there were no hostile forces on that flank. Custer advanced with the three battalions of eight companies along with most of the scouts towards Sitting Bull’s camp.

As is well known, enroute to Sitting Bull’s camp the regiment spotted a mounted party of warriors who quickly raced back towards the camp to the northwest. Custer told Reno to take his battalion and pursue them down the river into the camp. Custer would swing north several miles, fall on the camp by crossing the Little Bighorn River and join with Reno. As an added measure, he immediately dispatched a messenger to Benteen to collect the pack train and join the fight so the entire regiment would mass on Sitting Bull. In less than an hour the battle would be won.

Nothing of the kind ever happened.

B. The Hypothesis

No one who fought with the two battalions under Custer on 25 June survived to relate what happened. The Sioux and other Native American participants related their reminiscences of the battle with a cultural tradition that focused primarily on individual bravery. That provides an extremely vivid and detailed picture of the close combat. The Native American accounts also offer an accurate sequence of events for the “last stand” of the two Custer battalions. 

However, even when combined with the US cavalry burial sites made at the time and detailed archeological records from the 1980s, the ability to turn the myth into a precise history of what occurred on 25 June 1876 remains elusive. Assessing the actions of the two 7th Cavalry battalions and their companies directly under Custer remains inaccessibly difficult, i.e. which units went where, at what time, under whom and most of all, why?

This author makes no claim to have uncovered the truth. What follows is the best hypothesis this author can posit given the imperfect number of “knowns.”
Much of what follows hinges on the testimony of one Sioux warrior, White Cow Bull.

Like all Sioux warriors, White Cow Bull earned his name through personal exploit, in his case by marksmanship both with a bow and arrow (by killing a bull at great distance) and with the rifle. On 25 June, White Bull Cow was with a Cheyenne warrior friend in the Cheyenne camp at the north end of Sitting Bull’s encampment.

Perhaps thirty minutes earlier, Reno had hit the Sioux at the camp’s south end and drew the bulk of the warriors towards him. At that moment, the Custer battalions rode down a ravine (Medicine Creek Coulee) and started to charge across the Little Bighorn into Sitting Bull’s camp. White Cow Bull rushed to fight, took aim at the foremost charging cavalrymen and fired at and hit a rider on a sorrel horse with four white stockings.

Only Custer rode such a horse. By some accounts the rider fell into the river. Regardless, two things quickly happened. The charge faltered and other cavalrymen rode to Custer and helped him back across the river, either by getting him remounted or guiding the horse and wounded (or possibly dead) rider away from the danger zone.

Why the now retreating battalions did not retrace their steps southwardly back towards Reno, Benteen and the armed pack train with McDougall’s company is not clear. Perhaps that part of the ravine was still crammed with tail end of the advancing 7th Cavalry and the head of column with a seriously wounded Custer had to take the route that led further north.

In any event, from that point forward it appears that the two Custer battalions were fully engaged in a fighting retreat that ended in their complete destruction.

Calhoun’s Company L of Keogh’s battalion established the first delay line at the high ground atop the ravine. The final V-shaped defensive stand closely followed the order of march after Reno left the regiment: At the far end (north) stood Custer with Yates battalion followed by Keogh and lastly Calhoun.

The puzzle is: Why did they stop? 

Custer had led dozens of charges and skirmishes in Civil War; most comprising of forces much larger than the five companies he led at the Little Bighorn. Many battles went his way but as the Confederate cavalry often gave as good as they got, some went the way of the enemy. 

Three things were consistent in these battles. First, Custer led from the front unlike many senior cavalry commanders in the war. Second, he never cultivated a strong second-in-command. On 25 June, Custer’s deputy 7th Cavalry commander was back at Fort Lincoln in the Dakotas. Third, Custer valued the lives of his men, when he got in a jam he personally led the rearguard until his command was out of harm’s way and able to regroup.
 
So what happened on 25 June?
 
Custer did not stay with the rearguard (Calhoun) nor did he order the battalions to ride hard and fast to get them away from Siting Bull’s camp as the “last stand” battlefield was only a few minutes ride from the encampment.

If Custer was in command then he never would have halted where his battalions did. It was totally out of character. It seems clear that Custer was out of the fight and without a strong second, the battalions lost their way making White Cow Bull’s claim very credible.
 
In that chaos, Calhoun, Custer’s brother-in-law, would have eagerly volunteered his company to try to stop the advancing Sioux to protect a wounded or dying Custer. That forced a weakened Keogh to mount a defense on poor ground between Calhoun and the “Last Stand Hill” defended by Yates with Tom Custer, the extraordinarily decorated brother. 
 
It seems a plausible conclusion that the quick halt on the high ground above Sitting Bull’s camp was timed to provide the earliest perceived moment of safe respite to regroup a confused leaderless command.

It proved a fatal decision.

Finally, Benteen and Reno acted prudently. If Custer with five companies hit a deadly wall of fire at the village that forced a retreat then Reno with only three companies who initially faced the bulk of the warriors was in a hopeless position.

When Benteen got Custer’s message and drove north along the Little Bighorn, he first ran into Reno’s desperate defense. He had to come to Reno’s aid and when one company subsequently left to find Custer by following his trail towards the village, they were quickly beaten back. 

How Many Are There?

The inescapable fact is that no US soldier had ever run into such an assemblage of skilled and determined Plains warriors.

The Indian Bureau estimated that Terry was facing about 500 warriors. Sheridan estimated 500-800. The rough math of era estimated that one lodge equated to a little over two warriors. The earlier Sun Dance site left traces of approximately 1,500 lodges and tipis. Given that a number of warriors had drifted away, like the party spotted on 24 June, Custer certainly faced over 1,000 well-armed professional combatants and more likely 1,500. This was an unprecedented number, a number none of the commanders believed possible.

Even accounting for those left to guard the camp and occupied fighting Reno and later Benteen, Custer with his 242 soldiers and scouts were confronted with an overwhelming force. There were simply too many rock solid warriors to handle. That, more than any other factor, sealed Custer’s fate.

Semper Fi,
Mike