Tag: history

How The First World War Destroyed The Gold Standard

As Trump’s “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth demands a fifty-percent increase to the war budget—topping an eye watering $1.5 trillion—it may be instructive to remember that war spending has always and everywhere been the primary enemy of sound money. Some advocates of the warfare state like to lay the blame on social spending, but it has historically been wars that end up ruining currencies and blowing the top off the public fisc. While social spending can indeed be crippling, and certainly empowers the ruling class, it is the fiscal demands of war that cause enormous surges in public spending to levels that would have never been politically unjustifiable for mere pension programs. Rather, it is during wars that government budgets will triple or quadruple, or, —in the case of Britain during the Great War—increase by a factor of twelve. Moreover, it’s important to note that in cases like these, tax revenues rarely keep up. During the war in Britain, for example:

Part of the military spending was paid for with cuts to other spending; civil spending fell from 10% of GDP to 5%. Still, even together with tax increases, this could not match the growth in war-related spending. While tax revenues quadrupled during the war years, expenses increased by a factor of twelve. So, only 25% of spending was met by taxes in the five fiscal years starting April 1, 1914. 

More “moderate” increases were also enormous. In France total government spending, fueled by war spending, increased from 10.5 billion francs in 1914 to 46.9 billion francs in 1918. The German state’s spending rose 17 fold during the war, rising from 3 billion marks in 1914 to 52 billion marks in 1918. 

In France, as in Britain, the United States, Germany, and the other belligerents of the war, massive war debts made up for enormous gaps between tax revenue and total government spending. The European governments generally chose to monetize much of this debt, rather than raise taxes enough to cover war costs. France, the UK, and Germany, “relied much more heavily on debt and inflation than on taxation to fund government spending.” Consequently, monetary inflation was significant: 

German debt … became monetized and the volume of new currency exploded. German currency in circulation rose 599 percent over the course of the war … Great Britain and France saw an increase of money in circulation of 91 and 386 percent respectively.

These enormous surges in deficits and spending over such a short period are rarely, if ever, seen in connection to social spending. Rather, runaway government spending, to the point of increasing total spending by five or ten fold, is justified on the back of a complex of nationalism, fear, and propaganda claiming that “winning” the war—what constitutes victory is defined by the elites, of course— is worth any expense.

Keep reading

The Long Road to War

If you’re wondering why the United States and Iran have been bitter antagonists for more than a half century, and why they are now at war, you won’t find the answer in today’s media coverage where the conflict is portrayed as a dispute over terrorism and nuclear weapons. To truly understand what underlies this ongoing conflict you need to look back much further to a history that has been forgotten, or ignored.

Known for most of its history as Persia, Iran is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world, with human habitation dating back more than seven millennia.  Despite this foundational history, by the early twentieth century Persia had become a semi-colonial state dominated by British and Russian influence. A rising nationalist movement arose determined to restore the country’s political and economic independence.

The 1953 Coup

A crucial turning point came in 1953. Iranian oil resources had been controlled by the British, who kept most of the vast profits and left little to the Iranians. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a popular reformist who resisted foreign domination, took the bold step of nationalizing his country’s oil industry in 1951. In response, the CIA working with British intelligence organized a successful coup that overthrew his government. Although most citizens of the US and UK have little if any knowledge of this event, the 1953 coup and its consequences remain deeply embedded in Iran’s national memory, even today.

The Shah’s Iron Rule

In Mossadegh’s place, they installed a brutal dictatorial regime headed by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s monarch who ruled the country ruthlessly for the next 26 years. To protect his new-found power, the Shah condemned Mossadegh to three years of solitary confinement, then kept him under house arrest until his death in 1967. In the years following the coup, the Shah and his CIA-trained secret police, Savak, became notorious for their vicious murder, imprisonment and torture of political dissidents. Much of Iranians’ growing hatred of the Shah was focused on the United States, since the Shah was viewed as a puppet of the Americans who put him in power. 

CIA Audacity

The overthrow was considered a resounding success by the CIA, which then became emboldened to undertake a series of regime change operations in other parts of the world. This newfound bravado also influenced America’s decision to undertake its disastrous involvement in the Vietnam War starting in 1954.

A partial list of the countries destabilized and overthrown by the United States following the 1953 coup includes Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973), and later Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). Regime change is now considered an accepted instrument and goal of US foreign policy. Destabilizing and supporting the overthrow of unfriendly governments has become a central function of the CIA and the State Department. 

The Islamic Revolution

Resistance to the Shah and his totalitarian rule grew over the years, and finally culminated with the Islamic Revolution in January 1979. The Shah was driven into exile, eventually settling in Egypt. His government was replaced by a theocracy headed by the previously exiled religious figure Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who became Iran’s Supreme Leader. Although Khomeini was revered among religious conservatives, he was a ruthless tyrant who executed thousands of political prisoners, often hanging his victims in public from construction cranes for everyone to see. Nonetheless, his anti-Americanism resonated with many Iranians as he stirred up further hatred and a desire for vengeance, calling America the “Great Satan.”

The Embassy Takeover

When the Shah was admitted to the United States for cancer treatment in October 1979, Iranians demanded that he be returned to Iran to face prosecution for his crimes. In a dramatic confrontation in Tehran, an angry crowd besieged the US embassy. A group of militants stormed the embassy and took the American diplomats hostage, outraging American leaders. The Iranians insisted on the Shah’s return as a condition for release of the hostages. President Jimmy Carter refused and the hostages remained captive in Iran for more than a year. Carter would spend the rest of his presidency struggling to find a way to free them. His reelection depended on it.

Keep reading

The Normalcy of American Wars

The war in Iran is unlawful and unconstitutional, but in post-World War II America, it is normal. Here is the backstory.

When President Donald Trump decided to begin bombing Iran last June, he did not state a coherent or lawful reason for doing so. His director of national intelligence and his own CIA had publicly told him that Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon and had ceased building one in 2005.

His secretary of state told him that Iran and Israel had threatened each other, but he could not articulate how Iran imminently threatened the United States. Yet, since Israel planned to attack Iran, he wanted the U.S. to help Israel do so. This was not a lawful request as the U.S. has no treaty with Israel and, under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, the legal bases for all offensive wars can only be treaty compliance or prevention of an imminent attack.

When Trump addressed the nation, his helter-skelter rationale argued for replacing Iran’s government, destroying its civilian-use enriched uranium, destroying its ability to build a bomb it wasn’t building, and neutralizing its offensive and defensive weaponry. None of these goals was lawful; nor was attacking a Tehran girls school. There was no mention of an imminent attack on the U.S. or the economic effect of war on the vital international oil super-highway, the Strait of Hormuz.

No one in Trump’s inner circle registered disagreement, except his vice president and his director of counterterrorism. They told him there was no legal or constitutional basis for his war.

They were correct, but Trump had history on his side.

For much of American history, presidents have steadily accumulated the power to wage war while Congress has gradually surrendered the constitutional authority that the Framers explicitly entrusted to it. This transformation has weakened constitutional checks and balances, expanded executive power beyond its constitutional limits, claimed millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, and repeatedly drawn the United States into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with defending America.

The Constitution is remarkably clear on the question of war. Article I grants Congress · not the president · the power to declare war. The president, under Article II, wages war, but only after Congress has authorized it.

James Madison argued that the executive branch is the branch “most interested in war, and most prone to it,” which is precisely why the Constitution deliberately divided the war power.

The Framers believed that no single individual should possess the authority to plunge the nation into armed conflict, yet over the past eight decades, presidents of both political parties have steadily ignored these constitutional limits.

President Harry Truman committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to combat in Korea without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress because he said U.S. troops there constituted a “police action.”

The pattern only intensified during the Vietnam War. Although Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it was based on a fraud and effectively delegated its congressional constitutional responsibility to the president. The result was years of escalating conflict that ultimately claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese while achieving none of its stated objectives.

Keep reading

Cubs Star Pete Crow-Armstrong Shares Bizarre Conspiracy Theory that Babe Ruth ‘Didn’t Exist’

Cubs center fielder Pete Crow-Armstrong seems to have gone all-in for the bizarre conspiracy theory that Baseball legend Babe Ruth is a storybook character and never existed in real life.

The player known as PCA divulged the strange theory while appearing on Kristin Cavallari’s Let’s Be Honest podcast, according to the New York Post.

“This is gonna be crazy,” he admitted as he launched into the topic. “Babe Ruth never existed is one that I like. I heard some pitcher with the Mariners … I think he did some podcast on Zoom where he was going down the rabbit hole with somebody about how Babe Ruth never existed.”

He went on to insist that, “We always talk about how the game is evolving; people might as well have been like underhanding the ball to that guy. And he’s regarded still as one of the best players ever. Might as well dive further into it and be like, well, maybe he just never existed.”

PCA referenced a claim made by one-time Mariners pitcher Tayler Saucedo, who once said that he’d only ever seen one video of Ruth, so he didn’t think the famed player ever really existed.

There is indeed very little film footage of Ruth, who retired from baseball in 1935. But film was far less common of current events and media figures until the 1940s and 50s and later, so the lack of film footage is not at all unusual for news figures of his era.

Still, Ruth’s life and career were well documented by the newspapers of the times, and there are even people still alive today who could have seen him play.

Still, PCA may have been commenting more on Ruth’s legendary sports achievements than his actual existence

Keep reading

Before Hormuz, There Was Suez: What Trump Can Learn From Eisenhower

Oman and Iran appear close to a temporary arrangement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, potentially providing both an exit from the current round of fighting and the foundation for a more durable maritime order. Washington should welcome such an agreement – even if it acknowledges a degree of Iranian authority in administering traffic through the strait – because US interest dictates that open and non-discriminatory passage must be given priority over control.

The emerging formula would reportedly divide responsibility for the shipping lanes. Vessels entering the Persian Gulf would travel through waters administered by Iran, while outbound traffic would pass through an Omani-administered route. Iran would be notified of departing vessels and, while this has not yet been discussed, Tehran appears open to also ensuring that Oman would be notified of incoming traffic. Tehran and Muscat may collect and share fees for specified security and environmental services, although this sensitive issue has not yet been settled. The negotiations remain fluid, and any agreement is reportedly linked to the lifting of the American blockade on Iranian ports.

The arrangement would represent a slight climbdown by Tehran. Iran’s earlier position would have required traffic in both directions to pass through some portion of Iranian waters as well as Omani waters. That would have brought even ships already inside the Persian Gulf under an Iranian-administered transit system. The emerging division of lanes would give Oman primary responsibility for outbound shipping and limit the universe of vessels requiring Iranian approval or coordination.

If successful – and if Washington accepts it – the agreement could help end the present fighting. It remains unclear whether that would restore the previous American-Iranian memorandum of understanding or require a new framework. Nor does it in and of itself move the needle on two other major stumbling blocks: Iran’s demand for a regional ceasefire and Washington’s demands on Iran’s nuclear activities.

The Trump administration will likely receive strong pushback from hawkish elements in Washington and Israel who will complain over the arrangement’s de facto acceptance and legitimization of Iran (and Oman’s) management of the Strait.

But this critique is borne out of a confusion of what the US’s actual core interest in the Strait is: The free and predictable flow of commerce or preventing the ability of a hostile power to assert control.

The Trump administration has increasingly framed the objective as preventing Iran from “controlling” the strait. Yet the central American interest in strategic waterways has historically been less about who administers them than about whether ships can pass through them freely, predictably and without discrimination. Preventing a hostile state from acquiring coercive leverage has generally been a means of preserving passage, not an end that supersedes passage itself.

That hierarchy of interests matters. If reopening the strait requires acknowledging that Iran possesses some capacity to regulate traffic in waters along its coast, Washington should not reject an agreement merely because it fails to preserve the appearance of unqualified American dominance.

The Suez crisis provides the clearest example. In 1956, Egypt’s president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal Company, displacing the British- and French-controlled corporation that had operated one of the world’s most important commercial arteries. Britain and France regarded nationalization not merely as an economic injury but as a strategic humiliation and, together with Israel, invaded Egypt.

President Dwight Eisenhower refused to support them. After rejecting the Anglo-French invasion, Eisenhower’s administration did not make restoration of British or international ownership a condition for accepting Egypt’s continued administration of the canal. Instead, Washington opposed the invasion and pressed for a diplomatic arrangement that would preserve international access. The applicable legal regime emphasized the canal’s free use by ships of all countries on equal terms, while leaving Egypt responsible for administering and defending the waterway.

Egyptian control was not the same as unrestricted Egyptian discretion. The distinction was crucial. Washington could accept Egyptian sovereignty over the canal while insisting that sovereignty be exercised within rules guaranteeing nondiscriminatory passage. The overriding American interest was not which flag flew over the canal authority, but whether the canal remained open under internationally accepted rules.

Keep reading

The Machine That Hunted Palestinians in the 1970s Is Hunting Their Allies Today

Locked up in a cell in Madrid since his arrest on July 10, 2026, the well-known left-wing philanthropist Fergie Chambers is waiting to learn whether Spain will hand him to Washington. According to a US indictment, his crime was moving $7.5 million – money he raised, his family says, after selling his stake in Cox Enterprises and walking away from a quarter-billion-dollar inheritance – some of which funded legal defense for activists and humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza. He has been denied bail and, his supporters say, denied contact with the outside world. Stella Schnabel, his partner, has said he faces “political persecution,” telling the Irish Times: “Fergie is being jailed because he uses his wealth to support Palestine and those suffering genocide in Gaza.” Ghassan Abu-Sittah, the British-Palestinian surgeon who now serves as rector of the University of Glasgow, has said Chambers’ funding was vital to the care of wounded children in Gaza.

Six days later, on July 16, 2026, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood before representatives of more than 60 governments and gave the arrangement a name: a coordinated push against what he called “far-left political terrorism,” with intelligence sharing at its center, backed by border controls he defended as public safety and financial disruption dressed as counterterrorism.

This machinery, of course, is nothing new. In 1969, Switzerland, Britain, France and West Germany were among the founding members of a secret intelligence-liaison forum called the Club de Berne, joined eventually by the United States and Israel. By 1971 a daily communications channel had been set up between the member states, code-named Kilowatt. Aviva Guttmann’s research into declassified Swiss archives shows what became of this secret channel.

Mossad’s European Murder Spree

Mossad’s infamous campaign of assassinations began after the killing of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Munich Olympics by the Palestinian Black September group. Teams of killers were sent across Europe after anyone linked, rightly or wrongly, to the attack. Zwaiter, Hamshari, and Boudia were among them.

Palestinian Wael Zwaiter had no proven link at all to the Munich attack when he was shot dead in the stairwell of his Rome apartment in October 1972 – indeed the PLO’s deputy chief at the time said that he was “energetically” against terrorism. Two months later, a bomb concealed inside Mahmoud Hamshari’s telephone blew up and killed him in his Paris apartment; the evidence for his personal involvement, historians now note, came almost entirely from Mossad’s own dubious assessments. The following June, Mohammed Boudia – an Algerian theater director whom Western intelligence cables described as an active militant – was blown up in his car, an assassination Le Monde reported the same day, June 29, 1973, while openly questioning what French authorities had known.

Whether the three men were guilty of wrongdoing or not – and it seems two of them were probably innocent – none were ever charged, tried, or given the chance to answer the allegations against them. They were killed on the strength of intelligence assessments that were, by the researchers’ own account, sometimes wrong and never tested in open court. These assassinations were state-sanctioned murder – and in each case, the assassins were aided and abetted directly by Western intelligence.

These three were not the only ones. Mossad’s Operation Wrath of God consisted of 10 missions in total, eight of them carried out in Europe, most using intelligence its Kilowatt partners supplied. None of the men killed were ever tried in a court. They were found, and then killed.

A continent turned into a hunting ground, with no right of appeal.

According to Aviva Guttmann, Kilowatt was set up to fix a gap: Mossad needed European intelligence to identify, track, and locate its targets in the first place. So in October 1971, Israel suggested opening a dedicated encrypted channel to share intelligence on Palestinian activity in Europe, and Western agencies agreed. The arrangement ran both ways. Mossad fed disinformation to its European partners about its own operations, leading French, Italian and other states to dismiss assassinations on their own soil as unsolved rather than face the reality of what an allied service had done in their backyards.

In a display of their political bias, Western agencies, however, continued to supply intelligence to Mossad long after press reporting had made clear exactly who was behind the killings. As Guttmann says, the assassination campaign would likely not have been possible without their continued cooperation.

Guttmann’s own research records that Golda Meir’s instruction remained that no innocent bystanders were to be hurt – the explosive charge for each hit calibrated carefully enough that a target could be killed while the blast stayed contained to his room. Compare that caution to Palestine today, where a single strike on Salah Shehade’s Gaza City home in 2002 killed at least 11 civilians alongside him, including eight children – a ratio of collateral death that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s, when the target was living on a street in Rome or Paris.

Keep reading

UK: Historic pub accused of ‘misogyny’ as influencers complain of ‘sickening’ 200-year-old name

Ahistoric pub has been branded misogynistic as American influencers complain of its “sickening” 200-year-old name.

The Henry VIII pub sits opposite Hever Castle, the childhood home of Anne Boleyn, and has stood proudly in the heart of the Kent village for five centuries.

After going viral on social media, Londoners looking to have their fill of English history now run rampant through the manicured castle grounds, seeking out the perfect Instagram spot outside the Big Smoke.

Tourists’ gaze will often fall upon the country pub opposite the attraction, whose name some visitors blame on the “patriarchy”.

Deirdre Rae, an American self-acclaimed life coach who moved to London, was one of the first to rage over the pub’s name.

After going viral on social media, Londoners looking to have their fill of English history now run rampant through the manicured castle grounds, seeking out the perfect Instagram spot outside the Big Smoke.

Tourists’ gaze will often fall upon the country pub opposite the attraction, whose name some visitors blame on the “patriarchy”.

Deirdre Rae, an American self-acclaimed life coach who moved to London, was one of the first to rage over the pub’s name.

“Imagine being Anne Boleyn and finding out people thought it was a good idea to open a pub dedicated to the man who beheaded you right in front of your childhood home,” she said.

“I’m just finding out about this and I’m sickened by the disrespect,” one said, while others cried out for a petition to change the “disrespectful as f**k” name. Some proposed the “Anne Bole Inn”.

“It’s how they’ve always treated women, nothing changes if nothing changes,” another added.

“It’s ridiculous to say our pub’s misogynistic,” one local told Britain’s News Channel.

“It’s history. That’s what it is. If influencers out here think they know better than us, they have another thing coming.”

But Ms Rae’s claim was met with some mocking responses as others lamented the “deeply-ingrained misogyny” pervading through British history.

“When you get the chance to ask her, let me know,” one ridiculed, while another mused that the beheaded Queen was unlikely to find out.

Others condemned her “simplistic analysis”, while insisting the story was far more complicated than at first glance.

“I don’t think the pub’s name is intended as misogynistic or offensive to Anne, who was executed in 1536,” royal historian Gareth Russell told the People’s Channel.

“I’m not sure renaming it as ‘The Anne Bole Inn’ has quite the sense of gravitas you might want for honouring a Queen of England…

“But that being said, I’ve always thought it was an odd choice to name the pub opposite her childhood home after the husband who signed her death warrant,” he added.

The Henry VIII was named as such as far back as 1848, although the site has long-served as a boozer for the locals and dates all the way back to the 1500s.

The second Queen Consort to Henry VIII was executed for treason in 1536 following a three-year reign alongside the King.

She spent her early youth in Hever Castle after her father inherited the estate in 1505. The King’s fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, eventually took over ownership of the property as part of the couple’s annulment settlement.

The pub at that time was renamed to the “Bull and Butcher”, a pun on “Boleyn Butcher”, following her beheading, when the inn was still a part of the castle’s estate.

However, with the site serving as a popular tourist attraction, Hever Castle has embraced the Tudor times, with an extensive annual programme including jousting tournaments and archery displays.

Keep reading

Rigging Elections Has Been Around for Thousands of Years

Rigging elections have been a passtime for thousands of years. Even Joseph Stalin commented on that practice famously saying its the people who count the votes decide everything, not the people who vote. That is so true and that rose to the surface during the Scottish Referendum. When the ethnic Russians of Crimea voted to separate from the mother-land of ethnic cleansing Ukraine with its Neonazi agenda, because the EU did not like the outcome they claimed Russia rigged the vote. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution declaring it invalid under pressure. They pulled the same stunt in Romania declaring the election invalid. The press routinely publishes fake polls to deliberately try to swing elections. The historical record for thousands of years is one continuous Greek tragedy when it comes to rigged elections.

In 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune was so certain that New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey would defeat President Harry S. Truman that they ran the now-infamous front-page headline “Dewey Defeats Truman.” This is considered one of the most legendary blunders in American journalism.

Keep reading

All Socialists are Ignorant… But Some are More Ignorant Than Others

n The Law, published in 1850, Frédéric Bastiat made a case against “legal plunder,” the perversion of the law to violate liberty and property rights. Nearly 100 years later in The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek warned that socialists, whatever their intentions, lacked the knowledge to command the economy.

Hayek also explained how the worst always get on top in socialist regimes, and after the German National Socialists’ Anschluss in 1938, he did not return to his native Austria. In 1983, President Reagan brought Hayek to the White House, and in 1991 President George H.W. Bush awarded Hayek the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman authored Capitalism and Freedom and became a national figure with the “Free to Choose” series on PBS. Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell also upheld the virtues of the market over government command of the economy. Those now proudly calling themselves “democratic socialists” seem unaware of these authors and show little if any inclination to engage in debate.

The surging socialists are even more unaware of works that show socialism as it actually existed under its most enthusiastic promoters. Consider, for example, the experience of Malcolm Muggeridge. His magisterial Chronicles of Wasted Time (1972) devotes a chapter to “A Socialist Upbringing.” The Muggeridge household jostled with politicians, scholars, and clergy dedicated to the cause, along with Labor Party stalwarts such as Ramsey MacDonald and Fabian socialists Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Their collective efforts aimed to benefit “the workers,” who were never present at any of their events.

“A worker is someone for whom everything is done as long as he keeps off stage,” Muggeridge noted, and “the whole notion of a working class with a specific political or cultural, or even spiritual role qua working class is a fantasy invented by guilt-stricken renegade proletarians like D.H. Lawrence, or by renegade bourgeoisie on the run like William Morris or, for that matter, Marx and Engels themselves, or just by a sociologist looking for a subject and a job.”

After stints teaching in India and Egypt, Muggeridge wound up in the first “workers’ state,” the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), as the Moscow correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. Correspondents ran contests to see who could pass off the most fatuous story to the regime’s foreign admirers. Muggeridge convinced Lord Marley that the long lines for everything were intended to give zealous workers a chance to rest. When a British lawyer asked if the Soviets practiced habeas corpus, A.T. Cholerton of the Daily Telegraph told him they strictly adhered to habeas cadaver.

Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture claimed more than a million victims in Ukraine, but Walter Duranty of the New York Times contended that there was no forced famine there. Muggeridge decided to see for himself. “This particular famine was planned and deliberate, not due to any natural catastrophe like failure of rain, or cyclone, or flooding,” he wrote. “There is not only a famine but a state of war, a military occupation… Peasants with their hands tied behind their back being loaded into cattle-trucks at gunpoint.” After breaking this story, Muggeridge was widely vilified while Duranty’s mendacious reports won a Pulitzer Prize.

In August, 1939, Stalin signed a pact with Hitler’s Germany. “I had been expecting such a development,” Muggeridge wrote, “never losing an opportunity to say that Bolshevism and National Socialism were the same thing, except that one was a Slav version and the other Teutonic.” Margarete Buber-Neumann described that reality in Under Two Dictators: Prisoner of Stalin and Hitler.

Keep reading

George Washington Waged a War of Attrition

George Washington did lose more battles than he won early on losing New York was his worst. Nevertheless, his overall record shows he understood that winning the war mattered more than winning every battle. He was seriously outnumbered. Once he understood that all he had to do was NOT lose!  He waged a war of attrition. He understood that maintaining a major force on foreign soil is a major logistical disadvantage. I have warned, that Iran is waging a war of attrition.

Washington may not have been formally educated in a university, that did not mean he was unread. He apparently read Roman history intensely. He was a brilliant strategist. His strength was in seeing the “big picture” and maintaining the army’s very existence. He embraced a “Fabian Strategy” of avoiding large, decisive battles that could destroy his army, instead choosing to fight smaller engagements and retreat when necessary to preserve his forces.

The Fabian Strategy was developed by Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, a Roman statesman and general, during the Second Punic War (218-201BC). Fabius was appointed as dictator of the Roman Republic in 217BC, following devastating military defeats by the Carthaginian general Hannibal. To counter Hannibal’s superior military skill and strength, Fabius devised a new approach.

His core tactic was to refuse to engage Hannibal’s army in a major, decisive battle, as Hannibal had proven superior in such confrontations. Instead, Fabius employed a strategy of harassment and attrition. He kept the Roman army close to Hannibal’s forces, shadowing their movements while sending out smaller detachments to attack foraging parties and disrupt supply lines. This was what Washington adopted.

Fabian also ordered residents in the path of the Carthaginian army to burn their crops and take refuge in fortified towns, denying Hannibal the resources his army needed. This cautious approach allowed Rome time to recover its strength. It was initially unpopular with the Roman public, who saw it as cowardly, but after another Roman army was annihilated at the Battle of Cannae in 216BC, the value of his strategy was recognized, and it was adopted again.

Keep reading