WAR WITH THE ARABS.
At the beginning of 1885 Iran, supported by their brothers in Iraq and Syria, had decided the time was right to launch a full scale offensive in Mexico to bring that country into the Arab world. All of the Arab nations had small, poorly equip but surprisingly well trained regular armies. Each nation also possessed a large body of poorly trained but fanatical religious fundamentalists known as Republican Guards. The Iranian group had been for many years the driving force in the endless terrorist operations in Mexico. The Arab strategy until now had been to launch repeated small scale attacks to wear down UNION resolve thereby causing public opinion in the UNION to lose the will to continue the fight. After many years it was clear this approach had failed so the new strategy was to launch a full scale nationwide assault that would encourage the Mexican people to rise up against the UNION occupiers.
It was also decided that the Iranian regular army would spearhead the operations. For years that body had requested involvement in action in Mexico but had always been ignored in favour of the Guards. The army generals were now told they could have their chance. The army carefully planned the assaults and included contingents of the Syrian and Iraqi armies to give the required numbers. All assaults would be followed up by large masses of Guards however the strategy was to avoid any pitched battles with UNION troops given their overwhelming superiority in firepower.
On 21 March 1885 the invasion began with 27 small battalions of regular soldiers crossing the border along its full length. Each battalion was followed by a large force of Guards and had a town or village as its objective whilst avoiding the six heavily fortified UNION army outposts scattered in the border region, each of which contained an artillery battery and three infantry companies. Over the next few days reports flowed into UNION command from many places as the Iranians seized their objectives. Early on 25 March just as orders were being issued for a UNION response, every single UNION outpost came under heavy sniper fire from all sides in a well coordinated series of assaults. It was clear to UNION command this was far more than just another terrorist attack.
With over half the UNION forces in Mexico pinned down in six different outposts it was clear that task forces would need to be organised to sweep though the border region relieving each outpost and reoccupying the captured towns and villages. The three infantry battalions available in Mexico City , 49th, 52nd and 60th, were deemed sufficient to carry out this task and were set in motion on the morning of 30 March each taking a different area of operations. Over the next week the UNION battalions moved towards the border region under frequent sniper fire. During that week every UNION outpost suffered at least one mass assault by fanatical Republican Guards. Although all outposts were able to repel these attacks it was clear they were facing a numerous and determined enemy and relief was needed sooner rather than later. UNION reinforcements were needed.
On 2nd April the 19th UNION infantry brigade entrained at Fort Bridger for Mexico with instructions to move swiftly towards the border area and relive the UNION outposts. On the morning of 4th April the UNION 52nd infantry battalion moving into the border region marched into a well organised Iranian regular army ambush. By the end of three hours fierce fighting the battalion had suffered 50% casualties and the ambushers had successfully disengaged with minimal losses. On the very next day about 20 miles south west the same thing happened to 60th infantry battalion although with only 30% casualties. After these disasters, the three battalions were ordered to withdraw to the railway for a return to Mexico City it being clear that the Arab forces were too strong for single battalions to fight successfully.
On 7th April 18th infantry brigade was also ordered to Mexico from Fort Bridger. UNION strategy would now be to use full brigade sized formations to sweep through the invaded areas. Next day, as 19th brigade was nearing the first UNION outpost to be relived, communication was lost with the outpost. About two hours later the leading elements of the brigade entered the outpost to find it had fallen. The area around the outpost was strewn with dead Arabs while inside the UNION garrison was found wiped out. However about 30 UNION soldiers were found together in a line clearly shot by some form of firing squad. Additionally each man had been mutilated. After securing the compound the brigade started a forced march to the other outposts.
Four of the remaining outposts were successfully relieved by 19th brigade but the last, reached on 18th April, was found to have already fallen to the Iranians. Once again it was clear that a number of UNION soldiers had been captured and then executed and mutilated. Around this time the 18th brigade had reached the first Mexican town targeted for recapture. The Iranians had clearly withdrawn as the UNION forces approached. However a scene of carnage was discovered as the UNION troops moved through the town. It seemed that most of the population had been massacred in the town square. A few survivors were found hiding who described how the Iranians had brought all the people together and demanded they take up arms against the UNION and their own government. When the people refused the Revolutionary Guards started firing into the crowd killing as many as they could as people fled in panic. It was only the approach of UNION troops that stopped the massacre.
As UNION troops advanced throughout the border region the same scenes greeted them in every town and village. In each case the Iranians had fallen back towards the border leaving massacred civilian populations. In those places with either the usual nominal Mexican army or police forces, the survivors of the garrisons had been executed and mutilated. The Iranians and their allies had found that far from being interested in revolution the Mexicans had been universally supportive of their government and the UNION and the benefits that came to them from being allies of the UNION.
In Tehran and the other Arab capitals there was much rejoicing . Although their crusade had failed they were very happy with their military victories over the hated UNION troops. The Iranian soldiers and Guards were welcomed back as they streamed back over the border loaded with vast quantities of looted goods from Mexican towns. As a precaution against UNION retaliation, the border regions of Iran were cleared of civilians and troops to minimise the impact of the expected UNION artillery bombardments while the Arab leaders congratulated themselves and discussed their next adventure.
As UNION forces took up positions near the Iranian border the UNION government considered what form of retaliation should be meted out to Iran. After absorbing all the reports of Iranian massacres of both UNION troops and Mexican civilians they decided that Iran should be wiped off the face of Tian.
This reads like a fine campaign, Tony, though I found the mutilations thing and the 'wipe off the face of Tian' a bit disturbing. Remember that, historically, the United States was not above a few massacres and mutilations themselves, as the people of the Philippines and Haiti (just two examples) were to discover.
ReplyDeleteNow, suppose the massacre and mutilations had been carried out against official policy, and in defiance of orders. Fanatical types are apt to go in for excesses as we have discovered in Syria (ISIS) and Libya (the Slave Markets of Tripoli), and Palestine. But a government seeking to persuade, rather than coerce, is not likely to resort to such methods. On the other hand, the atrocities having been carried out, the Iranian government might feel too prideful to offer any kind of apology or redress.
In such a case, the opposing governments might well find recourse to invasion in order to obtain in some material way that redress. 'Wiping out' an entire nation strikes me that, in retaliation for a great crime, one commits a far greater. A wrong plus a greater wrong do not make a right.
Please forgive me if what I have said here you find upsetting or offensive. In this milieu, normally I would let it go by, but today for some reason I felt too strongly about it to let it go. As a war gamer, I really am a pacifist at heart.
Regards (really),
Ion
Ion. Thanks for the comment. I very much welcome your views. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I am very happy for you to express it here. Indeed I welcome views that are at odds with mine. I believe that is one way how we can learn. What the US did to the native American Indians is a good example of historic abuses as are the instances you mention. Although I am writing this stuff today I am trying to write a "history" of another era where modern sentiments are far less common or even absent. As you well know in the 1800's the US government and many others saw the wiping out of the Indians as the only viable solution. The British view of the Zulu's was similar. That does not make it right then or now but it seemed like a good idea at the time and it is our history now for good or bad. I try to make my "history" as interesting as possible while being objective as to the failings of all sides. As I have got you to be "disturbed" by my narrative can I be forgiven for thinking I have succeeded ????? Lastly I find your comment that as a war gamer you are a pacifist at heart exceedingly interesting. I understand that in the sense that you find the war game more like a mental challenge like chess for example rather than a recreation of the dreadful blood bath that most battles actually were. In that I think that is actually quite normal, after all who would want to reenact all that blood and gore just for the sake of it. That said, my Imagi-Nations writings are more of a history than a war game scenario although they, like most other histories, do provide reenactment opportunities. I hope I have explained myself adequately and your opinion of me remains favorable. I take no offense what so ever with your comments, I love this sort of discussion, please keep challenging me. Regards
ReplyDeleteTony -
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. What you have to say is reasoned and reasonable. Wars, in my view, really are failures of policy (rather than, as von Clausewitz observed, 'a continuation of policy by other means'). Yet they are interesting, and make good stories. Having said my piece, though, I was inclined, whatever your response, to leave it there. No doubt other interesting topics of discussion will emerge later on.
I still think, by the way, that your world - and your army - has a huge potential for war games, embedded within the historical narrative.
Cheers,
Ion
Ion.. Interesting observation about von Clausewitz. In fact I totally agree with your view. War is most definitely the result of a failure in policy rather than a continuation of policy. I am glad that you find my history of the UNION interesting. It has always been my intention to provide war gaming opportunities within the narrative. I very much look forward to future topics for discussion. Regards Tony
ReplyDelete