Archive for January, 2009

American “Global” Empire

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

>
>John Lewis Gaddis in “Now we Know” (a survey of the Cold War) also uses
>this language, writing about a Soviet garrison-state empire vs an
>American cooperative “empire.” The fact that we won the Cold War, but
>are still deeply involved in the security structures of a global
>American committment, says a lot about a) inertia and b) how beneficial
>to everyone, not just us, this transnational system of cooperation has
>become.
>
>Timothy L. Francis
>Historian
>Naval Historical Center
>email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
>voice: (202) 433-6802
>
Hope I’m not killing a horse to kick, but I think there something to be said
in favor of precision in basic terms. I know both Lundestadt’s and Gaddis’
work and was thinking of Gaddis specifically when I made my post the other
day. Frankly I think the term “cooperative empire” is an oxymoron. The
reason nations throughout history have created empires is so they didn’t
have to cooperate. The Romans didn’t cooperate with the Gauls, they gave
them orders. If one was going to talk about an American “empire” in Central
America for the past century, I would be willing to listen. But surely there
must be a difference between coalition and empire. The fact that this web of
relationships between industrial nations continues despite the demise of the
Evil Empire underscores the point. We are now, as we have done in the past,
pursuing basic interests that we have always shared. If there comes a point
when those interests no longer coincide, the coalition will founder – just
as they have countless times in the past. There is something else to
consider. “Empire” has a negative tone in our world. Centuries ago gaining
an empire might get a king or queen the informal title of “The Great.”
Presently imperialism is very much out of fashion. The Cold War revisionists
that threw around terms of “new imperialism” when describing the US policy
after 1945 clearly meant it as a condemnnation or the US or as a means of
equating American and Soviet policy. (Remember “moral equivalency?”) If one
doesn’t like the term the “Free World” to describe the winners of the Cold
War, how about the “industrial democracies.” Whatever term one choses, it
describes a coalition, an alliance of a sort, not an empire.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

Falkland Islands war officer in the news

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Astiz is a fascinating, if repugnant, example of the (inter-)national and
domestic security dilemma … especially as we see the distinction
between “military” and “domestic” becoming blurred by terrorism,
drugs, etc. The film “Clear and Present Danger” raised some profound
questions.

The Argentine junta’s pre-emptive extermination of leftist/intellectual
terrorism was entirely effective, to the point that Argentina was so
stable that it was becoming an effective *ally* in the effort to halt
Soviet-backed revolution/terrorism in the Western hemisphere.

However, the junta had so lost touch with (political) reality … in
its own total control environment … that it actually thought it
could take on Great Britain, without undue NATO interference. (The
parallel to Saddam Hussein’s arrogance/over-aggression is striking,
but unfortunately SH is not as geopolitically convenient/accountable
… and is far more dangerous, given his immediate sources of mass
murder technology.) It had also allowed monsters like Astiz to spawn.

The Argentine Army and Navy were sullied by their involvement in
suppression and their poor showing in the Falklands/Malvinas war.
The A. Air Force shown brightly for the opposite on both count.

A government must make a choice whether or not to combine security
forces or separate them. Stalin could repudiate and in-turn-purge
Yezhov and the NKVD hierarchy, after the great purges, at will, in
part because they were a separate entity … enabling his own
continued survival. Hitler was not personally capable of doing so
to his own lieutenants: he was much more loyal/”human” … to those
*near* him … as the survival of his Rumanian Jewish cook attested.

Speaking generally, should … or can …
… law enforcement agencies be kept separate from
the investigation and apprehension of political activity which *is*
… in the true sense … criminal in intent and consequences? By
the same token, can national security agencies be kept separate from
identifying/apprehending domestic threats to and/or corruption of
national security/survival?

The Defense Intelligence Agency was involved in counter-treason
operations during the Vietnam War … as the distinction between
political and military warfare blurred both in VN and at home.

In any case, a *junta* has no legitimacy … UNLESS it is dedicated
to the restoration … Reconstitution … of humane, democratic,
ethical society … truth and justice. … and *mutual* loyalty and
gratitude? The only legitimacy salvaged by Franco’s regime was his
political last will and testament … concession … of democracy
to King Juan Carlos.

If Astiz gave his interview to politically threaten, he has violated his
political amnesty and should now be prosecuted. (Anyone who murders
young women is unworthy of survival, anyway. Motherhood “solves”
female political agitation/restlessness and women are a people’s most
basic “natural resource.”) In any case, having embarrassed the junta,
aroused the left, and jeopardized the political truce/stability, I
suspect Astiz’ life will soon end in any number of ways.

Lou Coatney

USS Nautilus (SS 168) war patrol reports

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

Last year a very diligent Mahan list member transcribed five exciting
WW2 patrol reports from USS Nautilus (SS 168). I compiled his text into
a Word document of about 300K, roughly 70 pages in hard copy depending
on font size. E-mail me if you would like this file. My apologies for
not recalling the name of the member who did all the work!

more about Astiz

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

[In the 1970s Astiz would have been a lieutenant in the Argentine
marines = “captain” in most land services. The junta’s standard method
for “disappearances” was to drug the captives and throw them out of
military transport aircraft over the Atlantic.]

Bragging about past lands Argentine in hot water

Copyright © 1998 Nando.net Copyright © 1998 Reuters

BUENOS AIRES (January 16, 1998 07:08 a.m. EST) – The Argentine Navy on
Thursday detained one of the most notorious members of the military
death squads of the 1970s for 60 days for threatening journalists and
politicians in a magazine interview.

The state news agency Telam said retired Navy Capt. Alfredo Astiz was
taken to serve out his time in military barracks in the town of Azul in
Buenos Aires province.

The punishment was ordered by President Carlos Menem after Astiz said in
an interview with Tres Puntos magazine that he was tired of being
hounded by the media for his part in the 1976-1983 “dirty war” against
suspected leftists.

“I’m telling you, don’t keep on pushing us into a corner, because I
don’t know how we’re going to respond. You’re playing with fire,” Astiz
said, breaking years of silence.

“Because, do you know what? I’m technically the best trained man in this
country to kill a politician or a journalist,” said Astiz, who is still
subject to military discipline despite his retirement.

In an unusual display of unity, the government, opposition and human
rights groups all expressed outrage.

Interior Minister Carlos Corach described Astiz’s comments as
“frightful” and said the government would determine if they violated any
criminal laws.

Buenos Aires City Council declared Astiz persona non grata, and
congressmen called for his naval pension to be canceled.

Astiz, now in his mid-40s, was forced to retire from the Navy in 1996
after years of diplomatic pressure from France. A French court sentenced
him in absentia to life imprisonment for the murder of nuns Leonie
Duquet and Alice Domon in 1977.

Sweden also wants to try him for the 1977 disappearance of Swedish teen
Dagmar Hagelin. Like the French nuns, she is believed to have been
killed at the infamous Navy School of Mechanics torture center.

In the interview, Astiz defended the dirty war as the only way to combat
subversion. He described killing guerrillas in shootouts, but denied
kidnapping Hagelin or taking part in torture.

“I never tortured anyone. Would I have tortured if they had ordered me
to? Yes, of course I would,” he said. “I might have made some small
mistakes, but in the big things I don’t repent of anything.”

-= END OF MESSAGE =-

Falkland Islands war officer in the news

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

[Marine LCdr Astiz commanded the Argentine unit on S Georgia Island in
the 1982 Falkland Islands War. (Argentine marine officers use naval
ranks.) The Argentine junta may have stationed him there to make him a
national hero: a silk purse from a sow’s ear. The British knew his past
but released him as a military POW.]

Former officer unapologetic for acts during Argentina’s Dirty War

Copyright © 1998 Nando.net Copyright © 1998 The Associated Press

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (January 15, 1998 6:25 p.m. EST
http://www.nando.net) — A notorious former Navy commander said he is
unrepentant for his role in pursuing leftists — thousands of whom were
killed — during Argentina’s “Dirty War” on political dissidents, a
magazine reported Thursday.

Navy Cmdr. Alfredo Astiz, who has been accused of contributing to the
deaths of two French nuns and an Argentine-Swedish teen-ager, became a
symbol of repression during the military dictatorship that ruled
Argentina after a 1976 coup until 1983.

“I am not sorry for anything,” Astiz was quoted as saying in his first
interview, given to the weekly center-left political magazine
Trespuntos.

“The navy taught me to destroy, to plant bombs, to infiltrate and to
kill,” he said.

Astiz, 47, admitted in the interview that political prisoners were
summarily executed during the Dirty War.

He noted that leftist guerrillas captured by security forces in 1973 had
been pardoned and freed. “We couldn’t risk that happening again,” he
said. “There was no other way.”

In 1983, a government commission determined that approximately 9,000
people were arrested or kidnapped and subsequently disappeared during
the Dirty War.

Asked how many he had killed personally, Astiz replied, “Never ask a
military officer that question.” He denied that he tortured prisoners
“because it wasn’t my job, but I would have done so if had been ordered
to do so.”

Convicted and sentenced to life in prison in absentia by a French court
in the 1977 murders of nuns Alice Domon and Leonie Duquet, Astiz retired
from the navy in 1996 amid French government pressure.

Astiz was among lower- and middle-ranking officers granted immunity from
prosecution in 1987 for human rights abuses during the Dirty War.

Half a dozen high-ranking officers, including two former presidents,
were convicted of murder and torture in 1983 and were sentenced to
prison. President Carlos Menem pardoned them in 1990.

Interior Minister Carlos Corach described the comments attributed to
Astiz as “terrifying” and said he would ask Argentina’s attorney general
to determine whether charges could be brought based on the interview.

Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Carlos Marron ordered Astiz confined to a naval
base for 60 days. Authorities described it as a “disciplinary measure”
after Menem ordered “maximum sanctions” imposed on Astiz.

Astiz denied that he participated in the kidnapping of Argentine-Swedish
teen-ager Dagmar Hagelin, who vanished in 1977. He said he knew who was
responsible, but declined to identify the person.

The girl’s father, Ragnar Hagelin, told a radio station that he was
“amazed” by those comments. “Astiz is a coward, a liar and is crazy
because he has been rejected by society,” he said in a telephone call
from Sweden.

Astiz has been accosted several times in public by individuals who have
insulted him and criticized his role during the dictatorship.

In the magazine interview, Astiz described Army Chief of Staff Martin
Balsa as a “cretin” for having said publicly that military officers
should have refused to follow illegal orders to torture and kill.

“The armed forces couldn’t exist if they did that,” he said.

By WILLIAM HEATH, The Associated Press

American “Global” Empire

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

I believe the reason many analysts and historians have started using the
term “American Empire” goes back to an article by the Norwegian
historian Geir Lundestadt, called (to paraphrase) “American Global
Power: An Empire by Invitation.” His point was that the Americans in
the Cold War were essentially invited by western Europe and others to
lead security alliances rather than creating an old-fashioned imperial
empire by force. That is what the Soviet Union did in the east, for
example.

John Lewis Gaddis in “Now we Know” (a survey of the Cold War) also uses
this language, writing about a Soviet garrison-state empire vs an
American cooperative “empire.” The fact that we won the Cold War, but
are still deeply involved in the security structures of a global
American committment, says a lot about a) inertia and b) how beneficial
to everyone, not just us, this transnational system of cooperation has
become.

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinion, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

> ———-
> From: TMOliver[SMTP:swrctmo@iamerica.net]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 1998 11:55 AM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Re: American “Global” Empire
>
>Unlike the glory and grandeur days of the Empire ‘Pon Which The Sun
>Never Set, ‘Merkinland has seemed insecure and a bit uncomfortable with
>the idea of “going it alone.” Sound reasons exist for such an
>attitude.
>
>To those who would ascribe the whole deal to “selling more Fords”, we
>must have done a better job (bad as we seemed to do) at the military
>end, because we sure didn’t make our quota when it came to
>economic/commercial dominance.

American “Global” Empire

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

>I noticed in the January 19, 1998 issue of *The New Republic* an article
>by Eliot Cohen. He basically says that the Pentagon, and the “American
>people,” should get used to the fact that “the United States needs an
>imperial strategy. … that is, in fact, what the United States at the
>end of the twentieth century is—a global empire.” And we need a
>revamping of the entire defense structure to deal with the problems of
>this situation, not the problems of “two hypothetical major theater
>wars.”
>
>An interesting idea. Do we have any Brits out there who’d care to
>comment?
>
>Timothy L. Francis
>Historian
>Naval Historical Center
>email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
>voice: (202) 433-6802
>
>The above remarks are my opinion, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
>Department of Defense
>
I don’t doubt that the US need a coherent foreign policy. Yet I have never
liked the term “empire” to describe the US position in the world since WWII.
The essence of “empire” is force and control. During the days of the
European empires the Brits RAN India, the French RAN Indochina etc. The
Russians COMPELLED their vassels in Eastern Europe to do what was right and
proper. We have had influence because of money and military power. But for
every time we have gotten our way it’s been as the result of cajoling,
argument, negotiation and overall confusion. Think how often our closest
allies have told us to “stuff it.” (Hell, they’re doing it right now
concerning Iraq.) The US has been the leader of a coalition for fifty years,
but the members of the club have certainly had minds of their own. We
couldn’t even tell obvious clients like Vietnam what to do. If you want to
call the industrial democracies of today part of the American Empire then I
suggest we come up with a new word to describe the relationship between, for
instance, London and a quarter of the world one hundred years ago.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

part 1

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

The following is taken from Edwyn Gray’s _Submarine Warriors_ (New
York: Bantam Books, 1990 ISBN 0-553-28545-9). Mr. Gray provides an
excellent overview of submarine history from its earliest connotations
through both the First and Second World Wars. The following deals with
a non-traditional role for a submarine — fighting pirates. As always,
questions and comments are welcome. This book is available in paperback
(mine is a used copy) and I recommend it highly.

Edward Wittenberg
ewitten507@aol.com

p.s. For those of you who are interested, I’ve have found a job (much
sooner than I expected) in middle grades social studies and begin work
on the January 20th. Ed.

LIEUTENANT FREDERICK J. C. HALAHAN, RN

“The go-under-water war junk.”

Unlike their more colourful forebears who roamed the Spanish
Main in well-gunned galleons and ravaged the Barbary Coast with
fast-oared galleys, the latter-day pirates of the China Seas were
frequently forced to hijack their victims because they had no vessels of
their own. With little knowledge of seamanship, they would have been
incapable of sailing a ship even had they possessed one. The traditional
pirate vessel was, in fact, something of a rarity in Chinese waters and
its absence made the task of the authorities charged with suppressing
the activities of these sea brigands that much more difficult.

Like modern political terrorists, their methods were brutally
simple. Having selected a promising target, the pirates, disguised as
coolies, with weapons hidden in their bed-rolls or inside their clothing,
would board the chosen ship as deck passengers at a busy port such as
Shanghai or Amoy, confident that the milling mob on the quayside would
make their detection difficult. Once at sea, in response to a
pre-arranged signal from their leader-often a well-dressed businessman
travelling first-class–they would seize the vessel, overwhelm and
sometimes murder the European officers, and take the hijacked ship to a
desolate bay where they could loot the cargo and plunder the
passenger’s valuables without disturbance. On occasion hostages would
be taken for ransom. Sometimes the ship itself would be destroyed, but
usually both ship and passengers would be released unharmed once the
pirates had removed everything of value. It was a lucrative trade with
only a minimum of risk for those involved. And there was no dearth of
eager volunteers for these cut-throat expeditions.

Less adventurous criminals organized protection rackets and
threatened action against ships whose owners refused to pay them for
the guarantee of a safe passage. The demand notes, written in pidgeon
English, were deadly in intention but frequently hilarious in style:

“To the Hang Lee’s illustrious junk to peruse. We have to write
this few words to you and beg lend us $10,000 in foreign banknotes as
protection expenses and to deliver to our Tong at an early date before
starting otherwise torpedo would be used to fight against your junk,
and don’t blame on us for no liberality as well—with compliments.”

Others, like this warning sent to a purser working for Butterfield
and Swire, were more chilling: “We understand your company frequently
ships silver dollars from Shanghai to Hankow. You are requested to let
us know how much is on the way and other particulars of shipment,
such as the name of the steamer, port of shipment, date of departure,
amount of shipment, and probable date of arrival. If you found of
having withheld information on purpose we will mete out proper
treatments to you and you must not say you are not forewarned …. We
have placed the word ‘Death’ before us. If there be any damage to us
and if there is no reply and ff you are indiscreet about the matter we
shall shoot to kill.”

Thousands of pirates also operated on the great rivers of
mainland China, and the more important commercial waterways, such as
the Yangtse, were policed by a multi-national force of gunboats flying a
variety of flags, although the majority of the vessels belonged to either
Britain, the United States or Japan–Britain taking the lion’s share of
the responsibility with a fleet that out-numbered all the other gunboats
added together. But it was impossible to protect every stretch of open
water or to probe each island and creek and, despite the intervention of
these small but well-armed warships, the waterfront gangs carried on
their murderous trade with little hindrance from the authorities.

Strictly speaking, the river pirates of China should be described
as bandits for, under International Law, an act of piracy can only take
place on the “open sea”–a term applicable solely to salt water. Thus
raiders and hijackers operating on fresh-water rivers, however piratical
their methods and intentions, are not, in the strict legal meaning of the
word, pirates. So far as their victims are concerned it is a somewhat
academic distinction!

The unsettled political situation that followed the death of Sun
Yat-sen in 1925 and the subsequent opening of Chiang Kai-shek’s
offensive against the northern war-lords and the Communist forces
under Mao Tse-tung provided a perfect scenario for the growing power
of the pirates, whether they plied their trade along the Yangtse and its
tributaries or on the open waters of the South China Sea. And incidents
were reported almost daily by the English-language newspapers in Hong
Kong and Shanghai.

In August, 1927, the steamship Man On was stopped by the
Chinese Navy’s gunboat Kong Ko in the lower reaches of the Pearl River.
A party of uniformed seamen came aboard and demanded the right to
inspect the vessel’s armoury–a locked case containing rifles, pistols and
ammunition situated in the chart-house. But when the key was produced
the naval boarding-party disclosed their true colours by promptly
seizing the guns and turning them on the Man On’s crew. Emulating the
buccaneers of the eighteenth century, the gunboat’s seamen had
apparently mutinied against the constraints of naval discipline, murdered
their officers and seized the little paddle-powered warship with the
intention of earning their fortunes from piracy. The steamer was taken
under the lee of a nearby island and, after off-loading the cargo and
seizing the Master and twenty-four passengers for ransom, the riverine
pirates allowed the vessel to continue on its way. A few days later the
would-be pirates were ambushed by government forces and the gunboat
was recaptured.

A more serious incident occurred in early September when the
500-ton Hong Kong-registered, and therefore British-protected, Kochow
was hijacked on the Si-Kiang a few miles below Samshui while on
passage from Hong Kong to Wuchow. The pirates had come aboard the
steamer in the customary manner disguised as coolies and, just before
nightfall, they stormed the bridge and the saloon simultaneously. The
Captain, at dinner in the saloon, was shot in the stomach and the Chief
Engineer was gunned down as he ran out into a corridor brandishing a
revolver. Heaving his body ‘overboard without ceremony, the pirates
kept the frightened passengers covered with their guns while other
members of the gang who had stormed the bridge forced the Chief
Officer and helmsman to reverse course and proceed down-river.

A short while later the terrified Chinese coxswain was ordered to
bring the Kochow alongside a small wooden pier at the village of
Taipinghu and, as soon as the steamer was tied up, a fresh horde of
pirates stormed aboard to strip the vessel of its cargo and to herd the
Purser and 160 passengers ashore as potential hostages. Quite by
chance a British steamer had observed the Kochow moving downstream
and her alert captain, realizing that something was amiss, reported his
suspicions to the British river gunboat Moth which found the abandoned
steamer at dawn the following morning, but the pirates and their
hostages had vanished. After medical assistance had been given to the
wounded Master and other members of the crew, the plundered vessel
was escorted back to Hong Kong.

Four days later, with the approval of the local Chinese Admiral,
Chan Chat, three Royal Navy gunboats, the Cicala, the Moth and the
Moorhen, proceeded to Taipinghu and, having given the villagers time to
leave their houses, opened fire on the little township and proceeded to
bombard it with their 6-inch guns until the entire waterfront area had
been destroyed. Then, forming up in line ahead with their battle flags
streaming, the three gunboats moved up-river to Shekki, another
notorious pirate stronghold, and subjected it to a similar bombardment.
It was a punitive expedition redolent of nineteenth century imperialism,
but it was the only way to exterminate piracy in a country whose
leaders were too busy fighting with each other to worry about such
matters as brigandry and murder.

The Colonial authorities in Hong Kong were equally worried about
the growing number of attacks on British ships which were taking place
in the South China Sea and Intelligence Officers had established that
the Chinese hijackers were taking captured vessels into Bias Bay, a
notorious pirate lair on the coast of Kwantung Province to the
north-east of Hong Kong. Several cruisers and sloops were despatched
to patrol the general area of the South China Sea and it was decided to
send a submarine to cover Bias Bay itself, possibly the first and only
time in history that a submersible has been used against pirates.

The boats of the 4th Submarine Flotilla, which was based at Hong
Kong, fascinated the Chinese. After all, most of their efforts were aimed
at keeping their frail vessels afloat. Yet here were the English
deliberately allowing their ships to sink beneath the water and return
to the surface none the worse for the experience. To the superstitious
Chinese the “Go-under-water war junk” was the most frightening
weapon in Britain’s naval armoury–its joss exceeding even that of the
aeroplane. Many looked upon it as being almost divine in origin–for who
other than the Sun God could produce a boat that was able to sink to
the bottom of the sea without drowning its crew?

L-4, the “go-under-water war junk” selected for the Bias Bay
patrol, had been completed in 1918 and was one of the submarines built
by Vickers under the Emergency War Programme. An enlarged and
improved version of the famous wartime E-class, they served the British
Navy well during the immediate post-war period, pending the arrival of
the new Oberon boats in the late ‘twenties and, in fact, a few even
survived into the Second World War. Displacing 890 tons in surface trim
with a ballast capacity of 180 tons, L-4 measured 231 feet in overall
length with a maximum beam of 23 1/2 feet. Her Vickers-built diesel
engines produced 2,400 h.p., giving the submarine a top speed of 17 1/2
knots on the surface, while her electric motors could push her along at
a submerged speed of 10 1/2 knots fox’ short periods. Armed with six
18-inch torpedo tubes and a single 4-inch deck gun carried in a
shielded emplacement forward of the conning tower, the L-4 was a
formidable vessel for her time and her 36-man crew had every
confidence in their boat–and in their captain, Lieutenant Halahan.

Frederick Halahan had graduated from the Dartmouth Naval College
in 1919 and his confidential report for that year described him as being
“distinctly clever and a nice fellow.” The following year Martin Nasmith,
who had won the VC for his exploits in the Sea of Marmora with E-11 in
1915, found the young Sub-Lieutenant to be “energetic, keen, and
reliable.” In a report dated 31 December, 1921, his new Commanding
Officer noted him to be “hard-working, keen, and absolutely reliable. His
ability is most marked, being well in advance of his years… and in
every way a most promising officer;” an opinion readily endorsed by his
Flotilla Captain, C. P Talbot, a wartime veteran who had sunk the
German destroyer V-118 and the U-boat U-6 while in command of E-16 in
1915.

American “Global” Empire

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

I noticed in the January 19, 1998 issue of *The New Republic* an article
by Eliot Cohen. He basically says that the Pentagon, and the “American
people,” should get used to the fact that “the United States needs an
imperial strategy. … that is, in fact, what the United States at the
end of the twentieth century is—a global empire.” And we need a
revamping of the entire defense structure to deal with the problems of
this situation, not the problems of “two hypothetical major theater
wars.”

An interesting idea. Do we have any Brits out there who’d care to
comment?

Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinion, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

Latest Columbia Trading Co. catalog out & on line

Sunday, January 18th, 2009

One of my favorite nautical used & rare bookstores has their latest
catalog in the mail and online:

http://www.by-the-sea.com/nautical/ctccat.html

Purpose
The Mahan Naval Discussion List hosted here at NavalStrategy.org is to foster discussion and debate on the relevance of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan's ideas on the importance of sea power influenced navies around the world.
Links