Stray Dogs and Emus
The joint US-Israeli military campaign against Iran began February 28 and continues with no publicly stated exit strategy and shifting expressed military goals. The joint forces of US and Israel bombed Iranian targets each day since February 28. Israel expanded the conflict to Lebanon. Iran countered with offenses against nearby Gulf neighbors and seeks to close the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump has called upon other nations to assist the US militarily to provide armed support for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. US Service Personnel and Iranians have lost their lives in the conflict.
President Trump repeatedly opined that the conflict with Iran is a “war”. His direct quotes include: “The war itself is going to be unbelievable.” “We’re winning the war by a lot.” And concerning fallen US soldiers, Trump stated: “It’s part of war. It’s a sad part of war. It’s the bad part of war.” President Trump’s Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth continually refers to the conflict with Iran as a “war”. US Senator Timmy Tuberville, a staunch Trump ally, called the campaign “President Trump’s war.” So, we are at war, right?
Not so fast. Many Republican members of Congress refuse to acknowledge the extended military actions as war. House Speaker, Mike Johnson, terms the three weeks of bombings and Iran’s responses as a “limited operation”. Other Congressional Republicans call the situation with Iran an “armed conflict” or a “combat operation” steadfastly avoiding the term “war”.
Why do these politicians refuse to acknowledge the direct and plain statements of the Commander in Chief and his Secretary of War? Of course, to acknowledge reality would place the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 front and center. That Constitutional Section mandates that only Congress can declare war. A President cannot do so. In addition, the 1973 War Powers Resolution Act limits the President’s authority to commit US armed forces to foreign hostilities absent Congressional consent. If we are at war, Congress would have work to do and our Congress is either too stubborn, too politically vulnerable, or too lacking in courage to simply do the work for which they were elected.
Perhaps Congressional members genuinely believe President Trump’s social media account assertions that the war will be of short duration. Why expend political capital and bring up formal votes which may be used against politicians in the future if the military entanglements will end soon and we all move on? Why force the nasty debate over the cost of the war which will very soon be old news. Or, perhaps, these Congressional members view these actions, military or otherwise, as part of President Trump’s negotiating style to secure concessions from Iran.
So, again, the question remains, “Are we at war?”
Whatever the reasons for Congressional inaction, these circumstances got me thinking: when is a war a war? Does the duration of the conflict matter? Does the nature of the underlying conflict make it a war? It turns out that history is replete with “wars” which, at least in hindsight, may be anything other than a true “war”. A study of some of these “wars” might assist in evaluating our current circumstances and disagreement between two of our branches of government of the nature of the present conflict and military actions.
Please note, in presenting these so-called “wars”, in no means do I make light of the situation of conflict among peoples. In some of these “wars” many lost their lives and others suffered life-altering injuries. Many of these deaths and injuries appear to have been avoidable.
The “Short” Wars
President Trump repeatedly assured us that the war with Iran will be of limited duration and ended quickly. It will be a short war. Compared with the following, President Trump’s War (as Senator Tuberville calls it), appears more akin to the 100 Years’ War.
The Anglo-Zanzibar War. For anywhere from 38 to 45 minutes on August 27, 1896, the United Kingdom and the Sultanate of Zanzibar were at war. The Pro-British Sultan, Hamad bin Thuwaini, died under suspicious circumstances on August 25, 1896. Sultan Khalid bin Bargash succeeded to the position of Sultan. However, the British preferred a different successor and invoked an 1890 “agreement” that any Sultan had to obtain permission from the British consul in order to assume control. The British issued an ultimatum for the Sultan to step down by 9:00 a.m. on August 27.
Sultan Khalid bin Bargash refused, surrounding the palace with a combination of royal guards, armed civilians and slaves numbering 2,800 strong. At 9:02 a.m., the British bombardment began which destroyed the palace. By 9:46 a.m., the flag over the palace had been shot down and cease fire reached. The Sultan’s forces suffered 500 casualties. One British soldier was injured. The Sultan escaped to Tanzania. The British installed their choice of Sultan.
The Football War. In 1969, El Salvador and Honduras fought the Football War or 100 Hours War. For 100 hours in July 1969, El Salvador and Honduras sought to invade each other using outdated WWII equipment as well as aircraft and trucks hastily converted for military use. Civilians, civilian airports (as there were no military airports in both countries) and oil fields were the main targets for both sides. Fighting culminated with an aerial dogfight between WWII propeller aircraft.
The Organization of American States quickly intervened with a cease fire reached after 100 hours of battle. Each side lost over 100 military personnel with more than 2,000 civilians killed.
What lead to armed conflict among Central American neighbors? In part, soccer. First, some background. El Salvador suffered from overpopulation and a political system resulting in limited opportunities except among the elite landowners. Salvadorans migrated to Honduras in tremendous numbers seeking work on banana plantations.
Similarly, in Honduras, the top 8% of the population owned or controlled over 70% of the land. Large land owners and international corporations such as the United Fruit Company controlled all, although there were at least some opportunities for the lower economic classes. In 1962, Honduras enacted land reform laws. These laws did not meaningfully impact the large land owners. Instead, the “reforms” took the relatively modest land holdings of Salvadorans and redistributed that land to native-born Hondurans. The reforms created a class of Salvadoran peasants with migration then back to El Salvador’s already strained system. Tensions escalated.
In 1969, El Salvador and Honduras battled in qualifying matches for a spot in the upcoming 1970 World Cup in soccer. In the June 1969 qualifying match in Honduras, Honduran fans harassed the Salvadoran team by throwing rocks at windows and setting off fireworks at the hotel the night before the match where the Salvadoran team stayed. Honduras won the game. Salvadoran fans set fire to the stadium after the game. A week later at the second match in El Salvador, the Honduran team received death threats and a dirty rag was raised in place of the Honduran flag at the stadium. El Salvador won the game.
Later in June, the teams met in a playoff match in Mexico City. El Salvador dissolved all diplomatic ties with Honduras. Honduras expelled 12.000 Salvadorans. El Salvador demanded reparations and even alleged genocide by Honduras. Two weeks later, the Salvadoran military shot down a civilian aircraft in Honduran airspace. The Football War commenced.
The War of the Stray Dog. In 1925, Greece and Bulgaria fought the War of the Stray Dog, otherwise known as the Incident at Petrich. The war lasted 10 days. For decades leading up to the War of the Stray Dog, Greece and Bulgaria disputed control over Macedonia lands. Each side used the excuse of the Second Balkin War in 1913 and WWI during 1916-1918 to assert greater control and rights over Macedonia. The City of Petrich served as the administrative center of this Macedonian area.
Differing accounts present as the origins of the War of the Stray Dog. On October 19, 1925, a Greek soldier chased after his dog which strayed across the border along the disputed territory into Bulgaria. A Bulgarian sentry shot and killed the Greek soldier. The second version mentions no dog, but claims that Bulgarian soldiers crossed the border into Greece and killed a Greek Captain.
Bulgaria expressed regret and recommended a joint commission of Greek and Bulgarian officers to investigate the incident. Greece rejected the proposal, and demanded 1) the removal of Bulgarian troops from the disputed areas; 2) a formal apology; and 3) compensation of 2 million French Francs. On October 22, Greece sent its own troops into Bulgaria to occupy Petrich until Bulgaria met the Greek demands. Fighting began.
The League of Nations intervened directing a cease fire. The League then issued a final ruling including a permanent cease fire, withdrawal of Greek troops, and payment of 45,000 French Francs from Greece to Bulgaria.
Greece and Bulgaria abided by the ruling. The War of the Stray Dog witnessed the death of 120 soldiers and 50 civilians.
The Toledo War. From 1835 to 1836, the State of Ohio and Territory of Michigan battled over Toledo. Competing land surveys from the late 1700s and early 1800s placed Toledo either in Ohio or Michigan with both claiming jurisdiction over the disputed land. In 1835, Michigan applied for statehood claiming Toledo within its boundaries. This action brought the matter to a head. Both sides passed legislation claiming Toledo and both sides sent militias to protect their supposed interests.
Based on contemporaneous newspaper accounts, both militias engaged in serious taunting of the enemy forces with absolutely no active military confrontations. With Congress as mediator, Ohio and Michigan accepted compromise whereby Ohio received Toledo and Michigan received the Upper Peninsula lands. The militias celebrated by firing shots in the air. No casualties or injuries in this war.
To this day, no one is quite certain whether Ohio or Michigan actually won the Toledo War.
The Great Emu War. Dateline Western Australia, late 1932. After one month of warfare, the Australian emus proved unbeatable when confronted by the Australian Military. After WWI with many veterans returning to Australia, through subsidies and financial incentives, the Australian government encouraged farming by these veterans in Western Australia. Areas long covered with dense vegetation became fields for wheat farms. However, these new wheat fields were developed on the paths of migration of emus traveling from inland areas to the sea. The emus discovered abundant water and food sources in these newly cultivated farmlands. The wheat farms became the new habitat of emus. The emus ravaged the wheat crop.
The Australian farmers demanded action against the emus and threatened to withhold what remained of their harvest. Australia declared war on the emus, sending military personnel and machine guns to take down the flightless beasts.
Armed with two machine guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition, Major Wynne-Aubrey Meredith lead his team against the emus. However, 2 days of rain delayed deployment. On November 2, the military group confronted a flock of 50 emus. The birds remained beyond the range of the machine guns. When within range, the military personnel found emus difficult to target as they split into smaller groups and ran away.
On November 4, Major Meredith established an ambush with 1,000 emus heading toward the trap. Upon opening fire at close range, the soldiers killed 12 emus before the machine guns jammed. The remaining 1,000 or so emus scattered.
Thereafter, the emus could only be located in small groups with an army observer noting “each pack seems to have its own leader now – a big black-plumed bird which stands fully 1.8 meters [6 feet] high and keeps watch while his mates carry out their work of destruction and warns them of our approach.” Major Meredith mounted a machine gun on the back of a truck to chase and gun down the birds. However, the bumpy ride precluded the ability to accurately shoot at the emus.
After one month of the Great Emu War, approximately 50 emus were killed. The Australian military suffered no casualties except for its dignity.
We can illustrate “short wars’ with other examples including the Pig War, the War of the Oaken Bucket and the Pastry War. Even the Norman Conquest lasted a mere 16 days in 1066 resulting in the change of the English monarchy.
These “short wars” taught us that absent an exit strategy, a war could drag on well beyond any expectations. Invoking an exit strategy does not admit defeat. Rather, the off-ramp from conflict could present an opportunity to claim victory. Major Meredith proudly reported to the Australian leaders that no Australian service member suffered any injuries in the Great Emu War. Even Sultan Khalid bin Bargash in the Anglo-Zanzibar War invoked his exit strategy of running away after 45 minutes which allowed him to set up new operations in Tanzania.
In Estate Planning, we constantly address exit strategies. If a family business or side business is among the assets, we ensure that the trust includes provisions to maintain the value of the business asset. The asset may be monetized with distributions per instructions or the business can remain a going concern with clear instructions on ownership and control issues. A family vacation home also requires exit strategy panning. Everyone wants to enjoy the vacation home. But, if left for the next generation, who will address upkeep and maintenance of the house. Who will be responsible to pay bills for the house, including taxes and insurance. Who will determine who gets to use the house when every sibling wants the house for the week of July 4th. Clarity is required and can be achieved with proper planning for any exit strategy.
If the Sultan of Zanzibar and the military leader who lost to a bunch of flightless birds can have an exit strategy, should not the US have an exit strategy concerning Iran which we can be articulated to the American people? With no exit strategy, the war may not even have a chance to be among the “short wars” of history. Worse, we may get stuck with Toledo.