The Fox Behind the Desert Fox: Hekmet Fahmy

By Jay Holmes*

On June 10, 1940, Italy declared war on Great Britain. At the time, Great Britain lacked the resources to invade Italy, and Italy had no intention of invading Great Britain. However, the two enemies, along with France, had large colonial holdings in North Africa. At the time, the Suez Canal in Egypt was critical for Great Britain to connect the British Isles, Gibraltar, and Egypt to its colonial holdings in India, Ceylon, and Burma. Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini was confident that his forces, along with his German allies, could deal a major blow against the British from their bases in Libya, and perhaps threaten the British Suez Canal.

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, image from the German Federal Archives

In general, the North African campaign of WWII is remembered as a series of battles. Great Britain dealt a decisive blow against the Italians in Libya. Germany sent reinforcements led by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, aka the Desert Fox, who pushed the British back to the Egyptian border. Newly appointed British commander Field Marshall Montgomery led UK forces in a series of counterattacks. Those attacks were marginally assisted in the final phases by American landings in Morocco and Tunisia.

Conventional analysis of these battles emphasizes the skills of the opposing leaders. More in-depth descriptions also consider the logistical nightmares that both sides faced during the campaign. However, these assessments are based on well-researched analysis that was conducted without the benefit of certain classified information that was not released before 1970. When we consider the newer information, we learn that Erwin Rommel’s tactical genius and Bernard Montgomery’s inspiring leadership were heavily impacted by a variety of intelligence operations conducted by both sides.

Until July of 1942, Rommel, the Desert Fox, enjoyed a tremendous advantage over the British in the form of timely, detailed, and accurate intelligence about British dispositions, supplies, and intentions. This information came inadvertently from US General Bonner Fellers.

General Fellers was the US liaison with the British in North Africa. Over his objections, he was instructed to use the US diplomatic Black code to transmit messages to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unfortunately, that code was stolen and copied by the Italians from the US Embassy in Italy in September of 1941, prior to the US entry into the war. As a result, Rommel’s staff read every word Fellers sent back to Washington before Washington read it. When Fellers was replaced in July of 1942, his replacement was permitted to switch his communications to US military cyphers. The Germans could no longer decipher the intercepted transmissions.

They turned to an Egyptian belly dancer for help. In the spring of 1942, a team of elite German commandos set out from Libya in US military vehicles captured from the British. Their goal was to infiltrate two Abwher agents, Johannes Eppler and his radio operator Hans Sandstede, into Egypt.

Eppler had a German mother and an Egyptian father and had spent most of his childhood in Alexandria and Cairo. He was well-trained and well-prepared for an operation in Egypt. After a grueling fifteen day trip through the desert, Eppler and Sandstede were dropped near the British Egyptian rail station at Asyut, Egypt.

The German spies made their way to Cairo where they used well forged documents and high quality counterfeit British cash to rent a house boat and set up operations. The crux of Eppler’s plans came down to one roll of the dice. He contacted an ex-girlfriend by the name of Hekmet Fahmy.

Hekmet Fahmy, image from bellydancemuseum.com

In 1942, Fahmy was the most popular belly dancer in Egypt. She had access to the best night clubs and parties attended by the elite of local British and Egyptian society. She was the most alluring female celebrity in that country and enjoyed popularity with dance fans across Europe. She was also trusted in the highest military and social circles. Fahmy recruited other popular belly dancers to assist Eppler, allowing him to operate one of the most successful honey traps of all time.

British officers and government officials mistakenly trusted Fahmy and foolishly revealed critical information. As Fahmy’s guests slept in her arms, Eppler searched their personal effects. By keeping track of which British officers from which regiments frequented the clubs, the Germans determined when particular units were being dispatched to the front.

In some cases, British officers and civilians revealed more detailed classified information that was then transmitted to Rommel’s headquarters. In effect, the Germans replaced an American general with an Egyptian belly dancer.

Thanks to the continued flow of high grade intelligence, the Desert Fox confounded British attacks with timely delaying actions and skillful withdrawals. Rommel’s tanks were outnumbered by now, but he could continually place them and their accompanying 77 millimeter anti-tank guns in ideal locations to deal with British movements.

After a few months of operations in Cairo, the British pushed back the Afrika Korps from El Alamein. Communications with Rommel’s headquarters became difficult. Eppler sought out the Egyptian Free Officer Corps, who were anti-British, to request assistance with passing information to Rommel. The young Egyptian officer who agreed to help was the future president of Egypt, Anwar Sadat.

In his 1957 book Revolt on the Nile, Sadat depicts Eppler and Sandstede as being too lazy and too concerned with their own pursuits of flesh. The depiction may have been unfair, as Eppler needed to appear to be a Scandinavian-American playboy in order to conduct his operations most effectively. If Eppler was in fact lazy, then we have to say that he was also fantastically lucky in his recruitment of Fahmy and his skillful use of her connections in gathering vital intelligence for the Desert Fox.

While Fahmy seduced British officers and Eppler fed their information to the Germans, the British simultaneously read and partially decrypted German military communications. They quickly became suspicious that German spies were succeeding in operations against them in Cairo. Either by managing too many local agents without insulation from themselves, or possibly because an Egyptian messenger was compromised, the British captured Eppler, Sandstede, and Fahmy.

With the defeat of the German intelligence operations in Cairo, combined with an increasing flow of Allied supplies and continued decryption of German military communications, the British were able to roll back Rommel across Africa. When the British captured 130,000 Germans in Tunisia in May of 1943, Rommel was on medical leave in Germany.

Rommel was tasked with organizing the German defenses on the French Atlantic Coast. However, he was implicated in a plot to kill Hitler. He committed suicide in exchange for his family being spared from persecution. The Nazis kept his betrayal of Hitler secret, announcing the Desert Fox had died of a heart attack. They gave Rommel a hero’s funeral.

Eppler and Sandstede were sentenced to death as spies, but Egyptian King Farouk intervened, and their sentences were commuted. They were released from prison after the war and Eppler became a successful construction engineer.

Fahmy was assumed to be an unwitting accomplice. She was sentenced to two and a half years in jail. She was unable to revive her career after her release, though she managed a few minor movie roles and invested her own money in a failed movie. The Egyptian Fox who did so much to aid the success of Desert Fox Field Marshal Erwin Rommel turned to Christianity for solace and spent long hours praying in church.

The North Africa campaign of WWII will always be remembered as a battle of supplies and opposing wits, and it was. But it was also a campaign greatly affected by the intelligence operations of both opponents, and for a while, the balance of it all was tipped by the weight of a single belly dancer.

Hekmet Fahmy in Rabab

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

*‘Jay Holmes’, is an intelligence veteran of the Cold War and remains an anonymous member of the intelligence community. His writing partner, Piper Bayard, is the public face of their partnership.

You may contact them in blog comments, on Twitter at@piperbayard, on Facebook at Piper Bayard, or by email at piperbayard@yahoo.com. 

© 2013 Jay Holmes. All content on this page is protected by copyright. If you would like to use any part of this, please contact us at the above links to request permission.

Update on Libya and a Tearful Good-bye

Update on Libya by Holmes:

This week, Zimbabwean Dictator Robert Mugabe, a long time friend of Qaddafi’s, stated to the international press that Moammar  Qaddafi is now his guest in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwean opposition leaders claim that they have verified Momo’s presence. Mugabe’s people claim that Moammar flew out of his enclave at Sirte, but it’s just as likely that he flew out of an airstrip on the Algerian border.

The fact is that it is unlikely that anything other than shrapnel is flying out of Sirte without NATO’s acquiescence. It has not been confirmed by NATO authorities that Qaddafi or any of his principal family members are in Zimbabwe. If he is, I can only extend my condolences to the people of Zimbabwe for having to suffer yet another undeserved indignity. However, it is entirely possible that this is simply a rumor spread by Mugabe in an attempt to slacken the search for his buddy, Qaddafi, in Libya.

In honor of great work on the part of NATO and the Libyan rebels, I would like to repost this open letter I wrote to Qaddafi as a parting shot gift.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

My Open Dear John Letter to Qaddafi

By Holmes**

My Dearest Momo,

Perhaps you are surprised that I would write you now, but after all these years, I hate to see us break up this way. The lack of closure is emotionally draining for both of us. After all, my relationship with you has lasted even longer than my marriage thus far.

I was so young and impetuous when we first met. I know that some of the things that I have said and done may have hurt your feelings. Please accept that my friends and I always acted with sincerity and the best of intentions. I hope you can understand that some of the things you did were really hurtful to me and to many of my close friends, as well.

I am sitting here listening to Carol King sing Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow, and it brings me so many fond memories of our long and often exciting friendship. All those years. . . . So many cute hats, none of which ever fit you. . . . Those charming outfits. . . . That lovely fireworks display on a romantic spring night in 1986. . . . These  memories all come flooding back to me as I sit here and laugh cry.

Seeing you in such painful difficulties these days has made me re-evaluate our long connection. I want this to all end for us on the best possible note. Although I know you have not always loved me, I am sure you have never questioned my sincerity or passion. It’s all been very real for me.

Based on my deeper understanding of our heart-felt connection, I am offering you a gift. . . . A gift from my heart. . . . In fact, in your honor, I have decided to offer this special gift to any deserving person in the world. . . . the Seventy-Two Virgins Golden Retirement Plan. In fact, out of my deep respect for you, I will ask potential retirees in the future to plan in advance by donating a small portion of their plunder to my special fund, so that I may be able to help as many needy souls as possible.

Because of all the years of joy you have brought me, I am offering this gift to you free of any of your normal financial arrangements. Unlike your other so-called friends, Gordon Brown and Silvio Berlusconi, I won’t take a penny from you. Yes Momo, I know about that gas pipeline you built to Silvio’s house, and look at how he has repaid you! But I forgive you. And I want you to know that my friendship with Markus Wolf* in no way detracted from all we have been to each other. “Mischa” never meant a thing to me.

My dear friend, stop struggling and give yourself the rest you deserve. Those seventy-two virgins will keep you happy for eternity. I know how picky you are about your meals so I have also arranged for a lovely, doting Ukrainian nurse to be your celestial mommy. Just stop for a moment and think of your future, Momo. Imagine being young again, imagine being attractive this time, imagine four exhausted recent virgins by your side, and your mommy’s voice entering that lovely silk tent. . . .”Ooo, Momo darling. . . . come to lunch Dear. Mommy made you your favorite lamb goulash. . . .”

Please come and visit soon so that we can implement your overdue, well-deserved gift. I want to finally repay you for our long years of friendship. Come what may, never forget that we had Paris in the spring, Rome in the fall, and those wonderful picnics on the Algerian border. Thank you for a lifetime of wonderful memories.

Sincerely,

Holmes, CEO, Celestial After-Care, Inc.

*Markus Wolf was the despised director of the foreign intelligence branch of the East German Stasi (secret police).

**Holmes, a man with experience in intelligence and covert operations, has a long and involved past with Moammar Qaddafi (“Uncle Momo”) so these events in Libya are especially moving for him. During the Cold War, Qaddafi allowed the Soviets, the East Germans, and the other Warsaw Pact countries to use Libya as a giant terrorist training camp. Sometimes there were upwards of 30 camps operating at the same time for the purpose of training terrorist groups to attack Israel and Western nations. Qaddafi even cooperated with the Irish Republican Army for a while, until the IRA decided he was too filthy even for them.

Holmes and many of his friends spent decades intimately involved in fighting the Soviets, the East Germans, and the various terrorist organizations they sponsored. The stories of their sacrifices will never be told, but they were numerous and deeply personal.

In 1986, Qaddafi was blown away (pun intended) that his vaunted, high-tech Soviet Air Defense System proved useless against a rather limited air attack by less than two dozen aircraft from the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. Rumors circulated that clandestine operations had simultaneously been carried out against military assets in Libya. In addition, Qaddafi’s Syrian allies had sent their best naval unit to the Gulf of Sidra with the intention of guaranteeing damage to the U.S. 6^th fleet. That Syrian ship exploded shortly after casting off from its dock in Libya. Both Syria and Libya were left unenthusiastic about the prospects of any future engagements with the U.S. 6^th fleet, despite the best cheerleading the Soviets could bring to bear.

What do you remember from the Cold War? Have you ever written a Dear John letter?

The Fracturing of Empire: Two Perspectives on the 2nd Boer War

Today, Holmes and I are honored to host author K.B. Owen for a guest blog about the social perspectives of the Second Boer War. Formerly a college instructor, with a Ph.D. in 19th century literature, she now applies her background and interests to historical mystery writing and blogging. You can find her blog on mysteries and the 19th century at K.B.Owen, Mystery Writer. Also, she loves to chat on twitter. Follow her at @kbowenwriter. Thank you, Kathy for this excellent contribution to the series.

K.B. Owen

   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The fracturing of Empire: two perspectives on the 2^nd Boer War

By K.B. Owen

Holmes has provided a wonderfully in-depth historical account of the second Boer War (1899-1902).  As a former 19^th century British Lit teacher and scholar, I found it especially interesting.  The 2^nd Boer War, although “won” by the British, revealed some of the fracturing that was going on within the British Empire at the turn of the century.  During this time, Britain’s colonial sovereignty was being questioned more intensely than ever before; its territories were continuously challenged by rival European nations.  Although no one knew it at the time, Great Britain was experiencing the beginnings of its death throes as an imperial presence in the world.

The British people themselves stood on either side of this crack.  There were those who clung to the British imperial mind-set, whose ideals that they had always cherished: noble wars, honorable enemies, and a beloved Empire’s mission to bring civilization and law to the “dark” corners of the planet.  This was where notable figures such as doctor/writer Arthur Conan Doyle stood, when he wrote The War in South Africa: its Causes and Conduct in 1902, a defense of the British actions in the war.  Doyle had volunteered as a doctor at a field hospital in Bloemfontein in the spring of 1900, and drew upon eyewitness accounts from wounded soldiers, along with his own analysis and research later, back in England.  He collected meticulous reports and affadavits, all of which were included in the book.  Doyle was knighted in August of 1902 (less than three months after the Treaty of Vereeniging was signed) as a result of his work.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, image from georgeprice.net

But there were those who saw the ideal of Empire through a different lens.  In their view, the philanthropic ideal rang hollow as capitalist venturers and politicians exploited colonies for their resources, seeking the next rich mining region or cushy political appointment.  Although Great Britain prided itself upon its fair treatment of all races, having abolished slavery in its colonies and territories back in 1833 (well before the United States had ended slavery in its own country), there was no avoiding the unsavory nature of running an empire.  During the second Boer War especially, the British people were to learn more about the “dirty work of Empire at close quarters,” as Orwell once put it.

Emily Hobhouse (discussed in Holmes’ post), a young Englishwoman with Liberal Parliamentary connections, and secretary of the South African Conciliation Committee (women’s branch), discovered this for herself, as she engaged in relief efforts at the South African concentration camps set up by the British.  Her committee reports (with The Guardian also publishing extracts) were the most emotionally-charged component of what Arthur Conan Doyle was responding to in his book; in fact, he devotes an entire chapter to the concentration camps and mentions Miss Hobhouse by name several times.   Here’s a particularly snarky comment by Doyle about her:

Early in the year 1901 a painful impression was created in England by the report of Miss Hobhouse, an English lady, who had visited the camps and criticised them unfavourably. The value of her report was discounted, however, by the fact that her political prejudices were known to be against the Government. Mr. Charles Hobhouse, a relation of hers, and a Radical member of Parliament, has since then admitted that some of her statements will not bear examination. With the best will in the world her conclusions would have been untrustworthy, since she could speak no Dutch, had no experience of the Boer character, and knew nothing of the normal conditions of South African life.

Emily Hobhouse, image from spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

Of course, one wonders how much Dutch is needed to comprehend the sight of emaciated children, spoiled food, or overcrowded tents.  Yet Doyle wasn’t Hobhouse’s only detractor.  Joseph Chamberlain (Secretary of State for the Colonies) referred to her as “the hysterical spinster.”

But you can decide for yourself.  Here are excerpts from Hobhouse and Doyle, head-to-head, laying out the concentration camp issues of the second Boer War in their own words.

Excerpts of Hobhouse’s reports and Doyle’s rebuttals:

…regarding forming the camps in the first place:

I call this camp system a wholesale cruelty.  It can never be wiped out of the memories of the people.  …Thousands, physically unfit, are placed in conditions of life which they have not strength to endure.  …There are cases, too, in which whole families are severed and scattered, they don’t know where.

–Hobhouse

When considerable districts of the country were cleared of food in order to hamper the movements of the commandos, and when large numbers of farmhouses were destroyed…, it became evident that it was the duty of the British, as a civilised people, to form camps of refuge for the women and children, where, out of reach, as we hoped, of all harm, they could await the return of peace.

It was not merely that burned-out families must be given a shelter, but it was that no woman on a lonely farm was safe amid a black population, even if she had the means of procuring food.

    –Doyle

…regarding food:

The rations were extremely meagre and when, as I frequently experienced, the actual quantity dispensed fell short of the amount prescribed, it simply meant famine.

I  have in my possession coffee and sugar which were described as follows by a London analyst: In the case of the first, 66% imitation, and in the case of the second, sweepings from a warehouse.

    –Hobhouse

the British [were] straining every nerve to feed the women and children of the enemy, while that enemy was sniping the engineers and derailing the trains which were bringing up the food.

    –Doyle

…regarding crowded conditions:

Imagine the heat outside the tents and the suffocation inside!  …the sun blazed through the single canvas, and the flies lay thick and black on everything….  In this tiny tent live Mrs. B.’s five children and a little Kaffir servant girl.  Many tents have more occupants.

    –Hobhouse

It is well known that the Boers in their normal life have no objection to crowded rooms, and that the inmates of a farmhouse are accustomed to conditions which would be unendurable to most.

    –Doyle

Boer family in concentration camp, image from history-net.com

…regarding disease and death of children:

…the nurse, underfed and overworked, just sinking on to her bed, hardly able to hold herself up, after coping with some thirty typhoid and other patients, with only the untrained help of two Boer girls–cooking as well as nursing to do herself. Next tent, a six months’ baby gasping its life out on its mother’s knee. Two or three others drooping sick in that tent. Next, a girl of twenty-one lay dying on a stretcher.

    –Hobhouse

Had the deaths come from some filth-disease, such as typhus fever, or even from enteric or diphtheria, the sanitation of the camps might be held responsible. But it is to a severe form of measles that the high mortality is due. Apart from that the record of the camps would have been a very fair one.

    –Doyle

[perhaps referring to the photo of Lizzie Van Zyl]:  It is worthy of record that the portrait of an emaciated child has been circulated upon the Continent and in America as a proof positive of the horrors of the concentration system. It is only too probable that there are many emaciated children in the camps, for they usually arrive in that condition. This particular portrait however was, as I am credibly informed, taken by the British authorities on the occasion of the criminal trial of the mother for the ill-usage of the child. The incident is characteristic of the unscrupulous tactics which have been used from the beginning to poison the mind of the world against Great Britain.

    –Doyle

…regarding hygiene:

Soap also has been unattainable, and none given in the rations.

    –Hobhouse

There seems to be a consensus of opinion from all the camps that the defects in sanitation are due to the habits of the inmates, against which commandants and doctors are perpetually fighting.

    –Doyle

…says Dr. Kendal Franks, ‘the death-rate is attributable not so much to the severity of the epidemic as to the ignorance, perverseness, and dirty habits of the parents themselves.’ But whatever the immediate cause, the death of these numerous children lies heavy, not upon the conscience, but upon the heart of our nation. It is some mitigation to know that the death-rate among children is normally quite remarkably high in South Africa, and that the rate in the camps was frequently not higher than that of the towns near which the camp was situated.

    –Doyle

Photo of Boer concentration camp, image from UK National Archives

So, what’s your opinion of these two sides of the imperialist divide?  Both Hobhouse and Doyle had been to the region during the war (Doyle was in Blomfontein longer than Hobhouse, but not by more than a month or so); each had witnessed the suffering going on; each felt equally passionate about his/her point of view.

Links for more info:

Anglo-Boer War Museum:
http://www.anglo-boer.co.za/role-players/emily-hobhouse.php

Article:  “The “Hysterical’ Emily Hobhouse and the Boer War Concentration Camp Controversy”:
http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/1025605-1.html

The War in South Africa, by Arthur Conan Doyle [Project Gutenberg]:
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=62&fk_files=1538431

The Guardian “From the Archive” Blog: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/may/19/guardian190-south-africa-concentration-camps

Thank you, Holmes & Piper, for inviting me to guest post today!

Kathy, aka K.B. Owen

Three-Way in South Africa: Boer War Prelude

By Holmes

Approximately 200,000 years before the birth of Christ, some highly skilled trekkers went for a walk and didn’t come back. The walk started in southern Africa, and so far their descendants have gone as far as the moon. Some of their descendants apparently grew homesick for their ancestors’ neighborhood and decided to return.

Colonization has been a central theme of Africa since those Bushmen took that long walk. Their descendants colonized the rest of the planet, and then later descendants decided to return to Africa and reverse the process. Around 800 Phoenicians settled colonies on the North African coast. Later, various Arab tribes began to colonize the east coast of Africa and established slave trading.

When Portugal captured Ceuta on the coast of North Africa in 1415, it signaled a new period in both African and European History. Portugal and Spain, both in independent and unified forms, took the lead in colonizing areas beyond Europe. The Dutch operated on a smaller scale, but using a private investment mercantile system for exploration and colonization, they managed very profitable endeavors in Africa, the Caribbean, and Asia.

In 1652 the Dutch East India Company established a port facility at Cape Town for use as a way station for Dutch ships traveling to the Indian Ocean and Asia. During the early days of the Cape Town settlement, labor shortages created a demand for slaves.

Dutch East India Company Shipyard

When we think of slaves and Africa we usually think of African slaves being purchased from local African warlords for shipment to Europe and the Americas. In the case of Cape Town, the Dutch actually imported slaves from Indonesia and Madagascar rather than attempting to enslave the local tribes.

In 1655, Dutch settlers planted grape vines in Cape Town, and land-poor Dutch farmers began to settle the area and extend the zone of colonization away from the coast. French Protestants joined Dutch settlers in the area in 1687. These predominantly Dutch early settlers moved further inland over time in search of new farmland. They became to be known as “The Boers.”

During the nearly non-stop European conflicts, Great Britain kept an eye toward Cape Town and its strategic location in hopes of capturing it and establishing a naval base and trade port. In 1795, Britain captured Cape Town from the Dutch, but returned it to the Dutch as part of a British-Dutch treaty in 1803. In 1806, Great Britain recaptured Cape Town, and in 1814, the Dutch ceded it to Britain as part of the Paris Treaty of 1814. In 1810 Great Britain outlawed slave trading, and the ensuing labor demand caused another influx of European settlers into the Cape area.

This left Great Britain in control of the cape area but surrounded by Dutch and other non-British settlers and various African tribes. Britain’s original goal in South Africa was to maintain a base in Cape Town itself.

By 1820, Britain had revised its ambitions for South Africa, and 4,000 British farmers settled land on the banks of the Orange River.

In 1834, the British emancipation act freed slaves in Great Britain, including Cape Town.

In 1835, many of the non-British cape inhabitants had grown tired of British administration and the constant bush wars that flared up between the local African tribes and the British. About 10,000 Boers formed a group that we now call “the Voortrekkers.” They left the Cape area and moved north of the African nation of Lesotho in search of land beyond the reach of British administration. These Boers and their descendants founded the two independent states of Transvaal and The Orange Free State.

The departure of the Boers from the Cape colony worked well for the British and the Boers, but the Zulu tribes that were loosing their land in the bargain were not quite as thrilled about the Boers’ great trek north. In 1838, Boer leader Piet Retief attempted to negotiate a land deal with Zulu King Dingaan. King Dingaan felt that the offer made amounted to a swindle and decided to cut the meeting short by executing Piet Retief and about sixty other Boers.

Later that year, at the Battle of the Blood River, Boers were able to defeat a much larger, but poorly prepared, Zulu army, thanks to their superior weaponry and tactics. The Boers forged an agreement with one of King Dingaan’s rivals, King Umpanda, and together they defeated King Dingaan and his followers.

In 1853, the economy of southern Africa changed dramatically when the Kimberly Diamond mine was discovered. The mines created tremendous wealth for mine owners, as well as another demand for labor in the Cape Colony area. One impact of the Diamond mines was that it gave African tribesman access to cash for the purchase of European weapons.

As gold mines and more diamond mines were discovered in South Africa, more Europeans immigrated to the area. By the 1850s, South Africa had settled into an odd, three-way love-hate relationship. The British controlled the Cape area, the Boers controlled areas north of Lesotho, and the African tribes struggled with each other, the British, and the Boers for control of Southern Africa.

The largest diamond mines were located at the border area between Transvaal, The Orange Free State, and the British Cape colony. The British and, to a lesser extent, the Boers wanted the labor that African tribes could offer. The African tribal leaders wanted European weapons and technology and European intervention in their internal wars. All of them wanted the land.

In retrospect, the value of the land, the increase in wealth in the area, the increase of weapons for the tribal Africans, and the European belief that all of Africa belonged to any European power that could take it by treaty or by conquest, war between Great Britain and the Boers seems inevitable. With each passing year, Britain grew more confident that both the Boers and the tribal Africans could be subjugated to British rule.  France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, and Italy all had colonies in Africa, and all of them were constantly trying to expand those colonies. To the British, it seemed that the time to move north into the Boer Free States and Zulu lands had arrived.

In 1876, the Boers went to war with the Pedi tribes over land and labor disputes. The Boers were understandably certain of a quick victory over the spear-wielding Pedi. Unfortunately for the Boers, the Pedi had been using their cash from farm and mining labor to purchase firearms. The Boers were unable to defeat the Pedi and had to quit their claims to Pedi lands.

At the same time, the Zulu King Cetshwayo was arming his well-organized army of 40,000 with firearms. The Boers were reluctant to commit to war against the British for fear that the Zulus would take the opportunity and invade Boer lands.

King Cetshwayo, last king of the Zulus

In 1877, Great Britain annexed the Boer Free State of Transvaal. The Boer residents were unhappy and attempted to negotiate with Great Britain rather than engage in an outright war with British forces in South Africa and the Zulus simultaneously. The British entertained negotiations with the Boers, but probably only as a delaying tactic until they could defeat the Zulus.

In 1879, the British army in South Africa apparently underestimated the ability of the Zulu army when it divided a smaller, British army commanded by Lieutenant General Frederick Thesiger, the Baron Chelmsford, in to three separate forces and invaded Zulu territory. The underestimation cost them dearly. On January 22, the militarily-challenged Baron was in command of the center column consisting of 1,600 British and 2,500 Africans. Against the advice of his subordinates, Baron Chelmsford decided that he would worsen his own bad situation further by splitting his forces yet again.

A force of 20,000 Zulu warriors armed with spears and a few firearms attacked the British in what we now call the Battle of Iswandlwana. The Zulus suffered about 1,000 dead, but the British troops were nearly wiped out. The Zulus captured two artillery pieces and about 4,000 modern rifles along with ammunition.

King Cetshwayo had issued orders that only men wearing their red army uniforms were to be killed, and that civilians were to be spared. Many of the British officers were clad in blue and, therefore, were able to escape. Cetshwayo ordered his troops to remain in Zulu land. His goal was not to expel the British from Africa but simply to hold on to his Zulu kingdom.

On January 23, about 4,000 Zulu warriors ignored their orders and entered British territory. They surrounded and attacked a British outpost known as Rorke’s Drift. Unfortunately for the Zulus, Lord Chelmsford was not available to hand them an easy victory. The 150 British soldiers used common sense. They remained inside the outpost in a defensive disposition and made good use of their superior weaponry.

The Zulus now took their turn at underestimating their enemy. Rather than attacking en masse to take advantage of their overwhelming superiority in numbers, they attacked in successive waves. The British were able to hold on. Rorke’s Drift entered British History as a one of its army’s greatest days. Eight Victoria Crosses were issued to British combatants at Rorke’s Drift.

Iswandlwana was a humiliating defeat for the British, and it should have been a great victory for the Zulu, but the Zulu had succeeded all too well in teaching the British a lesson. The result was that the British public became more interested in the distant South African colony and supported the British government in the Zulu wars. The heroics of Rorke’s Drift became a rallying point for the British. Reinforcements were sent to the Cape, and the Zulus were defeated. This left Britain free to deal with the Boers, but it also left the Boers free to deal with the British.

Any questions about this violent South African three-way?

Special Edition Libya: March 12, 2011

Holmes, my writing partner, is a man in the intelligence community who has been intimately involved in Libyan history for most of his life. Over the past ten days, he has provided us with a three-part history of Libya to help us understand the current dynamics of the unfolding situation. (Part I, Part II, Part III) This is his analysis today. . . .

   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In 2004, Moammar Gadhafi realized that he had to make a fundamental choice. Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups were on the rise in the Sahara. Moammar could no longer live in conflict with the oil-consuming, cash-delivering Western nations while watching the Islamic fundamentalists gain strength in Sudan, Algeria, and Tunisia. Moammar made the easy choice. He chose to look north toward Europe for his future.

Silvio Berlusconi and Uncle Momo

From 2004 to the present, Libya has played host to a wide range of heads of state , foreign ministry officials, and banking leaders, including the leaders of the UK, Italy, Poland, Germany, and the Ukraine. The times and dates have varied, but the theme has remained constant. Gadhafi has been striving to present a believable “reformed” face to the Western media, while his visitors showed up with oil on their minds. Gadhafi increased his nation’s revenue by allowing more oil exploration and drilling. In doing so, he helped keep oil-consuming, industrialized nations from going into petroleum detox.

Uncle Momo’s willingness to suppress his strong instincts for havoc has been erratic. He has shown himself capable of delivering a speech denouncing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and issuing orders to send assassin teams to Malawi, Sudan, or Chad in the same day. Although Gadhafi and some of his family members did cause some trouble in the West, they also consistently avoided supporting European terror groups and blowing up airliners during this “reformed” stage of the Gadhafi saga.  

Gadhafi demonstrates a clear interest in the family image makeover by presenting his son and heir apparent, Saif, as a kinder, gentler Dictator in Training. When Gadhafi wishes to back down from any harsh or oppressive measures, he frequently has Saif present the news to create the illusion that Saif Gadhafi is a more moderate influence on the regime.

Saif Gadhafi in one of Daddy’s hats

Though many media commentators in the West accept Saif as a “Gadhafi for the new age,” I simply see him as a son who dutifully acts his part in the fashion that movie director Moammar commands. As fun-loving “liberals” go, Saif seems to be a bit trigger happy. Most liberals would not order their bodyguards to open fire on spectators at a soccer game simply because they booed his team. However, Saif did just that in Benghazi. Also, while Saif might not be deserving of any Oscars for his “moderate” performance, an oil-hungry West has been willing to pretend to believe it. I guess when you have enough oil to sell, you don’t have to be Gregory Peck or Lord Laurence Olivier to be believed.

Since Gadhafi felt no threat of retaliation from African nations, except from his well-armed Egyptian neighbors to his east, he demonstrated little restraint in Africa. Within Libya, itself, the population became more educated, more electronically connected to the world beyond its towns and cities, and somewhat more urban. They became, perhaps, somewhat less desperately connected to their tribal roots, and The Uncle Momo Show became less tolerable.

As Libyans watched the Ben Ali Kennel Club fold up shop in Tunisia and run off with their tails between their trembling, hitherto-unexercised legs, they perhaps felt more emboldened in their resistance to Moammar. While Libyans likely recognized Ben Ali and his particular canine pack as being “small mongrels” compared to Moammar and his wolves, the sight of the Mighty Mubarak leaving office had to seem like a miracle of sorts for Libyans and other Africans and Easterners. Mubarak commanded a well-armed and, by African standards, well-trained military, and yet, he was gone.

Libyans are attempting to seize the day in their large corner of the Sahara, but they face some major obstacles. Western leaders have thus far shown an unwillingness to commit to any military action. The minimal risk, low loss option of a “no-fly zone” spoken about by both UK and US leaders is now a few days later being described as a monumental undertaking requiring apparently more detailed planning and preparation than the 1944 invasion of Normandy and Prince William’s wedding combined. While last week it was presented as a casual “intervention light beer” option, this week the US and European governments have decided that it would first need support and approval of everyone, including Alaskan Eskimos and Australian aboriginal councils. Tribes in the upper Amazonian region are often difficult to locate so this could take a while.

When any Western government says, “Oh yes, we really will do it, just as soon as the UN is in agreement,” they are simply backing down without admitting it. If nothing else, UN participants can enjoy a temporarily upgraded illusion of doing important world business.

While US President and occasional Kenyan Barack Obama was busy explaining that we are “boxing in” Gadhafi, his Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that Colonel Gadhafi had a potentially decisive advantage in arms and equipment that would make itself felt as the conflict wore on, and that Gadhafi would win. Clapper’s performance before the US Senate audience begs several questions. Was this his view or the view that the White House instructed him to present as part of a Washington D.C. political magic show? If Obama and his staff were sincere in the surprise they demonstrated at Clapper’s statement, then why is the Director of National Intelligence not providing the President with his honest assessments in the middle of a major crisis?

Republicans were quick to respond with anger at what they claim is an undermining of the Libyan resistance and de-facto support for Moammar Gadhafi and his regime. Was Clapper doing a subtle sales job in an attempt to get Congress to demand action? If a demand for military action comes most loudly from Congress, then the White House will be able to take less of the blame for any negative consequences from that military action.

James R. Clapper–Flaming Idiot or Congress Fodder? 

As a young, first term senator, Obama was happy to play the “I voted against war” card in his campaign for the presidency. Now that he’s president, it’s tougher to let the military do his bidding without taking a bit of the responsibility. I honestly can’t yet determine if Clapper is the flaming idiot that he presents himself as, or if he has simply been tossed on the fire before the Golden Ox of Congress. The discordant tones emanating from the White House are starting to sound depressingly like the sort of song that Uncle Momo, himself, would sing. 

Suggestions are being voiced that, perhaps, it is time for the USA to dip into its strategic oil reserves. I disagree with the idea, but I am curious about the financial arrangements. Did taxpayers not pay for that oil to be pumped into those reserves? If so, then will Exxon be sending me a check for taking the oil? To prevent having to write so many checks, will the oil simply be passed out for free at the pump? Oh goody, I finally get to enjoy a visit to a gas station without bringing my wallet. We can’t be sure of the financial aspects of the deal, but we can be sure that, one way or another, most of us will continue to fill our tanks and to shop for groceries at a store that depends on diesel trucks for deliveries.

This morning, neither Uncle Momo nor his rebelling subjects can be sure of Washington’s and Europe’s intentions. If meaningful help will arrive for the rebels, it will have to come from the West, but it does not, at this moment, appear to be forthcoming. It is my impression that the anti-Gadhafi forces suffered a blow to their morale when they realized that the West is avoiding military action in Libya. Intelligence Director Clapper is right in his assessment of comparative forces, but, in my view, the key to success for the rebels will be their ability and willingness to cooperate amongst themselves and organize politically, as well as militarily.

It would be unwise for the rebels to use their limited supplies and capabilities in any further attempts to dislodge Gadhafi’s loyalists from the Tripoli area. Even with their limited equipment and supplies, they have an opportunity to oust the Gadhafi Circus by utilizing a mixture of patience and opportunistic ambush tactics whenever Gadhafi forces move. Gadhafi’s forces are not particularly vulnerable in Tripoli, but whenever they take to the roads, they and their supplies will be ripe for the picking.

That strategy will require cooperation and organization. One of the challenges to cooperation and organization amongst the Libyan rebels is that the Islamic radicals will continue to attempt to co-opt this Libyan revolution. The Libyan rebels have not called for my advice. We shall see how they evolve their nascent revolution. Their destiny is, after all, not in the hands of Obama or Western leaders in general. Their destiny is in their hands. 

   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Stay tuned as Holmes continues to keep us updated on this unfolding situation. Do you have any questions about Libya or the Middle East? Any questions about Europe and its history with Libya? Any questions about our foreign policies?

All the best to all of you for cooperating in your best interests.

Piper Bayard–The Pale Writer of the Apocalypse

Holmes–Student of Sex, C4, and Hollow Points