I am reading a pretty interesting book and came across this passage early on which struck something of a familiar chord:

"Even in the supposedly pacified areas...the military occupation was purely notional. Memoirs convey a Wild West frontier atmosphere, with civilians and administrators routinely going armed, and never venturing far without exchanging the latest information on which villages and roads were safe and which should be avoided. In practical terms the army controlled only a shifting pattern of invisible islands in the human landscape. The spaces between were roamed by ...and other armed groups. The activities of the .... had scattered ..(region)...with weapons...and the vacuum following ...(X's)...surrender was exploited by local warlords, drug smugglers, freebooting deserters, and partisans and ragged militias of many groups and causes."

As you might guess, I have clipped many identifying details. Who wants to guess the locale and year +/- 5? Any unsuccessful guessers agree to buy successful guessers a beer when next they meet.

1850, Utah -- California.

EDIT: missed the "drugs" part, so I'm changing this to say Somalia, 1994.
. But I suppose it's more likely to be south/central america..

Cheers

Knowing Jim's proclivity to posting controversial topics regarding our current political leadership, I'm gonna say Afghanistan 2002.

Florida, 2000.

Do I win a beer?!

Yes, agree it's got to point to a history lesson, so my first thought was Afghanistan in the 1850's after the British invasion. But it's written in a very modern idiom, so maybe Somalia 1992/93 ?

Regards

Mark

I know there was a strong insurgency in Germany following WW2, but I would guess that the Russian, British and US occupation along with the scale of the destuction would have made something on the scale of militias hard to pull off. Even though it was I think 5 years before elections there, "warlord" isn't something that comes to mind when I think of Germany. Germany was also called a quagmire and the NYT ran peices saying how we failed to manage a post-war Europe. I can think of many differences, but those are a few similarities.

Japan is another thought (post WW2). Maybe the "invisible islands" line put that thought in my head. Again, there was a strong insurgency. The Japanese had their own version of suicide bombers I'm sure. But my guess is that we did a better job of disarming Japan and there would not have been armed groups walking around.

Maybe WW2 isn't reaching back far enough into history...

How about this: We're assuming you're talking about the US being the occupier. What if you're quote is of England occupying parts of America or New England? Don't have a year however.

Can't be too far back. The quote talks about "Wild West", so that gives us a post-1850 -ish date. I'm guessing Afghanistan under anyone (the Brits, the Sovs or the US).

Actually, re-reading it, the book is written post-1850, but the memoirs referenced could be earlier than that. I'm still going for Afghanistan, though.

Philippines, 1898?

Post American Civil War, 1860-63.

The "drug smuggler" angle seems to push against the Civil War. The "surrender" angle makes it sound like Vietnam after the South Vietnamese government collapsed, but that's not a good fit for "military occupation". I'm going to have to say that we're talking about something in Central or South America (e.g., post-Noriega Nicaragua).

Yeah, I guess Somalia had the warlords.

The fact that "Wild West frontier atmosphere" is mentioned, puts it well into the 1800's. The *way* it's mentioned, puts it into the 1900's in my opinion. "Warlord" has most recently been associated with Somalia and a couple of other African nations. But I couldn't begin to guess where/when/whom these "memoirs" refer to, nor their author(s).

Bruno

Things can seem like other things that happened afterwards. The witch hunts of Salem could have a McCarthyist atmosphere, for example.

Sorry, I had a brain fart. I wasn't reasoning based on comparison, but rather an assumption (the fart part) that the text was written at the time in question. No one in 1820 would have written "Wild West frontier atmosphere"

Back to work... Move along... Nothing to see here...

Bruno

Boxer Rebellion (no, not Barbara....) China about 1900?

My second guess would be Rwanda 1994

My memory recalls this post as a reason to venture that guess.

Aw man, that's cheating.

Having the best memory isn't cheating... Then again...I don't know if it's right...he may have moved on to another book by now.

You lucky bastard! I`m cursed with a teflon-brain...

Shan state, Burma, culminating in Khun Sa's 1996 surrender?

Edit:
(In which case perhaps this book)

USA, 1783?

My two guesses: Middle East, 1914-18 (think T.H. Lawrence) and Southern Africa 1899-1902 (Boer War).

I'll be honest with you. It was a total guess based on your sense of irony. Also, my knowledge of the history of illicit substances is not that great.

Hmm. Seems that the first drugs law in the US was a New York state alcohol prohibition in 1845. Then localized opium-smoking prohibitions in the 1870s, mostly directed at Chinese immigrants. The first national prohibition seems to have been 1914's Harrison Tax Act, outlawing opiates and cocaine.

Of course, the issue was trafficking, which may have been illegal elsewhere....

So it could still be Civil War vintage...

Well, I figure that the US is probably a pretty good bellwether for drugs laws about the world. At the same time, the earliest real drugs law (I don't think we can count alcohol) was in the 1870s, after the US Civil War (which is what I assume you were referring to), and, in fact, during the period in which we would place the actual Wild West. While I don't think that it's necessary that the veribiage used indicates that the event happened after the Wild West, it'd seem an unlikely choice of terms to label a contemporary event that way. Which probably places this in the 20th century, as it's likely that drugs laws didn't exist until the 1870s and the Wild West itself lasted pretty much to the turn of the century.

LOL.

I totally missed that the first time.

Unredacted:

Even in the supposedly pacified areas of Cochinchina and Annam the French military occupation was purely notional. Memoirs convey a Wild West frontier atmosphere, with European civilians and administrators routinely going armed with Sten guns, and never venturing far without exchanging the latest information on which villages and roads were safe and which should be avoided. In practical terms the French Army controlled only a shifting pattern of invisible islands in the human landscape. The spaces between were roamed not only by the Viet Minh but also by various other armed groups, only some of which had direct connections with either the Communists or the Franco-Vietnamese forces. The wartime activities of the French, Japanese, British, Americans, Nationalist Chinese and Siamese had scattered South-East Asia with weapons and the vacuum following Japan's surrender was exploited by local warlords, drug smugglers, freebooting deserters, and the partisans and ragged militias of many groups and causes.

From THE LAST VALLEY Dien Bien Phu and the French Defeat in Vietnam by Martin Windrow, page 95. Here Windrow describes the situation from around 1946 on as France tries to reestablish its colonial rule in Indochina (leading up this most famous battle/defeat in 1953-54).

Many years ago I read Bernard Fall's Hell in a Very Small Place, considered by many as the definitive book on DBP and cited with reverence by chroniclers of later Vietnam adventures like Michael Herr. So, when I saw Windrow's book I asked my self why I would want to bother. But Windrow's book is in many ways superior. He spends much more time filling in the historical background leading up to the French decision to "call Giap out" (my choice of term).

When I read this passage "Even in the supposedly pacified areas..." I couldn't help thinking of parallels to the current day, and your answers said that there are many more.

The "turning point" clue I mentioned in my last post (I think) was the role of (US-supplied) Fairchild C-119 "Flying Boxcars" at Dien Bien Phu. I remember seeing these interesting planes fly over my suburban home in the early 60s (from Hanscom AFB, or Otis AFB in Massachusetts or maybe Pease in New Hampshire, I don't know). C-119s were provided to the French for DBP by the US and were flown by American pilots of the CIA-owned Civil Air Transport, so, in terms of when the U.S. first had active combatants in Vietnam, 1953 could be considered the year the U.S. entered the war