We Were Soldiers is indeed great.
How about Karnow's Vietnam, and Herring's America's Longest War? I read reviews on Amazon and they said that the Herring book was more about diplomacy.
Also, with regards to the argument over "The US could have won if it did this or that," or "There was no way to win the Vietnam War," any recommendations for the best books or articles on both sides?
Thanks.
I usually recommend Karnow as a very readable and balanced introduction for people who have not delved into the Vietnam literature (students, for instance)Originally Posted by jlechelt
Probably the most discussed "we could have won it if we did this" are Andy Krepinevch, The Army and Vietnam and Harry Summers, On Strategy. They recommend, though, diametric opposites. I'd have to look through my stuff at the office for something that would fall into the "nothing would have mattered" school (which I myself am close to).
What would have mattered was deciding what we
wanted to do before we went in and I do mean a realistic assessment thereof -- a nagging little item with which we continually seem to have a great deal of trouble...
Viet Nam presented some achievable goals; unfortunately, they wandered out of reach while we tried to fight a land war in Europe in the rice paddies of SE Asia for seven long years. There was never going to be a 'win' -- just as there was and will not be one in Iraq but an acceptable outcome was reachable (and is in Iraq).
Limited war is a dangerous and tricky proposition...
For Viet Nam, I'd also recommend Lewis Sorley's A Better War and Bruce Palmer's The 25 Year War: America's Military Role in Vietnam (the only book by a GO I ever recommend to anyone...)
Edited to add:
Oops. Just realized I inadvertently lied -- Slim's Defeat into Victory is another General's book worth reading. After racking my tiny brain, I'm pretty sure just those two...
Last edited by Ken White; 09-28-2007 at 08:22 PM. Reason: Correct a misstatement
Intelligence in War
I just finished John Keegan's Intelligence In War. It is excellent. He uses some historic examples beginning with Nelson's search for the French fleet on its way to Egypt. His discussion of code breaking was especially interesting. The Poles made a significant contribution to breaking Germany's Ultra code. One of the lessons he takes from the intelligence derived is that it is not always that helpful, because some of the dots are always missing. The German invasion of Crete is given as an example where being forewarned wasn't enough. He also looks at the US Magic intercepts and how they led to the victory at Midway, with the assistance of a lot luck. It is a very good read.
I am currently reading Bruce Catton's The Coming Fury which is the first volume in his Civil War Trilogy. It is outstanding. I have been meaning to read his books on the Civil War for about 40 years and am glad I finally got around to it.
For those looking for Vietnam War books, Mark Moyar's Triumph Forsaken should be your top choice. He has access to sources out of North Vietnam that were not available when most of the books were written in the 1970s. If you are interested in counterinsurgency warfare, you will enjoy this book.
Another Vietnam book worth reading is Admiral U.S.G. Sharp's Strategy for Defeat. It is mainly about the air war.
You might try...
HR McMaster's, Dereliction of Duty.
Best.
Strongly, strongly recommend Eric Bergerud's THE DYNAMICS OF DEFEAT: THE VIETNAM WAR IN HAU NGHIA PROVINCE (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991). This works takes on both Summers' and Krepinevich's arguments, arguing that it didn't matter what the U.S. did, without a strong government in Saigon that enjoyed the support of the indigenous population, it was merely a matter of time. The Communists understood this, we apparently refused to, even though many within the most senior levels of government--to include McNamara and Westmoreland--articulated such appraisals as early as 1965. In this vein, Lewis Sorley's A BETTER WAR: THE UNEXAMINED VICTORIES AND FINAL TRAGEDY OF AMERICA'S LAST YEARS IN VIETNAM and Mark Woodruff's UNHERALDED VICTORY: THE DEFEAT OF THE VIET CONG AND THE NORTH VIETNAMESE ARMY: 1961-1973 don't quite answer Bergerud's arguments, at least to me.Originally Posted by jlechelt
Also, with regards to the argument over "The US could have won if it did this or that," or "There was no way to win the Vietnam War," any recommendations for the best books or articles on both sides?
Thanks.
McMaster's DERELICTION OF DUTY is excellent, certainly. It argues the war was mounted primarily out of political expediency...and is a fairly depressing yet fascinating read. But it doesn't provide strategy arguments regarding the central question asked in the quote above.
For a contrary view, check out Mark Moyar's TRIUMPH FORSAKEN which argues we should have left the Diem brothers in power which provides the most articulate response to Bergerud. Also see Michael Lind's THE NECESSARY WAR: A REINTERPRETATION OF AMERICA'S MOST DISASTROUS MILITARY CONFLICT which argues we had to fight the war no matter how it came out. Both these works are very controversial.
As with most controversies, there is a lot of depth (and reading) needed to be well-grounded in the arguments and differing assumptions/interpretations of the facts. We're a very long way from any sort of definitive treatment of the arguments for and against the war and strategic options....
I am reading Ambassador and Mrs Krueger's book on their aborted tour in Burundi. I especially like the chapter devoted to my evil ways in Rwanda.
Next is Abu Buckwheat's book on the insurgency in Iraq.
Tom
I'll update my part of my own thread.I am reading Ambassador and Mrs Krueger's book on their aborted tour in Burundi. I especially like the chapter devoted to my evil ways in Rwanda.
Next is Abu Buckwheat's book on the insurgency in Iraq.
Tom
Recently finished:
Tenet's At the Center of the Storm (OK, because my expectations were low)
Robb's Brave New War (excellent)
Mary Habeck's Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror (excellent except for the policy recommendations)
Robert Kaufman, In Defense of the Bush Doctrine (horrible)
Since I'm rushing to finish the manuscript for my Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy (and I just completed a 16K word draft chapter on the formation of the Bush strategy up to the Iraq decision), I'm trying to limit my reading. I am playing with Evan Jenkins, That or Which, and Why: A Usage Guide for Thoughtful Writers and Editors and I'm dipping into Shakespeare to clear my mind. This morning I also worked through two excellent articles: Paul Pillar's "The Right Stuff" in the current issue of The National Interest, and David Betz's "Redesigning Land Forces for Wars Amongst the People" in Contemporary Security Policy.
'nother update.
Now reading
John Keegan, The Iraq War
Niall Ferguson, War of the World
In the queue
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force
Martin van Creveld, The Changing Face of War
Started, but current on hold
Colin Gray, Another Bloody Century
Ralph Peters, Wars of Blood and Faith
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks