What Are You Currently Reading? 2007

[Kreker]

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.

HR McMaster's, Dereliction of Duty.
Best.

[ericmwalters]

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.

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.

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....

[SteveMetz]

I'll update my part of my own thread.

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

[CR6]

To flip this around, here's a question: Anyone read or know of a good biography of George Marshall?
Matt

Pogue's 4 volume biography on Marshall is awesome. It's available in paperback from the George C. Marshall foundation, Lexington, VA.

http://www.marshallfoundation.org/pd..._gift_shop.pdf

Ed Cray's General of the Army: George C. Marshall, Soldier and Statesman is a good one volume bio, but not on Pogue's level.

Stoler's George C. Marshall Soldier-Statesman of the American Century
is a short read, but decent intro to the man.

[Wildcat]

In the queue:

Robert D. Kaplan, Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea, and on the Ground.

John Robb, Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization.

John J. Tierney, Jr., Chasing Ghosts: Unconventional Warfare in American History.

And on the fiction side, a book I'm very much looking forward to reading, Phillip Jennings' Nam-A-Rama.

[tequila]

Abu Buckwheat / Malcolm Nance's The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraqi Insurgency- Get this book. It's everything that SWJ'ers say it is.

Laurent Dubois' Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution - About halfway through. The social background of the slave system in French St. Domingue, the wealthiest single colony in the New World, is detailed quite well. We are still, unfortunately, denied a clear view of the slave insurgency at its birth and thus unable to discern exactly how it was organized and led, except that it was executed with exceptional competence. A very fine and readable history.

Caroline Finkel's Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire - About halfway on this one as well. Pretty good "sultan's history" of the empire - a good framework for building on more. Wish there was some more on the military and bureaucratic institutions of the empire, but Finkel has done very fine work considering the size of her subject. Random telling detail: Post-16th century, the term "Turk" in Ottoman writings was typically used disparagingly.

Just started Dr. Jonathan Shay's Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character.

Finished Gilles Dorronsoro's Revolution Unending: Afghanistan 1979 to present. Superb social and political history of late modern Afghanistan. Demolishes many a preconception if all you've read is romantic stuff written by British officers pre-1900 (most of my own reading about Afghanistan falls in this area, sadly). Surprisingly one of my Afghan expat friends didn't know half the stuff in here despite the fact that her grandfather is mentioned in the book.

[Steve Blair]

Shay's book is good. Been meaning to pick up his second one for some time.

[Wildcat]

Almost forgot: just pre-ordered my copy of Robert B. Strassler's followup to The Landmark Thucydides, which gets released on November 9: The Landmark Herodotus. Very, very excited about this one. I can't wait to see it sitting on the shelf next to Thucydides.

[MattC86]

Pogue's 4 volume biography on Marshall is awesome. It's available in paperback from the George C. Marshall foundation, Lexington, VA.

http://www.marshallfoundation.org/pd..._gift_shop.pdf

Ed Cray's General of the Army: George C. Marshall, Soldier and Statesman is a good one volume bio, but not on Pogue's level.

Stoler's George C. Marshall Soldier-Statesman of the American Century
is a short read, but decent intro to the man.

Thanks - I actually just finished Cray's book yesterday. It was a pretty good one volume, but it had so many of those annoying little factual errors as to make it a bit trying. None of them were major issues, but they detract from the overall credibility of the work. As one of my professors once said, "I opened up a major biography of Jefferson Davis. The first sentence read, 'Jefferson C. Davis was the product of. . . .etc, etc.' and Jefferson C. Davis was a Union officer who murdered a fellow general. Jefferson F. Davis was president of the Confederacy. How can you trust a guy who can't get his subject's name right?" And the Cray George C. Marshall biography was the same way, though maybe not quite as bad. John Marshall is referred to as the first chief justice of the Supreme Court on the first page - he was the fourth. Ridgway is referred to as a Major General during his stint as CINC-Far East - he was a full general. Just annoying stuff like that which detracted from an otherwise readable and enjoyable biography.

I did see all four volumes of Pogue's massive work in the Cornell library, and it was enough to intimidate me thoroughly.

Interested in seeing how "Chasing Ghosts" is; I saw it at the library and might pick it up on my next run. I'm finally reading Galula's Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, with Shultz's Insurgents, Terrorists, and Militias also competing for time with my textbooks. . .

Matt

[Steve Blair]

"Chasing Ghosts" is, IMO, not very good at all. I've got some thoughts on it here. Short version: he relies on dated sources, makes some assorted historical errors, and generally seems more interested in making a point (something he denies enough times that I tend to doubt it...."methinks he doth protest too much") than he is dealing with history. Of course, YMMV, as it almost always does with books....

[MattC86]

"Chasing Ghosts" is, IMO, not very good at all. I've got some thoughts on it here. Short version: he relies on dated sources, makes some assorted historical errors, and generally seems more interested in making a point (something he denies enough times that I tend to doubt it...."methinks he doth protest too much") than he is dealing with history. Of course, YMMV, as it almost always does with books....

What is the Asprey work you refer to on that page? Is there any comparable work on the history of American irregular warfare experience?

EDIT: nevermind, read the whole thread. . . found the book.

Matt

[Steve Blair]

From the Small Wars Journal Reading List:
War in the Shadows - Robert Asprey. "Ranging from Alexander the Great's battles with Asiatic Scythians, through the Russian Revolution, and on up to the turmoil in the Middle East and the battle in Northern Ireland, War in the Shadows is a book of monumental sweep and singular perspective. It also contains a comprehensive and hard-hitting strategic evaluation of the Vietnam War - one of the most significant analyses of the war that won't go away. War in the Shadows tells the story of the countries currently torn by armed insurgencies and clarifies the causes of each conflict. It provides the broad viewpoint necessary for understanding them in the historical terms of guerilla warfare. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, and a highly unstable new world order, this brand of rebellion has never been more powerful and potentially disruptive."

You can also order it off that page here (which gives the site some kickback from Amazon...).

As far as the American experience, I'm not aware of a single distilled volume (and I'd be suspicious of one at this point). Our experience tends to be isolated in specific periods or wars (which is why I was so disappointed with "Chasing Ghosts"...he had a chance and really blew it). It's possible to put together a decent overview with a short reading list (say 5 volumes or so), though.

[Wildcat]

"Chasing Ghosts" is, IMO, not very good at all. I've got some thoughts on it here. Short version: he relies on dated sources, makes some assorted historical errors, and generally seems more interested in making a point (something he denies enough times that I tend to doubt it...."methinks he doth protest too much") than he is dealing with history. Of course, YMMV, as it almost always does with books....

Interesting... I'll probably still pick it up, though it sounds to me like it will be a lot like Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace, perhaps. Any thoughts on a comparison of the two?

I'm finally reading Galula's Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, with Shultz's Insurgents, Terrorists, and Militias also competing for time with my textbooks. . .

Ahh, Galula... right up there with Roger Trinquier as a classic text on COIN. I've been meaning to pick up War in the Shadows, too.

[Steve Blair]

Boot at least uses current sources. "Chasing Ghosts" does not. I think his most "modern" source is Robert Utley's work on the Frontier Army. Just about everything else he cites was written before 1970, and one whole section is based on his own PhD work (which is dated as well). He doesn't use any recent Civil War scholarship on the border conflicts between Kansas and Missouri, and ignores Linn's work on the Philippines. How you can write meaningfully on the Philippines without consulting Linn is beyond me.

[goesh]

Whitehead - Religion in the Making

"Life is an offensive, directed against the repetitious mechanism of the Universe" ~ A.N.W.

[Steve Blair]

Oh, yeah...the point of the thread...

Hampton Sides "Blood and Thunder"

[Jedburgh]

....As far as the American experience, I'm not aware of a single distilled volume (and I'd be suspicious of one at this point). Our experience tends to be isolated in specific periods or wars....

Perhaps not exactly falling into the type of book under discussion, but this two-volume set is written from the point of view of evolving doctrine - of course it does that by looking closely at the events that influenced that doctrine....

U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations Doctrine, 1860-1941

U.S. Army Counterinsurgency and Contingency Operations Doctrine, 1942-1976

[Steve Blair]

True enough, Jed. I'd actually forgotten about those...

[MattC86]

Just finished Anthony James Joes' Urban Guerrilla Warfare. Interesting book, but he seemed to say, essentially, that urban guerillas can cause a lot of damage and headaches, but in the end are doomed to fail, as they violate too many of Mao's cherished tenets on insurgency. He even claimed, in the end, the Chechens were defeated in Grozny, because the Russians took the city.

I felt he focused too much on who won the battle instead of who won the "war" - the political dimension and context, so critical in insurgency/COIN ops, was seemingly entirely omitted. Interesting but flawed read. Short, though.

Just started Michael C. Fowler's "Amateur Soldiers, Global Wars." Has anyone read this? If so, what do you think of his arguments? In essence, he takes Hammes' 4GW concept to the extreme - really to a 5GW - in challenging the traditional concepts of political power, armed forces, and victory. It's an interesting and provocative read, so far, but is so nontraditional in its concepts and arguments that I'd be very interested in what any other SWC members have to say about it.

Also, if could be so bold, can I suggest (if only for my own benefit) that posters write a quick blurb about the books they read in addition to identifying it, so that we can get an idea of whether it is worth tracking down or not?

Matt

[tequila]

MattC86 - Is he referring to the First Chechen War?

He should remember that in 1996 the Chechens retook the city from the Russians in one of the most amazing examples of an insurgent force defeating a modern military that I know of. Some 3,000 Chechens infiltrated Grozny, immobilized a garrison of 11,000 or so Russians, and destroyed Russian attempts to relieve the city. The defeat brought about the negotiated settlement and ultimate Chechen victory. Certainly an outstanding example of the guerrillas' ability to "swim" in the "sea" of the population of Grozny.

Of course, the Second Chechen War showed what happens when critical political splits occur in the insurgency itself.