Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
...I expect flak from COL Gentile shortly for my choice of book , given his distaste for Dr. Krepinevich's thesis. However, I found his argument works, even if some of his history may be skewed.
First, I sent a personal email to Niel congratulating him for winning the award from such a reputable publication like AFJ. I thought the article to be articulate in its purpose and argument.

In a work of history, though, Niel, I am not sure how you can acknowledge that the argument works even though the history, as you say, "is flawed?" A good work of historical scholarship by its nature has a good argument because it has a good use of history.

This points to a bigger problem with much professional writing in the US Army based on recent combat experience in Iraq and Astan. The bigger problem revolves around looking to the past for a template and then recounting ones own recent combat experience and then having the implicit point that because one writes about the past and juxtaposes that past to current experience then the recent experience somehow has greater meaning. David Fivecoat's new article in MR is an example of this. So is Neil's essay.

At some point folks should really go back and re-read Clausewitz and heed his guidance that history should inform the commander's judgment and knowledge but never, never, accompany him to the battlefield.

In a sense, Niel, you are violating St Carl's guidance by having the past of Vietnam as told (wrongly, I might add) by Krepinevich accompany you on your present journey of memory of your recent battlefield experience in Iraq and accounting for it.

gg