Reading list
that was a great list, i also like summers. although he got some stuff wrong, his observations are still of great intrest to me. his historical atlas of the vietnam war is amazing as well. heres the isbn 0-395-72223-3
also heres a link to the recommended reading for FSO-
http://search.state.gov/search?q=rea...&site=careers&
x=0&y=0
also some great reading can be found here
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/coin/index.asp
Last edited by ANNEX; 05-06-2009 at 06:07 PM. Reason: wrong thread
Reading lists
Very interesting...As I posted in Hails and Farewells today my PhD research is on the use, utility etc of self-directed reading programmes in PME (title is "Autonomous, self-directed professional reading and the education of leaders"). I was intending to open a thread on this topic soon so will signal this here. I have now collected details of some reading programmes and lists from militaries accross the globe and will, over time, share some insights, thoughts etc on them. To weigh into the topic though, my favourite list in many ways comes from LtGen John Kiszkely, Director of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. In his words, "reading is an essential contributor to the development of sound judgement, intuition, and wisdom in military decision-making". He goes on to list "the ten books which I consider contribute more than any others to that understanding and development". His title are
Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Howard & Paret edition)
Martin van Creveld, Command in War
Alex Danchev & Daniel Todman (eds), War Diaries 1939-1945. Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke
David Fraser, Knight's Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
Andrew Gordon, The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command
Alastair Horne, A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962
Michael Howard, The Franco-Prussian War
HR McMaster, Dereliction of Duty
William Slim, Defeat into Victory
Robert S Strassler (ed), The Landmark Thucydides
The list and commentary is available from http://www.defac.ac.uk/publications/reading-list
From a Kiwi perspective, our best contribution to the canon is probably Howard Kippenberger, Infantry Brigadier, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1949. "Kip" as he was/is affectionately known was once of our greatest commanders. A vet of WWI & II he rose to the rank of Major General until his command was tragically cut short when he lost both feet at Casino in '44. He went on to be a veterins advocate and official government historian. If you can get hold of a copy (unfortunately out of print) of Infantry Brigadier you'll get a no-BS account of the Kiwi way of war and leadership.
Link broken, id'd June 2015. A copy of my research into Kip is available from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/css/pages/...iscussion.aspx
Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-17-2015 at 07:16 AM. Reason: Bold text added
My only concern with reading lists is that many books aren't just works that you sit down and read on your own. For example, from the list above: On War by CvC. I really don't think most - or even many - people are going to fully grasp everything unless they are already well versed in most of the concepts or they spend considerable time discussing the issues with other knowledgeable folks and/or others who are reading it concurrently.
Also, some books require some significant background knowledge. For example, I recently read The Iliad for the second time (the first was about 10 years ago). This time, it helped significantly to read the translator's introduction (and to do some research into which translation to get), to do some research about the characters and mythology, to follow along with an audio course about the book, and so on. Without the background, it's just expedition, Achilleus gets mad, things turn sour, he gets madder, whoops some ass, end of story. You need to know the history, a bit about Greek culture at the time, and some other trivia to understand what is occurring and its significance. And if you don't know any of that, then you need to know what you need to learn before reading (the known unknowns). Guided study helps.
When I was a young LT starving for knowledge, I read most of the books on the CoS's reading list, from the NCO recommendations up to the top dog recommendations (before 9/11 - afterward, very little time). Some I got a lot out of. Others, in hindsight, would have been better to read if part of some guided study. To cite one example, I plowed through The Soldier and The State and got a lot out of it - particularly the first few chapters. (This was recommended for more senior officers, but it's the example that comes to mind). I suspect that I would have gotten a lot more out of it had it been read as part of some professional development program. Ditto all of the other books, including those recommended for junior officers.
I think that there should also be emphasis on the lists being divided into areas for which any one or two are sufficient. For example, a list of 50 books, divided into 5 areas of 8 to 12 each, with 1 or 2 from each area being adequate. Read all 50 books on the list - or even a list of 10 or 20? Yeah, good luck with that when you're on a cycle of 12 months deployed and then 12 months stateside, of which 8 months is eaten up with training.
Hi Schmedlap,
I'm reading Maurice de Saxe's Reveries on the Art of War right now (thanks KenOriginally Posted by Schmedlap
), and one of the things that is helping get a handle on it is knowing a fair bit about the music at the time - both the great stuff (e.g. Bach) and some of the hack work.
Guided study can be useful, but it is always important to remember that in such a setting you are being "guided" by someone else's view of what is important. It is a fascinating paradox in that it really helps to have expert guidance in getting a rough picture together, but that picture then limits what you can see. I ran head on into this years ago, and one of my truly great prof's suggested a couple of tactics that I have used ever since then.
First, read a general overview of the area and look for the main names, events, dates, etc. This helps you build a rough picture (sort of like the outlines in a colouring book). Having done that, put the overview away and read the original works - not what someone else abstracts from them. And, BTW, when I say "read", I mean read each work three times - a quick overview, a close read with notes, and then a final time to catch the nuances.
Second, when you are reading the original works (in the original language if possible), ask who they are drawing on. Most texts are part of a much larger universe of discourse (including a lot of dead people
Third, try and invert some of the authors axiomatic assumptions and see if you react the same way to what they are saying. I'll admit it can be tricky finding a good axiomatic assumption to invert, but it will usually be something that they don't talk about - in the case of social theory, I used to (and still do) invert the assumption of reincarnation (I assume it's real).
Okay, it's time consuming. It does, however, let you start to pull out principles and boundary conditions for those principles.
Cheers,
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
COIN Reading List
For a list that generally approaches easily accessible on your own, I would put Muqawama's COIN reading list.
Caution: for all the people who HATE population-centric COIN, this reading list is pretty much geared toward it. It has an amazing collection of very good articles as well. If you want to know what is influencing policy in the US government in Afghanistan it is this reading list.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...ding-list.html
Hate is a tad strong...
As an aside, I'm not sure anyone 'hates' population centric COIN -- why would they do that?
There are many who appreciate its value -- but also understand its limitations and like everything else in the world it does have those. There are no easy solutions and no one answer to the solution of any problem.
That said you're correct that the thought expressed on that list "...is influencing policy in the US government in Afghanistan." How wise that is remains to be seen.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-15-2009 at 06:11 PM. Reason: is to its
Ordered it last week, for the same reason.I'm reading Maurice de Saxe's Reveries on the Art of War right now (thanks Ken
Wanna add some detail. This sounds fascinating!Guided study can be useful, but it is always important to remember that in such a setting you are being "guided" by someone else's view of what is important. It is a fascinating paradox in that it really helps to have expert guidance in getting a rough picture together, but that picture then limits what you can see. I ran head on into this years ago, and one of my truly great prof's suggested a couple of tactics that I have used ever since then.
Excellent advice. Also where possible, check the actual content of any footnoted references. Books which are PhD thesis re-prints are usually riddled with "errors".So, start tracking down the works of people who they are arguing with and read their stuff.
Can't improve on what Ken said, plus beware reading lists that are being used to further agendas.
Last edited by William F. Owen; 08-15-2009 at 04:17 PM.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Excellent advice from the above post. My 2cents is to do independent study, which includes interviews with real people if possible. I have a book that I read on this a long time ago about how to do this, besides some influence from an economics professor.
Expert guidance
...and never truer in the case of Clausewitz, the reading of On War itself often hindered by the guidance of 'experts'. To illustrate, anecdotally, I've heard of John Keegan's surprisingly misguided A History of Warfare being withdrawn (belatedly) from recommended reading lists because of its unhelpful impact on strat studies/mil history students' grappling with the Prussian's concepts and impact.
As to the act of reading itself, I don't think we spend nearly enough time teaching our learners the how of critical reading. Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book still has some gems to offer (though shame he cut corners on the Brittanica Great Books series - not user friendly texts at all).
Concur. Couple of points.
H. R. Smiths book on CvC is excellent, and there are now a few good CvC Companions.
The problem with Keegan and Van Creveld, is that they never read CvC, yet chose to take issue with him. Because they were "big names" people un-critically fell in behind their words.
If I have come to learn anything, the higher the rank, the greater the claimed experience, and the bigger the reputation, the less likely the book is to be of any value.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Moderator adds this link no longer works.
Land Warfare Studies Centre, September 2009:
The Australian Army Counterinsurgency and Small Wars Reading Guide
Insurgency is a form of warfare as old as warfare itself, and it has gone by many names in the past: guerrilla warfare, partisan warfare, revolutionary warfare, insurrectionary warfare, irregular warfare, unconventional warfare, peoples' war and terrorism. All have been—and are—used to describe the same broad phenomenon, though they do not all have the exact same meaning and have not necessarily been used simultaneously. Modern insurgency, closely identified in the second half of the twentieth century with national liberation struggles and revolutionary Marxism derived from the writings—and practice—of Mao (among others), has a well defined theoretical literature. So, too, does counterinsurgency. There is, likewise, a sizeable historical literature that provides numerous case studies in the field. To borrow an observation of T E Lawrence, himself an insurgent leader: ‘With 2000 years of examples behind us, we have no excuse when fighting for not fighting well'.
This reading list is intended to counter such tempting delusions, or at least to subject them to rigorous scrutiny. It makes no attempt, and no claim, to be exhaustive or definitive: such a list would run to many thousands of entries and quickly prove self-defeating. The list is divided into two parts: a strongly historical section, and a contemporary one. Arguments about insurgency in the present are frequently couched in historical terms, or by appeal to historical precedent. The quality of the argument is often determined by the quality of the history and depth of historical understanding conscripted to support it.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 04-12-2014 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Add note
I’ll definitely have to read your work on Kip. Read ‘Kippenberger, an inspired New Zealand commander’ by Glyn Harper a few years ago. He sure appears to have been a good leader with great potential, until he stomped on that mine. Anyone’s guess how Cassino might have worked out….
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)
All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)
ONWARD
Cheers! To round out the reading try Denis McLean's (former Secretary of Defence and NZ Ambassador to the U.S.) Howard Kippenberger: Doubtless Spirit, Random House, Auckland, 2008.
For all non-NZ readers, "Kip" had a lot to say about U.S. Army leaders during the Italian campaign. He was not an admirer of Gen. Mark Clark (who doesn't have a great rep in this part of the world). I think anyone trying to learn about coalition warfare (nobody can ever go it alone for long) should concentrate on learning what the junior parners thought. They might be the source of the 'home truths' only true friends can deliver.
Bookmarks