But we can use the words, Ricks and History to describe his two books certainly? I mean, maybe his analogy in one daily beast article was poor, but that doesn't discount the entirety of his work does it?
But we can use the words, Ricks and History to describe his two books certainly? I mean, maybe his analogy in one daily beast article was poor, but that doesn't discount the entirety of his work does it?
I would describe it more as historical journalism (a parallel to historical fiction) rather than military history. I say that because he seems to have a theme and then the history is melded to it rather than the reverse. He comes close but does not get to the center of the reality he describes.
As an indicator I would point to his comments that he was surprised that troops would say that Afghanistan was a harder fight physically than Iraq. He commented that he thought Kabul was much more comfortable than Baghdad. That is true from what I know of Afghanistan and what I have experienced here. But I also know that humping a combat load up a mountain in high altitudes can be a soul destroyer, even when no one is trying to kill you.
Tom
Bookmarks