Hellooo, is there anybody theeerrrre?
Just checking for signs of life. It's been several months since my last confession.
Despite being v.busy of late I have been keeping my eye on the ball by reading as much as I can. Interesting how much easier the reading is when you are doing it entirely of your own volition.
Anyway, this is what I have been reading. In addition to my single word reviews below, I intend to post some deeper comment on this blog in due course:
Crefeld, Martin (1991), 'The Transformation of War' (New York: Free Press) – Brilliant and eye-opening, if a little difficult to swallow for a military man. Poses some v.interesting questions regarding the relevance/utility of conventional armed forces.
Nicolson, Adam (2005), 'Men of Honour – Trafalgar and the Making of the English Hero' (London: Harpercollins) – Mind-Blowing. If perspective is sought to compare with the lot of the modern soldier and his place of work, look no further.
Page, Lewis (2006), 'Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs – Blundering and Waste in the Armed Forces' (London: William Heinemann) – Complete and utter piffle. I had hoped for some well researched anacdotal cases to improve my conversational prowess and fill future essays but was hugely dissappointed. Indeed, I can personnally disprove almost everything that Lewis asserts in his chapter on logistics and his waffle regarding strategic lift. The literary equivalent of mutton dressed as lamb.
Smith, Rupert (2006), 'The Utility of Force – The Art of War in the Modern World' (London: Knopf) – Essential reading for anyone who seeks to command and provides an effective response to many of the questions posed by Van Crefeld in his ‘Transformation of War’ (refer to above).
Keegan, John (1976), 'The Face of Battle' (London: Cape) – essential reading for anyone who seeks to lead. Coupled with Richard Holmes’ ‘Firing Line’ and Adam Nicolson’s ‘Men of Honour...’ (above), this is one of the best books regarding the realities of conflict and the evolution of military doctine/motivation that I have read.
posted by Nick Dymond @ 09:39
4 comments
4 Comments:
Hi Nick,
I always check your blog to see if you are posting anything. I'm just too lazy to get round to posting my own comments!
I too have been reading a little and interesting to see your comments especially on Keegan. He was my War Studies lecturer at Sandhurst many. many moons ago and I'll be damned if I can remember a word he said! I have, however, just read his "War and our World", which is a series of lectures/essays he gave in the 1998 Reith Lectures. Even the New York Times calls him the "most original of living historians". In the essays he discusses whether war is a natural condition of mankind, the origins of war, whether the modern state is dependant on war, and can there ever be an end to war. All very concise. He concludes that it is now war, rather than famine and disease, that is the greatest affliction of our times. I tend to agree and especially with what is unfolding in the Middle East right now!
I have also read an interesting book about the UN and its failures. It was very U.S. focussed and written by an American journalist called Eric Shawn. In it he lambasts the UN, especially the French, Russians and Chinese, and says that the UN isn't worth the dollars the U.S. pumps into it and that it is actually a threat to U.S. security. A little one sided and I can't get the Eisenhower quote out of my head when he said in 1961, "with all its defects, with all the failures that we can check up against it, the UN still represents man's best-organized hope to substitute the conference table for the battlefield". D'accord - I say! I've just started another book on the UN. This one by Paul Kennedy called The Parliament of Man and it seems a little more balanced. My wife works for the UN and is simultaneously planning the East Timor, Darfur and (potential) Lebanon missions. Lots of jobs out there for capable people in search of a challenge (see un.org/jobs)!
I am also reading "Heart of Darkness" having finished a number of earlier Joseph Conrad pieces. He is widely considered to have been one of the great writers of the 20th Century although many of his works were actually written in the late 19th Century. "Heart of Darkness" is about the Congo and his views were considered extremely liberal in his day although not by the standards of today. Conrad was originally Polish but became adopted English. He regarded British Imperialism as the least malign of the various kinds around at a time when 25% of the human race was subjest to the Queen Victoria! He once concluded that the Belgian exploitation of Africa was, "the viliest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human conscience". I agree but his were powerful words with King Leopold a reigning European monarch at the time! With elections just having taken place in DR Congo and the results eagerly awaited I only hope that the DR Congo may be finally able to move on but as with much of Africa - "watch this space"!
Enough as I too must move on.
Pip
P.S. I've also read some crap too!
Hi Pip
I was going to follow up my earlier post with some further comments on the individual titles but laziness has gotten the better of me (once again).
You're right about 'the crap'. It's a shame that these books don't come with health warnings (can seriously damage your understanding of the world etc). That said, I suppose it comes down to whatever floats your boat on a particular day. Some authors grip me whilst others fail to do so. I always enjoy my reading more when I'm not under duress.
I stand by my comments about Rupert Smith in particular. Many commentators in the BAR gave Smith a bit of a roasting, suggesting that he's missed the point about 'war amongst the people' etc (you have to read it to know what I'm on about here but bear with me). However, I think I understand where he's coming from and believe he has a point. It's nothing new though as much of what he says is basic stuff.
Anyhow, looking forward to firing up for the course again? I'm not. This break couldnt have come at a worse time. Frankly I just want to get on with it. Summer break - what's that all about?
Nick
Hi Nick, Pip:
Sorry about the summer break Nick. I wore out the college-issue grindstone with my nose. They needed time to replace it with a latter model. This may be the first and last such break for WiMW actually. It's a practical question of staff and other resources available and willing to teach then, boring logistical crap you wouldn't know much about. :) Anyway, I suspect next summer you may indeed press on if you prefer. This sounds like interesting reading. I think Smith and Van Creveld are interesting to read alongside one another. Don't you think the basic premise of each is very similar: war as we know it is kaput?
I haven't read Nicolson and Page but Keegan's Face of Battle is a great book. My summer reading has been:
Bernard Lewis History of the Middle East, v. good
Robert Kaplan, Imperial Grunts, also good
Mel Philips, Londonistan, pretty depressing, particularly if you live in Britain
Dana Priest, The Mission, OK
Thomas Ricks, Fiasco, controversial, excellent
And a series of books on air power
Pape, Bombing to Win
Corum, Air power in Small Wars
Lambeth, Transformation of American Air Power
Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror
I'm thinking of writing a conference paper on Air Power and Low-Intensity Conflict. Air power in general is something I haven't done a lot on in the past so I've a steep learning curve ahead if I don't want to embarrass myself.
I intended to read some crap novels too but the first book I picked up (Lucius Shephard, Life During Wartime) was actually rather thought-provoking. I tried to set my sights lower with the next one (Leo Frankowski, A Boy and his Tank) but that one was worse--very entertaining and interesting. I highly recommend it.
I've been hitting the journal articles a bit in the last few days. The Spring Edn of the BAR has some interesting stuff. Paul Harris wrote a very interesting piece on US versus UK mil doctrine - 'Did We Over-Americanise British Military Thought?' He concluded:
'Recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted weaknesses in some American conceptions of war. The British tendancy to embrace American military ideas rather uncritically has, perhaps, diminished as a result. The traffic of ideas was never entirely one way and a more balanced flow now seems to have been restored. This is important. Though the British are America's most reliable allies, our perspective on the world is inevitably rather different. It is natural that this should lead to somewhat different military concepts and approaches. Instead of suppressing these differences we should probably accept, even celebrate, them. The British Army's independent thinking should, perhaps, be one of its most vital contributions to our Atlantic alliance'.
Wise words indeed.
Paul Harris is a Senior Lecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. He is published widely and is perhaps best known for his 'Men, Ideas and Tanks' (1995) and 'Armies to the Armistice' (1998).
Post a Comment
<< Home