War and Politics Books

...this is an extraordinary book in any number of ways, and ought to be widely read....it's a book that almost anyone could read profitably, even many times. It's complexity is quite astonishing, but it's not the sort of complexity that is off-putting. In fact, it is so well written, so well organized, that it's complexity is almost unnoticeable. Still, it is a confession as well as an indictment, autobiography as well as analysis, cooly restrained and deeply moving often in the same paragraph. It is objective while being prfoundly personal. It wears it's Jewish spectacles (a phrase from the book) very lightly indeed.... More often it is wryly funny. It is its own evidence of the degree of assimilation (and blindness to the terror that was being prepared for them) of educated Jews in Germany prior to the rise of Nazism. It further substantiates, from a different angle, Arendt's famous insights into Nazi behavior. It contains in its preface an extraordinary statement of love, which, once read, informs the entire book. It is heartbreaking without once being sentimental. Indeed, it is heartbreaking in part because it resists the sentimental....

A professor recommended this book by Victor Klemperer to me several years ago, before his 1933-45 Tagebücher were translated into English by Martin Chalmers. At the time, my apprentice German was not equal to the work in the original language, and I read it in its French translation, ably translated by Elisabeth Guillot. I have since reread it in German, and, on publication, read this English edition. As far as I can tell, Martin Brady has done a masterful job of rendering Klemperer's informal and easily parsed style into addictably readable English. Before his career in the academy, Klemperer was a journalist, and in all of his writing, this tone prevailed.

Klemperer wrote his "LTI: Notizbuch eines Philologen" in 1945 and 1946, mostly from notes he kept in the diaries that later became the wildly successful "Ich will zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten" (I Will Bear Witness). He carried on his work despite the danger, and with an impressive amount of conscious objectivity. The work is an excellent, if impressionistic, study of the modes of Nazi language and their development in popular speech and culture. I would emphasize the _impressionism_ that colors this work, because Klemperer was only able to study a limited amount of presently accessible material; most of his work is based on the editions of newspapers, leaflets, and books that fell into his hands in Dresden during the war. He was a Jew in the Third Reich, and banned from possessing books written by "Aryan" authors. As well, over the course of the war the restrictions on Jews listening to radios, reading newspapers, and even talking in public became too great for Klemperer to realize any truly comprehensive study.

I do not wish to seem like I am condemning the man with faint praise: Klemperer wrote the first postwar study of Nazi language and linked it directly with the operation of the regime. Subsequent researchers have borne out Klemperer's thesis: the euphemisms and barbarisms in the Nazi tongue exerted a considerable influence on popular culture and personal expression. It is not necessary to go back to the Forties to find this influence - it exists today in modern German. The contemporary quibbles over such words as "ausrotten" or "endlösung" mask the considerable reformation of German that occurred during the Third Reich.

Students of twentieth century history cannot ignore this book. It is a must read.

just a note about this book. reading it will not only help you understand history of the 20th century and of Germany under the Nazi Party's sickening rule, but will inform your hearing of the news and of governmental communications today. it will make your infuriation listening to the propaganda that has infiltrated culture at almost every level a much more informed infuriation. :-)

this is an excellent, excellent book and the two other reviews accurately describe it to a potential reader.

Victor Klemperer,a Professor at Dresden University,catalogued words used by the Third Reich from 1933-1945.Klemperer was stripped of his tenure at the University when the Nazi's declared that Jews could not hold such positions.In that time,Klemperer notated the words that became the "catch" phrases and "now" words of the Fuhrer's thinking.These words,he noted,were the "language of poverty" and appealed to the common masses,i.e "dummying-down" the language.This language,though,as he referred to it as the "L.T.I", the Language of the Reich,became the words used on the bourgeois lips in order to enflame German people against the Jews, and to embolden them to rise up for their Fatherland.
Have you ever been in a conversation with someone who seems to "parrot" back what they have heard; nothing is an original thought, but only some form of "propaganda" or "mind-controlled" speech? I have! Perhaps this is why this book upset me so.I see and hear this everyday and it scares me to see how propaganda and word use in a very particular way can all of a sudden take on a new and more sinister meaning.
I read this fascinating book after seeing LANGUAGE DOES NOT LIE: The Victor Klemperer Diary on The Sundance Channel.
Other suggested materials concerning Klemperer,whose Diary was not published until 1995 include I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941 (Modern Library Paperbacks), I Will Bear Witness 1942-1945: A Diary of the Nazi Years,and Biography - Klemperer, Otto (1885-1973): An article from: Contemporary Authors,and The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror.
ANYONE WHO VALUES LANGUAGE, will undoubtedly find these books invaluable,fascinating,riveting and quite disturbing.

I owned this book for three years, and after only recently picking it up to read it, I realized what I was missing out on during that time. This is a fresh and descriptive analysis of the young Virginia generation before, during, and after the war. As one who has read dozens of books on the Civil War, it was this one more than any other that best explains how and why Virginians formed their fundamental opinions of their native state, the Southern region, and Northern industrialism during the antebellum period. Through their viewpoint that Virginia's reputation and standing in the Union was diminished during the period prior to the war, it becomes clear that the war gave these young Virginians an opportunity to improve the status of their commonwealth while cementing their place among men in their state. Though one often gets the perception through Carmichael's writing that these were overzealous, egotistical young men, their conduct in the war brings to fruition their importance in the New South.

Carmichael's writing is interesting and well-detailed with a wide variety of excellent material from both primary and secondary sources. His inclusion of statistics on the members of the last generation provides ample insight into the professions, religious affiliation, and other important data on the members of the last generation. Even more than "For Cause and Comrades" by James McPherson, this book will expose why a reluctant Virginia joined the Confederacy and explains clearly how the young Virginia generation almost pushed the South to ultimate victory.

Like most readers of history, the significant figures of the Civil War have taken on almost mythic proportions. Some times they seem almost to be gods stepped down from Mt. Olympus. In The Last Generation, Peter Carmichael manages to shed new light onto the lives, interests, and beliefs of many of the young Virginians that were so caught up in the cause of the day and in the process makes them human once more.

I found The Last Generation to be full of information that is new...at least to me. I've done my share of reading about the major characters involved in the Civil War, on both sides. Yet Carmichael seems to provide the reader with new insights on almost every page.

I also found the tables in the appendix to be full of useful and eye opening facts. Trust me, they're worth the time it takes to study them. Finally, I spent more time than usual studying the notes provided by Carmichael, a compliment of the first order.

For the casual or serious Civil War buff, The Last Generation will be a memorable read.

In his book, "The Last Generation," Peter Carmichael explores the psyche, values, goals and visions of the young caucasian men of Virginia who came into adulthood just as our nation descended into the Civil War. Born to privilege in the 1830s and early 1840s, these men were in colleges and schools across Virginia and the nation when the crisis of secession reached its apex in 1860 and 1861. Once the war started, they served as junior officers in the Army of Northern Virginia, leading their peers into combat and fighting alongside them.

The book is a generational study and an examination of Confederate nationalism in the young Virginians. Carmichael first takes us through the 1850s, a time when young Virginians worried about the future of their state and their place in it. They watched as the North increasingly distanced itself from Virginia through industrialization and internal improvements. They feared that Virginia, the home state of four of the first five U.S. presidents, was becoming moribund under the leadership of its elders, "old fogies" who lived on past glories of events such as the American Revolution and who encouraged unthinking opposition to change even at the expense of educational and economic reform.

At the same time, the young Virginians had to find a way to reconcile slavery, the system upon which they depended for their wealth and social standing, with the free labor system of the North. Some of the strongest points in Carmichael's book delineate how these men did just this. Their belief that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible as necessary because God had created races to be inherently unequal, coupled with their belief that Southerners were God's chosen people, sustained many young soldiers throughout the war. Even as it became clear in 1864 and 1865 that the war would be lost, Carmichael cites examples that show these men could not distinguish between their religious beliefs and political nationalism. To the end, many young Virginians believed that God would not allow the North to be victorious. Young Virginians sincerely believed that theirs was a unique Christian society trying to survive in a godless world. The book is careful to point out that young Virginians gave considerable thought to secession and do not fit the traditional stereotype of secondary scholars who say young Southerners were drawn to the flame of secession like boys playing with fire.

The book looks at the leadership style of young Virginians once the war started. Examples are cited of how they maintained order and discipline in the ranks, what they thought of battle and death, and how they maintained their morale through defeats. Some colorful anecdotes are also included in "The Last Generation": Jeb Stuart's thoughts on women while he was a cadet in West Point, NY; the president of Washington College and his comical attempt to control the secession frenzy sweeping his campus; the notion of body building by young Virginians in college as a way to "muscularize" and "masculinize" their Christianity.

In the final chapter of the book, Carmichael examines the fate of various members of the Last Generation who managed to survive the war. He explains how they adjusted to Reconstruction. The romanticized, "Moonlight and Magnolias" view of some ex-Confederates is contrasted with those who wished Virginia to take a new role of leadership and have the economy of the state resemble more closely that of the North.

This book contributes greatly to the discussion of why some Southerners fought the war- a question which will probably always be debated. Through diligent research and thorough explanation, Carmichael presents a new picture of a generation of Southerners of the Civil War era. His book takes into account many factors that made "The Last Generation" distinct from their Northern counterparts and from the older Virginians who preceded them. It is an important book on dispelling stereotypes of the young Confederates and in understanding the complexity of the South as a whole.

In this fascinating book, author and historian Professor Peter S. Carmichael takes a generational look a particular group of American men who fought in the Civil War, selecting 121 men who had been born in Virginia between 1830 and 1842. These men were mostly highly educated, from the slave holding class, and formed the junior officer core of the Virginia military units. These men were part of the last generation to grow up in Virginia with slavery, and the story of their journey of life is one little studied, until now.

As a fan of the works of Messrs Strauss and Howe ("Generations" and "The Fourth Turning"), I was intrigued to see another book that looked at American history with an eye to generations. The book is eminently readable, and is quite fascinating. The author does an excellent job of telling the story of the "last generation," bringing them and their experiences alive. I was interested to watch the "last generation" move through the 1850s fostering a inter-generational conflict, assume capable and pragmatic managerial control of the armies their elders led, and then move into leadership positions after the War.

In relation to the Strauss and Howe generational theory, this book focuses on a part of the Gilded Generation. Overall, I thought that the book complemented it very well, showing that side of the generation that lost the war.

So, let me just say that this is a fascinating look at a generation that lived during a fascinating time in American history, one that will captivate anyone who is interested in generations, the American Civil War, or just plain history. I loved this book and highly recommend it to you.

Part literary criticism, part poetry, part memoir, Letters To Virginia Woolf is associate professor of literature Lisa Williams' deeply personal examination of Woolf's writings. Presented in the format of letters that Williams wrote to Woolf about modern issues and the September 11th attacks, Letters To Virginia Woolf tells of the sad end to the author's pregnancy, reflects on how Woolf's ideas of war, memory and childhood reverberate through time, and strive to know how Woolf herself must have felt. A handful of poems intersperse the brief text passages, adding their own poignant touch to the quest for understanding. Miscarriage: You must be / covered now / by moonlight, / and sleeping, / sleeping so peacefully / in starlight / sleeping / in a place where the dead / wait patiently / to become what is alive / once again.

Through letters to Virginia Woolf, whose work
she has specialized in over the last decade, Williams
discovers her own perspectives on 9/11, motherhood,
her parents' divorce, among other things. An
insightful book, where she explores the relevance of
Woolf's nonviolent philosophy, and in fact all her
beliefs, through her own life as a mother of a small
child. A very good, fast read--even if you don't know
Virginia Woolf from Tom Wolfe.

Lisa Williams is an eloquent writer whose writing style makes you want to finish the book in one sitting. I got caught up in the complicated mind of a teenager and I shared the anxiety of the same woman's desire to become a mother later in life. Ms. Williams' book is a collection of the character's life events that provoked me to reexamine my own life and emotions, especially post 9/11. It is creatively written as letters to the writer, Virginia Woolf. Even those whose are not very familiar with Woolf's work could enjoy Ms. Williams' writing. I would highly recommend this amazing piece of writing.

Few write with more honesty and lyricism about tough issues than Lisa Williams in _Letters to Virginia Woolf_. Williams faces the complexity of adolescence, divorce, childbirth, death and war with heartfelt intelligence, reminding us that struggle and loss often lead to an appreciation of life's wonder. Like Woolf who grappled with "the angel in the house" almost a century ago, Williams continues to wrestle with the luminous presence of the past as she peels back "layers of selves we outgrow but never discard." _Letters to Virginia Woolf_ guides us through this world of contradiction and offers hope for the dangerous time in which we live.

Chella Courington
Author of _Southern Girl Gone Wrong_

This is a great historical resource. I found it to be a great source for insight into the man and the beliefs of Abraham Lincoln. I highly recommend this book.

I have started reading & relaying information to reinactments I have on tape. Really accurate so far. Worth the buy.

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates have justly been celebrated in American history as one of the milestones in Abraham Lincoln's rise to the presidency. However, Lincoln's own well-meaning assembling of the received text of these debates used only transcripts from papers friendly to either candidate--transcripts which, Harold Holzer argues, were smoothed over and revised by reporters eager to make "their" candidate look good. Holzer insists that we must go to the transcripts of Lincoln's speeches by the pro-Douglas paper, and vice-versa, to get a true sense of what was said off the cuff by the debaters. His edition portrays vividly not only the high-sounding rhetoric of Douglas and the noble ideals of Lincoln, but also the hesitations and mis-speakings of both men. In this way, the reader gets a better sense of what it was like to be in the crowd listening as history was being made

The series of debates in Illinois between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 campaign for the U.S. Senate are one of those legendary political encounters of which everyone has heard but few have gone back and actually read. However, since Lincoln never kept any of his papers prior to winning the Presidency, we do not have autograph copies of his Cooper Union or House Divided speeches, let alone his handwritten notes of the great debates. The claim made by Harold Holzer for his edition is that this is the first complete, unexpurgated text of the debates to be published. Holzer notes that what we have relied upon previously for debate transcripts were copies taken down by stenographers for intensely partisan newspapers. Holzer's hypothesis is that the editors and transcribers for these newspapers would improve the remarks by their own candidates while leaving those of his opponent alone. Supporting his idea are the unedited texts of the debate he uncovered. Of course, Holzer provides his own useful additions to the texts of the seven debates in the form of extensive notes (often covering the audience reactions as detailed by various papers). As a two-time winner of the Lincoln/Barondess Award of the Lincoln Round Table and the first Award of Achievement given by the Abraham Lincoln Association for his hundreds of articles and books on Lincoln, Holzer is certainly in a position to make such judgments.

You should be warned that reading these debates will both exhilarate and depress you. These debates lasted three hours and forced the candidates to develop comprehensive proposals and to respond in detail to the attacks of their opponent. The thought of Bore or Gush trying to talk from notes for even fifteen minutes is enough to make you laugh, cry or bang you head against the wall. Reading the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in this or any other edition, will certainly give you more of a feel for the issue of Slavery circa 1858 than you will ever get from a history book from which you may get a few choice quotes (what the back cover would call "volleys"). For those of us who want access to primary documents, who read court decisions rather than let talking heads on the tube tell us what they think things might possibly mean, books like this are a great joy. For those who admire Lincoln, the right man in the right place at the right time at the worst moment in our country's history, the Lincoln in these debates who is speaking extemporaneously from notes rather than reading from a carefully crafted and fine tuned text is arguably the closest we get to the real man.

The Library of America's collection of original Lincoln source documents in two volumes is a wonderful addition to the library of any person interested in this portion of American history. The two volumes represent the best scholarship available today in terms of organizing and duplicating Lincoln's own words as they are found in personal letters, speech transcriptions, notes, memos, and other forms of written communication. This is a collection that is a fascinating look at the inner thoughts of Lincoln as he progresses from a congressional candidate in the 1850's, then as a candidate for President in 1860, and then as he prosecutes the war of the states until the time of his assassination.

The Library of America represents a rare and welcome to the world of print publishing. Funded from a continuous trust that is structured to keep every single volume perpetually in print, the Library prints only on the finest paper, using only the best inks, and implementing the best binding technology available. These books are true library quality, with ultra-high quality paper from Germany and bindings from the Netherlands, and truly represent the finest book quality typically seen in today's book world. The perpetual trust of the Library nevertheless keeps the price of these volumes at a reasonable level, with most volumes available between $24 and $40 dollars. Once you handle one, you'll undoubtedly see what a real value this series represents.

Lincoln's writings and recorded speeches are incredibly interesting to read. These works provide remarkable insight into this most unusual of people, and posterity is pleased that so much of these items were saved and eventually collated for later review. Can we make ourselves belief that this is largely a self-educated man who writes English prose at a level rarely seen even in the most educated of individuals? Following the logic posed in many of these letters, coupled with the piecing insights into human nature that Lincoln seemed to exude, can give us an experience that extends our thinking and challenges our views. Because Lincoln is canonized in history, we really don't understand the real man all that well. These personal writings of Lincoln help de-mystify the true person behind the persona, and make us see the man, not just the legend.

This volume provides Lincoln's speeches, writings and selected letters from 1859 through 1865. This period is the year leading up to his election in 1860 through his assassination in 1865. You will get to read amazing letters from the commander-in-chief trying to get his generals to fight and win the war, letters to all kinds of people covering topics public and personal, proclamations suspending habeas corpus and emancipation, his addresses to congress (our State-of-the Union Addresses used to be delivered by letter to Congress), and some of the greatest treasures in American history: the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. It is stunning that in all this writing, so much of it powerful and worthwhile, that these two brief speeches so obviously deserve to be engraved in stone for all ages to read and take into their souls.

It is awfully moving to read the material related to the conduct of the Civil War. He was very strong in his determination to destroy the Rebellion, yet he has very touching notes about his sick child and is very human in his communications with intimates.

This volume also has a chronology of Lincoln's life and great notes on the texts. Note particularly the Associated Press copy of the Gettysburg Address that was contemporary with its delivery. The version most of us know is a finished copy prepared for publication. The differences are subtle and not all that important, just interesting to note for style and rhetorical power.

I strongly urge you to have these two volumes on your American History bookshelf. Simply, they are important and you will learn a great deal reading through them.

I purchased this collection of speeches and letters knowing little about America's most beloved president other than what I had learned in my high school history classes. My first impression was "Boy, where have all the good presidents gone?" Aside from the famous speeches we're all familiar with, Lincoln was a prolific man of letters and an amazing presenter of ideas ahead of their time. Our sixteenth president wasn't perfect, but neither was our nation. During perhaps the most crucial period in U.S. history, thank God there was Abraham Lincoln. I grew up as a Democrat, but if Lincoln were running for the presidency today, he would be the first Republican to get my vote. This Library of America edition of Lincoln's speeches and writings is a beautifully bound volume that I will cherish for years to come.

This is the second volume of the Library of America Project devoted to the works of Abraham Lincoln. It covers the period after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates and includes many of the records of the Lincoln Presidency and the Civil War. The standard Lincoln materials are included, of course, such as the Gettysburg Address, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Inauguaral Addresses. But there is immeasurably more. We see Lincoln writing to his Generals, Cabinet members, and other national leaders in his attempt to hold the Union together. We see a lincolns agonizing over military discipline and frequently pardoning deserting soldiers. We see Lincoln dealing with Indian issues in his day; and we see him supporting the use of black troops in the War effort. This volume is highly useful in uderstanding the Civil War. Equally important it teaches the nature of leadership and fortitude. Finally, Lincoln is one of our Nation's great prose writers and the book deserves reading for that reason alone. The Library of America is to be commended for this volume and for its ongoing series.

The idea of a book full of arguments for the war in Iraq from liberal authors seemed so interesting that I immediately ordered it and started reading it as soon as I had finished my book of conservative authors not so happy about the war.

Seeing the way liberals had reacted to Iraq was one of the biggest reasons why I have started calling myself moderate instead of liberal. I'm not trying to imply that the word liberal is monolithic by any means, but seeing the way so many different types of liberals were so strongly opposed to this war (many times out of pure hatred of George W. Bush and nothing else), really made me take serious look at what I thought.

Some of the articles in this book are a bit dense, and the average reader might not be able to get through them, but there are numerous other brilliant articles in this book that make a very strong case for their arguments. Put simply, the main point of this book is that a perfectly logical case can be made in favor of invading Iraq from a humanitarian perspective.

The authors in this book are not fans of Bush in any way, but yet they still make the case that getting rid of Saddam Hussein is a good thing. One of the contributors, Adam Michnik, put it best when he said "I believe you can be an enemy of Saddam Hussein even if Donald Rumsfeld is also an enemy of Saddam Hussein."

Throughout the book, the authors pose tough questions such as "If Bush really did lie about the weapons (and knew that none were in Iraq), why did the U.S. not arrange to plant the weapons after the invasion? A simple, but ironclad point in my opinion. The authors also tackle many of the liberal points used to argue against the war. Michael Moore is mentioned several times and because of this book, I am firmly cemented in my view that Moore has about as many positive contributions to make to the political world as Ann Coulter (which would be next to none).

Something I found particularly interesting was that a lot of what was said could be found coming from the right, but the point here is that the talk of liberating the Iraqi people from these authors are genuine. Hearing someone like Sean Hannity making these arguments isn't convincing because he's only for liberating another country if a Republican President is the one doing it. You never hear Hannity-types making the liberation argument in any other case.

I sincerely hope that anyone calling themselves a liberal that is opposed to the war in Iraq reads this book. It really challenges liberals to look at Iraq from the humanitarian perspective and I would venture to say that if you're a Michael Moore fan or a Noam Chomsky fan that could make it through this book and not have second thoughts, you're no different than the Republicans and conservatives you accuse of being blinded by ideology.

Irrespective of whether it leaves you believing that the Iraq war was just, this book is a fresh and valuable perspective. It explores important and critical arguments of a sophistication and depth that the lightweights and bigots of the contemporary media simply ignore (whether through bias or ineptitude).

Read the introduction here:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10415/cushman.pdf

...and another example of the books chapters is here:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm

Highly recommended.

With the exception of Roger Scruton, all of the contributors to this thought-provoking book come from the left of the political spectrum. It is most refreshing to see that there are still rational people on that side and that the strident, hateful and juvenile shrieking that one encounters in the media are not the only voices of the left.

Part One: Reconsidering Regime Change, contains contributions by the brilliant Christopher Hitchens, Jeffrey Herf, Jan Narveson and Mitchell Cohen. These essays state the case for the overthrow of the sadistic Saddam whilst discussing the liberal and humanitarian case for the liberation.

The next section, Philosophical Arguments, includes a reflection on national interest and international law by the conservative Roger Scruton, an essay on a just war against criminal regimes by Mehdi Mozaffari, and moral arguments on sovereignty, agency and consequences by Daniel Kofman.

Critiques Of The Left is the third section. This contains the most interesting dissection of leftist positions and thoroughly undermines the fallacy created by the mass media that liberals and leftists were unanimously against the war. My personal favourite essays in this group include Pages From A Daily Journal Of Argument by Norman Geras, Ethical Correctness And The Decline Of The Left by Jonathan Re and A Friendly Drink In A Time Of War by Paul Berman, a liberal.

In European Dimensions, people like John Lloyd, Michel Taubmann and Anders Jerichow reveal that many prominent European intellectuals, including Vaclav Havel, supported the war on liberal-humanitarian grounds.

Part Five: Solidarity, contains an interview between the compiler Thomas Cushman and the Polish intellectual Adam Michnik. There are also moving essays by Timorese leader Jose Ramos-Horta, Johann Hari, Pamela Bone and Ann Clwyd. It is quite clear that unlike the rest of the Left, these authors have genuine compassion for the weak and the oppressed. An important point made here is that indifference to the plight of the oppressed means abdication of the duty to protect them.

The volume concludes with Liberal Statesmanship that contains Prime Minister Tony Blair's full statement to the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 and another speech of his titled The Threat Of Global Terrorism. They are both eloquent arguments for the liberation of Iraq that are rooted in principle and morality.

This valuable book demolishes many myths perpetuated by the academic and media elites and more importantly, exposes their malignant mindsets to some extent. For example, Johan Hari points out how Anti-Americanism has become a religion and how leftists ignore the crimes of sundry third world dictators. It is made clear that the anti-war camp really did not care about Saddam's victims. Then again, this is nothing new - leftists of the past also tried to suppress knowledge of Stalin's atrocities and those of Pol Pot.

Another lie that is exposed is the myth of American unilateralism. Forty Eight countries had joined the Coalition by March 2003 and in Europe, states like the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia strongly allied themselves with the USA. Many Asian states supported it too, including Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and the Philippines. That puts the myth of unilateralism to rest.

In his introduction, Cushman mentions the relentless campaign of hatred and disinformation against Israel by the United Nations and the travesty of a UN Human Rights body that that includes representatives of cruel totalitarian states like Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

He also mentions the shady motives behind the anti-war position of France, Germany and Russia. These essays were written and the book compiled before the full extent of the UN Oil For Food graft became widely known, but this scandal of the century only confirms the hypocrisy of the leadership of the aforementioned countries.

The book is not flawless. Some of the writing is perhaps too self-critical and as a Reaganite, I obviously disagree with many contributors on a range of other issues. But they are brave people who are willing to stand up for their convictions in a hostile environment. I regard the George Galloway/Michael Moore Moonbat Left as one would a hairy spider, but these authors are rational and decent. Their concern for the wretched of the earth is genuine. Their hearts are in the right place.

I also recommend A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq by Christopher Hitchens, Unholy Alliance and The Anti Chomsky Reader by David Horowitz, The Force Of Reason by Oriana Fallaci plus everything written by the wonderful Norman Geras.

The essays in this book about the Iraq War and international law are for the most part in clear and accessible English and do not rely on theories that are left unexplained in the body of the essay itself. For that reason I would recommend this collection to people who are interested only in the development of international law and mores and who are not much concerned with the Iraq War.

For those who are interested in the Iraq War, this collection is, I feel, indispensable. Not because the authors agree (they do not) but because the debate in this volume has about it a quality that has been largely absent from the Iraq debate: candor. Thus while the authors disagree on fundamental issues such as:

* was the war in Iraq, on balance, justified;

* did the governments that lead us to war lie or act in good faith;

* was the suffering of the Iraqi people alone sufficient justification for war; and

* do we have what it takes to see this war through

they do so without simplifying the arguments and without assuming that the Iraqi people agree with their positions.

For as profound as their disagreements are, the authors agree that:

* Saddam's regime was genocidal;

* leaving Saddam in place was not costless either (and most immediately) to the Iraqi people or (eventually) to the West; and

* the Bush administration has terribly botched the occupation, thereby endangering the whole enterprise.

And finally these authors point out that when in a public policy debate, the liberals sound like Henry Kissinger while the conservatives echo John Rawls, the political landscape is out of joint.

This is the sort of debate liberals like myself had every right to expect in the days and months preceding the Iraq invasion. We did not get it (for reasons addressed in this volume). We get it here; in this collection of essays. I highly recommend it.

This book is not just for people who do drugs, but for anyone who wants the violence that the illegal drug trade brings to stop. It has some conspiracy theorys, but they are backed up by facts. I found this book inspirational, because while reading it I wanted to go out and alter the drug laws. I recommend this book to everyone, because it helps clear up some of the propoganda that the government has been feeding us for many years. There also is a web site www.maximizingharm.com with more information (it's free, go there now!)

Steve Young explains in an easy to understand format, how US drug policy is clearly responsible for everything it is supposed to prevent. The book is a treasure trove of facts, which paint a stinging indictment of America's most terrible pork-barrel disaster and exposes those who cash in at the expense of a nation, the drug war profiteers.

"Maximizing Harm" is a must read. Makes a great gift, for those who just can't seem to see through the smoke and mirrors of the drug war facade.

Meticulously documented scholarly treatises are supposed to be dull. Not this time. In making his case for ending our government's 25-year war against drugs, Stephen Young has written a book that is fascinating, shocking, frustrating, heartbreaking, sometimes downright horrifying - but never dull.

Young tells us that dozens of attempts to eradicate the use of drugs have been documented throughout the ages - including executions of tobacco users in 17th century Russia. All of them failed.

Lest you think that we have become wiser and more civilized in recent times, Young points out that as recently as 1989, William Bennett, the nation's drug czar at the time, while appearing on the "Larry King Live" show agreed with a caller who suggested that drug dealers be beheaded

In such a climate, Young argues, it is not hard to understand how our civil liberties have been among the first casualties of the drug war with mandatory harsh sentences for drug users, resulting in the overcrowding of our prison system. The eighth amendment is supposed to stop "cruel and unusual punishment," yet we are now seeing multi-year sentences for possession of small amounts of illegal drugs.

Ever hear of Melinda George? Neither did I until I read this book. She is serving a 99-year prison sentence for the sale of one-tenth of a gram of cocaine!

To relieve the prison overcrowding caused by prisoners such as Melinda George, we have seen reduced sentences and early releases for non-drug offenders, including violent criminals. This puts career criminals back on the streets sooner, ready to commit more crimes.

Young poses the question, why does this counterproductive drug war continue? He suggests the answer: That certain powerful special interest groups benefit by its continuance, like large pharmaceutical companies that would suffer financially if certain of their drugs were forced to compete with a cheaper and more effective medicine such as marijuana.

I urge everyone to read this book!

This is the first book I've read on this topic, and the author was able to sway me to believe that the war against drugs is not only harmfull, but worse than the actually drugs themselves. I really don't have time to write more, because I'm suppost to be writing a 5 page book report, but this book was worth every penny. It is a wide collection of data from a variety of sources and it brings up ideas that aren't even thought of in our "just say no" generation. I really wish people would take time to read a book like this, because its really easy to just sit back and think "the drug war is a neccesity" when you have the information the government keeps spewing out. The truth is that the drug war doesn't stop drug use, it increases drug use and the harm associated with it..

I'm not 100% converted, but this book has got me off to a great start. Thanks.

-Seth

This is a great book for those who would like to understand how the Middle East really works and thinks. It contains information not readily published about America's challenges in the region. It looks forward to what we can expect from this area and gives an understanding of why and what we are doing there now. Mr. Robison's experience there, working with military, intelligence, and business sources along with his love and knowledge of the cultures of the area, give this book depth and breath not found in other publications. A great read for anyone who really wants to understand our involvement in the area. I gained a completely new understanding of our challenges, opportunities and risks as he explained them from the perspective of the power, governments, culture, and history of the people there.

The MIDDLE EAST WAR PROCESS is easily understood by the lay reader, yet interesting and informative to anyone working in or studying the Middle East. The book provides new, unusual and little-known facts explaining America's challenges and long-term problems in the region. The United States has shouldered a long-term commitment in the region that will last for generations. The MIDDLE EAST WAR PROCESS offers insights into ways to make this transition less painful, if we will learn from the past.

With American interest in the Middle East at an all time high, The MIDDLE EAST WAR PROCESS is an insightful and interesting book.

I found this book easy to read and very informative. The writer explains in lay man terms why the Middle East is so relevant to America's interests. In addition, he explains that there is a "war process" in the Middle East as oppossed to a "peace process" (a quote from Shimon Peres if I recall correctly).

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants a fresh, interesting, and personal analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

I had the opportunity to interview Richard Robison for a two-part article in Utah Spirit Magazine (March & April 2004), and in the process I read "War Process." I found a thoughtfulness that only nearly a quarter century in the Middle East could deliver, an insight that only a CIA case officer could gain, and the kind of read that only a master storyteller could create.

The message of the book is tactful, but very forward. Robison loves the Middle East, its culture and people, but he doesn't let that stop him when it comes to calling a spade a spade. The pages of "War Process" contain many elements of U.S.-Mideast foreign policy that readers won't currently find in mainstream media. For instance, Robison examines the Islamic "taqiya," where "a lie is not a lie," and also how terrorists often exploit the idea that "Americans don't bleed well" to create incredibly damaging attacks on American forces and civilians.

"Fear the man who has little to loose," Robison warns.

Robison also spends a great deal of time examining the gap and overlap between Islamic and American cultures. He uses many personal experiences to show how little known parts of Islamic culture, when overlooked, can create a great embarrassment and, in some instances, a great divide. He also explains how popular American culture with all of its tantalizing skin and revealing clothing has become the perfect recruitment tool for terrorists.

He offers an interesting insight into why the US went into Iraq, even toying with the idea that America might have had some part encouraging the first Iraq war. And however incredible such a claim might seem, Robison was there as part of the Gulf War Task Force, something that few others can claim. He was there.

Robison says that America is in the Middle East to stay. It has little to do with the price of oil, and yet it has everything to do with the security of oil. For the answers, Robison says, look to China, its increasing dependence on oil, and a future conflict that many intelligence experts (both American and Chinese) say is inevitable. America is in the Middle East to place a firm hand on the spigot---a tactic similar to one that America employed against Japan in WWII.

The book is beefy with ideas, but it can be read fast. Robison keeps the info simple and critical, never wasting his readers' time.

I absolutely recommend "War Process." Readers will find that many of the more cryptic reports in the world press more revealing. There's a lot to miss out there when, as Robison said during the interview, "you don't know what questions to ask."

Buruma has the key to a door I, a newbie Nipponophile, use: cinema. His own personality leaks tastefully into his blend of experience and academics. Just the levels I like! Some of the articles are a little outside my area of interest, but he managed to hook me into finishing them.

I found Buruma's collection very absorbing, especially helpful to someone living out East (Hong Kong and Singapore), as I was in the late 90's. The Singapore essay, "The Nanny State of Asia," is an extremely perceptive look behind the official facade of Harry Lee Kuan Yew's police state. If you plan to visit/live in S'pore, the things the locals won't dare discuss with you (out of fear) are dealt with here. Even if you're just travelling from the armchair, this is a well-written and (again) extremely absorbing read.

As someone who lived out East I rank this up with Christopher Lingle's Singapore's Authoritarian Capitalism and Stan Sesser's The Land of Charm and Cruelty (another great essay collection on various Asian countries) as books helpful to the Westerner trying to learn about the region. Buruma's God's Dust has more essays on Asia, including S'pore. For Singapore, I also recomend Francis Seow's A Prisoner in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, and Paul Theroux's Saint Jack (a Singapore novel set in the Seventies but (I found) remarkably up to date in the attitudes it records of both locals and expats).

Very well documented essays about the East, although most of the articles are treating already out-of-date items. Still they will continue to be essential reading for historians.

In his ironic style, he unveils the lies and double-talk of political and industrial leaders. E.g. Sony's Akio Morita's statement that 'today's Japanese do not think in terms of privilege', while he almost disowned his son, when he wanted to marry a popular singer.
Other targets are Benazir Bhutto, Cory Aquino, Imelda Marcos and most of all the imperious leader of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew.

I recommend nevertheless the autobiography of Yew 'From first world to third', because it is an essential read in order to understand what's happening in China today. Lee Kuan Yew is Jiang Zeming's best friend.

Buruma is a very perceptive observer and reader. His analyses of writers like Yuhio Moshima, Mircea Eliade or Junichiro Tanizaki, or movie directors like Nagisa Oshima or Sayajit Ray are brilliant.
This book is to be put on the same high level as the works of Simon Leys on China.

Sceptical of all talk of "asian values" (profound "culture differences" used to justify the denial of human rights), Buruma is a clear-sighted observer of the East. Buruma describes the phases that Western visitors to Japan tend to go through; an initial phase of delight oft succeeded by rage, and ultimately leading to a sort of near manic-depressing rapidly-alternating hatred/love of the East. Buruma, while obviously retaining a great love and respect for Eastern culture combined with a deep scepticism about "asian values", is unseduced by either extreme. The book opens with essays on individual figures, such as Yukio Mishima (it is impossible to take Paul Schrader's 'Mishima' seriously after Buruma's curt dismissal of its portentious bombast) and Wilfred Thesiger (again, one sees this oft-romanticised figure anew, as a misogynistic, rather sinister worshipper of racially pure noble savages) It closes with a section of essays devoted to Japan, on topics as diverse as Michael Crichton's Black Rain, the Hiroshima peace industry, the treatment of black American baseball players in Japan and the continuing echoes of Pearl Harbor.

From what i have read Grey is a very intelligent writer who really has some great nuggets of information but i wish more of his material was original instead of expanding on other's writings so often.

This is an outstanding contribution to strategic studies, a comprehensive placing of virtually all theorists and historians of war and strategy, and hugely thought-provoking. Yet Gray never forgets that practice is primary, noting the `authority of practice over theory'.

He uses Clausewitz's method, defining strategy as `the use that is made of force and the threat of force for the ends of policy': it is about objectives, effects. The nature and function of strategy and war are unchanging, though their characters change constantly. "Every war is both unique yet also similar to other wars." Strategy is in every conflict everywhere.

Tactics, by contrast, is the use of instruments of power in action. Strategy proposes; tactics dispose. "War is not `about' economics, morality, or fighting. Instead, it is about politics."

Strategy's dimension are politics, ethics, military preparations, people, technology, time, war proper. Technological changes alter the character not the nature of war: "Technology is important, but in war and strategy people matter most."

Gray analyses strategy's components, its various environments, land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. Seapower, airpower and spacepower function strategically as enabling factors: a war's outcome may be decided by action at sea, in the air or in space, but all conflicts have to be finally resolved on land, where people are.

He illuminates wars from the Punic to the Boer, but focuses mainly on the 20th century's excessive amount of war experience: wars between empires, still all too possible, and wars against nations, opposed by wars for national liberation and independence. He writes, "how truly heroic is Mao's message of eventual success through the conduct of protracted revolutionary warfare." Success can mean just stopping the enemy from winning.

We can check the quality of his approach by assessing the strategic conclusions it generates, despite his overmuch reliance on histories emanating from State Department and Foreign Office. He shows that bombing Germany before defeating the Luftwaffe was a costly error. He proves that the atomic bomb did not defeat Japan in 1945; Japan was already defeated. He praises the Soviet Union's prudent and successful practice of nuclear deterrence.

This book is not light reading. A good background in 20th Century military history as well as Clausewitz is necessary to get the most from this very impressive work. So why bother? What are the uses of Neo-Clausewitzian Strategic Thought?

In the post 9-11 world there is no better way in my opinion to understand the Al Qaida threat. Professor Gray published this work in 1999, but his views and methodology remain as important as ever.

The reason for this is that the grammar of war changes (the ways we fight it, the increasingly complex "elements"), while the nature of war remains the same. Politics and political goals have always been the core reasons for the violent struggle of wills between polities which we call war. That was true in ancient times and remains true today.

Following Clausewitz and Gray I think one could make a very convincing case that Al Qaida is waging war in three forms simultaneously-- guerrilla war, terrorist war and revolutionary war which all put heavy emphasis on the political. With this in mind our MAIN weapon against Al Qaida should be our foreign (political) policy, not an emphasis on high-tech, military responses against obscure targets, the resulting "colateral" destruction only hurting our political policy and playing to the goals of our enemies. Such are the nuances of Clausewitzian strategic thought, far from the "war-as-ideal Mahdi of Mass" strawman usually portrayed by the great strategic theorist's detractors.

Of interest also are Gray's appreciation of the contributions of John R. Boyd, his untangling of the confusion surrounding the term "Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), and his comments on the little known (or understood) impact of the Second Smuts Report of 1917.

In all this book is a great work in strategic thought of high intellectual merit. Of interest also is a recent article in the Spring issue of Parameters by Gray on Asymmetrical Warfare.

Edit of 23 Feb 08 to add links. This book remains priceless & relevant.

First published in 1999, this is an original tour d-horizon that is essential to any discussion of the theory and practice of conflict in the 21st Century, to include all those discussions of the alleged Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), the need for "defense transformation", and the changing nature of civil-military relations.

I am much impressed by this book and the decades of thinking that have gone into it, and will outline below a few of its many signal contributions to the rather important questions of how one must devise and manage national power in an increasingly complex world.

First, the author is quite clear on the point that technology does not a revolution make-nor can technology dominate a national strategy. If anything-and he cites Luttwak, among others, with great regard-an excessive emphasis on technology will be very expensive, susceptible to asymmetric attack, and subversive of other elements of the national strategy that must be managed in harmony. People matter most.

Second, and this is the point that hit me hardest, it is clear that security strategy requires a holistic approach and the rather renaissance capability of managing a multiplicity of capabilities-diplomatic, economic, cultural, military, psychological, information-in a balanced manner and under the over-arching umbrella of a strategy.

Third, and consistent with the second, "war proper" is not exclusively about force of arms, but rather about achieving the national political objective by imposing one's will on another. Those that would skew their net assessments and force structure capabilities toward "real war" writ in their conventional terms are demeaning Clausewitz rather than honoring him.

Fourth, as I contemplate in this and other readings how best to achieve lasting peace and prosperity, I see implicit in all that the author puts forward, but especially in a quote from Donald Kegan, the raw fact that it is not enough for America to have a preponderance of the traditional military and economic power in the world-we must also accept the burden and responsibility of preserving the peace and responding to the complex emergencies around the globe that must inevitably undermine our stability and prosperity at home.

Fifth, it is noteworthy that of all the dimensions of strategy that are brought forward, one-time-is unique for being unimprovable. Use it or lose it. Time is a strategic dimension too little understood and consequently too little valued by Americans in particular and the Western alliance in general.

Sixth, it merits comment that the author, perhaps the greatest authority on Clausewitz in this era, clarifies the fact that the "trinity" is less about people, government, and an army, than about primordial violence, hatred, and enmity (the people); chance and probability on the battlefield, most akin to a game of cards (the army); and instrumental rationality (the government)-and that these are not fixed isolated elements, but interpenetrate one another and interact in changing ways over time and space.

Seventh, the author devotes an entire chapter to "Strategic Culture as Context" and this is most helpful, particularly in so far as it brings forward the weakness of the American strategic culture, notably a pre-disposition to isolationism and to technical solutions in the abstract. Perhaps more importantly, a good strategic culture with inferior weapons can defeat a weak strategic culture with an abundance of technology and economic power.

Eighth, and finally, the author courageously takes on the issue of small wars and other savage violence, seeking to demonstrate that grand strategy applies equally well to the savage criminal and warlord parasites that Ralph Peters has noted are not susceptible to our traditional legal and military conventions. While he does not succeed (and notes in passing that Clausewitz's own largest weakness was a failure to catalogue the enemy and the dialog with the enemy as a major factor in strategic success and failure), the coverage is acceptable in making three key points:

1) small wars and sub-national conflicts are generally not resolved decisively at the irregular level-conventional forces are required at some point;

2) special operations forces have a role to play but lack a strategic context (that is to say, current political and military leaders have no appreciation for the strategic value of special operations forces); and

3) small wars and non-traditional threats-asymmetrical threats-must be taken seriously and co-equally with symmetrical regular conflicts.

At the end of the day, this erudite scholar finds common cause with gutter warrior Ralph Peters and gang-warfare iconoclast Martin Van Crevald by concluding his book with a quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "In the Computer Age we will live by the law of the Stone Age: the man with the bigger club is right. But we pretend this isn't so. We don't notice or even suspect it-why surely our morality progresses together with our civilization."

See also (and also my lists):

The Search for Security: A U.S. Grand Strategy for the Twenty-First Century
Beyond Declaring Victory and Coming Home: The Challenges of Peace and Stability Operations
Security Studies for the 21st Century
War, Peace, and Victory Strategy and Statecraft for The Next Century
Strategy: Process, Content, Context: An International Perspective
War and Peace and War: The Life Cycles of Imperial Nations
Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, Revised and Enlarged Edition
Race to the Swift: Thoughts on Twenty-First Century Warfare (International Series on Materials Science and Technology)
On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War
The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences)