Events Books

~New Views of the Constitution~ is a remarkable exposition of states' rights federalism or what scholars dub the South Atlantic republicanism. John Taylor of Caroline stands out for his prudent and principled statesmanship. He stood alongside the illustrious John Randolph of Roanoke as the leaders of the Tertium Quids. He was an avid constitutionalist, a strict constructionist, and a republican at heart. For much of his life, he stood up against the depredations of the aristocracy of paper and privilege. After his Senatorial career, he retired to farming on his plantation, and continued to engage in active dialogue with his political allies and opponents. He penned 'Tyranny Unmasked' which critiqued the protectionist system of the Hamiltonians, he also authored 'Arator' which conveyed his agrarian thoughts with some political tidbits, and in 1823 he published this book 'New Views of the Constitution' shortly before his death.

Justice Joseph Story, a champion of judicial nationalism, scoffed at the book for its title and never read it. "I once saw a book advertised New Views of the Constitution. I was startled! What right a man to start new views upon it?" Though, Taylor wrote his book to answer the perennial question, "What is the American form of government-national or federal?" Utilising recently published notes from Robert Yates which were sealed as was most the proceedings at the convention for years, John Taylor sought to give clarity and insight on the Constitution. Taylor makes it abundantly clear that the nationalising tenets of the consolidationist-monarchist camp were aired and summarily defeated at the convention following ratification. The ratified Constitution was the consensus produced which was wholly "federal" and not "national." Hamilton's nationalist motions were all struck down in the Convention. "Although, neither the Virginia plan nor Mr. Hamilton succeeded in the convention, they embraced a mass of talents, too proud and powerful for humility and submission; and they resorted to the engine of construction, to be directed by many an Archimedes," notes Taylor. And this is precisely what Hamilton did, as he tried to conflate the teleocratic principle of "general welfare" expressed into the preamble into a grant of power. The so called "general welfare" clause was merely the expressed interest in which delegated powers were to serve, and is hardly a grant of power in itself as Hamilton would postulate. The language of the Constitution was to be subverted by the nationalists through construction: they would malign the "necessary and proper" clause, they manipulated the so called national supremacy clause, and lastly they animated the "We the people" clause in the preamble with an esoteric democratic nationalism as if the American people were one consolidated mass. If one studies the debates, and the deducible nature of sovereignty which flows from the States, it should be readily apparent that the United States was framed as a federal republic and not a national unitary state. John Taylor championed a true federal polity and the Constitution which he saw as compact among sovereign States. The States delegated certain, expressed enumerated powers to the general government, and the interlocking structures set by the Constitution embodied the whole federal polity. The Tenth Amendment clarified the consensus at the 1787 Convention: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Taylor was keenly aware of the lessons of history, and that "the Roman republik" having been subverted into centralised imperium "was secured by republican words." For this reason, he would not stand idle as centralizing sophists tried to engage in such chicanery, so as to disfigure the American republic.

All things considered, John Taylor of Caroline offers a remarkably insightful work and this neglected classic is pivotal in gaining valuable introspection on the study of the constitutional debates and the convention of 1787. The "Sage of Hazelwood" was a great American patriot, a principled republican and a champion of states rights. His exposition is a keystone for true federalists and defenders of states' rights.

"Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could have not reserved any rights by articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed." -John Taylor of Caroline.

John Taylor's " New Views of the Consitution of The United States" is a brilliant refutation of the Federalist and strong central government. Taylor, the most articulate exponent of Jeffersonian Republicanism, is at his finest here. In New Views he refutes the doctrines of Madison and Hamilton in the Fedrealist which declare the United States to be a " consolidated nation" and having a supreme national government, instead of a federal one. He points out the contridictions of the authors of the Federalist, and de-mystifies it's hold on the interpretation of the Constitution. He also destroys the arguement that the Supreme Court has the exclusive right to " interpret" the Constitution and has the final word. He outlines a Jeffersonian view of limited government, and it's role in a federal republic. His predictions of civil war and geographical
domination of one section of the union over the other are prophetic. Anyone who believes in states rights, republicanism, and democracy should read New Views. This friend of Thomas Jefferson deserves the look. He espouses pure Jeffersonian Reoublicanism.

Twentieth Centurions often credit modern conservatism with being the brainchild of Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater or some other recent conservative, but John Taylor of Caroline clearly demonstrates in this classic work that conservatism has had long established roots in American society. First published in 1823, we find that government usurpation of the rights of states and individuals is not exactly a twentieth century revelation.

The language of 180 years ago, coupled with Taylor's agonizing repetitiveness, make this a somewhat tedious and difficult read, but one that is certainly worth the effort. The basic theme of the book is how nationalism was proposed and defeated in favor of federalism at our Constitutional Convention, however, there has been, from the beginning, a behind the scenes push to propagate a system of nationalism by what would be considered today, a liberal governmental faction. Taylor meticulously explains how this objective was set into motion and its consequences of the deterioration of states rights and personal freedoms. It doesn't take much effort for the knowledgeable reader to see how that battle has been furthered in the years since Taylor first exposed the nationalism gameplan.

Americans today tend to look upon the misdeeds of government and ask, "How can they get away with doing that?" Taylor clearly illustrates how it all began and that there is nothing new under the sun. But he also goes further in explaining various ways of "righting the ship" so to speak, and discusses the consequences of each differing course of action.

Oh, if we could only find a congressman today who possessed the clear headed tenacity of John Taylor of Caroline. A person who would fear not the consequences of unpopularity and stand tall to examine the true principles upon which our founding promoted.

If you are conservative, this book is a must read and will arm you with ammunition to clearly discuss states' rights and original intent. If you are a liberal, this outstanding book will help cure your mental condition and lead you down a path of understanding.

As an endnote, I don't normally comment on the quality of the book itself, but this one warrants comment. The book is printed on quality acid free paper and comes with a cloth bookmark. A nice touch.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

This is the seminal work on the Constitution and its true meaning. Taylor was the greatest political thinker in U.S. history and a critically important advisor to Thomas Jefferson ... his advocacy of interposition by state legislators to arrest and reverse unconstitutional encroachments upon the reserved sovereign liberty and powers of the states and their people, as advanced by Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, remains the most effective means of restoring and maintaining a limited federal government accountable to the boundaries established in the Constitution.

Martyn Babitz, Esquire - author of THE ILLUSION OF FREEDOM: How To Restore The True Constitution And Reclaim Liberty Now

New Views of The Constitution, by John Taylor is one of the best reads from the early 1800's on the issue of democracy and the constitution. I have an original first edition and it is one of my most prized books. Read it, if you can find it, and you to will have a new found respect for the development of our great nation's history of democracy.

Attorney Martin Garbus, in the social tradition of Clarence Darrow, has laid out in concise but stark terms the damage that the now-dominant, right-wing ideologue Supreme Court justices have done to constitutional and human rights. He forecasts that if their 5-4 past decisions are prologue, then the future for the next 25 years is not bright for those who believe that no one is above the law.

This book is must reading for anyone who is concerned about fairness and compassion in the meting out of justice by the federal judiciary. It is an easy-to-read constitutional history of the most significant cases and their effects on Americans.

There are a few errors that should have been caught during the review and editing. For example, on page 56, the name of Richard Mellon Scaife is given as Richard Scaife Mellon, and on pages 110-111, the date of Baker v. Carr is incorrectly listed as 1959, rather than the correct date of 1962. It is correct in note 42. And a final example will suffice. On page 132, Justice Byron White is incorrectly identified as his 19th century predecessor Justice Edward White. However, these errors do not detract from Mr. Garbus' cogent insight and call to action of all who believe, as he does, that "We need justice now[!]"

On a personal note, as a Louisiana native and student of its history, I was aware of the Colfax, LA, riot and murders of April 13, 1873. However, I was not familiar with United States v. Cruikshank (1876) that arose from the attempted criminal prosecution of the Colfax murderer s (p. 90). And I was certainly not aware that Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor had resurrected this Reconstruction-era bias as a precedent in Morrison v. United States to rule on May 15, 2000, that "Congress had no power to punish private violence motivated by gender" (p. 90). Another pernicious Louisiana case, Plessy v. Ferguson (May 18, 1896), has been cited by the Rehnquist and Roberts courts to "provide the basis of future decisions on issues ranging from abortion to civil liberties to race and gender persecution" (p. 70). Plessy v. Ferguson is the Supreme Court case sanctioning segregation in which the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional. Plessy was not overturned until Brown v. Topeka Board of Education in 1954.

With the recently re-aligned Supreme Court, I wanted to know what is going on and what could happen to our legal system. This book gives it to you in clear language with a high level of depth and detail. Trial lawyer Martin Garbus, who has appeared before the Supreme Court many times, explains the sweeping changes that can be handed down from the Court and just might shake the foundations of this country. It's a really good read, and I'm glad I picked it up.

In 2000, when the Supreme Court crowned George W. Bush President of the United States, friends of mine argued that Bush would be a one term President and would create little damage to our foreign policy, or to any of our institutions. They were wrong on all counts. In his book, The Next 25 Years: The New Supreme Court and What It Means for Americans, Martin Garbus outlines just how deep and long term the effect of Bush' s Supreme Court appointments will be for our country. With the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, the court has moved seriously to the right rejecting precedent and chipping away at some of the court's most important rulings regarding privacy, religion and states' rights. Garbus outlines recent court decisions taking the reader through the conservative arguments. He demonstrates how these decisions are part of a conservative plan implemented by the Bush administration's court appointees which will undo major liberal decisions since the Warren court. His analysis is alarming and should be read by everyone who is concerned about the future of our democracy.

This is a wonderful book. Like his previous book, "Courting Disaster," Martin Garbus tells what really happens in the Supreme Court. He also describes the Court from a political viewpoint and goes through each of the court subjects and shows how each judge comes out. It's detailed, knowledgable and a pleasure to read. I'm not a lawyer, and I loved it.

It is hard not to be frightened by Martin Garbus' new book. I've been a fan of the legendary Garbuis since his early books (TOUGH TALK and TRAITORS AND HEROES), which covered his swashbuckling career as one of the nation's pre-eminent first amendment lawyers. His clients -- from Lenny Bruce to Vaclac Havel to Spike Lee -- are a list of the powerful and important, and Garbus' work defending them is fascinating. But this book is something different.

Instead of revisiting past cases, Garbus looks to the future -- specifically, what the next quarter century holds for America given the makeup of the incredibly conversative Roberts court. Given the ages of the most conservative members -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas -- these guys will be around and voting as a bloc for a long time to come. If you think the Rehnquist years were bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet. What Garbus sees happening as a result is very upsetting -- nothing less than a conservative revolution to undo every progressive decision on the Supreme Court since the New Deal. No more reguolatory laws controlling Wall Street, no more environmental regulation, no more protection for workers and minorities, no more protection for abortion (though this will not be attacked directly), no govrenment agencies regulating American business, nothing whatsoever to balance the private sector run amok and the evils of prejudice and discrimination.

It's a nightmare vision, but it's no nightmare -- it's all to real. And Garbus elucidates the developments, and the history bhind them, in a clear, simple and dramatic way. If you want to know what's going to happen on the Supreme Court -- and therefore in all of our lives -- in the next 25 years, this book will show you the very scary truth. Take it as a call to action. and make sure we don't let any more conservatives on the court for a long time to come!

No Contest book by Ralph Nader and Wesley Smith.... In their book No Contest by Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, the authors give a series of examples about law at the corporate level. Many of their examples deal with wronged individuals suing a corporation. Frequently the plaintiffs are frustrated by a series of delays, misrepresentations, intentional misunderstandings, and multiple appeals. The judges do not discipline the lawyers, at least not to any effective extent, and the judges do not throw out frivolous motions. The judges tend to side with big law firms and with clever lines of reasoning, and not with the plaintiff. The original plaintiff injury, such as a wrongful death due to negligent corporate behavior, is forgotten in the mire of lawyer activity, and the judges fail to consider the need for relief of the plaintiff, without further anguishing delay. The plaintiff is faced with interminable costs and tedious delays without relief. There is no doubt reform is needed. ................ For a remedy, authors Nader and Wesley suggest an Appleseed Foundation, formed of local community volunteer groups, together with some overseeing coordinating committees. They mention Harvard graduates as playing a prominent behind the scenes part in overseeing reform. .............. The problem with this approach is: first, volunteerism, presumably without pay, is insufficient motivation to overcome such entrenched and profitable bad habits. Second, it is not clear just what specific steps these groups should recommend, other than complain, and point out injustices of which many persons are already aware. . Third, there are already volunteer groups (I have a list of over 20) around the country who are angry with their treatment by the law and yet who have not been able to bring about a change in habits.

This is one of my favorite books I've read in recent years. It opens your eyes to the horrible tactics used by corporate lawyers to deny victims their full day in court. Also, Nader and Smith present bulletproof arguments against tort reform. You will learn a TON by reading this.

As a law student, I have to say that this should be on every law students "must-read" list! Nader and Smith clearly describe the hardball ruthless tactics used by today's corporate lawyers. This is not the kind of stuff they teach you in law school!

It took real guts and courage to expose the unethical tactics used by too many lawyers today, and I'm grateful that they did so. Highly recommended.

A detailed and methodical look at corporate lawyer's corruption of our legal system. The book explains all relevant terms, cites numerous fascinating examples, and suggests ways that the public and the Bar can improve today's legal system without tipping the scales of justice toward those with the most money. An easy read

Beware of the multinational corporations. Not only do they stick it to the taxpayers in forms of bailouts, tax "incentives", and other similar accounts recievable, they are quite willing to stick it to citizens in court and screw up the meaning of the word "due process" in America and the world. A sad commentary on our justice system but a MUST READ.

This is the BEST book I have ever read! So emotional! So touching! So truly courageous! Every time I open the book, no matter what page I begin on, I want to keep going! A wonderful work expressing the suffering of such amazing individuals!

This book is a survivor's shocking account of the persecution of the 350 000 strong Bahai faith in Iran.
Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, which saw the destruction of Bahai's holiest site in Iran, the House of Bab in Shiraz, there has been violent and sytematic persecution of the Bahais by Iran's radical revolutionary regime.
The Bahais are being persecuted soley for reasons of religious prejudices.
Thousands of Bahai holy sites, community centres, homes and businesses have been destoyed by Iran's revolutionary guards and over 200 Bahais have been murdered and executed.
Olya Roohizadegan was imprisoned for her faith, and subjected to intense physical and mental torture, to try to force her to renounce her religion.
She remained loyal to her faith and survived. In prison, she formed friendships with ten women and girls who had been arrested for teaching Bahai faith clases to children. They were all executed. Olya and her family were released and escaped to the USA were she countinues to try to alert the world of the plight of Iran's Bahais. But is anybody listening?
The persecution of the Bahais continues in Iran, and few in the world have taken up their cause or protested the abuses by Iran's Islamo-Nazi regime.

Olya spent time in prison with the 10 Baha'i women (including one who was only 17) who were hanged June 18, 1983 for teaching Baha'i children's classes. As such she's in a unique position to tell their story.

Earlier in 1978 a religious march in the city of Qum protested a newspaper article critical of the exiled Islamic leader, Ayatu'llah Khomeini, at which the police opened fire, seventeen seminary students were killed, and the government was denounced as anti-Islamic. As religious fundamentalism swept the country, Iran's largest religious minority, the Baha'is, became vulnerable; their houses were looted, livestock stolen, shops attacked and many were taken to mosques to be forced to accept Islam by those who considered the Baha'i faith to be a heretical sect. Although Baha'is were obedient to the government and their religion does not allow them to take part in politics, they were considered a threat; burning and looting spread and Olya's house was filled with refugees. There had been phases of intense persecutions previous to this, in the 1950s, the 1920s and in the last century when 20,000 early believers were massacred.

When the Pahlavis left Iran, the streets exploded in jubilation and two weeks later Ayatu'llah Khomeini proclaimed the birth of a new state where all were to be free: "Interrogating people about their beliefs is forbidden. No one can be persecuted or punished purely for holding certain beliefs." Official recognition and freedom to practice their religion, educate their children in their faith and be represented in parliament was extended to Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians but not to Baha'is, although recognized as a separate religion by the United Nations. The belief that a new messenger of God had come to herald the long-awaited regeneration of humanity was considered a wicked heresy just as Christ's proclamation had been 2,000 years earlier. When interviewed for US television the head of Public Prosecution in the Revolutionary Court of Iran said: "We have never killed anyone because of their religion. The Baha'is we have executed were either leaders of this political sect or they were spies for Israel. We are going to continue our efforts to eliminate all their leaders, and so far we have been very successful. Then we will put pressure on the other Baha'is, and no doubt they will all come back to Islam in time."

The pogrom began in earnest; the House of the Bab, one of the most holy places for Baha'is, was destroyed; Baha'i houses were demolished and families forced to live together; many were killed or executed, often after prolonged torture; Baha'is were banned from jobs in teaching and in government; children were suspended from schools and universities; eleven prominent Baha'is were kidnapped by the Revolutionary Guards, disappearing without trace. On April 30, 1981 three Baha'is were executed. A Muslim whose car broke down close by, secretly witnessed the scene and recounted what he saw: "They were only a few steps away from death when the guards tried for the last time to get them to recant their faith. They were told that if they denied being Baha'is they would be allowed to go back to their families at once. Their reaction was incredible. Mr. Mihdizadih, who seemed perfectly composed, said: 'Now that I'm captive and you know I don't have a weapon with which to defend myself, please uncover my eyes and tell me who is the person among you chosen to give me the drink from the water of eternal life.' One of the guards uncovered his eyes and introduced himself as the soldier who was about to kill him. Mr. Mihdizadih held the guard's hand and kissed it, then with indescribable excitement he looked at the sky and said: 'I praise God that I can, in the last moments of my life, be obedient and carry out what He has asked me to do - to kiss the hand of my killer.'"

Increasingly concerned about opposition from political factions such as the mujahidin, communists and tribal populations, it was pronounced illegal for more than two families to gather in one house under threat of prison and confiscation of property. The Baha'is complied but Olya was asked to be unofficial messenger to keep everyone informed, a dangerous job with guards everywhere. Olya's children were at school in the UK and her boss offered her advice: "Now that you have finally managed to get permission to leave Iran after all these difficulties, Olya, you'd better stay in England. The government has plans for you Baha'is. You know how they have fired your friends from their jobs under false charges! The Public Prosecutor's office has called me a few times to ask about you, but I don't give them straight answers. I have told them I am very happy with your work in the office, and that seems to pacify them a bit. But one of these days I'm sure they'll manage to dismiss you. I'll be glad to issue a few months' leave of absence for you, on top of your paid annual vacation, while we wait to see what happens under this terrible government. Maybe things will change!" Olga returned after the planned two weeks because something strange had happened to the Baha'i community. Under persecution, life had become more meaningful; they felt they had something priceless that brought true happiness. They enjoyed their material loss and envied those who gave their lives. They looked upon their children as the hope for the world; adults had to play their part in being a good example and in preparing their children.

On May 18, 1982 Olya's employer was forced to fire her, the personnel manager saying at the farewell gathering: "'Friends, why are you crying?' he began. 'We are proud to have a colleague who is leaving her job because of her principles. She has not lost anything - she has gained something. Olya Roohizadegan is leaving this office with her head held high.'" That was the day Olya's Story began; a story that lead to her dramatic escape from the hangman's noose and escape to Pakistan and the West.

Olya's Story is a factual account of the experience of Baha'is in Iran after the revolution. It is significant historically, as well as in depicting true spirituality, faith, and sacrifice. Easily read, it grips your soul and envelopes your heart.

John English's "A Perspective on Infantry," and its revised edition, have been enduring residents on the bookshelves of military professionals since first publication in 1981. English's topic is the tactical role of infantry on the twentieth century battlefield. As a Canadian officer, his focus was primarily on the wars in which Canada participated, but this is not a history of the Canadian Army. His narrative closely examines the evolution of infantry organization and use in the American and British armies, and in their 20th century opponents such as the Japanese and German armies.

English discusses, in very accessible prose, how changes in warfare and technology tended to drive changes in basic infantry organization down to the fire team and squad level, and how infantry was used on the battlefield. He relies heavily on the historical record of the two world wars, but other conflicts are referenced. English's prose is straightforward and matter-of-fact, even sometimes moving, as in his description of the heroic performance of the U.S. First Marine Division in the breakout from the Chosin Reservoir in 1950.

English was a professional writing primarily for other professionals. The reader without military or historical background may not fully appreciate the value of this work.

The extent to which integrated joint and combined operations have come to dominate the actions of the U.S. military and to a lesser degree of its NATO allies is an event largely postdating this edition, as is the degree to which netcentric warfare is now commonly used. Nevertheless, the basis of the infantry continues to be the human soldier: on that basis, "On Infantry" endures as a very worthful professional read.

Books such as English's "On Infantry" are difficult to review because it is wise to examine source material in conjunciton with the text. I ordered this book a year ago and have been working on this review since.

Due to the scope of this book, I'll only talk about the evolution of the infantry squad as English and Gudmundsson outlined throughout "On Infantry." Please note that there are multiple interpretations.

The infantry squad had its roots in ancient times as an administrative unit, a sort of "family grouping" with a big brother serving to mold the younger soldiers. The authors pick this up in the first chapter, "The Open Order Revolution," in the period between 1854 the Crimean War) and 1914 (the outbreak of World War One.) A combination of rifling (extending range) and repeater mechanism (increased fire volume) rendered the earlier means of command, control, and concentration of combat power a certain means to defeat; the enemy would shoot the closed-ranks regiments to pieces in minutes. Dispersion while mutually supporting the rest of the regiment or brigade forced the very junior leaders to assume responsibility for what had been the regimental commander's decision-making, as the battlefield became "empty" in the face of the hail of accurate rifle bullets. Rapid fire weaponry, which included both the machine gun and the quick-fire field piece (one with a recoil mechanism that limited the necessity to relay the gun after each shot--and often used recoil energy to eject spent cartridge casings, increasing the rate of fire), only added to this revolution--and made the old Napoleanic tactics pure suicide.

The squad (often thought of as an American invention) became a tactical unit during the Great War, and its evolution from administrative element (for guard duty, for fatigue details, for grouping into mess elements for distributing rations or for issuing supplies) into a tactical element possessing independant internal manuever and fire elements is spread out through "On Infantry"-- but the most important chapter is 7, "A Corporal's Guard." Oddly enough, the French Army almost got it right during the Great War, and was one of the three models for the modern infantry squad. The French put an automatic rifle in the squad and formally divided the squad into two elements--one grouped around the automatic rifle for fire support, and one for manuever with "ordianry riflemen." The French squad leader went with the maneuver element and the assistant squad leader stayed with the automatic rifle--but the French failed to exploit this innovation. French Army regulations stipulated that the squad was indivisible and that the smallest element capablie of being assigned an independant task was the platoon. The Germans did it right (funny about those Germans) by exchanging the squad's automatic rifle for a light machine gun, keeping the squad leader with the LMG and making that element the main killing system, with the assistant squad leader running a manuever/assault element of riflemen that supported the machine gun's tasks. The Germans called this universal squad the Einsheitsgruppe, and then proceeded to reinvent the wheel due to deterioration in their non-commissioned officer cadre due to casualties to form a second, "guerrilla" formation armed (on paper) with the assault rifle and grenade launcher. Simplified tactics also reduced the ability of the squad for independant action--for a single objective (ie, taking or holding a single small building) the minimum maneuver element was the platoon or even battalion. It should be noted here that even though--on paper--the 1944 German Volksgrenadier squad was supposed to have eight men, it was more common for the actual strength to be four, five, or six. There was no assistant squad leader, and Germany relied upon indoctrinating every soldier to take charge of the situation and continue the mission even when leadership personnel became casualties. The third squad formation is one I was most familiar with, the USMC's three fire team rifle squad standardized in March of 1944. Derived from the Chinese Communist practice of grouping three men around a single automatic weapon, this system was first tried out by the Marines in the Second Raider Battalion under Colonel Carlson. Three independantly-maneuvering four-Marine "fire teams," each organized around the Browning Automatic Rifle, achieved a balance of mobility and firepower which could be controlled under chaotic battlefield conditions that was hard to improve upon. Too bad that it was squandered in mostly frontal attacks against an enemy whose defense was basically an area ambush, a trap that sucked in attackers for annihilation. It is a credit to the Marines and their lowest-level tactical organization that they managed to prevail over the Imperial Japanese infantry's defensive webs--something like the fly overpowering the spider after getting entangled in its web.

There are other subjects covered in "On Infantry," but for brevity, I've just covered the evolution of squad organization. This evolution was impacted by such things as changing American Army drill--instead of forming the squad as two ranks of four men, the "new" squad of 1940 formed as a single file of 12 men--or any other number. Another factor in the evolution of the squad was conversion from foot mobility to motorization--the twelve-man squad of 1940 became a six-Soldier dismount team aboard a Stryker or Bradley. Due to low priority given to "bayonets on line," these dismount teams may number a mere two soldiers at times. Infantry squads always suffer attrition-often administrative attrition (mess duty, guard details, "give me a guy for a patrol,") and frequently casualties due to non-combat accidents, illness, or combat injuries. This messes up tactics because it isn't unusual for a rifle squad to be missing as much as 2/3rds of its strength in combat. The American idea of men as interchangable cogs in a massive machine ignored the human element, but this has changed due to combat experience. When a bunch of "weekend warriors" who have limited training time, but have known each other for years and have built mutual bonds of confidence out-fight "better-trained" active-component soldiers in both war games and actual combat, something is obviously wrong with regarding the infantry squad as an ad-hoc grouping of individuals. Sports teams train together to develop team work. The best individual players tossed into a game as a mob will almost always lose to a team of mediocre players who are lead by a competent coach and who play as a team. Infantry combat is a "team sport" rather than an individual event, and the long-overdue recognition of this simple fact is one reason why American infantry out-fights the Iraqi "insurgents."

An extensive bibliography and a very useable index enhances "On Infantry." This well-read book is an important part of my small unit tactics library.

John English is a brilliant tactician and historian who has written THE masterpiece on the origins of Infantry. I would have English describe infantry to about the Vietnam era and have Col Dan Bolger take the coverage from there to the future in his own book Death Ground: American infantry in battle. Bruce Gudmundsson was attached to the updated English book to attempt to bring the work up to date.

Taking the masterpiece for what it is, it delivers an important lesson mechanized maneuverists do not want to realize---that the German "blitzkrieg" died in the forests and cities of Russian when it met infantry that would not crumble if surrounded or cut-off from comfortable supply lines. Using a defense-in-depth, a nation on a total war footing can absorb and defeat another less committed nation that hopes to use a smaller force to penetrate and collapse. Many, maybe even most people mistake the German defeat in Russia--and hence WWII---with the cold Russian winter, and this is incorrect. The next critical---perhaps most important lesson and contribution English makes to the defense of freedom is---that a mechanized "combined arms" unit is ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS INFANTRY. When terrain and weather go sour, artillery and tanks will reach a point where they cannot contribute--and the entire battle then falls on the infantry. When this took place in Russia--the German infantry was NOT up to the task with inadequate numbers, clothing and bolt-action rifles. English points out and lesser historians should take note--that the German war machine was good together but not really that good because its PARTS were weak. When combined-arms technotactics could not be employed in the forests of Russia, the battle rested on the German infantry and it failed.

The cryptic lesson here is that we need GOOD infantry in large numbers and we don't get it by placing them into the back of armored vehicles in less than squad sizes, shut off from what's going on because they can't open a hatch out and see because we put a turret on the vehicle and we are afraid it will rotate into them. The Army made this mistake with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, is trying to correct it with its vehicle for the new Brigade Combat Teams while the marines are about to repeat the error with a huge autocannon turret on their next generation amphibious assault vehicle. The second lesson of English is still being ignored---those that do mechanized combined arms don't value infantry action---they ride too long in their vehicles and get ambushed by missiles and RPGs fired from enemies hiding in key terrain that should have been taken first by the infantry. To do this you need a large amount of aggressive, not complacent infantry. As the Russians found out in Grozny, when their armored vehicles became flaming coffins, the battle then falls on the infantry to clear out enemies hiding in urban terrain.

This is not to say English believes in a "Super Infantry" since we saw in Mogadishu the best light infantry in the world get shot up because it was without armored fighting vehicles to shield it from enemy fire. What English is saying is that we should start with quality infantry when building forces and not in the process of creating combined-arms organizations ruin the infantry capability by reducing numbers, battle awareness and use as a separate maneuver element.

On Infantry should be required reading for ALL U.S. military personnel coupled with Bolger's Death Ground. I'd like to see the book updated to the present with a fresh perspective for the 21st Century where we apply English's lessons to the future battlefield.

This is an excellent discussion (historical and schematic) of what goes on at the nitty-gritty level of infantry combat; the squads, platoons, companies, and battalions. It shows how various systems succeed or fail at tasks such as flexibility, manouver, combat cohesion and morale, and why the German army was generally qualitatively superior to both Western and Eastern rivals in both world wars.

That being said, the authors tend to overemphasize the capabilities of infantry on its own -- particularly unsupported light infantry, and particularly in the theoretical section which concludes the book.

While rightly critical of the excessive logistical tail some modern "armies of drivers" drag around, they lose sight of the fact that foot infantry by itself totally lacks operational mobility -- 20 miles a day vs. over 200 for forces with their own organic transport. And they neglect the degree to which infantry alone lacks even tactical mobility on a battlefield saturated with automatic weapons.

It's no accident that the armies which actually do a lot of fighting -- the Israelis, for instance -- structure combined-arms teams around honking great monster tanks like the Merkava III or the M1A2 Abrahms, 70 tons or so of massively protected lethality.

Mobility means the ability to move, but tactical mobility means the ability to move _under fire_.

This poses a genuine strategic dilemma; forces light enough to move rapidly _strategically_ are often too heavy to be mobile in the tactical and operational sense -- you can fly light infantry quickly to the other side of the world, but they can't move when they're actually fighting.

Still, an excellent book on the whole.

This is one of a series of surveys by Bruce Gudmundsson on different combat arms. (This book also has John English as a co-author.) As always, Gudmundsson's books are informative and delightfully easy to read. In this book the authors examine the evolution of infantry tactics resulting from the massive increase in firepower as muskets gave way to rifles and then to automatic weapons, in addition to the vast array of supplementary infantry weapons (i.e. grenades, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc.).

They start off by looking at the effects of dispersing troops in open order to mitigate casualties and different armies' responses to this organizational and mental requirement. As the machine gun speedily became ubiquitous early on in World War I, some armies adjusted rapidly and easily, such as the Germans, while others lagged behind, e.g. British, Americans. English and Gudmundsson examine and compare the tactical infantry doctrines and small-unit organizations of the French, German, Russian, British, Japanese and American armies of World War II. Also examined are the Chinese Army from the Korean War and the Vietnam-era American army. In each case, they utilize real battlefield examples to demonstrate how this doctrine was actually put into practice, how effective the chosen tactics were, and their strengths and weaknesses (e.g. the American army's reliance on firepower instead of expert technique). They also examine the importance of psychological conditioning in preparing infantry soldiers for 'the emptiness of the battlefield'. The concluding chapter then briefly examines how different modern armies have organized their infantry arms, e.g. by reducing mechanization & heavy equipment.

This was a great survey on infantry organization and tactical doctrine. I highly recommend it as a brief introduction to the infantry arm. A more detailed study by Gudmundsson of the evolution of small-unit tactics can be found in 'Stormtroop Tactics'.

An anthology of Mencken's newspaper reports and analyses on politics between 1920 and 1936. Most of them, I think, do not appear in any of the other various Mencken anthologies. They are written in lucid and musical prose, full of refreshing honesty and vigor.

This book is a collection of political columns, written mostly for the Baltimore Sun, that H.L. Mencken penned in the early twentieth century. In virtually every piece, Mencken advances the view that politicians are third-rate men, devoid of convictions, willing to follow any platform that will make them electable. The only politicians Mencken likes are those that he believes have spine. He detests politicians that waver, particularly those that try to sit on both sides of the fence on the abolition issue.
Mencken is at his best when he covers presidential campaigns, as he does in many columns in this collection. He revels in the empty rhetoric he hears, and describes the bilge to the reader in truculent and uncompromising language. The whole art of politics, to him, is circus-like. The pols are clowns and their election speeches are the main act.
Anyone looking for sober commentary should look elsewhere. But anyone looking for extremely witty, well-written and combative columns should pick up this collection. There is probably no better example of attack-dog journalism out there, nor is there likely a more entertaining way to get a quick history lesson on the important political figures and issues of the early twentieth century. Enjoy!

If you are looking for a book on H.L. Mencken, I would highly recommend "On Politics." This book highlights Mencken at his most acidic through his constant verbal jabs at the "holy" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent" Cal, the "royalist" Hoover, Roosevelt Minor and the stupidity of Warren Harding.(Note: Take a look at what Mencken writes about Harding's mangling of the english language and then compare it to what some modern columnists write about George W's handling of the language. It is truly scary how history repeats itself.)

Besides being an utterly hilarious look at the aforementioned presidents and American society in general, this book is quite eye-opening in terms of showing Mencken's political leanings. I always thought that Mencken was a pure liberatarian with his constant attacks on the New Deal and FDR. Actually, Mencken somewhat liked FDR up until he was elected. Mencken also sides with progressive politicians such as Robert M. LaFollete and expresses sympathy (or as much "sympathy" as the great misanthrope can express) for jailed socialist leader Eugene Debs. Nevertheless, all of the aforementioned people also receive Mencken verbal lashings.

I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in early 20th century American politics or for anyone with a slightly cynical bent. On days when you feel slightly misanthropic and (mad) at the world, read "On Politics" and you feel much, much better.

Favorite Mencken Quote: "All artists are idiots."

Mencken was the UberMensch. We are all monkeys beside him. Some of his best work, in my opinion, can be found in this collection. The America he covered (or uncovered) so masterfully almost a century ago is eerily similar to the one we live in today. In fact, nothing has changed. Computers may have replaced typewriters, but the Boobery remain the same, not to mention the politicians who so easily manipulate them. Read this book and evolve!

Buy everything you can find that was written by H. L Mencken, this collection is no exception. Mencken was one of the most influential and popular men of letters in America. He covered the Scopes Monkey Trial as a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, and was editor of two literary magazines: Smart Set and the American Mercury. His popularity waned for a variety of reasons. While he teased presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, he gave no quarter when it came to FDR, referring to him "Dr. Roosevelt" and "Roosevelt minor." He had little use for the New Deal. "The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace." This and his pro-German attitudes didn't go over too well in the depression and war years. But over the last twenty or thirty years Mencken has enjoyed a resurgence or interest and popularity. As a journalist, a wit and a social critic he has no peer today.

"On the Brink" should be on display in the Smithsonian. This book is a National Treasure that will inform people for generations to come on how one man with inestimable integrity; conviction to principle; and unwavering backbone, changed the world and did the impossible: Toppled Communism in eight short years, and launched Freedom and Liberty on a virtueous crusade around the globe. It's all in "On the Brink". This book is a MUST. Winik's years of tireless research has rewarded us with a timeless gem that will go down as one of the best political books of all time. David Monks E-Mail: monksd@nabisco.com

This is a wonderful, to-the-point saga of the years that changed history! It should be a textbook--and the only reason it WON'T be is that it crosses too many agendas!

BTW--why is this book out of print?

"On the Brink" should be on display in the Smithsonian. This book is a National Treasure that will inform people for generations to come on how one man with inestimable integrity; conviction to principle; and unwavering backbone, changed the world and did the impossible: Toppled Communism in eight short years, and launched Freedom and Liberty on a virtueous crusade around the globe. It's all in "On the Brink". This book is a MUST. Winik's years of tireless research has rewarded us with a timeless gem that will go down as one of the best political books of all time. David Monks E-Mail: monksd@nabisco.com

This was a very good book. The pace and detail kept me glued. I was surprised, however, at how little Reagan is mentioned in the book, given the subtitle. One of the other customer reviewers had it wrong, it was not *one* man (Reagan) who ended the cold war. Rather it was a collection of men and women, and this book brings you their stories (with particular emphasis on Richard Perle).

These were historic times, and while the biased official reviewer is correct in stating that few pages are given to the internal failings of the eastern bloc, to suggest that the hard-line stance of the Reagan administration wasn't the primary instrument of the Cold War victory is ludicrous. It was the Reagan administration after all who seized on the USSR's problems and pushed them over the brink.

Fantastic book! It's a real pleasure to see some of the lower level staff/cabinet people given credit for an historic 8 years. Before I read this book, I had no idea who Richard Pearl was and now I understand why the Reagan Presidency was noted for it's "hawkish" pro-defense policies. The best history reading is one that reads like a novel while still able to get across all pertinate points and this book does so overwhelmingly. "On the Brink" doesn't necessarily cover in detail all the policies and activities of the Reagan administration (like Lebanon or Iran-Contra...read Lou Cannon's "Reagan" for this) but those it does cover, it does so in "delicious/readable" prose. Highly recommended!

If you're like me, a book lover who enjoys interesting, non-fiction, concise reads this book will satisfy your desires. I love reading about Chicago. Getting to know the characters who serve and protect the city was a treat. I think Smith is truly an emerging author. I find myself bringing it up in conversation and recommending it to friends and family so why not recommend it to the world? Enjoy.

On the Job is simply OUTSTANDING! Author Daniel Smith provides an original insight into the highly touted and predominantly mysterious Chicago Police. Smith threads history, poetry, and human interest through a series of interviews that produce a compelling and surprisingly easy to read-and relate to-book. This book is bound to challenge your perspective and raise new questions and support for the men and woman who were the star and serve the city. The contents of the book are electrifying and appropriate for people of all ages and backgrounds. On the Job: Behind the Stars of the Chicago Police, read it today!

Daniel Smith's book about the culture and history of Chicago Police was a fascinating read. Anyone who enjoys Chicago history as much as I do will love this book. Smith gives us a treat with insight into what exactly goes into the job of being on the most famous/infamous police department in the world with candid interviews of the officers who do the job every day. The 19 officers Smith interviewed all had unique stories to tell that will take you on a emotional roller-coaster. Enjoy!!!
-Graham Waller

This book is written by an author who was born and raised in a Chicago Police family. Smith provides you an inside look into the real lives of Chicago Police officers who have gone above and behind their duty to "serve and protect." A collection of many short stories, the book takes you through the lives of 19 distinctly different police officers and their dedication to the Chicago Police Department while also providing you the history of the Department and the great city it serves. A must read for history buffs, fellow Chicagoans, police officers, and anyone who aspires to live their life with honor and courage.

This book is not an account of a group of rock 'em sock'em tales. The book let's us in on what officers feel, deep down in their hearts. We learn what goes on in the hearts and souls of the "Real Police". If you want to read about the lives of the men and women who sacrifice daily to protect us, buy this book.

One of the better books on dealing with terrorism. I bought the book after seeing the author on one of the interview programs. I was impressed with his vision and ability to simplify portions of the problem. I started the book convinced it was worthy of a 5 star review. However, the loss of a star is the reflection of a persistent bias.

The author does a great job of dividing the threats into those which we must defend against and those which our best defense is preparation to deal with the consequences. The two examples used are bioterrorism and nuclear weapons.

He makes a great case that terrorists are not going to send their one and only , $250 million nuke into the country in a shipping container where they lose control. He misses an opportunity to bolster his argument with concept that the enemy of intelligence gathering is velocity. The time a ship takes to load then cross an ocean at 30 knots and unload ( or detonate in the harbor) is perhaps 20-40 times the time required to deliver the components via private jet. Further argument for an increased focus on aircraft and efforts to increase the care and rate at which intelligence data is analyzed.

To be successful the terrorist organization needs to obtain highly enriched uranium or other materials as they are very unlikely to be able to produce it. Once in possession of the materials the fabrication of a weapon becomes a far lesser challenge.

Bio weapons represent the opposite end of the scale with production well within the capabilities of a small organization using materials commercially available around the globe. Thus the challenge becomes the response to an attack.

Larsen's message that government is not the answer needs to be carried to the four corners of the country. People who would never think of allowing their health, life, car or pet insurance to lapse simply refuse to take the few essential steps which will greatly add to their family security in the event of a natural disaster or attack. He uses the example of people waiting in line for water just a few hours after a hurricane has passed in Florida. They are angry that the government has not yet provided them with water and yet they had 3 days warning of the approaching storm and probably left a home with 5 gallons of clean water in the toilet tanks and another 30 gallons in the water heater.

Larsen does a great job in taking the problem from the strategic issues down to what the individual citizen needs to do to prepare for something that is nearly as certain as death and taxes.

My sole reservation is that his bias shows up clearly in the way he describes problems or effective action, depending on which side of the political spectrum is involved.

With this slight lapse it remains a highly recommended read

"Our Own Worst Enemy is the single best thing that has been written on homeland security and, as Randy Larsen suggests, every American should read it. Straight talking, full of common sense and written in an entertaining style that makes it hard to put down, this book asks the right questions and provides concrete recommendations that government officials, corporate executives and every citizen need to understand and apply."

ADM Steve Abbot, USN (Ret)
Deputy Homeland Security Advisor to the President
2001-2003

"Larsen advocates a seldom used tool to fight terrorism--common sense."

Bob Schieffer, CBS News

"Larsen explains how to ask the right questions---from the Oval Office, to the front office, to your kitchen table."

Bruce vanVoorst,
former Senior Correspondent for National Security, TIME

"This book should be required reading for all who are concerned about national security--and that is everyone...An all-absorbing, page-by-page tableau, comprised of provocative ideas, eminently rational concepts, and well-skewered current ideas and initiatives."

Donald A. Henderson, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine
and Public Health, University of Pittsburgh,
Johns Hopkins University Distinguished Service Professor

"Post 9/11, there are now many experts on homeland security. But Randy Larsen is a pioneer...This is a pragmatic and valuable book for average Americans, not just experts."

John J. Hamre
President and CEO
Center for Strategic and International Studies

"This is a must read for at least one member of every American family. Larsen is an unparalleled expert and tells us all what really matters for our security in this age of lethal unpredictability."

Arnaud de Borchgrave, Director of Transnational Threats,
Center for Strategic and International Studies

This guy knows his stuff! I learned more about how we ARE and ARE NOT prepared for terrorism (as a country and as people) from reading this book than I have from about 2,000 hours watching news programs. He obliterates the sense of helplessness so many of us seem to feel about terrorism. I'd seen Larsen on TV and come to respect his sage opinions, so I bought the book. In it, he simplifies complicated political mumbling and sleight-of-hand into real language about what's going on and what we should do. His position makes great sense. His opinion on immigration, on controlling nuclear supplies and personal preparedness are so logical you'll be wondering how the whole topic ever looked overwhelming. He does it all without talking down to people who didn't spend their time at West Point. It's an immensely readable, deeply grounded, reassuring book. It takes a genius to distill a complicated subject so eloquently. I recommend it most highly.

This was an amazing book which pushes beyond the partisan struggle over policy making in homeland security. He discusses not only the problems, but also the successes and solutions that exist. It will entertain you, enlighten you, scare you, and reassure you. It is a must read for all Americans.

I just saw Randall Larsen on C-SPAN's Book TV and I am about to order his book. He puts a healthy emphasis on the fact that the government is not able to help citizens in every situation, nor is it the government's job. To show how far we have come from the self-reliance we need, he told of a well-dressed woman who 36 hours after Katrina was demanding the government supply her with drinking water. She knew Katrina was coming; couldn't she have filled her bathtub, or bought a supply of water?, he asked. How dependent and childish can you get?

He told the story of a sheriff in Texas who is in charge of a county a third the size of Delaware, with 27,000 people. How would he deal with a security emergency? "I'd posse up," he replied. That is, he has all the backup he needs in citizens trained to help in law-enforcement.

Larsen is telling us to "posse up." Become aware of how to keep our families safe, and get training to be a part of law enforcement when the government can't supply enough manpower for our needs. We need to take responsibility for our security and be prepared to act when there is a crisis, instead of expecting the government to take care of us in every situation.

This book pretty much just made me mad. The terrorist group M-19 attempted to take government workers hostage in order to get political consideration. The first time(s) is worked. The "macho" new President decided not to negotiate and a large number (unknown) of the hostages were killed. From the few witnesses left, the terrorists killed some soldiers, but no hostages. The un-identified bodies were buried and had acid poured on their graves to prevent later identification. Fortunately for the Government, an earthquake provided hundreds more bodies to dump over the killed hostages further hindering later identification.

Bottom line, I ain't ever going to Columbia and thank GOD they don't run our police forces. The President allowed the military to kill all of the terrorists and all of the hostages that couldn't get away from the army.

The author is a good investigator and writer. She's also VERY lucky to be here.

"The Palace of Justice" is a brutal story of life in Colombia. Carrigan is a tier-one journalist who lived in Colombia and used many first hand accounts to expose the flaws in the government's coverup.

.
This is an utterly brilliant book.
.
Ana Carrigan provides a meticulously researched and detailed
account of a climactic event in the ongoing Colombian violence.
The significance of this saga is not in its direct effects but
the insight into the workings and priorities of the Colombian
government and military revealed to us by this moment of crisis.
The author gives the critical background to the saga and covers
in detail the political maneuvering and subsequent
Orwellian "official explanation" of what really happened.
.
Read this book. If it's out-of-print, harangue the publisher.

This book is truly the most complete investigation on those two intense and definitive days in recent Colombian history. Told with gripping narrative, it is hard to put down: it took me only three days to read. As a Colombian, for me it is also a source of profound sadness, because the book, through its tale, illustrates all the workings of colombian politics, with all its lies, manipulations, self-interests, and lack of any decent statemanship and generosity. Except for a few personalities, all the actors in this drama show an inmense human mediocrity, from the president of the nation on down. Also, it shows the brutality of an armed force that has always been distinguished by its corruption and incompetence in the field of battle. This book should be mandatory reading for anybody interested in Colombian politics, history and society.

A very enjoyable book about a very bloody and unfortunate event in Colombia`s recent history. As a Colombian I can vouch for the accuracy of the events the author describes. I want to congratulate the author and at the same time recommend this book to everyone.