Central America Books

Having never read anything like this before, I was prepared for a brain-deadener. In very short order, however, things turned into a brain-enlivener. Simply and evenly written this book turned a potentially boring or polemical study of what seemed to have been a lost decade into a fascinating look backwards at a not-at-all distant past.
I thought I understood the decade but it is clear I did not. At least now I have a chance at understanding it better. These guys (incredibly well-informed and widely-researched) have done us a great service.
Reading this book does leave me with a nagging dread. The Campaign of 2008 did an excellent job of disregarding the great foreign policy dilemmas of the moment and of the 90s.
But, as Between the Wars so amply illustrates, foreign policy is driven by domestic politics, and in that arena it appears we are doomed to repeat, and repeat, the errors of our ways.

This book is the first account of US foreign policy in the 1990s that treats the decade as genuine history. I mean that it does not simply offer a chronicle of the period, or a set of newspaper clippings and individual events - it offers a guiding historical interpretation that sets those years in relation to the Cold War before and 9/11 and beyond. It is very convincing that there is far more continuity today with the foreign policies of those years than many people, left or right, give credit for. It is a highly persuasive interpretation of the period and I believe will remain the standard account of its foreign policy for a long time to come.

An excellent read for someone who wants a non-partisan approach to history's impact on international relations and foreign policy. Additionally, Chollet and Goldgeier postulate how our current state of affairs will shape tomorrow's. This is a perfect book for someone who wants to understand where we were and where we are going.

This is a tremendously important book that explains what happened when the Berlin wall fell and America's foreign policy establishment was forced to confront a world that was no longer organized by the US/Soviet rivalry. As it becomes increasingly clear that the "war on terrorism" is only a part of the broader foreign policy needed to protect our nation in a complex and multi-polar world, this is the book to read if you want to understand how the next generation of policymakers will draw on the lessons of the recent past to set a new course. Chollet and Goldgeier know what they are talking about. They have done exhaustive research, and each of them has hands on experience in the foreign policy business. It's a bonus that the writing is lively and engaging. Don't miss this book.

I was in Jr. High and High School during the 90s and so wasn't very familiar with this period before reading this, and while interested and somewhat familiar with policy, am certainly no expert. After years of thinking I knew who neoconservatives were and what both parties "stood for", this book really put things into perspective and contextualized things for me. And though it's a "history", it draws extensively on interviews with leading policymakers & insiders during the period, so the text ends up reading more like a narrative (great for a novel-reader like myself).

In sum, this was really informative, interesting, and a quick read - perfect for anyone looking for a genuinely nonpartisan, nuanced look at how we got to where we are - both domestically and abroad. Definitely a must for your summer reading list.

Finally a book out there that is easy to follow about getting online. It is well-written and clearly organized. I was already able to email friends, but "Wired in a Week" taught me how to do even more -- like checking my stocks, instant messaging and so much more. Buy it--it's worth it!

This book is a must have next to your computer. It tells you how to get started online and how to use AOL for checking stocks, sports scores, email and getting pictures online. I refer to it all the time.

This book was the answer to my prayers.....I have felt "left out" on the new internet wave and Regina Lewis's book brought me "in"!!.I had no idea how helpful the internet can be!.....Thank you ...Thank you!.......Now I can "really" join in all the conversations with my adult children. It feels great to be "connected" !!

This book was really helpful. I learned a lot about AOL that I didn't already know. Illustrations were very helpful too.

Finally a book out there that is easy to follow about getting online. It is well-written and clearly organized. I was already able to email friends, but "Wired in a Week" taught me how to do even more -- like checking my stocks, instant messaging and so much more. Buy it--it's worth it!

The Lost Cause Tradition revolves around Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. Most of books written on Civil War history are about battles that occur in the Eastern Theater. This was the case during the war and has not improved in the years since. If the Confederacy had a chance to win, if they had heroic figures they were in the battles and leaders of the AoNV. From 1861 to the end of the war, a second army fought and died for the South. These men gave as much as the men in the East without inspiring leadership. Time after time, they saw victory taken from them. Often they endured forced marches to save themselves only to repeat the cycle of defeat. Their story is largely ignored or told as the "other army" in histories of Union armies. The was the Confederate States of America's Army of Tennessee, brave men badly lead who saw the war through.
Army of the Heartland, first published in 1967, is the history of the building the army. Isham Harris, the CSA governor of Tennessee delivers an army to hold his state. Jefferson Davis sent Albert Sidney Johnston, his best general, to lead it. However, the army was not much more than an unarmed semi drilled mob. Johnston was unequal to the task and Leonidas Polk demonstrated a willingness to do his own thing. Facing them was an unknown Union General named U.S. Grant. This is the story of Grant's move to Corinth Mississippi as seen by the army he defeated. After Johnston's death, Braxton Bragg assumes command. Bragg is a close personal friend of Jeff Davis, who has great confidence in him. However, Davis is even closer to Leonidas Polk and has great confidence in William J. Hardee. Add in an endemic of "Kentucky Fever" and we have the Perryville Campaign.
Autumn of Glory, published in 1971, takes us from Perryville to Nashville. While the AoT still existed after Nashville, it was no longer an army. The author covers this time but rightly considers the survivors to be more a collection of veteran units than an army. This is the years when they fight and lose central Tennessee under Bragg. The Georgia campaign under Joe Johnston and the return home under Hood. 1862 to 1865 are the years of the big battles and the political infighting that paralyze this army. No American army was ever as poorly lead or suffered government indifference on this scale. Richmond was paralyzed unable to choose between pro and anti Bragg factions. Unable to consider removing either faction, Davis dithered, as Tennessee was lost. This is a hard book to read as the army is doubly damned for not winning and for losing its' supply base. In the end, John Bell Hood leads this army to death in the largest charge of the war at Franklin and destruction at Nashville.
Connelly wrote these books years ago. The maps are not great and they are not highly detailed. They are one of the most readable army histories ever written. Classic is a very over used word and one we see often. This is one of the few times that it applies and should be used. On publication, these were seen to be special and needed books. That has not changed and shows no sign of changing. The only improvement would be to publish them as one book. You can do that with a single purchase and reading one after the other. Enjoy them; they are a great and informative read.

This book is not for beginners. You definitely need to have a working knowledge of the battles that the Army of Tennessee was engaged in.

The focus is on the political and ego wranglings between Bragg (later Johnston and Hood) and his staff, and then the wranglings with Richmond and key political figures.

In other words, you don't get a lot of such and such regiment moved here and such and such regiment moved there. It is more a critique of the leadership decisions. There are some battle details, but you're best off having a good understanding before you undertake this book.

The treatment is very fair to Bragg, I felt overly so, but Connely does back up his opinions. He comes down on Johnston and Hood for lack of a clear plan.

This is not a book about the overall war in the west. Just as the title says, it's specifically about the AOT. You hardly ever hear about Vicksburg, Mobile, Iuka, etc. other than to note troop concentrations and shufflings.

In short, an excellent read for the more advanced civil war student. I'll confess I probably read this and Army of the Heartland a little prematurely and much of the information went over my head. I will re-read once I feel up to par with the high quality level of information.

The merits of this volume are well documented. Connelly's research is excellent, and his judgments are sound. His prose, however, is as dry as a parched north Georgia dirt road during a June draught. This is, to a certain extent, to be expected, as most military history written during the late 1960s and 1970s tends to be dusty and academic. However, Connelly's descriptions of unit movements, particularly before Chickamauga, make for difficult reading, in part due to the volume's lack of good maps. But, again, this is a fault shared with lots of academic military history, and has more to do with publishing concerns and limitations than anything else, one imagines. So read this with a good set of maps at your side. Also, for a different prose style, one may wish to read this volume along with Stanley F. Horn's older book.

Caveats aside, the book is worth four stars for its discussions of Confederate command disputes and problems. But the reader who skips the campaign recaps and unit movements can be forgiven. And remember, the Polks, Braggs and Hoods were just symptoms--the disease was Jeff Davis.

The author picks up where he left off in, Army of the Heartland: The Army of Tennessee, 1861-1862. This volume begins in 1862 and closes with the surrender of the army in April, 1865.
If your interested in the War Between the States (Civil War) in the Western Theatre and the primary Confederate army of the West then this is a must read. Both of my great-great grandfathers served in the Army of Tennessee so this was particularly interesting to me.
The book deals primarly with the political issues between army commanders and Richmond. It is unfortunate that there was so much jealousy and grudges between all parties as this servely effected the objectives of the army. The Army of Tennessee didn't have a General Lee.
Campaigns and battles are analyzed. There is not lengthy discussion of the battles as this is not in the scope of the book. I found it very helpful to have the campaigns and battles laid in order. I have read books describing the diffferent battles but a more complete understanding of why and how the battles came about is accomplished in reading this book first. After this book, read accounts of the battles of the army from other sources.
There could more detailed maps included. However, this is informative and excellent historical reading.

Since other reviewers have covered the contexts of this monumental book in detail, I guess I'll have to be content just to list a few of the most important ideas that I learned from reading it. 1) The whole command structure of the Confederate army in the West from Davis down, was ineffective, nearly hopeless, and this book chronicles its sad demise about as well as it can be chronicled. 2)Bragg, who got reasonably high grades for his impressive but ultimately pointless invasion of Kentucky, becomes a pathetic, bitter general in charge of a nearly mutinous army. The fact that Davis could not or would not replace him until after Chattanooga says volumes as to why the South ultimately lost the war. 3)Joe Johnston, who I always rather admired, becomes The General Who Always Ran Away. And Connelly proves it. Talk about a change of attitude. He also gets alot of the blame for failing to relieve Vicksburg. 4) The famous cavalry commanders like Wheeler, Hunt, and Forrest did little to nothing to stop Sherman from marching on Atlanta and are therefore completely overrated, despite their often specacular tactical successes. If you have to read one book on the Confederate effort in West, read this one. It's eye opening.

Yes, it's written for middle schoolers, especially boys, but it's a great story. It's a quick read (at least, for adults) and it pulls you in. It's about a boy named Tirio who is a member of a tribe in the Amazon. When he is six years old, he's floated out into the Amazon in a canoe, presumably because he has a disability in his leg. He's discovered by a white woman who is in the area doing anthropology research and is adopted by her. He grows up in Florida.

It's told in two voices; by him and by Luka, a member of his tribe.

If you need a book for a middle-schooler in your life, or just want to read a neat adventure story, check it out. :

Nina Nelson has done a wonderful job with this book.... And, it's not for children only. Her development of characters is splendid albeit with a surprise. Read it and enjoy the warm story of boys coming of age in the Amazon. It will definitely be under the tree this Christmas for my Grandsons.

I'd highly recommend this book for a variety of ages and interests. It's a coming-of-age tale with a twist, a glimpse into the culture of the Amazon (the author made up the tribe, but it READS true), and a top-notch adventure tale--particularly for those of us who wonder how we'd do on "Survivor"! The characters are real, the human drama intense, the writing evocative. It kept me up until 3 a.m.! (Thanks a lot...)

This is a great book. It can easily go beyond the recommended age of 9 to 12. N.A. Nelson does a great job at describing what is happening with each of the characters' needs and emotions. The setting, while mostly fictional, is completely realistic and it invites curiosity to learn more about what other tribes and rites may exist that we know little or nothing about. Children AND their parents will both enjoy this book.

Take a unique premise combined with a fascinating setting, strong and likable characters, and wonderful writing and you have one of the best books of 2008 - BRINGING THE BOY HOME.

I can't recommend this book enough. My 13 YO son will be reading it next and I know he's going to love it!! I don't think you can get much closer to the perfect boy book!!! Great job N.A. Nelson!

This book is a liberal arts degree
for people who did not have the time
to get a Masters.

the information betweem the covers
is worth over 5 stars
a foundation work for individuals and their futures

for those over over 30 read it fast things jump at you
for those under 30 its an under liner

A Contemporary Mind gives a new perspective on the realities and cultural expectations that thrive in what is considered to be Latin America. The language is exuberant and finely crafted to draw the reader into a web of multiple plots. Well worth the time and effort. Great book for the beach, a must summer read.

Read it fast
it's a jazz composition

I was privileged to serve with Bill Meara in Special Forces in Central America. His book is dead on it's mark. Bill's frustrations with the military are shared by many. It seems that our government doesn't learn from history. Conventional commanders continue to lead unconventional wars with no comprehension of the difference between the two. Language capability continues to be a key factor in the success. The book is short and well written. A book for all to enjoy and learn.

"In 1949, Alexander Foote wrote a small book, "A Handbook for Spies" which contains all one needs to know to conduct espionage. Now comes another small volume, "Contra Cross", by William Meara which contains much of what one needs to understand to counter or for that matter support an insurgency. Based on his experience in El Salvador and with the Contras in Honduras/Nicaragua during the 1980's, Meara provides a crisp, thoughtful exposition of the problems and requirements for the winning of such conflicts. Meara's thoughts and experiences are well worth pondering as our nation takes on its current adversaries."

Duane Clarridge - Thirty-three year veteran of the CIA's clandestine service, Chief of CIA Latin American Division 1981-84, conceiver and chief of CIA Counterterrorism Center 1986-88, author of " The Spy for All Seasons."

The ongoing Coalition conflicts against insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated just how difficult a challenge conventional expeditionary forces face in adapting to asymmetric threats. Nowhere is this difficulty of adaptation greater than within the US Armed Forces, currently the most powerful and technologically-advanced military in the world.

What is significant is that failure to adapt at a theater, or even tactical, level engenders dysfunction at a strategic level, and creates deeply-paralyzing or divisive morale problems which eventually pervade the political structures of democratic societies. Indeed, the damage to (or impact on) the society is often evident even before the damage caused by the failure to adapt to asymmetric warfare shows up in the overall capabilities of the military forces itself. The result can often be a "hollow force": a monolithic defense structure, incapable of acting against the adversaries who besiege it daily, and yet waiting, becoming more bureaucratic by the day, for a "worthy [symmetric] adversary" who may come but once in a lifetime, if at all.

It is the persistent failure of much of the US conventional military leadership as well as the US political leadership to understand how to successfully prosecute warfare against a fluid, informal adversarial structure, operating within a broader psychopolitical environment, in Iraq (and Afghanistan) which is the Achilles Heel of the US as a strategic power into the 21st Century.

These are lessons which should have been learned after the Vietnam War ended in the 1970s. After all, the Vietnamese, the Soviets, and the leadership of the People's Republic of China (PRC) all emphasized that they had defeated the US in the media, and by sowing disenchantment (and narcotics) within US and Western society; in other words, by irregular, contextual, and psychopolitical stratagems. But peace after the Vietnam War -- as with the peace which followed World War I and World War II -- merely allowed the rump of the conventional US forces to re-assert the formal, highly-bureaucratized doctrine and methodologies which suit a rigidly hierarchical command and control system. Today's "Net-Centric Warfare", for example, is designed to use modern technologies, such as computerization and communications, imagery, and the like, to give true battlefield advantage to the field commanders, down to platoon level. Instead, it has been used repeatedly to afford centralized, remote micro-management of conflict, denying fluidity and cultural insinuation in the conflict zone by the forces there, where field officers should be able to exercise the command mandates of their commissions.

Significantly, many of the failures attributed to outgoing US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were caused by his determination to bring change and greater flexibility to the US defense structures. He may have had other failings, but his attempt to force change on the services is what created many of his enemies within the uniformed leadership, those who are reluctant to change, and to learn the lessons of history.

What better time, then, for a book about an aspect of the "lost history" of the Cold War to emerge, giving profound lessons from the battle front on the business of asymmetric warfare.

William R. Meara's new book, Contra Cross: Insurgency and Tyranny in Central America, 1979-1989, is a profound contribution to thinking about strategic doctrine, as the US -- and all major industrial powers -- face a watershed of introspection following the US electorate's decision to essentially retire from the global battlefield. Meara's great contribution is the fact that his book recounts the impact of doctrine and the strategic environment on the battlefield of that "small" war against the Nicaraguan Sandinista leadership which projected one of the last aspects of the Soviet grand strategy against the West before the end of the Cold War.

The book is also timely in that it reminds a new generation of strategic thinkers of the real origins of the Sandinista Government which has now returned to Nicaragua, following the re- election of former Sandinista Pres. Daniel Ortega -- now 60 years old -- with the November 5, 2006, Nicaraguan Presidential election. But more than that, Meara's book, told from the perspective of a "boots on the ground" true Cold Warrior, has the true grit of realism. It is not a book of theory, but a book which shows how theory translates on the ground in an asymmetric conflict.

William Meara was a US Army Special Forces officer who trained as a Foreign Area Officer (FAO), and then specialized in, and relished, psychological operations. His field of expertise was Central America. His book cover, and the name of his book, reflect the "Contra Cross", the Contra crucifix memento made from a neutralized M-16 5.56mm ammunition by wounded Contra veterans in the hospitals which housed them after their personal war was over. Meara carried with him the memento, and the draft of his book, for a couple of decades before deciding to finally publish his writings.

The US Armed Forces and Government -- operating mostly from Honduras, supporting the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandinistas -- were at this time still nursing their wounds after Vietnam. Many of the US military policies being pursued in Central America were based on either lessons learned from Vietnam and other Cold War theaters, or on a stubborn persistence in the view that a monolithic military machine -- the Green Machine of the Army, as Meara reminds us -- could roll over any adversary with "superior firepower" and technology. Clearly, the mainstream US Army had little time for psychological warriors or for grubby little wars. But there were those who understood this kind of warfare, such as the "crusty old SF (Special Forces) team sergeant" who embraced what he called "Low Intensity, High Per Diem War".

Meara, who left the US Army for the US Foreign Service (he remains a US diplomat) where he essentially continued his liaison and support work with the Contras of the ERN (Army of the Nicaraguan Resistance) until the end, highlights the profound importance of understanding the language and culture of the environment in which any war is being conducted. He knew that he had made the breakthrough when, as he put it, he was able to "swear like a Contra", and be able to converse at a truly meaningful level with the forces and cultures in which he had to operate. His time in Nicaragua, before he became part of the US-supported war supporting the Contras, gave him a good understanding of the Sandinistas, who took their name from the 1920s nationalist Nicaraguan fighter, Augusto César Sandino.

But before he was engaged in supporting the Contras, Meara was also engaged in US Army support operations in El Salvador where he also learned not only how Latin American armed forces shaped their priorities and doctrine, but also how guerilla forces, such as the Faribundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), functioned. He also faced the more enduring adversary: US Army "milicrats".

Apart from the profound timeliness of the book, as Sandinista Daniel Ortega returns to power in Nicaragua -- this time ostensibly within the framework of an ongoing process of democratic elections (we have yet to see whether he abides by the process, or whether he continues to think of "one-man, one-vote, once" as the process of re-entrenching pseudo-marxist-leninist governance) -- Contra Cross has real lessons for war- fighters and planners considering Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or Sudan.

William Meara also highlights the distinctions which often exist between the actual combatants in the guerilla wars and their political leaders, citing the case of the Contras, whose political leadership was based in Miami, Florida, where sophistry and political expediency prevailed to the detriment of the forces in the field. Meara highlights the disservice done to the Nicaraguan rebellion by the Contra political leadership in Miami, which was the principal interface with the US political system.

Meara's final chapter, Contrarian Conclusions, outlines some of his maxims for conducting irregular or asymmetric warfare, and particularly the aspect of this which is conducted by great powers at arm's length: surrogate warfare. But before that, Meara had to defend, even resurrect, the image of the Contras, noting: "My positive sentiments about the Nicaraguan resistance put me clearly in contrarian territory. It would be hard to exaggerate the extent to which the contras were vilified in the United States."

He added: "But I think the world should be proud of the contras. The young peasants of Nicaragua refused to be enslaved by communism. They waged a courageous struggle against great odds. They persevered when the situation looked very bleak. They sacrificed for the good of their people and the future of their country. They were noble and honorable freedom fighters. The mucos refused to be like Longfellow's `dumb, driven cattle'. They were heroes in the strife. ... I give the contras most of the credit for the elections held in Nicaragua in February 1990."

Equally, in saying that he felt that "Americans should be proud of what the Reagan Administration did and tried to do in Central America", he added: "But I don't think that everyone has the right to feel good about their actions during the Central American conflict. I think those Americans who gave aid and comfort to the Sandinistas and the Salvadoran communists should feel guilty. They were on the wrong side in the Cold War." These were, he said, what Lenin called "useful idiots".

In his "lessons learned" in that concluding chapter, Meara notes: "Cultural factors really are the equivalent of a terrain feature that cannot be ignored [in surrogate wars]."

And: "Fluency in foreign languages is the indispensable key to understanding." "Regional expertise and experience are crucial. People working on insurgencies shouldn't be doing so on their first trip to the region."

He went on: "Americans need to be aware of the institutional biases and shortcomings which make it difficult for us to deal with foreign insurgencies. We need to realize that our big, high-tech military machine -- our big catapult -- might not be much use against an insurgency built around people like Miguel Castellanos [real name Napoleón Romero García, an El Salvadoran FMLN guerilla who later defected to the Government]. I saw many signs of our weakness in this area: the tank traps we were building in the `Choluteca gap' [in Honduras, to face literally a non-existent cross-border threat from Sandinista tanks]; our big bucks, high-tech approach to support for the Salvadoran armed forces; our army's conviction that `any good officer' can work on insurgency. I came to the conclusion that our powerful military is a blunt instrument. It is very capable of performing its primary mission (destroying enemy military forces), but is poorly-suited for cross-cultural battles for foreign hearts and minds."

"Finally, when we get involved in foreign insurgencies," Meara says, "we should always strive to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with our national values ... we should remember our history. We should remember that we were helped by foreigners when we were fighting for our independence. We should remember that we too were once embattled farmers. ... we should not think of these people [the surrogate fighters] as dis- posable pawns."

Contra Cross is full of personal insights and anecdotes "from the field", and is an inspiring and timely read. It is, in fact, essential reading, not just for those psyops and special forces practitioners who already embrace asymmetric warfare, but for the policymakers and those who have found their careers in the bureaucracy of military leadership. That is where the lessons need to be learned.

We all should thank William Meara for carrying this document with him over the decades, and giving it to us at this particular time.

[Reviewed by Gregory R. Copley, Editor, Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications, at the International Strategic Studies Association, Washington, DC area.]

Contra Cross is unique among personal memoirs of former soldiers, government officials, diplomats, and intelligence officers. The author is humble. He had a front row seat at the numerous Central American proxy wars the United States engaged in during the 1980s. Despite this experience, the author never believed he was as important as the events around him, a trait that so many memoirs lack. He was a Cold War grunt and he knew it.

The numerous insurgencies and counter-insurgencies fought in Central America are slowly being forgotten. Located between the large and divisive Vietnam War and the even larger Global War on Terror, the proxy wars in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador are now seen as the last gaps of the Cold War. Despite this hindsight, during the 1980s it was where the action was.

Since the author was involved at the ground level, he is able to give the people of the area a real human feel, which is lost in the Cold War rhetoric of policy makers from Washington.

The author makes several outstanding points about the need for cultural and language skills when dealing with local conflicts. While our current conflict is called the Global War on Terror it is the really combination of thousands of local conflicts tied together. Having the deep local cultural knowledge is the real key to winning our current war. While the book is far from being the seminal book on U.S. involvement in Central America, it never tries or claims to be. Its true strength is how it depicts dedicated Americans, whether military or Department of State, attempt to implement strategic policy made thousands of miles away in Washington into actual action on the ground amongst real people.

It is often quipped that the mark of a brilliant man is that he agrees with what you believe; I read Bill Meara's book Contra Cross yesterday and I would use the words brilliant and brilliantly delivered to describe it.

Let me back up in time a bit. In 1988 just back from UN duty in Lebanon and Egypt I sat down in my 15-man section at CGSC and we did the "where I have been and what I have been doing" confessional. My section leader looked at me and quipped, "you have not been in the Army." I simply asked him and the larger group, "Have any of you been shot at lately?" No one answered. Later the same guy in discussing low intensity conflict remarked, "I cannot see anyway the US Army will ever get involved in a counter-insurgency again after what happend in Vietnam." I asked him what exactly he thought was going on in Central America at the very moment. He suggested that what was happening was not really the US Army. Six years later I greeted that same individual as he arrived in Goma with a water truck task force. He had a stunned look on his face. I said, "Welcome to my world."

Contra Cross is about Bill Meara's world, one like and at once unlike my own. The book is from the foot soldier's perspective and it offers unique insights on the wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Bill was a Special Forces officer trained in psychological operations and as a regional specialist. He served in uniform with the Military Advisory Group in El Salvador and later as a Foreign Service Officer as liaison to the Contras from Honduras. Like any good read, Bill's book offers key themes and messages, weaving them through the pages, repeatedly exposing the reader to them in the hopes they will imprint. I will list some here:

Culture and Cultural Understanding is Critical

Language is Fundamental

COIN and Guerrilla Warfare Target the Minds of the Population, Not the Enemy

The Greatest Cultural Gap is Between DC and the Field

The Unconventional Warrior is Indeed From Venus and the Conventional Warrior Refuses to Visit From Mars


I tell every Soldier that I coach, teach, and mentor that I have two fundamental rules for cross cultural understanding:

They do not think like you do

They have an agenda in every interaction with you

Bill's narrative hammers home the first point and his story reinforces the second. His self-reflection on his role as an US government representative while serving as liaison to the Contras is one of the book's greatest strengths.

I would recommend this book to all from Strategic Corporal to the White House. I only wish that it had come out earlier.

Great job, Bill!

Sincerely,

Tom Odom
Author Journey Into Darkeness: Genocide in Rwanda

For an account of Lincoln's thought (as well as Douglas') that serves to the credit of both of them, read this book. One of the finest books I have ever read, there are some chapters on Lincoln's thought that you will read time and time again. My copy of the book is marked up with great quotes where Harry Jaffa shows great insight into the tension and wonder that is the democratic thought of Abraham Lincoln, quite possibly the greatest democratic leader in history. This book is a must read for anyone who wants to know about the mind of Lincoln before the Civil War.

This book is a most profound examination of the thinking of both Sen. Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln concerning all of the issues associated with slavery up to the Civil War. Jaffa wants to set the record straight as far as any number of contentions by well-known historians of his era, known as revisionists. Most importantly, he flatly disputes the notion that the thinking and actions of Douglas (the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854) endorsing popular sovereignty were essentially equivalent to the principled stand of Lincoln based on the equality of all men in their long-term ramifications for slavery. Those revisionist historians contend that Lincoln and the Republicans should have accepted Douglas' solution to the slavery crisis, thus not precipitating the Civil War.

Another claim against Lincoln that Jaffa thoroughly discredits is that Lincoln, in fact, did not hold Negroes as equals, and simply used the issue for personal political gain regardless of the consequences for the Union. But Lincoln understood that politics is the art of the possible. The author makes clear that Lincoln held an intense respect for the principles of the Declaration of Independence, including the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all, including Negroes. It was one thing for the Union to be formed with the taint of slavery, but the contention that Southerners came to that slavery was a "positive good" was felt by Lincoln to have the potential to completely undermine the basis of the US. Perhaps it could even be justified to enslave a group of "inferior" whites. Lincoln felt compelled to move the nation back to its core principles without alienating those who did not have the same clarity as to what was at stake.

The book is a challenging read. The issue of permitting slavery in territories became and remained contentious from 1820 on. The arguments for and against slavery in territories are quite subtle involving constitutionality, Congressional acts, territorial legislative bodies, and court decisions. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 disallowing restrictions on taking property (slaves) into territories is examined. Lincoln and the Republicans, rightfully so, were very apprehensive as to the long term ramifications of that decision. It was hardly a stretch to see where free states could become a thing of the past.

The book is only indirectly concerned with the Lincoln-Douglas debates. They are randomly referred to throughout the text, but earlier writings and speeches receive far more attention. Douglas' words concerning the Mexican territories and the Kansas-Nebraska Act are well covered. The author devotes a large segment to examining Lincoln's speech to the Young Men's Lyceum in 1938, where his thinking on major issues had already crystallized. Lincoln's address on temperance receives much attention.

The author is a disciple of Leo Strauss, the natural rights theorist. He does regard Lincoln as a preeminent natural rights thinker. There is some discussion of pre-civil society versus civil society. But the overall import of the book does not turn on acceptance of natural rights in a purist sense.

This book, decades after its publication, cannot be ignored for understanding Lincoln.

If you want to read one book about Lincoln's thought, this is the one to read. The first part of the book, which takes Douglas seriously and states the strongest case for him, is historically dense and may be difficult for most readers. But keep going, because the payoff will be great. There follow chapters on two of Lincoln's early speeches. Jaffa's analysis here is brilliant, though perhaps a bit far-fetched. In the final part of the book, Jaffa states the case for Lincoln against Douglas. This part is rich in its ideas, rigorous in its reasoning, and eloquent to the point of being inspirational. (By the way, if you want to read one biography of Lincoln, I'd recommend the one by Lord Charnwood. Though written almost a century ago and therefore not up to date on all the details of historical scholarship, it is judicious throughout and beautifully written.)

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Jaffa is that he wrote Goldwater's famous "moderation in the defense of freedom is no virtue" speech. If you go back and read the speech (and it is on the web, of course), it echoes both the Old Testament ("our fathers") and Lincoln. I suspect he would agree with the man who told me that Lincoln is the greatest prose stylish in the English language. As for the book, Jaffa interprets the civil war as the second, and genuine, founding of the American republic, and precisely because the principle of the Declaration, equality, was written not in ink but blood (Jaffa has his own brand of Lincolnian Christianity). Lincoln, by this reading, belongs to the "tribe of the eagle and the lion" and was neither Caesar nor Brutus but possessed the best qualities of both. To understand that part of Jaffa's interpretation, you would have to read his treatment of Shakespeare. As for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Jaffa stages Douglas as Thrasymachus and Lincoln--surprise, surprise--as Socrates.

Professor Harry V. Jaffa's "Crisis of the House Divided" is an extremely important book. In it, he succeeds in turning back the revisionist historians of the mid-Twentieth Century who sought to devalue Abraham Lincoln's commitment to the proposition that "All men are created equal."

This tide of revisionism took two general forms; partisans for the South who placed the full blame on Mr. Lincoln for sparking the "War of Northern Aggression"; and modern historians, skeptical of any higher motives and virtues in statesmen of the past, who claimed that there were really no substantial policy differences between Mr. Lincoln and Senator Stephen A. Douglas. If the latter class of historian could prove that Lincoln didn't really believe in freedom for slaves and that his rhetoric against slavery was irresponsible (knowing how it offended Southern sensibilities) while Douglas' "Popular Sovereignty" policy would have eventually led to the limitation and elimination of slavery, then Lincoln's legacy as President could be shown to be the largely accidental.

Fortunately, Professor Jaffa's work demolishes the corrosive contentions of the revisionists, showing, beyond any doubt, that Mr. Lincoln believed America was founded on the principle of human equality as much as it was founded on the idea of democracy. That democracy and equality were the twin pillars of the American Republic and were in tension was something Mr. Lincoln well understood while Judge Douglas honored only democracy. Hence, Douglas' "Popular Sovereignty" led to the concept that the majority could decide slavery was not only legal, but also moral. In opposition, Mr. Lincoln argued that a majority did not have the right to sanction the enslavement of other men, regardless of their alleged inferiority, because "All men are created equal."

Professor Jaffa shows that Mr. Lincoln built upon the Founders' thoughts in the Declaration of Independence and urged their maturation towards the ideal. Lincoln saw how the Founders invoked passion, hatred and revenge in support of the cause of independence from Britain but how these passions were no longer adequate to the task of preserving the Union from the dangers of mobocracy or dictatorship - dangers made more immediate by the revolutionary birth of America and the tendency of unrestrained democracy to disdainful the rule of law. Instead, Lincoln recommended virtuous reason to lift the United States up, to show the world that it was truly capable of lasting self-governance. Of course, the cornerstone of this reason was the thinking through in the body politic, the practical consequences of the principle, "All men are created equal."

Professor Jaffa's book is a gift to America and the world. Were more people in office aware of the fundamental issues debated by Judge Douglas and Mr. Lincoln in 1858 during their remarkable campaign for the Illinois Senate, and their implications for policies even today, our nation would be stronger and our democracy more secure.

Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard and the author of "China Attacks."

This is comparative history at its very best. Elliott superbly describes and chronicles the history of the British and Spanish exploration and colonization of the Americas, as well as the process whereby both the British American and Spanish American colonial societies brought about their independence from the imperial governments. It is a comprehensive, detailed, and yet highly readable overview of the political, economic, social, military, and religious forces at play in the Americas during the time period. Elliott goes beyond the telling of historical events and facts, to provide analysis and interpretation of why history unfolded as it did. The writing is excellent and clearly reflects a highly learned historian who has the ability to tell history in a an engaging manner. His juxtaposition and comparison of British and Spanish America in a single volume results in a very interesting and stimulating way to learn about the two empires. The book contains very attractive end papers, a number of excellent maps and numerous color plates. Very highly recommended.

Elliott delivers the masterpiece that those who study the Atlantic World have been waiting for. The idea of studying history from the perspective of the Atlantic has been growing in popularity and worth taking a further look at. Britain and Spain established mammoth empires and Elliot looks at their rise and fall. He also considers other powers including the French and Dutch but focuses mainly on the first two mentioned. The age of exploration is put in context and in true Atlantic fashion the slave trade and development in Latin America are very important. The revolutions of the Atlantic world are very clearly explained in this book and Elliott leaves you wondering where else this field can go. Elliott writes very well and this book is a must read for those who want to consider how the Atlantic world impacted Europe and the United States.

This well written and well organized book is a careful synthesis of the enormous secondary literatures on colonial British America and colonial Spanish America. Elliott provides a pair of parallel narrative overviews of British and Spanish America from their foundings to the revolutions that severed ties to their home nations. The narratives provide the basis for some comparative analysis that recurs throughout the book.

Knowledgeable readers will probably be familiar with much of the narrative about British North America. Much of the information about Spanish North American will probably be new to many readers (like me). For example, the small British settlements of the 17th century were dwarfed by the scope of the Spanish colonial enterprise. When Boston and Philadelphia were modest seaports, Spanish America boasted several large cities. At the time of Harvard's foundation, Spanish America already possessed several universities.

Elliott divides this book into three sections; Occupation, Consolidation, and Emancipation. Occupation is devoted to the initial experience of exploration, colonization, and encounters with the native peoples of the Americas. The chapters in Consolidation describe the development of mature colonial economies and imperial government, the challenge of developing European style societies in radically different circumstances, and the sense of identities developed in these new societies. Emancipation describes the 18th century conflicts between the metropolitan centers and the colonies, particularly as London and Madrid attempted to develop closer control and upset traditional arrangements. All chapters are particularly good combinations of political, economic, and social history.

Elliott points out the common problems faced by both British and Spanish colonial efforts but also how the different features of the home nations and different circumstances in the Americas produced different outcomes. The Spanish, for example, were confronted with very large native populations that they attempted to incorporate into their empire. This fact, plus traditions inherited from the Reconquista, would contribute to the generation of the very racially differentiated society in much of Spanish America. The existence of enormous silver deposits in Mexico and Peru drove the Spanish Crown to exercise considerably closer control of its colonies than the British monarchy would exercise over its colonies.

In his comparative analysis, Elliott deals with the major differences in British and Spanish America, and implicitly how they led to such differing outcomes after the revolutions at the end of the 18th century. Elliott's answers are surprisingly traditional. He stresses the centralized bureaucratic nature of the Spanish empire, the more 'commercial' nature of British settlements, the religious pluralism of the British colonies, and the more liberal/representative political traditions that the British brought with them. Elliott is careful to point out that many of these ultimately beneficial features were essentially inadvertant. If the English crown had been stronger or if rich gold mines had been found in the Blue Ridge mountains, the path of British colonization might well have been closer to the Spanish model.

In Empires of the Atlantic World, Professor Elliot compares and contrasts Spanish colonial America with British colonial America. I am not aware of any other books that take this is their subject, and I think that it is worthy of attention. Elliot presents 2 very different experiences in terms of government, economy, and culture. For instance, the Spanish conquistadors came upon a very highly centralized political structure, which they were able to penetrate (and co-opt for their own rule) with relative ease. This enabled them to retain the tributary labor system of the Aztecs and Incas, which they labeled the encomienda system. The British in North America did not have the same experience, as the Indians there tended to be far more decentralized. This forced the British to pursue a far different strategy in their efforts at conquest. Also, the scarcity of gold and silver in North America forced the British to diversify the colonial economy, leading to a more developed economic scene.

Additionally, I found Elliot's side-by-side discussion (between the British and the Spanish) of various other colonial themes to be well-developed. In particular, he goes into considerable detail in contrasting Spain's Catholic-only policy in the Americas with the religious diversity that existed in the British colonies. At the same time, he also explores the very different attitudes that the British and the Spanish had toward the Indians, and how those differing attitudes shaped political and social orders in the 2 regions (look at the large "Mestizo" population that exists in many parts of Latin America today, in contrast to the relatively small population within the United States). For instance, the Spanish sought to bring the Indians into the Catholic Church (witness the significant presence of the Catholic Church in the colonies), and even (theoretically) included a measure of legal protection for Indians within the encomienda system. On the other hand, the British did not make christianizing the Indians a high priority, nor did they concern themselves wth any legal protections for the Indians (a notable exception to this was William Penn).

Elliot gives a great deal of space to discussing how the political and religious regimes that existed in Great Britain and Spain were transferred to these nation's respective American colonies. For example, the British colonists were nurtured, to some degree, by the growing "liberal" ideas that were coming out of Great Britain at the start of the 1700s, while Spanish colonists had no such ideas to turn to (at least none in Spanish). Moreover, British control over its colonies was relatively decentralized (many of the colonies were private or corporate, and all enjoyed a measure of self-government), though Spanish colonies were under the tight grip of the Spanish monarchy. Finally, Elliot demonstrates how both Great Britain and Spain began to "reform" their administrative policies vis-a-vis the colonies, and how those reforms triggered colonial resentment (though the 2 nations had different results in quashing this resentment).

This was an eye-opener for me as I knew very little on Spain's American territories, besides brief descriptions of some of the conquistadors such as Cortes and Pizzarro. What Elliott has done in this book is to show the comparisons and contrasts between England's New World Colonies and Spain's. There are many fascinating facets underlaying the reasons for acquiring these territories, how both sides viewed their mission and goals, and how they governed them. This is without a doubt a remarkable book that revealed a lot for me.

The first colonization was begun by the Spanish in the early 16th Century. The English made their first successful attempt in the early 17th Century. Both South and North America posed different challenges for both governments, i.e. the size of the indigenous populations, the geography and climate, natural resources and so forth. For me, the real fascination was learning more about the Spanish colonies and the establishment of the viceroyalties of New Spain (based in Mexico City) and Peru (based in Lima) with additional ones developing over time. The interaction with the natives, the attempts at Christianization, trade, and many other aspects of Spain's colonization were quite enlightening.

Being more familiar with United States history, I felt more familiar with the material covered on England's planting of settlers in Jamestown and later in New England. However, the real education was in Elliott's efforts to show how each of these two powers (Spain and England) confronted the realities and challenges of establishing their presence in these very different regions. The differences were often quite stark. Some of the points of contrast that most differentiated the two powers included each nation's attitude towards the Indians (including the attempts or lack of evangelization) and the extent of imperial bureaucracy brought over from the mother countries.

Elliott also describes how world events had helped to shape and or guide the developments that occurred in both country's territories. The Reformation, the British Commonwealth under Cromwell, the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, the French and Indian War, the French Revolution and so forth, all served as factors in shaping the events that transpired in North and South America. The role of various monarchs, religious, military and political leaders, as well as indigenous leaders, are also discussed.

Elliott does try to take an even-handed approach in acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both government's endeavors. Of course it goes without saying that the notion of empire, with the connotations of exploitation of natives and their cultures, is unpopular in most peoples minds nowadays. Yes, it was and remains a blot on the records of all nations that engaged in replacing the livelihoods and cultures (sometimes more like extermination) of indigenous peoples, or those who engaged in the slave trade, but we must keep in mind that we have to try to keep modern standards in check for historical purposes.

This is such a broad subject that I find it hard to even begin to touch on more specific details found in this book; I'm just trying to outline the broader contours of Elliott's book. Having some introduction to this time period will help you, but you need not be an expert on this particular topic. An illuminating read.

When I began work on my own book on ghosthunting in Virginia and the District of Columbia, this was one of the resources I picked up for inspiration, and I have to say that it more than met my expectations. This handbook contains firsthand accounts by the author of his visits to a wide variety of haunted public sites -- including hotels, restaurants, and cemeteries -- and is well written, nicely detailed, and often amusing.

On a more personal level, I was pleasantly surprised by a number of things. One was all the ways my own travels and writing endeavors intersected with the author's adventures in this book, including my stay at the clearly-haunted Hilton Netherlands Plaza hotel in Cincinnati. Another was with what a similar approach Kachuba and I had taken in our respective works and how, with much less tweaking than I would have assumed, almost any of the chapters in my most recent book, Shipwrecks and Lost Treasures: Great Lakes, could have been spun as ghost stories.

It is also nice when an author continues to do what he does best, so I was pleased to see that Kachuba had also written a Ghosthunting Illinois (The Haunted Heartland), and will have to check it out next.

Review by Lee Prosser - leep@ghostvillage.com
Ghostvillage.com review

A fascinating look at ghosts and hauntings in Ohio, this is one book not to be missed. In fact, I found I had read it twice before I reviewed it simply because of the interest it generated within me as a reader! This book will grab your interest and hold it, and thanks to the concise and clear writing talents of John B. Kachuba, this is one book about ghosts you will savor re-reading many times over.

In addition there is a travel guide to ghosthunting, a section on visiting haunted places, and a ghostly resources entry. A brisk and entertaining introduction sets the pace to this well-crafted book. Ohio is covered by sections.

With over thirty ghostly sites to read about, there is something for everybody in this book. Among the numerous interesting entries, check out Fort Meigs, Main Street Cafe, The Lofts Hotel, Taffy's Main Street Coffee, Woodland Cemetery, The Castle, and the Inn at Cedar Falls. An enjoyable afterword concludes this fine ghosthunting book.

If you like reading about ghosthunting and stories of hauntings as much as I do, then this book will give you many repeated hours of reading enjoyment. I highly recommend this book to anybody seriously interested in the lore of ghosts. Excellent reading!

Simply put, I loved this book. John Kachuba has a gift of description. I felt like I was in these locations with John while he was telling all of these stories. As a ghosthunter, I love reading about other paranormally active locations. Now I'll have to include all of these locations to my list. John is a brilliant writer and I'm already anticipating his next book. If you ever have the opportunity to listen to John tell some of his "ghost stories", I urge you to do so as you will be missing out if you don't.

Ohio resident John Kachuba has documented 31 tales from every corner of that beautiful state. I only wish this book had been available during the years I drove there frequently to visit my daughter attending college in Ohio's heartland. I had no idea I was passing by so many fascinating and creepy places.

In addition to the great writing (Kachuba teaches writing at the college level), what really makes his book stand out among the ghost books I have read is its inclusion of only haunts that are open to the public. You can visit every one of these places. In fact, you could use this book as a guide to the state and spend a very intriguing week or two investigating each site - staying in the haunted hotels, eating in the spooky restaurants and taverns, and touring a variety of ghost-filled historic buildings featured in this collection, if you dare!

To ensure you have no excuse to wimp out on an Ohio ghost excursion, Kachuba includes regional maps and clear directions to each site. To make sure you know when you're at the front door, he adds very nice photos of each building. Then, just as you may have pumped up your courage to venture forth, he scares you good in a warning from his "Afterword," written by notable paranormal researchers and demonologists, Ed and Lorraine Warren. Maybe armchair traveling is the best kind, after all.

Georgiana Kotarski,
author of Ghosts of the Southern Tennessee Valley

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Not only is John's writing style captivating, it is extremely descriptive. I felt as though I was able to almost picture myself at each of the locations. There was much history in the book, and John described each location with exciting detail, and dignity.
I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Kachuba at Ghostock 4 in Savannah, Georgia in February, and he has a warm, friendly personality.I look forward to meeting him again, and I can't wait to read one of his other books.
Cindy

This collection is among my favorites published in recent years. Janet McAdams lyrically links the personal with the political. Her work is engaging, memorable, passionate, yet not didactic--some poems will even keep you awake at night. Many poems reward multiple re-readings. I'm already looking forward to her next book.

As a poet myself, I can only stand in awe of the work in "Island of Lost Luggage." Janet Mc Adams is a major talent. I've turned my initial envy of her gift into a goad to write better and wider myself.

This Island of Lost Luggage is wonderful. Janet McAdams's poems are lyrical and gritty at the same time, swollen with life, drenched with place, and she never seems to take the easy way in or out. Highly recommended!

I used to write poetry, even studied with some of the greats, including C.K. Williams, Ellen Voight and Louise Gluck. But I found that in any workshop, I could rarely tell a great poem from a mediocre one. This made me feel less than smart about poetry. Janet McAdams has helped revive my love for the form, and my sense of poetic savvy. For with "Island of Lost Luggage" I Know I'm in the presence of Great poetry. That is clear from page one. How to say why this is Great isn't as easy, but I'll venture the following: Mc Adams is gifted with rich language, of course, but she is a more than a fine wordsmith. She takes on issues that have huge resonance, that go beyond any mere narcissim. Each time I enter one of her poetic worlds I find more layers within it, more associations building within me. So, Thanks Ms. McAdams for restoring my poetic sensitivity, and for this wonderful book, a gem, that's most highly recommended for all readers, lovers of poetry or not.

Even if poetry isn't your "thing" this book, given the quiet and serious attention it deserves, will unlock many mysteries. Highly Recommended.